Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] Palace Fans Biggest Fear







Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
12,919
Central Borneo / the Lizard
I'm confused about this too.
Our accounts clearly show Tony's investment as a debt.
And yet Palace have had money pumped in by 3 Yanks (£150m-ish) and this isn't referenced as debt in their accounts.

I assume because Tony hasn't converted his investment into shares.
I'm not sure what practical difference this makes

A DULLARD may be able to explain
Under PSR regs clubs can lose 5m a year average over three years of their own money. This can be increased to 35m a year with owner investment, ie buying shares. Therefore any investment by Tony into the playing side at BHA will have been in the form of share purchase, just like the Yanks investment in p*lace.

Investment for non PSR related expenses, ie stadium, training ground, community work etc. can presumably take the form of a loan and is thus still in the accounts as a debt (having that debt may ensure we don't need to pay tax on profits from player sales? Don't know, not an accountant)

The difference - share capital can only be recouped through sales or dividends, and thus won't affect the clubs running costs, loans can be repaid or have interest added so can impact the bottom line, but I don't know what the exact terms of the loan are, you'll need the dullard for that.
 










Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
10,660
Under PSR regs clubs can lose 5m a year average over three years of their own money. This can be increased to 35m a year with owner investment, ie buying shares. Therefore any investment by Tony into the playing side at BHA will have been in the form of share purchase, just like the Yanks investment in p*lace.

Investment for non PSR related expenses, ie stadium, training ground, community work etc. can presumably take the form of a loan and is thus still in the accounts as a debt (having that debt may ensure we don't need to pay tax on profits from player sales? Don't know, not an accountant)

The difference - share capital can only be recouped through sales or dividends, and thus won't affect the clubs running costs, loans can be repaid or have interest added so can impact the bottom line, but I don't know what the exact terms of the loan are, you'll need the dullard for that.
I'm not sure that's the case.
I seem to recall that Tony may converted some of the debt to shares, when we were in the Championship, but most of the funding that Tony has put in since has gone against the debt figure in the company accounts.

Palace's Share capital is listed as £92m and ours is £105k
 




Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,137
Goldstone
I'm confused about this too.
Our accounts clearly show Tony's investment as a debt.
And yet Palace have had money pumped in by 3 Yanks (£150m-ish) and this isn't referenced as debt in their accounts.

I think John Textor paid £117.5 for 45%
Blitzer and Harris paid £50m for 18% I think

If the other owners paid a similar amount, that would be a cost £266mm, and they plan to spend £150m on a new stand. Jordan wrote off about £50m, so that makes £466m for a shit club with 1 stand.
 




Titanic

Super Moderator
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,052
West Sussex
"The Man United of the south...... " (Jordan)
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Only in having delusional and entitled fans and inhabiting a crumbling stadium in a shithole area.
Trophy count?
Average gate?

As for Souness, I thought he'd retired? Another useful reminder why not to listen to TalkShite.

£400m in the hole?

Hang on... we have a state of the art stadium, a state of the art Performance/Training/Academy set up and a team worth many £100m's.

It doesn't feel like a hole at all to me - it sounds like investment in a valuable asset.
 




Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,793
Brighton

1707208980941.gif
 








Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
10,660
I think John Textor paid £117.5 for 45%
Blitzer and Harris paid £50m for 18% I think

If the other owners paid a similar amount, that would be a cost £266mm, and they plan to spend £150m on a new stand. Jordan wrote off about £50m, so that makes £466m for a shit club with 1 stand.
The other owners were bought out by Blitzer and Harris.

Parish Consortium bought the club for about £40m
Harris and Blitzer bought out Parish's mates for £50m
Then Textor put in £ 117.5 for 45%
I assume this means that Harris and Blitzer's share is now worth £117.5m , but have only paid £50m.

None of this is debt as all of the money was converted to shares.
Whereas, Tony hasn't done this.

But in effect:
Palace have paid off £30m of debt and invested £10m form the Parish buyout
Spent £50m from Harris and Blitzer
I spent £117.5 from Textor

So a total of £177.5m purely on transfers.
+ £150m to be spent on 1 stand.
 




Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
23,819
GOSBTS
£400m in the hole?

Hang on... we have a state of the art stadium, a state of the art Performance/Training/Academy set up and a team worth many £100m's.

It doesn't feel like a hole at all to me - it sounds like investment in a valuable asset.
It’s still money put in by a wealthy owner which ultimately made a huge difference to get us to where we are today. As well as subsidising pretty big losses in the last 10-12 years.

Otherwise Dick Knight would have done it
 


Paulie Gualtieri

Bada Bing
NSC Patron
May 8, 2018
9,177
Under PSR regs clubs can lose 5m a year average over three years of their own money. This can be increased to 35m a year with owner investment, ie buying shares. Therefore any investment by Tony into the playing side at BHA will have been in the form of share purchase, just like the Yanks investment in p*lace.

Investment for non PSR related expenses, ie stadium, training ground, community work etc. can presumably take the form of a loan and is thus still in the accounts as a debt (having that debt may ensure we don't need to pay tax on profits from player sales? Don't know, not an accountant)

The difference - share capital can only be recouped through sales or dividends, and thus won't affect the clubs running costs, loans can be repaid or have interest added so can impact the bottom line, but I don't know what the exact terms of the loan are, you'll need the dullard for that.
Was going to say something similar to your second paragraph, having the debt owed on the balance sheet allows us to carry forward a loss each year to be factored before any tax is due
 


BBassic

I changed this.
Jul 28, 2011
12,297
It's difficult to know what the actual gripe Palace fans have with their board / manager / players.

One aspect of it, which I can understand to be honest, is the turgid football. Twice they've hired young (comparatively) coaches to instill some sort of identity and twice they've reverted to Roy's "soak it up and counter" tedium. As a fan it's got to be frustrating. We all want to see and be entertained by good football. And, I say this next statement with the utmost of respect to Sir Chris but were we to replace RDZ (for whatever reason) with Hughton and we went back to playing how we were in his last season here I daresay a few of would be less than thrilled. I don't think we'd be launching into "Sack the board" protests though.

Then there's the investment side. To have been in the Premier League for 10ish years and still be naming Will Hughes in your starting 11 is beyond comical. I was talking to my Dad during the game on Saturday about their lineup and we couldn't work out where the Premier League money has gone.

10 years of £100m+ every season or so, right? Where has that been spent? I imagine SEGW probably saw a lot of it on his frankly outrageous pay slips or maybe it's in that bit of fencing with the stadium money.

They've had a couple of "marquee" signings (read: big money, bang average) like Benteke and Eze (who to be fair can't really be called 'bang average') but their spend hasn't been outrageous, not for the Premier League.

But to counter all that - they've remained in the league for the longest sustained period in their history. They've never really been in danger of going back down. They've managed to keep the gravy train trundling along.

It's definitely frustrating to feel like this thing which you're so emotionally invested in is being treated without the care you think it deserves but it could be worse.

They should go and ask Oldham fans what they think.
Or Bury fans.
Or Reading fans.
Or Southend fans.

In the meantime I'm going to sit here and enjoy watching as Croydon, once again, burns.
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,840
Brighton
It's difficult to know what the actual gripe Palace fans have with their board / manager / players.

One aspect of it, which I can understand to be honest, is the turgid football. Twice they've hired young (comparatively) coaches to instill some sort of identity and twice they've reverted to Roy's "soak it up and counter" tedium. As a fan it's got to be frustrating. We all want to see and be entertained by good football. And, I say this next statement with the utmost of respect to Sir Chris but were we to replace RDZ (for whatever reason) with Hughton and we went back to playing how we were in his last season here I daresay a few of would be less than thrilled. I don't think we'd be launching into "Sack the board" protests though.
This reads like the Board made those decisions in a vacuum. The fans turned on their young coaches because they lost a few games. The fans wanted them sacked. They welcomed the dinosaurs that came in to replace them, and at least in the case of Roy's return, they got fully behind him when he showed a bit of success (despite it being a level of success Vieira was have had if they stuck with him). I feel it's important to highlight this, because they are part of the problem, too.
 




Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
12,919
Central Borneo / the Lizard
I'm not sure that's the case.
I seem to recall that Tony may converted some of the debt to shares, when we were in the Championship, but most of the funding that Tony has put in since has gone against the debt figure in the company accounts.

Palace's Share capital is listed as £92m and ours is £105k
Yeah, thats certainly possible provided the investment is not required to cover excess losses reported under PSR - my understanding is that any losses between 15m and 105m over three years are allowable if they are covered by investors purchasing share capital, but not allowable if they are just loans. If they were loans then under PSR they would be considered club losses, of which the the club itself is only allowed to lose 5m annually.

I don't actually know what we've been reporting for PSR/FFP, I assume the player sales over the last couple of years mean we are not reporting losses, prior to that I don't know whether we were up against the higher limits or not. TB converting debt to share capital at that time in order to meet FFP regulations at the time would make sense, no idea if the value of the share capital has to relate to the actual amount of the investment :shrug:


*with the caveat that I could be wrong, but it makes sense
 


BBassic

I changed this.
Jul 28, 2011
12,297
This reads like the Board made those decisions in a vacuum. The fans turned on their young coaches because they lost a few games. The fans wanted them sacked. They welcomed the dinosaurs that came in to replace them, and at least in the case of Roy's return, they got fully behind him when he showed a bit of success (despite it being a level of success Vieira was have had if they stuck with him). I feel it's important to highlight this, because they are part of the problem, too.
That's a very good point. Amongst all their other bursts of outrage I'd forgotten that one!
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here