Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
If only anyone could have predicted that the yankee investors were in it for a return on their investment, not just to be money pit funders of CPFC.
[Palace] #cpfc
- Thread starter gripper stebson
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 7,914
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
This is basically the equivalent of a pay-day loan - they've WONGA'd their way to the Obi-Wun Bissaka cash early, as they are currently living hand-to-mouth, still with zero investment in the team. Meanwhile, Disney still draws himself a salary from the CPFC2010 coffers, and the yanks want OUT.
I'm sure the goonsquad will be along shortly to give us the positive spin on this though.
I'm sure the goonsquad will be along shortly to give us the positive spin on this though.
Mackenzie
Old Brightonian
Their squad is aging, reasonably soon they'll be forced into selling Zaha in order to restock with younger players......or they could keep Zaha, sign a load of new players and go into admin again like usual.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I wonder what the rate of interest is on that pay day loan?
Motogull
Todd Warrior
- Sep 16, 2005
- 9,942
Its a funny old state of affairs. Would not sell Dibley on installments (and bleated about that) yet happy to do so with AWB. Why not just say no to installments rather than incur a loan fee (not mentioned in the article but must exist)?
All legal and above board no doubt but it certainly does not infer no cash issues.
All legal and above board no doubt but it certainly does not infer no cash issues.
father_and_son
Well-known member
Would imagine they get 90-95 pence in the pound, so probably good for £20m.
Suggests a serious cashflow issue if they can't wait until next year for this money and are willing to give up a big chunk to the bank.
OR...
They know Haha is going walkabout in Jan (and they won't get the cash for him in the window because of a similar instalments deal) and so need cash for a replacement and the development bullsh*t is just bullsh*t.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Won't have been cheap. They'll have had to have written off a chunk of it to get their grubby hands on the cash now instead of June.
Plus this was "unplanned money" they received - there was no guarantee anyone would have been falling over themselves to the tune of £40m-£50m for a fullback who'd had less than a full season under his belt (United were obvs desperate). If they hadn't had that windfall, then where would this £22m be coming from to plug this urgent gap in their cashflow ?
You'd think after 7 YEARS of suckling on the PL teat, they'd be on an even keel financially. Yet here they are, desperately spending millions and millions in advance of money haven't got yet.
Just imagine the state of them if they went down.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
Presumably the loan will incur interest, meaning they've effectively reduced the amount of money they'll have received?
SollysLeftFoot
New member
Nah, no where near like a Wonga.
It's nothing particularly strange. It's basically invoice factoring for anyone who's involved in trade finance. I've been speaking to a chap at MacQuarie, the bank in the deal. Low margin business that's largely secured as the money isn't transfered from Club to Bank but from Premier League to the Bank.
MacQuarie been doing this for Atletico Madrid, Everton, Bournemouth and Wolves lately.
This doesn't really stink of anything out of the ordinary and I wouldn't be surprised if we begun to do it.
So nothing in this story really. As much as I would love to rub it in.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I'm sure they'll be fine....as long as they stay up. I wouldn't be overly comfortably if BHA were drawing on and spending future transfer fees early though. It doesn't seem like particularly good business practice when you consider the multi-multi millions in TV money and sponsorship that is already rolling in, to have to go spending transfer fees in advance as well.
That suggests "hand to mouth" to me, and would set alarm bells ringing.
Hillian1
( . ) ( . )
SollysLeftFoot
New member
You're right about them being fine as long as they stay up; unless of course, they have dramatic wage reduction clauses. I also would prefer us not to deal in this way but it may be a necessity.
Cash flow is choppy for most businesses and football isn't any better. The TV rights deal comes in waves, a bit like student finance. Unfortunately, expenses go out every day/week but income is largely dictated by
1) Fixtures (Home games come in patches)
2) TV rights installments
3) Sponsorship deals
To smooth this out, some businesses may feel that taking a negative haircut is the price to pay to ensure that net cash flow is as flat (or positive) as possible.
The negative haircut maybe cheaper than dipping into a revolving credit facility or the owner putting more money into it (we know Parish likes to dip in...)
In fairness this isn't exactly a new thing.
In his podcast [MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION] explained much the same had happened on a deal between Barca and Liverpool.
If I remember rightly it was Liverpool doing the cashing in.
That said I'd be concerned as to why my club needed £22m now instead of in 6 months time.
I could understand it if the deal was stretched out over X years, but 6 months doesn't seem that far away.
In his podcast [MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION] explained much the same had happened on a deal between Barca and Liverpool.
If I remember rightly it was Liverpool doing the cashing in.
That said I'd be concerned as to why my club needed £22m now instead of in 6 months time.
I could understand it if the deal was stretched out over X years, but 6 months doesn't seem that far away.
Pretty sure you must have that wrong mate, our CPFC2010 buddies assured us the money was set aside.
crookie
Well-known member
Guess they had to find the signing on bonus's and agents fees for Benteke and Tomkins new contracts somewhere !!
And yes, as [MENTION=435]Stat Brother[/MENTION] said, I'd be concerned if they were that desperate for the money now rather than in July. Bit like Leeds a few years back borrowing against future season ticket sales, a case of very much not living within your means
And yes, as [MENTION=435]Stat Brother[/MENTION] said, I'd be concerned if they were that desperate for the money now rather than in July. Bit like Leeds a few years back borrowing against future season ticket sales, a case of very much not living within your means
Not sure there is much to see here really, is there?
Factoring is a perfectly normal activity in many fields of business and, as that article says, other clubs have done it recently, and I would imagine many more have that aren't detailed.
That's not to say they aren't an utter mess of a football club, of course.
However, many on here have slung mud up the M23 at their live-for-today attitude that has seen Premier League zillions pissed up against a wall whilst Selhurst crumbles and their academy has seen little investment. If they are now looking at a more sustainable approach, that should surely be applauded, no matter how quietly.
Factoring is a perfectly normal activity in many fields of business and, as that article says, other clubs have done it recently, and I would imagine many more have that aren't detailed.
That's not to say they aren't an utter mess of a football club, of course.
However, many on here have slung mud up the M23 at their live-for-today attitude that has seen Premier League zillions pissed up against a wall whilst Selhurst crumbles and their academy has seen little investment. If they are now looking at a more sustainable approach, that should surely be applauded, no matter how quietly.
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
And while we are critical of Selhurst Barcelona and PLB and their methods, they keep finishing above us. So who's right?