roperclaret wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 11:24 pm
So trying to unravel this:
1. ALK haven’t actually taken any money out of the club
2. But the money in the bank was used to give to Garlick et al
3. The club was used as a vehicle to borrow money (but on paper the debt actually sits with the owners who then borrowed that money from the club)
4. There is of course the interest repayments that the club will fund not the owners
5. They have completely revamped an old tired team with a new vibrant team, making a profit on player sales which funded the new players and reduced the wage bill by around £70 million? per year.
Have I missed anything?
1. Have ALK actually taken money out of the club - Yes
a - the club has spent £46m in interest, repayments and penalties to both MSD and Macquarie to date, and they will continue to pay interest and probably the capital balance (£39.7m) in the future
b- the last accounts record a Management fee of £1.5m to an ALK group company (I actually don't have an issue with that - it is pretty obvious that a number of directors have been very active in managing affairs at the club)
c- the club now have a debt of £1m to ALK Capital LLC for an undeclared reason
d - there is an expectation that the £49.8m borrowed to pay for shares will not be materially returned
2. Some of the money in the bank (£49.8m see 1.d) was loaned to ALK who then gave it to Garlick and Co - btw the Co includes all those small shareholders that sold their shares to ALK business CVHL the rest has been used to cover 1.a to date
3. ALK borrowed the money from MSD in the week leading up to the takeover, they then immediately transferred the loan to the club when the takeover was completed, while keeping the money and giving the club an i.o.u. which few expect them to actually pay from their own monies. Last November the MSD loan was refinanced (by Macquarie according to the Athletic) at a lower rate of interest that is described in 1.a but you appear confused as to where the debt sits - it is the responsibility of the club to pay it, yes the Athletic states that it is the owners who have provided the assets and guarantees as security for the loan, but those people will not want/allow a default to occur that would actually see those pledges called in
4 yes again as detailed in 1.a
5 An old team has been revamped and still needs work even just to replace loanees and those who have not been retained, just how much experience and nous (that was heavily relied on last season) will be retained/replaced for next season back in the Premier League we still need to determine. The wage bill numbers will not be formally declared until the next accounts are published in a little under a years time - your £70m reduction would see them at a little under £22m which would put us close mid way in the championship wages table - which feels a stretch - personally I would not be surprised to see it at £40m or more with bonuses and management and consultation fees