Thames Sports Investment

[ZacNaloen]

Context is king, read it again and see if you can interpret that sentence differently.

Specifically in reference to the question I was answering.

[Man Friday]

We've already been cautious for years though, so what are they going to do that's any different? How do they know that the wage structure they want to put in place will keep our top players here and attract new ones?

The only thing that is going to be different is that the new investors will be able to cover losses until we get promoted. Our wage structure is already competitive, it's not wages that meant we lost the likes of Shane and Gylfi, it was just not being able to afford to keep them when we were 5 million short every year and the fee they command covers that gap.

They are probably banking on it not taking too long, because of how well we compete already.

What do you mean by "cover losses"? Loan us money as Sir John has been doing and thus saddling us with debt or genuinely funding the shortfall as all other owners seem to do with their playthings? See yesterday's long interview in 'The Independent" with Karren Brady. Ms Brady stated: "If you've made money and want to invest it in a business, you should be allowed to. The investment should probably not be in terms of a loan. If you've borrowed from the bank to loan it to a football club then there's a chain that can cause a catostrophic effect, but if you want to dump £50m into a football club, to go and make Torquay the best in the region (for example), you should not be prevented from doing that."
Thank you Ms Brady, that's what I've been trying to tell the thick skulls on here. (No disrespect, 80% of football supporters are idiots so that's the 80% on here, well 4 out of the 5, that have attempted to enter that particular debate.) Football club owners traditionally are expected to invest their own money. Yes, it sounds crazy but £29m to them is £2,900 to us and that's what we "invest" every year in supporting our club. I'm very disappointed that Sir John has sought to recover his investment. No wonder that was "the happiest day of his life" when he succeeded in doing so. That's clearly why he's been struggling to sell the club over the years. No potential investor could believe he wanted his money back. It's not what football club owners do. It's been no sacrifice on his part to have loaned the club money - It would have been had he invested it like a proper football club owner. The trouble is, now that he's going to be repaid, that's £29m (or whatever he's loaned the club) less that could have been invested in the club by the new owners (buying players, inproving facilities etc). Let's hope that the new owners are investing the funds in the traditional football club-owner way as otherwise we'll be no better off in the long term and in fact will be well and truly fcked if they decide to take it out of the club when they've got bored and had enough.
Sir John, you've been great for Reading Football Club but very disappointed that you want all your money back. Especially after you've done so well from your association with the Club in return for your investment. In the end you've let us down I'm sorry to say.
Cue the 80% (including the SJM apologists)....
By the way, I shan't bother reading the replies.

[Royal With Cheese]

No disrespect, 80% of football supporters are idiots so that's the 80% on here, well 4 out of the 5, that have attempted to enter that particular debate.

Generous.

[Ian Royal]

We've already been cautious for years though, so what are they going to do that's any different? How do they know that the wage structure they want to put in place will keep our top players here and attract new ones?

The only thing that is going to be different is that the new investors will be able to cover losses until we get promoted. Our wage structure is already competitive, it's not wages that meant we lost the likes of Shane and Gylfi, it was just not being able to afford to keep them when we were 5 million short every year and the fee they command covers that gap.

They are probably banking on it not taking too long, because of how well we compete already.

Ms Brady stated: "If you've made money and want to invest it in a business, you should be allowed to. The investment should probably not be in terms of a loan. If you've borrowed from the bank to loan it to a football club then there's a chain that can cause a catostrophic effect, but if you want to dump £50m into a football club, to go and make Torquay the best in the region (for example), you should not be prevented from doing that."

By the way, I shan't bother reading the replies.

Shame you won't be reading any replies, you might educate yourself about why you are so fundamentally wrong. Perhaps you could list all these owners who have put in money as gifts rather than loans or converting money into shares? Because I'm not sure I can think of any. The majority of time the reason someone doesn't get their money out of a club is because they can't afford to run it any more and it's up shit creek so they sell it for a couple of quid on the understanding the new owner takes on the debt.

That quote is about borrowing money you don't have to put into a football club IMO. Not about simply gifting money to a club, which essentially happens very very rarely.

Madejski's investment has always been openly in the form of loans and share options. If you didn't understand that it's because you didn't pay enough attention.

[Friday's Legacy]

whilst i agree with you i'll have to raise you a jack walker.

[Ian Royal]

whilst i agree with you i'll have to raise you a jack walker.

1. Jack Walker

Just the 92 league clubs, with - I'd hazard a guess - more than that number of owners. Come back to me if you can muster 10%.

[M-U-R-T-Y]

Nearly at 100 pages, TBM must have pulled his genitals off by now.

[Cypry]

We've already been cautious for years though, so what are they going to do that's any different? How do they know that the wage structure they want to put in place will keep our top players here and attract new ones?

The only thing that is going to be different is that the new investors will be able to cover losses until we get promoted. Our wage structure is already competitive, it's not wages that meant we lost the likes of Shane and Gylfi, it was just not being able to afford to keep them when we were 5 million short every year and the fee they command covers that gap.

They are probably banking on it not taking too long, because of how well we compete already.

What do you mean by "cover losses"? Loan us money as Sir John has been doing and thus saddling us with debt or genuinely funding the shortfall as all other owners seem to do with their playthings? See yesterday's long interview in 'The Independent" with Karren Brady. Ms Brady stated: "If you've made money and want to invest it in a business, you should be allowed to. The investment should probably not be in terms of a loan. If you've borrowed from the bank to loan it to a football club then there's a chain that can cause a catostrophic effect, but if you want to dump £50m into a football club, to go and make Torquay the best in the region (for example), you should not be prevented from doing that."
Thank you Ms Brady, that's what I've been trying to tell the thick skulls on here. (No disrespect, 80% of football supporters are idiots so that's the 80% on here, well 4 out of the 5, that have attempted to enter that particular debate.) Football club owners traditionally are expected to invest their own money. Yes, it sounds crazy but £29m to them is £2,900 to us and that's what we "invest" every year in supporting our club. I'm very disappointed that Sir John has sought to recover his investment. No wonder that was "the happiest day of his life" when he succeeded in doing so. That's clearly why he's been struggling to sell the club over the years. No potential investor could believe he wanted his money back. It's not what football club owners do. It's been no sacrifice on his part to have loaned the club money - It would have been had he invested it like a proper football club owner. The trouble is, now that he's going to be repaid, that's £29m (or whatever he's loaned the club) less that could have been invested in the club by the new owners (buying players, inproving facilities etc). Let's hope that the new owners are investing the funds in the traditional football club-owner way as otherwise we'll be no better off in the long term and in fact will be well and truly fcked if they decide to take it out of the club when they've got bored and had enough.
Sir John, you've been great for Reading Football Club but very disappointed that you want all your money back. Especially after you've done so well from your association with the Club in return for your investment. In the end you've let us down I'm sorry to say.
Cue the 80% (including the SJM apologists)....
By the way, I shan't bother reading the replies.

I might have some sympathy with your view if we knew how the buyout was actually structured, but as it stands, we don't, so assuming that SJM is "recovering his investment" is exactly that - an assumption.

I don't have the latest accounts to hand, but from memory I believe the assets were stated as around £40M, so that's a minimum value of the club in terms of it's current net worth. If SJM has sold 51% for £25M then that's not going to put the total value of shares at much above £50M, which seems quite reasonable to me, perhaps net value of assets +50%...
What will be key is what happens to the existing chairmans loans - £28M in the latest accounts. What's happened in the past is that SJM has converted loans into equity, effectively writing them off against the value of the club. As it stands we haven't seen the detail of the deal, but I suspect it will go one of two ways (or a combination of the two). Either SJM will convert all the loans to equity, effectively writing them off and leaving the club debt free, or, the loans will remain in place with structured repayment planned over the next x number of years (he could, of course, just convert some to shares merely reducing the clubs debt).

If it's the former then IMO SJM should be considered a hero, and will have truly put the club before his own bank balance. If he doesn't convert any loans, or a small proportion, then maybe you have a point. Whichever it is, we will not know until the finer detail of the deal is made clear....

[ZacNaloen]

Samuelson has said that the club has "zero debt"

Take that as you will

[Cobi]

Samuelson has said that the club has "zero debt"

Take that as you will

That could mean anything though. It could mean we didn't have debts to any banks. We know we had interest free loans from SJM. Perhaps most of the £25m for the 51% shareholding is wiping those loans off the books, leaving us debt free? Who knows.

[Wycombe Royal]

Samuelson has said that the club has "zero debt"

Take that as you will

That could mean anything though. It could mean we didn't have debts to any banks. We know we had interest free loans from SJM. Perhaps most of the £25m for the 51% shareholding is wiping those loans off the books, leaving us debt free? Who knows.

Considering that is roughly the amount of debt that the club had on its books to Madejski then that might be the case. Madejski gets his money back and transfers 51% of his shares. No debt left on the books.

[Royal Rother]

What a ridiculously naive lefty loony Man Friday is.

Good for the LOLs though.

[Uke]

What a ridiculously naive lefty loony Man Friday is.

Good for the LOLs though.

Don't call him a lefty!

He's championing private investment

[STAR Liaison]

What do you mean by "cover losses"? Loan us money as Sir John has been doing and thus saddling us with debt or genuinely funding the shortfall as all other owners seem to do with their playthings? See yesterday's long interview in 'The Independent" with Karren Brady. Ms Brady stated: "If you've made money and want to invest it in a business, you should be allowed to. The investment should probably not be in terms of a loan. If you've borrowed from the bank to loan it to a football club then there's a chain that can cause a catostrophic effect, but if you want to dump £50m into a football club, to go and make Torquay the best in the region (for example), you should not be prevented from doing that."
Thank you Ms Brady, that's what I've been trying to tell the thick skulls on here. (No disrespect, 80% of football supporters are idiots so that's the 80% on here, well 4 out of the 5, that have attempted to enter that particular debate.) Football club owners traditionally are expected to invest their own money. Yes, it sounds crazy but £29m to them is £2,900 to us and that's what we "invest" every year in supporting our club. I'm very disappointed that Sir John has sought to recover his investment. No wonder that was "the happiest day of his life" when he succeeded in doing so. That's clearly why he's been struggling to sell the club over the years. No potential investor could believe he wanted his money back. It's not what football club owners do. It's been no sacrifice on his part to have loaned the club money - It would have been had he invested it like a proper football club owner. The trouble is, now that he's going to be repaid, that's £29m (or whatever he's loaned the club) less that could have been invested in the club by the new owners (buying players, inproving facilities etc). Let's hope that the new owners are investing the funds in the traditional football club-owner way as otherwise we'll be no better off in the long term and in fact will be well and truly fcked if they decide to take it out of the club when they've got bored and had enough.
Sir John, you've been great for Reading Football Club but very disappointed that you want all your money back. Especially after you've done so well from your association with the Club in return for your investment. In the end you've let us down I'm sorry to say.
Cue the 80% (including the SJM apologists)....
By the way, I shan't bother reading the replies.

I might have some sympathy with your view if we knew how the buyout was actually structured, but as it stands, we don't, so assuming that SJM is "recovering his investment" is exactly that - an assumption.

I don't have the latest accounts to hand, but from memory I believe the assets were stated as around £40M, so that's a minimum value of the club in terms of it's current net worth. If SJM has sold 51% for £25M then that's not going to put the total value of shares at much above £50M, which seems quite reasonable to me, perhaps net value of assets +50%...
What will be key is what happens to the existing chairmans loans - £28M in the latest accounts. What's happened in the past is that SJM has converted loans into equity, effectively writing them off against the value of the club. As it stands we haven't seen the detail of the deal, but I suspect it will go one of two ways (or a combination of the two). Either SJM will convert all the loans to equity, effectively writing them off and leaving the club debt free, or, the loans will remain in place with structured repayment planned over the next x number of years (he could, of course, just convert some to shares merely reducing the clubs debt).

If it's the former then IMO SJM should be considered a hero, and will have truly put the club before his own bank balance. If he doesn't convert any loans, or a small proportion, then maybe you have a point. Whichever it is, we will not know until the finer detail of the deal is made clear....

Quite. Add into the equation the hotel (especially as some of the loan appears on the hotel balance sheet) which it has been said will be divorced from the football club and SJM will be keeping it. From our meeting with the club the way this is to happen has not been settled at all so anything postulated now is only an assumption.

[Vision]

What a ridiculously naive lefty loony Man Friday is.

Good for the LOLs though.

Don't call him a lefty!

He's championing private investment

He's championing ignorance even more.

I always thought he was on a wind-up to be honest but incredibly i think he might actually mean it.

LOL @ using Karren Brady to take the moral high ground.

[Ian Royal]

What a ridiculously naive lefty loony Man Friday is.

Good for the LOLs though.

Don't call him a lefty!

quite

[mr_number]

What do you mean by "cover losses"? Loan us money as Sir John has been doing and thus saddling us with debt or genuinely funding the shortfall as all other owners seem to do with their playthings? See yesterday's long interview in 'The Independent" with Karren Brady. Ms Brady stated: "If you've made money and want to invest it in a business, you should be allowed to. The investment should probably not be in terms of a loan. If you've borrowed from the bank to loan it to a football club then there's a chain that can cause a catostrophic effect, but if you want to dump £50m into a football club, to go and make Torquay the best in the region (for example), you should not be prevented from doing that."
Thank you Ms Brady, that's what I've been trying to tell the thick skulls on here. (No disrespect, 80% of football supporters are idiots so that's the 80% on here, well 4 out of the 5, that have attempted to enter that particular debate.) Football club owners traditionally are expected to invest their own money. Yes, it sounds crazy but £29m to them is £2,900 to us and that's what we "invest" every year in supporting our club. I'm very disappointed that Sir John has sought to recover his investment. No wonder that was "the happiest day of his life" when he succeeded in doing so. That's clearly why he's been struggling to sell the club over the years. No potential investor could believe he wanted his money back. It's not what football club owners do. It's been no sacrifice on his part to have loaned the club money - It would have been had he invested it like a proper football club owner. The trouble is, now that he's going to be repaid, that's £29m (or whatever he's loaned the club) less that could have been invested in the club by the new owners (buying players, inproving facilities etc). Let's hope that the new owners are investing the funds in the traditional football club-owner way as otherwise we'll be no better off in the long term and in fact will be well and truly fcked if they decide to take it out of the club when they've got bored and had enough.
Sir John, you've been great for Reading Football Club but very disappointed that you want all your money back. Especially after you've done so well from your association with the Club in return for your investment. In the end you've let us down I'm sorry to say.
Cue the 80% (including the SJM apologists)....
By the way, I shan't bother reading the replies.

It's a big statement, but I reckon this must be close to the most mental post I've ever read on Hobnob, including all of Brendy's, which I printed out and bound into what I call the 'Bible of Lunacy' so I could read it whilst having a shit. I feel like the New Testament may be being written before our very eyes.

[floyd__streete]

It's a big statement, but I reckon this must be close to the most mental post I've ever read on Hobnob, including all of Brendy's, which I printed out and bound into what I call the 'Bible of Lunacy' so I could read it whilst having a shit. I feel like the New Testament may be being written before our very eyes.

[melonhead]

[Cobi]

We're