The Kraken

I'd have Mayuka instead of Guly. And obviously Morgan if back from injury, which I'm guessing he won't be.

Rational Rich downloaded the document from Companies House; post 77.

F*cking hell rallyboy! :lol::lol:

Yeah, that's a gambling strategy that's never gone wrong for any other club before. No worries at all; I must have imagined Pompey having troubles with the same strategy recently.

So your saying that if the loan was secured against this season's money, the loan company couldn't call it in if we defaulted. But if its secured against next season's funding it could be. And by the way; the loan is also secured against club assets; not just the TV money. So the charge would revert to those assets if the club defaulted.

I just find it strange we spent close on £30M on players and then had to go get a loan. And I know you disagreed but I think its very close to £30M from what has been released (Ramirez £12M, Rodriguez £6m, Mayuka £3.5M, Yoshida £2.5M, Clyne £2.5M, Gazzaniga £1M, Davis nominal); that is around £27M or £28M not including signing on fees etc, so its a substantial sum whatever. I would also speculate that the backing from the Liebherr family has now ceased. Whether it happened recently, hence committing to that sum of money then having to get a loan to pay for it, that's another question.

You don't have to be registered to have access; just to post. Corp's efforts at pretending he never visits here are fairly hilarious in themself though. Hi Corp *waves*

Well that's ideal for the lender; yes. What this all suggests to me is that this isn't a loan to help with cash flow, its more than that. Hopefully we'll find out the loan amount and perhaps even repayment terms are not too onerous.

These are the last 4 paragraphs into Everton's similar loan deal. It's a different club and we don't know our particular loan terms yet, of course, but there's a lot to take from it.

Yep, of course that's possible. That said, I'd ask some questions: 1) If we don't/can't pay it off this season, why not? And what effect does it have on next year's budget if revenues from that season are diverted to repay the loan? 2) If the intent is to pay off the loan within this season, why not secure it against guaranteed payments from this season?

Banker / Corp Ho is on form again. So, without any details, Corpie tells us the loan is for £30M. Despite it being secured against 2013-14 parachute payments which are just about half that amount. He really is a clueless buffoon; hi Corp, by the way. While you're here, and in finance mood, could you explain how your £10M value of Fratton Park from 2010 has mysteriously shrunk to £2.75M in the two years since?

Ramirez and Lallana look like they're floating.

That's pretty poor, to be frank.

No Seaborne? Pah.

Of course it could; but it already is secured against 2013-14 TV money OR parachute payments. I don't understand your point compared to mine though. If the loan were secured against 2012-13 payments, that would indicate the loan will be fully repaid by the end of this season. The loan is secured against 2013-14 payments, therefore its possible that the repayments run to the end of the 2014 season. Securing payments against the full extent of the parachute payments could then mean the term of the loan extends to 2017. All speculation, as the exact terms of the loans are unknown; but loans secured against short term payments seem more comfortable to me as they are paid off quicker; at the moment there is the unknown risk that this loan will be paid off from incomes earned next season.

We don't, I agree. As above, I would be more comfortable with a loan secured against this season's (2012-13) funding. Instead it is secured against earnings in season 2013-14, which IMO inceases the potential risk factor.

As you say, assuming payment milestones are met. We don't know what those milestones are, or when they are due to be met. If it's a loan based upon repayments over longer than one year then we would potentially be spending next year's income to pay off this loan. Hence why I said I'd have no problem with a loan secured against this season's income, as that would indicate the repayment term to be shorter.

In which case a prudent loan (and thoroughly acceptable one IMO) would be to secure against incomes from this season; TV monies and prize money yet to be paid for finishing at worst 20th in the Prem. We haven't done that, we've perhaps taken a bolder step, which is why the loan is attracting concern.

It is specified as season 2013-14 TV revenues or parachute payments.

Then I disagree. Even if we are loaning money to provide interim cashflow, its is still being borrowed from next year's income streams. I didn't read into Cortese's comments that he was criticising "gambled borrowing", if you like; money that wasn't guaranteed. Simply that he was criticising clubs who were supplementing their cash flow from next year's income, full stop, rather than living within the confines of this year's income streams.

You don't necessarily have to spend £30M just to survive in the PL.

Um, yes, I did realise that!

Guly played up front against City. Rodriguez played LM. Rodriguez hasn't played up front for Saints in the league all season; and certainly not on his own.

Whether its a minor or major amount the fact still stands; we have taken a loan against next season's funding, so we are "spending that money", even if the loan is only a minor sum. Your point about the Liebherr's is entirely the point that is being raised. Are we still being bankrolled by the Liebherrs? If it would seem not, therefore we should seek assurances/answers as to what their involvement now is and will be. Clearly we had to spend this summer to be competitive; yes, agreed. Did we really need to spend £30M to do it though? Did we need to have the 7th highest net transfer outlay in Europe? That's debatable, and I would suggest not, that the £12M on Ramirez was very much a luxury purchase. If we stay up, we probably won't need to spend as much to survive, but to improve significantly (towards a Eurpoean chasing spot) I'd say we have to spend a fairly equal amount.

I don't follow. He quite clearly stated "Clubs spend money they do not have; they spend next year’s income" and "If we reach the Premier League, I would like to be in a position where we did not need parachute payments". But that's exactly what we've done. Exactly. But yes, you're right that we do need more details and shouldn't stick our heads in the sand, which is why questioning this right now is absolutely the correct thing to do.