Jump to content
IGNORED

14million debt written off by SL in shares


spudski
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is good and bad really, good that the debts gone but bad that yet again we are losing millions.  Taking aside COVID, this happens almost every season, and that’s because of players salaries, which is a joke when you look at the performances on the pitch! Anyway modern football I guess!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not "written off" though, despite Gregor's expression.

He has converted Debt to equity, so he owns more shares. When he sells the club one day he will sell those shares and get what they are worth (to someone who wishes to purchase the club).   If (big IF right now)  the club reaches the PL the value of those shares will increase massively.

It's good news but it's not a gift.

He has said Jon doesn't want to be involved "going forward", so one day the club WILL be sold.

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

It's not "written off" though, despite Gregor's expression.

He has converted Debt to equity, so he owns more shares. When he sells the club one day he will sell those shares and get what they are worth (to someone who wishes to purchase the club).   If (big IF right now)  the club reaches the PL the value of those shares will increase massively.

It's good news but it's not a gift.

He has said Jon doesn't want to be involved "going forward", so one day the club WILL be sold.

 

Even if we reach the Prem the shared will likely still be worthless as there are that many in existence.

Best SL can hope for is someone makes an offer. And has the cash and desire to continue pumping money in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

It's not "written off" though, despite Gregor's expression.

He has converted Debt to equity, so he owns more shares. When he sells the club one day he will sell those shares and get what they are worth (to someone who wishes to purchase the club).   If (big IF right now)  the club reaches the PL the value of those shares will increase massively.

It's good news but it's not a gift.

He has said Jon doesn't want to be involved "going forward", so one day the club WILL be sold.

 

It's "written off" so far as it no longer has to included in the liabilities column of the P&L statement though. But yeh it moves into the share register instead - but that's fine, that's value in the company.

In a company that is basically 100% owned by one shareholder it matters very little actually how many shares he owns. This conversion isn't meaningfully diluting anyone else. The Lansdowns will bank a fortune when they sell. If it was still debt then either any buyer would pay it off as part of the purchase, there's be a conversion at completion, or SL would retain it post-completion (almost always one of the former).

Honestly I suspect before he sells he'll do a consolidation to get the raw numbers down to a more sensible figure.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bristol Rob said:

Even if we reach the Prem the shared will likely still be worthless as there are that many in existence.

Best SL can hope for is someone makes an offer. And has the cash and desire to continue pumping money in.

The shares aren't worthless at all. Having 100,000,000 shares of a pound is just as good as having 100 shares worth £1,000,000 each, or 1 share of £100,000,000. The guy owns almost the entire club, he'll get all the value regardless of how many raw shares he owns.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

It's not "written off" though, despite Gregor's expression.

He has converted Debt to equity, so he owns more shares. When he sells the club one day he will sell those shares and get what they are worth (to someone who wishes to purchase the club).   If (big IF right now)  the club reaches the PL the value of those shares will increase massively.

It's good news but it's not a gift.

He has said Jon doesn't want to be involved "going forward", so one day the club WILL be sold.

 

 

It's a bit more nuanced than that IMO.

The new share issuance may have increased the Lansdowns' holding by 1% (say) but as 1% of the club isn't worth £14m, which would value the club at £1.4bn, they're not really gaining anything from the increase in holding.

They are, however, in converting this debt to equity, increasing the net assets of the club, and hence its value, by £14m.  In that respect they're not actually losing anything as they own the club and see this benefit.

Though that isn't tax efficient as a repayment of debt is tax free whereas profit on sale is subject to Capital Gains Tax.

Where it is of benefit to the club is that the Lansdowns are showing themselves not to be shyster owners like the Glazers who are happy to pour a debt burden, and a debt interest burden, onto the club to line their own pockets and make it an unattractive prospect to new investors or a buyer.

 

On balance it is a good thing for the club which comes at a cost to its owners. I would rather that they did this than didn't do it.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

It's a bit more nuanced than that IMO.

They are, however, in converting this debt to equity, increasing the net assets of the club, and hence its value, by £14m.  In that respect they're not actually losing anything as they own the club and see this benefit.

 

I think I meant that but you explain it much better.

The other point is that of course is that the debt would be a lot smaller if SL hadn't burned through so much cash on the LJ/Ashton "project".   Although I accept that's not a popular view on here!

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter what some say on the forum and I question the decisions Lansdown has made, there aren't many better owners in England than him. 

Could be worse, could sell us down the river to owners like Sheff Wed have. 

Be careful what you wish for

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 2015 said:

No matter what some say on the forum and I question the decisions Lansdown has made, there aren't many better owners in England than him. 

Could be worse, could sell us down the river to owners like Sheff Wed have. 

Be careful what you wish for

Or could be better and have owners like Leicester, or Norwich. Kinda goes both ways. But yes, could be worse. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CodeRed said:

I think I meant that but you explain it much better.

The other point is that of course is that the debt would be a lot smaller if SL hadn't burned through so much cash on the LJ/Ashton "project".   Although I accept that's not a popular view on here!

I think that latter is a common view on here.

If someone breaks a window then it seems reasonable to expect them to pay to have it mended.

The Lansdowns allowed Ashton to run riot with a shotgun in the orangery for years; it's only right that they should be sweeping up the broken glass and paying the glazier.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

The other point is that of course is that the debt would be a lot smaller if SL hadn't burned through so much cash on the LJ/Ashton "project".   Although I accept that's not a popular view on here!

Appointed proper managers, sought proper footballing experience to manage the club etc etc 

  • Like 13
  • Flames 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Redpool said:

Or could be better and have owners like Leicester, or Norwich. Kinda goes both ways. But yes, could be worse. 

I think we have apart from the fact that SL got taken in by MA and co. 

Edited by exAtyeoMax
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Appointed proper managers, sought proper footballing experience to manage the club etc etc 

Exactly.  Many people on here just think ‘he invests his money therefore he’s a fantastic owner’. Whilst we are all undoubtedly grateful for his cash injections, it’s not gratis - he will get his money back eventually or at least large proportions of it. We as supporters will not get back the years following the club where his questionable decisions have cost us greater chances of success and the adventures and joy that may have brought.  Slightly over dramatic maybe, but it’s swings and roundabouts and his ownership should be held up to scrutiny in all aspects and not just roundly praised because of the money.    

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I think that latter is a common view on here.

If someone breaks a window then it seems reasonable to expect them to pay to have it mended.

The Lansdowns allowed Ashton to run riot with a shotgun in the orangery for years; it's only right that they should be sweeping up the broken glass and paying the glazier.

Yes there is case here in a world where people do the right thing (you know that one where almost none of us live in) I agree LJ MA AND DH are SLs mess but he still didn’t have to do this. 
 

That apart nice! This is something of an admission (some might say) 

 

I do laugh at some of the views expressed on a thread like this as those that know something about finance are pretty obvious, if you catch my drift!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have shares having bought them in 1982 and did not sell to Pula (Lansdown) last year.

My holding is effectively diluted if more shares have been issued.  Not that I'm complaining as they were never expected to make any profit.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, lenred said:

Exactly.  Many people on here just think ‘he invests his money therefore he’s a fantastic owner’. Whilst we are all undoubtedly grateful for his cash injections, it’s not gratis - he will get his money back eventually or at least large proportions of it. We as supporters will not get back the years following the club where his questionable decisions have cost us greater chances of success and the adventures and joy that may have brought.  Slightly over dramatic maybe, but it’s swings and roundabouts and his ownership should be held up to scrutiny in all aspects and not just roundly praised because of the money.    

This.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it a worry we seam to be seeing this every year, clearing a debt of 10-15m and not having anything to show for it, 

We ever need to go all out for the prem bit like wolves did and not worry about ffp for a couple of seasons or except we become a bottom half champ side with only a small debt or maybe small profit each season, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Nongazeuse said:

I still have shares having bought them in 1982 and did not sell to Pula (Lansdown) last year.

My holding is effectively diluted if more shares have been issued.  Not that I'm complaining as they were never expected to make any profit.

 

Me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Nongazeuse said:

I still have shares having bought them in 1982 and did not sell to Pula (Lansdown) last year.

My holding is effectively diluted if more shares have been issued.  Not that I'm complaining as they were never expected to make any profit.

 

Yep. My fifty quid notionally is less valuable also. Think I’ll hang in there though!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CodeRed said:

the debt would be a lot smaller if SL hadn't burned through so much cash on the LJ/Ashton "project".   Although I accept that's not a popular view on here!

It's my view! Not sure how it can be disputed really.

I doubt even SL looks at the wreckage of our performances on the pitch this past year and thinks 'money well spent'.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, lenred said:

Exactly.  Many people on here just think ‘he invests his money therefore he’s a fantastic owner’. Whilst we are all undoubtedly grateful for his cash injections, it’s not gratis - he will get his money back eventually or at least large proportions of it. We as supporters will not get back the years following the club where his questionable decisions have cost us greater chances of success and the adventures and joy that may have brought.  Slightly over dramatic maybe, but it’s swings and roundabouts and his ownership should be held up to scrutiny in all aspects and not just roundly praised because of the money.    

I can’t see SL getting back anything like the money he’s poured into the club over the last 20 odd years. 
Personally I am extremely grateful to him for every penny he has poured into the club, players, stadium, training ground, academy etc etc, but that doesn’t make him above scrutiny and I think he knows and accepts that with good humility. Despite taking a step back a few years ago when things get tough it’s always him who steps out of the shadows and gives a message, or goes on Twentyman etc and I’d much rather hear from him as someone who is obviously emotionally invested in the club than a suit like Ashton. 

  • Like 11
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...