How much do you trust Anton/TSI?

[sandman]

I've gone for six out of ten. I think he will move us on, but for me the shambles over the timing of sacking Brian with no new manager in place is a couple of marks down.

There wasn't a new manager in place for the reasons already explained by myself and others. And nothing wrong with the timing. At present we are merely continuing to head in the direction that McDermott was taking us anyway.

You have not explained anything other than your opinion on the possible reasons which is all any of us can do.

[HoneyRoastHoax]

Trust has to be earned, I don't think he's had enough time nor done enough wrong to warrant distrust.

Get over yourseleves anyway, its his club, he owns it, he'l do what he wants.

I trusted he'd do us well. He gave me promotion in a few short months.

[RoyalBlue]

I've gone for six out of ten. I think he will move us on, but for me the shambles over the timing of sacking Brian with no new manager in place is a couple of marks down.

There wasn't a new manager in place for the reasons already explained by myself and others. And nothing wrong with the timing. At present we are merely continuing to head in the direction that McDermott was taking us anyway.

You have not explained anything other than your opinion on the possible reasons which is all any of us can do.

Grammatically you are, of course, correct. However, there is a great deal of logic behind the 'explanation' ('as already argued' might have been a better term) advanced by myself and others. Reading aren't the type of club to go out and line up, let alone sign a new manager behind the current incumbent's back.

I've gone for six out of ten. I think he will move us on, but for me the shambles over the timing of sacking Brian with no new manager in place is a couple of marks down.

There wasn't a new manager in place for the reasons already explained by myself and others. And nothing wrong with the timing. At present we are merely continuing to head in the direction that McDermott was taking us anyway.

These are MY opinions, I don't have an agenda or any reason to agree or disagree with your 'facts'.

Fair enough but for those looking more at next season than next, and viewing McDermott's dismissal as being driven by the same philosophy, the timing of McDermott's sacking and the lack of an immediate replacement is by no means shambolic.

[LoyalRoyal22]

Are you all so easily bought that a few soundbites are enough to secure your complete trust in the owner? So far all I have seen is a comparatively modest investment in new signings, a ludicrously timed sacking and some sort of information-sharing agreement with Galatasaray.

I think that I trust George Osborne more than I trust Anton Zingarevich.

Invested the money straight away to get us an un-expected promotion. Correct?

[Royal Lady]

Are you all so easily bought that a few soundbites are enough to secure your complete trust in the owner? So far all I have seen is a comparatively modest investment in new signings, a ludicrously timed sacking and some sort of information-sharing agreement with Galatasaray.

I think that I trust George Osborne more than I trust Anton Zingarevich.

LENT the money for Jason Roberts who got us an un-expected promotion. Correct?

Corrected for you m8

[RoyalBlue]

Are you all so easily bought that a few soundbites are enough to secure your complete trust in the owner? So far all I have seen is a comparatively modest investment in new signings, a ludicrously timed sacking and some sort of information-sharing agreement with Galatasaray.

I think that I trust George Osborne more than I trust Anton Zingarevich.

LENT the money for Jason Roberts who got us an un-expected promotion. Correct?

Corrected for you m8

Even if it is true that he only lent the money (can't really blame him when he didn't even own the club at the time), he did so at a time when Madejski wasn't prepared to. His arrival also appeared key in getting Kebe to sign a new contract when up until then he was definitely offski!

What's more he did this without feeling the compelling need to step out onto the pitch and request the plaudits of the faithful!

I may, of course, be proven wrong but so far I like what I see of AZ (and his wife!) and I do trust him. I'm someone who starts off by trusting people and only change my mind if they let me down, rather than demanding they earn my trust first.

[Hoop Blah]

Are you all so easily bought that a few soundbites are enough to secure your complete trust in the owner? So far all I have seen is a comparatively modest investment in new signings, a ludicrously timed sacking and some sort of information-sharing agreement with Galatasaray.

I think that I trust George Osborne more than I trust Anton Zingarevich.

LENT the money for Jason Roberts who got us an un-expected promotion. Correct?

Corrected for you m8

As Z175 kindly explained the other day, there are reasons for the money to be a loan and its just how the majority of clubs sugar daddy's work.

On the 'it was only a loan' front, I think it has to be done that way.

I'm not sure why but it seems all external injections of cash are done via a loan at whatever club you look at when an individual or owning company want to spunk more money on players etc. Perhaps one of the many bean counters on here could clarify or explain a bit more, but I believe even Abramovich's money is technically appearing as loans to Chelsea.

Seeing as you ask

The rule of thumb is that its better to use loans (as opposed to buying shares) when putting money into a company, as it is more tax efficient. You can deduct any interest payments when calculating the company's tax bill, but if you bought shares and paid dividends instead of interest, these cannot be deducted.

For example if Malcolm Glazer bought £1bn shares in Man Utd and they make a profit of £100m, they pay tax of £24m.
But if he lends them £1bn, and they make a profit of £100m, and pay him £100m in interest, they pay tax of £0! There are rules to prevent this being abused, but thats the basic principle. Similar rules are under consideration by UEFA for FFP, and avoiding this is why Abramovich has actually converted his loans into shares.

However most football clubs are loss making, so they often pay very little corporation tax (which is paid on profit -when HMRC start winding up clubs, its normally unpaid VAT or players income tax not being passed on.)

So the real reason is in case the club goes into administration. If you are a shareholder, you are legally at the end of the queue of creditors, so are likely to lose all your money. Portsmouth's saga has mainly been due to their previous owner, Sacha Gaydamak, bankrolling the wagebill with loans, which now make him their largest creditor, so the administrators have to agree to pay him some money in order to rescue the club. If he merely still owned shares, he'd have no way to get some of his cash back.

However, its quite clear that Zingarevich loaned Reading money because he hadn't yet bought the club, so its absolutely not an indication that he wants to do a Gaydamak, its just a normal way of doing business ,all the more so if you don't own the club! Madejski's money has always been loaned the club anyway.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Z175's analysis is spot on.

Where this breaks down with football, though, is that loaning money leaves a club lumbered with debt - debt that they will never, in the normal course of their business, be able to ever pay off.

Plus, money that's lent is not allowable as "income" under Financial Fair Play regulations.

[Ian Royal]

Change me from a 7 to a 9.

[Woodcote Royal]

I think too many people are starting to recall shit they have read on here as gospal.

Fear not, it will never apply to anything emanating from your keyboard

[Millsy]

If Adkins signs I go from a 1-2 back to a 9 or 10.

[Booseal]

Reading kick off amid threat of a government investigation into finances

Reading will begin their Championship campaign at home to Ipswich on Saturday with a threat of a government investigation into the club’s financial affairs

The club’s owner, Anton Zingarevich, and his supermodel wife Katsia are frequent visitors to the Madejski Stadium since he paid for 51 per cent of the shares last May and are expected to take their seats in the directors’ box.

But Telegraph Sport has learnt that the club’s Gibraltar-registered parent company, Thames Sports Investment, which Zingarevich used to take over the club, has not filed accounts since it was incorporated in January last year.

That has prompted an inquiry by Companies House, the government administrator of British companies into the UK subsidiary, Reading Football Club Limited. It wants to know why, in the absence of accounts for TSI, the UK-based company did not file a mandatory cash-flow statement in its own accounts for the 2011-12 season.

In its accounts Reading claimed it was exercising an exemption from reporting the details over cash movements. But the exemption requires its parent company to have provided them instead.

A senior source at UK Companies House said: “TSI is a Gibraltar company and there has been no disclosure or reference to Reading in any consolidated accounts. That wouldn’t make it eligible not to file a cash-flow statement here. We’re writing to [Bryan Stabler] the secretary of Reading Football Club Limited to ask him to explain why there is no cash-flow statement here.”


Sauce: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... ances.html

[winchester_royal]

As posted in Club Policies, completely sensationalist title, even if mistake has been made on RFC's part the maximum penalty for filing late is less than 10k, hardly anything to get knickers in a twist over

[winchester_royal]

What's more, given that TSI's first financial year end would have been January 2013 at the earliest, and Gibraltar's filing deadline is 13 months after this date, I'm struggling to see any issue with them not having posted their accounts yet tbh...

[Friday's Legacy]

Edit: I didn't see Winch say the same thing. Using an iPhone on here is a pain. I really don't see anything in this. We have plenty of time to declare our accounts. It's a case of lazy journalism and a fishing trip. The media haven't been very welcoming to Anton Zingarevich from the offset.

[Kitsondinho]

Don't think the media are anti-Anton, but the papers know they get circulation out of 'foreign owners are bad' stories....

[winchester_royal]

Indeed, but it's irresponsible journalism. Absolute worse case scenario here is that whoever is in charge of filing the accounts is a bit of a prat and thought we were valid to an exception that we're not actually entitled to. If this is the case, then all we need to do is to submit a revision to the accounts already filed at Companies House, which assuming we do in a timely manner will not cost us anything. Companies House will always write to a company when they have an issue with submitted accounts, and this happens regularly, so why the Telegraph felt this was even deserving of a story is lost on me.

It raises a few concerns about the competency of those in charge of creating the Stat Accounts, but nothing more than that.

[winchester_royal]

Having had a little root around, it appears this problem was anticipated a few months ago by a TTE blogger/accountant who basically says the same thing:

http://www.thetilehurstend.com/2013/3/22/4134806/the-championship-season-in-numbers-reading-fc-financials-2011-2012

[2.8 lita injection]

Probably nothing but.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... ances.html

The club’s owner, Anton Zingarevich, and his supermodel wife Katsia are frequent visitors to the Madejski Stadium since he paid for 51 per cent of the shares last May and are expected to take their seats in the directors’ box.

But Telegraph Sport has learnt that the club’s Gibraltar-registered parent company, Thames Sports Investment, which Zingarevich used to take over the club, has not filed accounts since it was incorporated in January last year.

That has prompted an inquiry by Companies House, the government administrator of British companies into the UK subsidiary, Reading Football Club Limited. It wants to know why, in the absence of accounts for TSI, the UK-based company did not file a mandatory cash-flow statement in its own accounts for the 2011-12 season.

In its accounts Reading claimed it was exercising an exemption from reporting the details over cash movements. But the exemption requires its parent company to have provided them instead.

A senior source at UK Companies House said: “TSI is a Gibraltar company and there has been no disclosure or reference to Reading in any consolidated accounts. That wouldn’t make it eligible not to file a cash-flow statement here. We’re writing to [Bryan Stabler] the secretary of Reading Football Club Limited to ask him to explain why there is no cash-flow statement here.”



Reading spokesman Mark Bradley said in a statement: “TSI controls more than 90 per cent of the voting rights, [so] TSI controls the company. That being the case, RFC would be entitled to the exemption.”

Certainly possession of 90 per cent of the voting rights would satisfy one of the conditions of exemption from the statutory requirement for cash-flow reporting. However, the second demands that the parent company, in this case TSI, must then make its own report and accounts available to public scrutiny.

Companies House Gibraltar [CHG] confirmed TSI “was incorporated on Jan 10, 2012. No company accounts have been filed for the company”.

Like all clubs then in the Premier League, Reading were required to file details of their cash-flow movements to the football authorities by March 1 this year. The League said: “Premier League rules require all clubs to submit to the League audited annual accounts, including cash-flow statements, and future financial information showing that all liabilities that fall due in the following season can be met.”

[winchester_royal]

http://hobnob.royals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=118208&start=80

It's absolutely nothing. Worse case scenario we have to submit a revision to our accounts at Companies House.