Sorry I haven't seen the accounts but

Is there anything saying about starting repayments back against Tans loans yet ?

Last season accounts not out till new year I think ,25 million parachute payments and and all the cost cutting should help tho

With my limited knowledge of finance, tan doesn't even need to take the money the club is making against the debt.

He can take what he wants now and call the debt in at a later date.

There's a very good chance i am wrong.

Last season accounts not out till new year I think ,25 million parachute payments and and all the cost cutting should help tho

Agreed Wez but even through I'm assuming here I do think that the fear should be that repayment payments haven't even started yet because of the limited period left on the parachute payments

Is there anything saying about starting repayments back against Tans loans yet ?

The last accounts to be published were those for the year ended 31 May 2014. They were approved by the board and the auditors just 6 weeks after the year end on 15 July 2014 (strange in that it is very quick to sign off football club accounts) but not filed at Companies House for public scrutiny until February 2015. There is nothing to indicate any repayments to the owner in that financial year.

The accounts to 31 May 2015 will almost certainly have been finalised and signed off , but publication will again be delayed. So it may be a few months yet before anyone outside the club and the auditors will know if any loan repayments have been made in that year.

With my limited knowledge of finance, tan doesn't even need to take the money the club is making against the debt.

He can take what he wants now and call the debt in at a later date.

There's a very good chance i am wrong.

You ARE wrong .

There are only two ways for Vincent Tan to take money out of the club

1) by loan repayments - there is no indication in the accounts available to date that he has done so

2) (potentially) by paying a shareholder dividend. This is not available to him as there are no revenue reserves (i.e. accumulated profits) from which to make such a payment so any dividend payment would be illegal.

With my limited knowledge of finance, tan doesn't even need to take the money the club is making against the debt.

He can take what he wants now and call the debt in at a later date.

There's a very good chance i am wrong.

You ARE wrong .

There are only two ways for Vincent Tan to take money out of the club

1) by loan repayments - there is no indication in the accounts available to date that he has done so

2) (potentially) by paying a shareholder dividend. This is not available to him as there are no revenue reserves (i.e. accumulated profits) from which to make such a payment so any dividend payment would be illegal.

Good!

Is there anything saying about starting repayments back against Tans loans yet ?

The last accounts to be published were those for the year ended 31 May 2014. They were approved by the board and the auditors just 6 weeks after the year end on 15 July 2014 (strange in that it is very quick to sign off football club accounts) but not filed at Companies House for public scrutiny until February 2015. There is nothing to indicate any repayments to the owner in that financial year.

The accounts to 31 May 2015 will almost certainly have been finalised and signed off , but publication will again be delayed. So it may be a few months yet before anyone outside the club and the auditors will know if any loan repayments have been made in that year.

So if no loan repayments in the newest set of accounts then even with both the parachute payments and the recent cost cutting measures still not a penny of it has been repaid to Tan!!! I'm predicting trouble ahead Keith

Is there anything saying about starting repayments back against Tans loans yet ?

The last accounts to be published were those for the year ended 31 May 2014. They were approved by the board and the auditors just 6 weeks after the year end on 15 July 2014 (strange in that it is very quick to sign off football club accounts) but not filed at Companies House for public scrutiny until February 2015. There is nothing to indicate any repayments to the owner in that financial year.

The accounts to 31 May 2015 will almost certainly have been finalised and signed off , but publication will again be delayed. So it may be a few months yet before anyone outside the club and the auditors will know if any loan repayments have been made in that year.

So if no loan repayments in the newest set of accounts then even with both the parachute payments and the recent cost cutting measures still not a penny of it has been repaid to Tan!!! I'm predicting trouble ahead Keith

In the year to 31 May 2014 , despite being in the Premier and enjoying record income of £83m , the club still made a loss of £12m.

In the year to 31 May 2015 , the money from the share of Sky and other t.v. deals will have dropped from the £61m in 2013/14 to £17m (the "parachute" money). So to cover that fall in income , even before also covering the inevitable fall in match day income from lower attendances and lower commercial income Premier v Championship , the club will have had to reduce costs by £ 56m just to break even last season - a really tough task even with substantial player wage savings.

If all employee costs went back to the levels they were in the previous Championship season that would have saved about £20m. In 2013/14 there were big write-offs (known as impairment charges) totalling £12m from the fact that the Ninian Stand extension and playing squad were not considered worth the value they appeared in the accounts at. The player adjustment of £6.6m should not have had to have been repeated last year , but it may well be that rest of the "red elephant" of the stand extension cost of £6.4m (only half the cost of £11.8m was written off in 2013/14 but it is not earning much income so maybe a further write-down in value was needed). Also , there should have not been a loss on player sales again (in 2013/14 that cost the club £5m).

By adding the player wage savings , the player impairment and loss on sale costs together , that would be a saving of of nearly £32m. Still a long way short of £56m

Keith

Is there anything saying about starting repayments back against Tans loans yet ?

The last accounts to be published were those for the year ended 31 May 2014. They were approved by the board and the auditors just 6 weeks after the year end on 15 July 2014 (strange in that it is very quick to sign off football club accounts) but not filed at Companies House for public scrutiny until February 2015. There is nothing to indicate any repayments to the owner in that financial year.

The accounts to 31 May 2015 will almost certainly have been finalised and signed off , but publication will again be delayed. So it may be a few months yet before anyone outside the club and the auditors will know if any loan repayments have been made in that year.

So if no loan repayments in the newest set of accounts then even with both the parachute payments and the recent cost cutting measures still not a penny of it has been repaid to Tan!!! I'm predicting trouble ahead Keith

In the year to 31 May 2014 , despite being in the Premier and enjoying record income of £83m , the club still made a loss of £12m.

In the year to 31 May 2015 , the money from the share of Sky and other t.v. deals will have dropped from the £61m in 2013/14 to £17m (the "parachute" money). So to cover that fall in income , even before also covering the inevitable fall in match day income from lower attendances and lower commercial income Premier v Championship , the club will have had to reduce costs by £ 56m just to break even last season - a really tough task even with substantial player wage savings.

If all employee costs went back to the levels they were in the previous Championship season that would have saved about £20m. In 2013/14 there were big write-offs (known as impairment charges) totalling £12m from the fact that the Ninian Stand extension and playing squad were not considered worth the value they appeared in the accounts at. The player adjustment of £6.6m should not have had to have been repeated last year , but it may well be that rest of the "red elephant" of the stand extension cost of £6.4m (only half the cost of £11.8m was written off in 2013/14 but it is not earning much income so maybe a further write-down in value was needed). Also , there should have not been a loss on player sales again (in 2013/14 that cost the club £5m).

By adding the player wage savings , the player impairment and loss on sale costs together , that would be a saving of of nearly £32m. Still a long way short of £56m

Keith

wouldn't all the players sales be in this set of accounts tho ?

Is there anything saying about starting repayments back against Tans loans yet ?

The last accounts to be published were those for the year ended 31 May 2014. They were approved by the board and the auditors just 6 weeks after the year end on 15 July 2014 (strange in that it is very quick to sign off football club accounts) but not filed at Companies House for public scrutiny until February 2015. There is nothing to indicate any repayments to the owner in that financial year.

The accounts to 31 May 2015 will almost certainly have been finalised and signed off , but publication will again be delayed. So it may be a few months yet before anyone outside the club and the auditors will know if any loan repayments have been made in that year.

So if no loan repayments in the newest set of accounts then even with both the parachute payments and the recent cost cutting measures still not a penny of it has been repaid to Tan!!! I'm predicting trouble ahead Keith

In the year to 31 May 2014 , despite being in the Premier and enjoying record income of £83m , the club still made a loss of £12m.

In the year to 31 May 2015 , the money from the share of Sky and other t.v. deals will have dropped from the £61m in 2013/14 to £17m (the "parachute" money). So to cover that fall in income , even before also covering the inevitable fall in match day income from lower attendances and lower commercial income Premier v Championship , the club will have had to reduce costs by £ 56m just to break even last season - a really tough task even with substantial player wage savings.

If all employee costs went back to the levels they were in the previous Championship season that would have saved about £20m. In 2013/14 there were big write-offs (known as impairment charges) totalling £12m from the fact that the Ninian Stand extension and playing squad were not considered worth the value they appeared in the accounts at. The player adjustment of £6.6m should not have had to have been repeated last year , but it may well be that rest of the "red elephant" of the stand extension cost of £6.4m (only half the cost of £11.8m was written off in 2013/14 but it is not earning much income so maybe a further write-down in value was needed). Also , there should have not been a loss on player sales again (in 2013/14 that cost the club £5m).

By adding the player wage savings , the player impairment and loss on sale costs together , that would be a saving of of nearly £32m. Still a long way short of £56m

Keith

wouldn't all the players sales be in this set of accounts tho ?

Yes the cash received would be . But only the profit on the sale reduces the losses in the profit and loss account. So,for example, if Gary Medel was sold for £10m but was in the books as an asset of £8m ( the £12 m he cost less his depreciation in the books year 1) only the profit of £2 m would reduce other losses

Doesn't seem right, owner of a club issuing Loans in his name against the club he now owns.

Doesn't seem right, owner of a club issuing Loans in his name against the club he now owns.

Its normal practice in companies to do that

Doesn't seem right, owner of a club issuing Loans in his name against the club he now owns.

One of the reasons behind Financial Fair Play was to stop this kind of thing.

Doesn't seem right, owner of a club issuing Loans in his name against the club he now owns.

One of the reasons behind Financial Fair Play was to stop this kind of thing.

Why because its the norm in business..? People need to understand that you have to legally separate an individual and a company even if the individual is the majority shareholder of a company.

Doesn't seem right, owner of a club issuing Loans in his name against the club he now owns.

One of the reasons behind Financial Fair Play was to stop this kind of thing.

Why because its the norm in business..? People need to understand that you have to legally separate an individual and a company even if the individual is the majority shareholder of a company.

Exactly ,if the business needs money to continue and is loss making then a owner / director lends the business money at a considerable risk to himself