O'Hare bids (4 Viewers)

Grendel · Jul 23, 2022

CCFCSteve said:
By all accounts we turned down at least £5m for Hamer. If he hadn’t signed a new contract we’d have been under pressure to sell for less

The club still holds the whip hand on all three players at the moment hence the push for higher prices. We might ultimately have to accept less than these current valuations if we need the cash, however, I’m not sure we can complain at the moment….and I’m saying that as no fan of SISU

No one knows what the price was - as I said mccallum was nothing like the fee we claimed

CCFCSteve · Jul 23, 2022

Legia Sky Blue said:
You obviously never watched the Will Grigg signing episode on Sunderland Til I Die!!

With over 5 weeks until the transfer window closes it is impossible to tell what the situation will be at that point. There will inevitably be teams that unexpectedly underperform, who as a result will be more desperate to buy their way out of their slow start, both in the PL and in the Championship. There is also the unknown variable of how well we start and how well the 'big 3' start as individuals. If any of them start the season on fire then their value will only increase. Alternatively if they start poorly or get injured the dynamic goes the other way. As with many spats you get in, the argument is far more nuanced than the black and white absolutes you like to deal in.

My mates and I still talk (laugh) about that now…the Sunderland owner just lost his head. The fact they weren’t willing to offer Maja more so had to let him go for £1m…then paid £3m-£4m for Grigg and crazy salary

CCFCSteve · Jul 23, 2022

Grendel said:
No one knows what the price was - as I said mccallum was nothing like the fee we claimed

Either way a lot more than we’d be offered in last year of his contract

Grendel · Jul 23, 2022

CCFCSteve said:
Either way a lot more than we’d be offered in last year of his contract

If it’s not enough to meet our funding requirements there’s no point - it could be £1m with £4m add ons

Rusty Trombone · Jul 23, 2022

Sky Blue Pete said:
No reason to on this occasion as they’ve been absolutely bang on although it helps it’s mostly it’s not player sales or purchases etc

I don't really follow the end of that sentence, but on the point on the high interest being required to secure their investment, is that something that has been explained to you or are you just taking them on their word? What have they been absolutely bang on about, I don't follow?

I'm open to learning something new about needing to add high interest costs on to the debt to secure the investment, as currently that makes no sense to me.

KenilworthSkyBlue · Jul 23, 2022

Legia Sky Blue said:
You obviously never watched the Will Grigg signing episode on Sunderland Til I Die!!

With over 5 weeks until the transfer window closes it is impossible to tell what the situation will be at that point. There will inevitably be teams that unexpectedly underperform, who as a result will be more desperate to buy their way out of their slow start, both in the PL and in the Championship. There is also the unknown variable of how well we start and how well the 'big 3' start as individuals. If any of them start the season on fire then their value will only increase. Alternatively if they start poorly or get injured the dynamic goes the other way. As with many spats you get in, the argument is far more nuanced than the black and white absolutes you like to deal in.

I do wonder whether this is what the club is potentially hoping for. If any of their key players hits the ground running in the first few weeks of the season it'll make it far less of a challenge for their valuations to be met as presumably greater interest will be generated.

That being said, within reason, I doubt they'll be changing the goalposts and increasing price tags too much though. Not when they're struggling enough as it is to get clubs to meet their demands.

SeaSeeEffCee · Jul 23, 2022

Just heard that O’Hare has handed in a transfer request after seeing this tweet.

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 23, 2022

KenilworthSkyBlue said:
What have you been told then? As I find it difficult to believe anyone from the club would openly disclose confidential and sensitive financial information to the average fan.

Especially information that isn't particularly positive. They have nothing to gain in sharing that kind of information.

Exactly

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 23, 2022

Rusty Trombone said:
I don't really follow the end of that sentence, but on the point on the high interest being required to secure their investment, is that something that has been explained to you or are you just taking them on their word? What have they been absolutely bang on about, I don't follow?

I'm open to learning something new about needing to add high interest costs on to the debt to secure the investment, as currently that makes no sense to me.

Issues with leaving second time to brum, conversations with parties about returning. Injuries and The like.
I don’t understand the high interest but when you can’t borrow from usual sources what choice does the club have. The only explanation I’ve heard is it gives sisu a better chance of maximising the sale price when that time comes. Like I say if love them to be the bank of last resort and not charge 17%

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 23, 2022

Rusty Trombone said:
I don't really follow the end of that sentence, but on the point on the high interest being required to secure their investment, is that something that has been explained to you or are you just taking them on their word? What have they been absolutely bang on about, I don't follow?

I'm open to learning something new about needing to add high interest costs on to the debt to secure the investment, as currently that makes no sense to me.

Oh and bang on about Moore signing last summer

SlowerThanPlatt · Jul 23, 2022

Sky Blue Pete said:
Exactly

He wasn’t agreeing with you

Rusty Trombone · Jul 23, 2022

Sky Blue Pete said:
Issues with leaving second time to brum, conversations with parties about returning. Injuries and The like.
I don’t understand the high interest but when you can’t borrow from usual sources what choice does the club have. The only explanation I’ve heard is it gives sisu a better chance of maximising the sale price when that time comes. Like I say if love them to be the bank of last resort and not charge 17%

Pete, seriously, do you think that making the debt bigger gives them a better chance of maximising the sale price? If it's sold the price will have nothing to do with what the debt balance is. They are not the bank of last resort, they don't want to borrow from anyone else.

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 23, 2022

SlowerThanPlatt said:
He wasn’t agreeing with you

I know no one from the club is sharing private negative financial information . Oh I see sbb is and that’s ok. I’ve been told by a person I know has knowledge of what he says that maybe the pressure to sell is not as much as previously. It’s hardly secret stuff. It doesn’t however differ from what sbb has said and ksb was saying why would anyone share that with anyone and I was saying exactly why would they?
Unless you are saying they are with sbb and he’s being asked to share it to keep us up to date.
For what it’s worth it’s not really in depth specific stuff to say either maybe the pressure isn’t as much or it maybe is and we have to sell before the end of august

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 23, 2022

Rusty Trombone said:
Pete, seriously, do you think that making the debt bigger gives them a better chance of maximising the sale price? If it's sold the price will have nothing to do with what the debt balance is. They are not the bank of last resort, they don't want to borrow from anyone else.

Sisu or the club? Not really interested in my opinion my friend

oldfiver · Jul 23, 2022

Rusty Trombone said:
Pete, seriously, do you think that making the debt bigger gives them a better chance of maximising the sale price? If it's sold the price will have nothing to do with what the debt balance is. They are not the bank of last resort, they don't want to borrow from anyone else.

The debt level is somewhat of a red herring. If Investor A says we value the club at £X it's up to the Shareholders to agree or not

shmmeee · Jul 23, 2022

Ultimately I see it as Sisu will put in as much as they want and sell for as much as they want when they want to sell, and what the records say in between is pretty irrelevant.

No club is self sustaining at this level, we’re on a par with the likes of Luton. So over the piece yes they probably want the club to pay for it’s losses with sales, but timing is less important than maximising value. That said for all I can see Hamer and O’Hares values are currently maxed, short them having the season of their life and signing new deals.

KenilworthSkyBlue · Jul 23, 2022

shmmeee said:
Ultimately I see it as Sisu will put in as much as they want and sell for as much as they want when they want to sell, and what the records say in between is pretty irrelevant.

No club is self sustaining at this level, we’re on a par with the likes of Luton. So over the piece yes they probably want the club to pay for it’s losses with sales, but timing is less important than maximising value. That said for all I can see Hamer and O’Hares values are currently maxed, short them having the season of their life and signing new deals.

Timing and maximising value are pretty much two sides of the same coin.

If SBB's comments are to be believed I assume a sale is needed in order to safeguard against cashflow issues and perhaps repay transfer instalments owed on certain players - I assume Gyokeres and Sheaf.

Equally the club is in a strong position this window. Meaning that they're able to maximise transfer fees received without being on the back foot in negotiations. Once the season starts though they'll have to contend with a number of variables that could ultimately affect the value of their key assets.

Which is why I suspect another will possibly go in January as it'll offer the last opportunity for the club to maximise value before the remaining assets enter into the last year of their contracts.

shmmeee · Jul 23, 2022

KenilworthSkyBlue said:
Timing and maximising value are pretty much two sides of the same coin.

If SBB's comments are to be believed I assume a sale is needed in order to safeguard against cashflow issues and perhaps repay transfer instalments owed on certain players - I assume Gyokeres and Sheaf.

Equally the club is in a strong position this window. Meaning that they're able to maximise transfer fees received without being on the back foot in negotiations. Once the season starts though they'll have to contend with a number of variables that could ultimately affect the value of their key assets.

Which is why I suspect another will possibly go in January as it'll offer the last opportunity for the club to maximise value before the remaining assets enter into the last year of their contracts.

Yeah we can’t let them enter the last year of their contracts, that’s the timing piece. More saying we’re not going to have Sisu debt collectors showing up and taking things.

Let’s hope Joy has learned a thing or two about football transfers since the days of Westwood.

oldfiver · Jul 23, 2022

Rusty Trombone said:
The owners can cover it with cheaper finance Pete, there's no reason they need to keep adding to the debt with high interest costs. They don't want to as they don't want any third party having a possible claim on the club. You've posted before that you've been told that the owners want the interest to be loaded on as it means they can secure their investment, which is an odd claim as it's no more secure whether the interest is at 3% or 50%.

You like to believe the best in people Pete, but I think you need to be a bit more sceptical about what you're hearing on occasion.

Assuming they could get cheaper finance the main downside is the lender would expect to be paid.

Rusty Trombone · Jul 23, 2022

oldfiver said:
Assuming they could get cheaper finance the main downside is the lender would expect to be paid.

You would imagine so. Of course SISU also expect to be paid, and oldskyblue has shown that over the last few years the net investment is virtually nil, so SISU do ensure that any money they put in is taken back as soon as possible. My query really was with the assertion being made that the high interest is purely there to help protect the investment, and to maximise the sale price, both of which are a nonsense.

KenilworthSkyBlue · Jul 23, 2022

shmmeee said:
Yeah we can’t let them enter the last year of their contracts, that’s the timing piece. More saying we’re not going to have Sisu debt collectors showing up and taking things.

Let’s hope Joy has learned a thing or two about football transfers since the days of Westwood.

I'd imagine SISU will only extract significant funds if the club is in a cash positive position - as shown in 2019.

Grendel · Jul 23, 2022

Rusty Trombone said:
You would imagine so. Of course SISU also expect to be paid, and oldskyblue has shown that over the last few years the net investment is virtually nil, so SISU do ensure that any money they put in is taken back as soon as possible. My query really was with the assertion being made that the high interest is purely there to help protect the investment, and to maximise the sale price, both of which are a nonsense.

Of course they are nonsense - it’s just typical fisher and Boddy drivel

oldfiver · Jul 23, 2022

Rusty Trombone said:
You would imagine so. Of course SISU also expect to be paid, and oldskyblue has shown that over the last few years the net investment is virtually nil, so SISU do ensure that any money they put in is taken back as soon as possible. My query really was with the assertion being made that the high interest is purely there to help protect the investment, and to maximise the sale price, both of which are a nonsense.

I am sorry but I cannot follow your logic regarding the interest and SISU taking their money back

A nil net investment does not prove that. The accounts show a large accrual for interest

I keep meaning to do a year on year cash statement but never get the time. Perhaps instead of reading this lot?

oldfiver · Jul 23, 2022

Grendel said:
Of course they are nonsense - it’s just typical fisher and Boddy drivel

Sorry G but when it comes to drivel there is plenty on here already

Grendel · Jul 23, 2022

oldfiver said:
Sorry G but when it comes to drivel there is plenty on here already

I know you keep saying interest isn’t paid but the accumulation is there for a reason isnt it or why set the rate in the first place?

oldfiver · Jul 23, 2022

Grendel said:
I know you keep saying interest isn’t paid but the accumulation is there for a reason isnt it or why set the rate in the first place?

I assume who ever lent the money in the first place put in the cost. That being so it has to be accounted for. Accruing it and paying it are different matters.

However the mantra that keeps being repeated on here is that it is hitting annual cash flow and evidently it isn't

Rusty Trombone · Jul 23, 2022

oldfiver said:
I am sorry but I cannot follow your logic regarding the interest and SISU taking their money back

A nil net investment does not prove that. The accounts show a large accrual for interest

I keep meaning to do a year on year cash statement but never get the time. Perhaps instead of reading this lot?

I haven't linked the interest and the net nil investment points, I know the interest hasn't been paid out. You mentioned that a third party would want their money back, I'm suggesting that SISU are not short of money and would be able to pay it back, but they do not want or need third party debt. As G has said, the high interest is there for a reason. I suspect it's so they can claim they are just getting there money back if somehow we do get a large windfall sales, but I imagine there are other reasons as well, but certainly not related to achieving a higher sale price, or protecting the investment, and I think you agree with those points anyway.

oldfiver · Jul 23, 2022

Rusty Trombone said:
I haven't linked the interest and the net nil investment points, I know the interest hasn't been paid out. You mentioned that a third party would want their money back, I'm suggesting that SISU are not short of money and would be able to pay it back, but they do not want or need third party debt. As G has said, the high interest is there for a reason. I suspect it's so they can claim they are just getting there money back if somehow we do get a large windfall sales, but I imagine there are other reasons as well, but certainly not related to achieving a higher sale price, or protecting the investment, and I think you agree with those points anyway.

Suspect - imagine - suggesting- nothing concrete there?

Putting a fictitious high rate of interest that isn't being paid into the accounts to gain a mysterious benefit is a bit far fetched?

Grendel · Jul 23, 2022

oldfiver said:
Suspect - imagine - suggesting- nothing concrete there?

Putting a fictitious high rate of interest that isn't being paid into the accounts to gain a mysterious benefit is a bit far fetched?

What if the club get promoted or a big sale actually happens?

Rusty Trombone · Jul 23, 2022

oldfiver said:
Suspect - imagine - suggesting- nothing concrete there?

Putting a fictitious high rate of interest that isn't being paid into the accounts to gain a mysterious benefit is a bit far fetched?

We can't be concrete can we about the reasons why, but they certainly aren't due to the two that have been suggested via Pete.

Do you have any thoughts on why the interest would need to be so high? Presumably you're not suggesting there's any benefit to the club, so we're just speculating on what the benefit is to SISU, am I understanding you're position correctly?

oldfiver · Jul 23, 2022

Rusty Trombone said:
We can't be concrete can we about the reasons why, but they certainly aren't due to the two that have been suggested via Pete.

Do you have any thoughts on why the interest would need to be so high? Presumably you're not suggesting there's any benefit to the club, so we're just speculating on what the benefit is to SISU, am I understanding you're position correctly?

Well at present it it is not being detrimental to the club is it? Although people on here think it is

I have no idea how the rate was set but what cover would you expect from a loss making company that is totally unsecured with no prospect of early repayment.

Old Warwickshire lad · Jul 23, 2022

oldfiver said:
Well at present it it is not being detrimental to the club is it? Although people on here think it is

I have no idea how the rate was set but what cover would you expect from a loss making company that is totally unsecured with no prospect of early repayment.

I admit I was one of them. I presumed wrongly, they charged interest on the loan. And took the money out annually.

Grendel · Jul 23, 2022

Warwickshire lad said:
I admit I was one of them. I presumed wrongly, they charged interest on the loan. And took the money out annually.

Its accumulated - money when taken out is against the capital

Rusty Trombone · Jul 23, 2022

oldfiver said:
Well at present it it is not being detrimental to the club is it? Although people on here think it is

I have no idea how the rate was set but what cover would you expect from a loss making company that is totally unsecured with no prospect of early repayment.

so no benefit then, I agree with you. By the time it becomes detrimental (i.e. if we sell a player for a large amount and they decide it's time to take the interest) it will be too late. If there's never an intention of it becoming detrimental then why charge it, any ideas?

They are only putting short term loans in currently aren't they, they take the money out as soon as the cash is available. I want them to be here for the benefit of the club, so for a short term loan of less than a year I would say 0% would be fair. If they can grow the value of the club I'm happy that they can take their profit when they sell, they can earn it by making the club successful, not just by trading players and eventually taking the interest out.

Anyhow, my main concern was for Pete and not wanting him to believe all that he's being told. And I really don't mean that to be patronising.

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 23, 2022

Rusty Trombone said:
so no benefit then, I agree with you. By the time it becomes detrimental (i.e. if we sell a player for a large amount and they decide it's time to take the interest) it will be too late. If there's never an intention of it becoming detrimental then why charge it, any ideas?

They are only putting short term loans in currently aren't they, they take the money out as soon as the cash is available. I want them to be here for the benefit of the club, so for a short term loan of less than a year I would say 0% would be fair. If they can grow the value of the club I'm happy that they can take their profit when they sell, they can earn it by making the club successful, not just by trading players and eventually taking the interest out.

Anyhow, my main concern was for Pete and not wanting him to believe all that he's being told. And I really don't mean that to be patronising.

I don’t believe all I’m told in any area of my life I do start with trust

O'Hare bids (4 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency