The knockout stages came earlier than expectedEl Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:41 pmWell, it would appear that of the twelve clubs, Chelsea and Man City are the two with the deftest conscience.
paraphrased from someone else's tweet
The knockout stages came earlier than expectedEl Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:41 pmWell, it would appear that of the twelve clubs, Chelsea and Man City are the two with the deftest conscience.
There are some people on Twitter! They think it's all over . . . it is now!!!Gfamily wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:36 pmThe knockout stages came earlier than expectedEl Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:41 pmWell, it would appear that of the twelve clubs, Chelsea and Man City are the two with the deftest conscience.
paraphrased from someone else's tweet
Trinucleus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:08 pmMany years ago, Chesterfield went through an interesting period:
Hello, I'd like to buy your club
Great
Thing is, at the moment my sports empire hasn't got enough cash, can you lend me the money please
No problem
The deal went through, as obviously the Football League confirmed he was a fit and proper person to own a football club
The guy was later sent to prison for fraud
This practice is also common in M&A... IIRC its called a leveraged buyout... the asset/business being bought becomes the collateral (or at least the lions share of it) for the loan.dyqik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:55 pmIn practice, it's fairly easy to avoid that problem, as real estate has a very different legal status to a publicly traded corporation.JQH wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:52 pmI got a loan to buy my flat by putting up the flat I didn't yet own as security for the loan. I'm not sure you could criminalise the Glazers' actions without abolishing mortgages.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:21 pm
Indeed, whilst legal and apparently not corrupt (though it has an air of it), the fact that the Glazers were able to get finance to buy Manchester United's shares using the club's assets which they didn't yet own as security is f.cking insane and should've been illegal*.
*I may have portions of this wrong but that was my understanding at the time
Except there's no real risk to the buyer. The company you have bought assumes the debt. If your new company gets declared bankrupt, it's probably some patsy you put in as director who will be barred from company directorship for a year or two, rather than you. You didn't pay anything to own the company, so you, the buyer, lose nothing (other than the fees you paid to arrange the finance, but you will surely have claimed those back by milking the company you bought straight away).TopBadger wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:39 pmThis practice is also common in M&A... IIRC its called a leveraged buyout... the asset/business being bought becomes the collateral (or at least the lions share of it) for the loan.
Buyers like it because it lowers the cost of entry to the market (few businesses can complete a take over in cash), banks like it because they get to charge interest on the loan. Its essentially a form of risk/reward sharing.
For Manchester United, I recall that the fans tried to buy shares to stop the take-over by the Glazers, but they simply didn't have the financial clout to buy enough shares and the major shareholders were being offered a premium by the Glazers to sell to them. United went from being a pretty well-run club who had to balance their books and report to the shareholders in line with other publicly run companies, to (I think) the most debt-ridden club in the world overnight.tom p wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:45 pmExcept there's no real risk to the buyer. The company you have bought assumes the debt. If your new company gets declared bankrupt, it's probably some patsy you put in as director who will be barred from company directorship for a year or two, rather than you. You didn't pay anything to own the company, so you, the buyer, lose nothing (other than the fees you paid to arrange the finance, but you will surely have claimed those back by milking the company you bought straight away).TopBadger wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:39 pmThis practice is also common in M&A... IIRC its called a leveraged buyout... the asset/business being bought becomes the collateral (or at least the lions share of it) for the loan.
Buyers like it because it lowers the cost of entry to the market (few businesses can complete a take over in cash), banks like it because they get to charge interest on the loan. Its essentially a form of risk/reward sharing.
The banks might have some risk (although they will own various assets if it goes wrong and will get most of their money back), but they are willingly going into this deal and (should) know what they are doing.
The only real risk is entirely transferred to the employees (and, in the case of a football club, to the fans), who will be the only parties to really lose out if it goes tits-up and who don't have any say in the matter.
That very much depends on the deal you set up. Any lenders involved may have required personal guarantees or external collateral. This may work like when you get a mortage loan for your house. If the bank forces a sale to recover its debt, you personally still owe it for any shortfall (though in America they have "no recourse" loans for your home where you cannot be liable for shortfall). Generally, the sort of people who do big business deals and appear to be very wealthy have most of their assets used as collateral in a complicated dependency between the different things that they are doing, which is why if one part of their empire goes bad the whole thing collapses and they make it to the newspapers.
Blatant anti-Woking FC bias!Grumble wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:50 amI’m delighted to see Stockport getting in on the action.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sp ... 0419207270
Have you seen the National League table? Woking being included would be more of a joke than Spurs being in the ESLMartin_B wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:22 amBlatant anti-Woking FC bias!Grumble wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:50 amI’m delighted to see Stockport getting in on the action.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sp ... 0419207270
Even if they did require a personal guarantee, it's a truism that is you owe the bank a hundred quid, then you have a problem; whereas if you owe the bank a 100 million quid, then they have a problem. That's how come t'rump was able to keep milking Deutsche Bank, 'cos they needed him not to fail. Essentially his debt was too big to fail.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:43 amThat very much depends on the deal you set up. Any lenders involved may have required personal guarantees or external collateral. This may work like when you get a mortage loan for your house. If the bank forces a sale to recover its debt, you personally still owe it for any shortfall (though in America they have "no recourse" loans for your home where you cannot be liable for shortfall). Generally, the sort of people who do big business deals and appear to be very wealthy have most of their assets used as collateral in a complicated dependency between the different things that they are doing, which is why if one part of their empire goes bad the whole thing collapses and they make it to the newspapers.
they are reputation laundries rather than cash cowsEl Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:41 pmWell, it would appear that of the twelve clubs, Chelsea and Man City are the two with the deftest conscience.