Championship - 2022/23

Yes I experienced that too but this time we would only be returning as favourites, whilst L**** would be breaking new ground having been Non- league in the last decade. Could we really bear them becoming part of the elite, parachute money to help them stay in the big-time. I'm not so sure this time....

 

But back then Udinese were a European level club, we had players with recent Champions League experience when they first took us over for God's sake! They still gave us some useful players last time we were relegated, but the well has been drying for a long time now, WTE and Sierralta were almost like the missing pieces to a jigsaw which was almost ready for promotion already, 2 years later if we sell all our stars, we can't rely on Udinese players to fire us to promotion again

 

Really?
Are we not in greater financial peril than Burnley?
I have read about the Burnley £65m repayment to Dell upon demand.
Are we not between £139 - £180m in debt? Depends on which report you read.
It also appears that our players can't wait to fly the nest.
I think we are only becoming favourites for the Championship due to our parachute payments.
Championship Position, just North of the relegation places.

 

We have more debt, but we don’t necessarily have to immediately pay back £65m of it. Someone with a bigger mortgage isn’t necessarily in a worse position than someone with far more unfavourable repayment terms.

By no means am I saying our debt isn’t a problem and deeply worrying, but in the short term the terms of Burnley’s debt clearly make it a bigger issues in the here and now.

 

We are not in greater immediate financial peril than Burnley, no. We don’t have to repay that back in a short period and much of our debt is owed to the Pozzo family or affiliates anyway. When assessing debt amounts you need to consider the terms too. Would you rather have a 500k mortgage at 6% interest repayable over say 30 years or a 250k payday loan due next month? Not a perfect analogy but there’s a reason why the football finance experts are more concerned about Burnley than us.

As for our prospects, why should you discount parachute payments? That’s what will help us assemble a playing squad that should be superior to sides without them. It’s like saying “the bookies only have us as favourites because we have the best players.” It’s a relevant consideration.

 

While I largely agree, this outlook does depend on Gino and Co having continued interest in sticking around and 'going again'. Whilst I'm almost certain that isn't the case, the complete silence from anyone at board level in recent weeks is pretty deafening too.

If there was a statement saying they were looking to sell up, we could be in trouble until any takeover happens. Our huge debt is a big problem that we shouldn't just ignore because we assume it's not being called in anytime soon. That sounds like sleepwalking to disaster in my opinion....I'd rather be continually concerned about it until the circumstances are as such that it's really not hugely relevant. And I don't think that time is now - when we have the squad we do, a mute owner, a fresh relegation and a largely untried manager.

I respect the post you're replying to is pretty bombastic in his/it's nature - but I find declaration's that suggest we shouldn't really worry about the finances just as troubling to be honest.

For instance, is there anything stopping Gino simply pocketing the first years parachute payment as debt repayment? Very much doubt he will, but whilst our debt is as it is and owed, we are at the mercy of it happening and being very much in Burnley's shoes.

 

In this scenario I would be more nervous about the following season - L*t*n "doing a Brentford" and WFC "doing a Norwich".

 

Yes but we are completely f&cked as well. Just because Burnley face a disaster not of their own making doesn’t mean Pozzo’s financial incompetence gets a pass.

 

Hold on. Where are you getting most of our debt is owed to Pozzo of affiliates?

 

We are not in a great position by any means but our immediate outlook position is better than Burnley’s. Not sure where I said otherwise.

Much doesn’t mean most. Some of the accountants on here have given a breakdown on the finances thread. Not sure what the percentage is but it was a sizeable proportion though it is unclear how much of the holding company’s debt is from the Pozzos versus external.

Didn’t say otherwise. But unlike with Burnley it is difficult to draw a line from the headline debt amount to relegation next season as some are trying to.

 

The vast amount of our debt is external. Making statements like “much of debt is to Pozzo and affiliates” is deeply misleading, and not helpful if exposing Pozzo’s mismanagement

 

Is it the vast amount? What percentage do you think is fully external? And what percentage do you think qualifies as the vast amount?

It’s hard to tell for certain as I said before as some of the holding company debt is also external and there were also the reports of a substantial repayment/refinancing last year but it seems to me that of our net debt - for which I’m basically having the external football debt cancelled out by any incoming football receivables - and then £71m is owed to the Pozzos (per this: https://theathletic.com/3221300/202...everance-packages/?source=user_shared_article) which if we then assume outstanding remaining debt (following the restructuring) to be £140m or so would be 50%. If the debt is £220m that would still be a third and I would still be comfortable using the word “much” to describe that proportion. Much does not mean most. I am not trying to mislead at all and happy to stick with some if that is easier.

The Pozzos have clearly mismanaged this club over the last few years. We can be accurate with what we say and criticise hyperbole without ignoring that mismanagement. They will have mismanaged the club even when we don’t get relegated next season as @LaClusazSki has suggested.

 

Well 2 points:

There is a subsequent loan from Macquarie to clarify so any Pozzo finance may be a bridging loan.

Secondly even if Pozzo has 30% of the debt, if you say “much of the debt is owed to Pozzo” I would say that is massively misleading. Pure Pozzo propaganda. Suggest you stick with “some”. When debt a year ago was uncontestably 90% external you had goons on Twitter saying it was owed to the owner because it was owed to the holding company.

Words are important.

 

Much and some mean essentially the same thing. I have not taken this language from anyone else and I am no propagandist and to suggest I am is rude. To describe 30% as much would be linguistically accurate than to describe 70% as the vast amount. Besides, it could be a greater proportion than 30% (or a lower proportion too). The details are a bit hazy but just because some people confuse the words much and most doesn’t mean that anything that I said is misleading. Much means “a great amount.” £70m is clearly a “great amount” in the scheme of a £140-200m total even though it is not the majority.

I have no idea if it is a bridging loan but Leventhal said he has been told by the club that the loans are to be repaid last.

 

I absolutely disagree. If you say much of our debt is owned to Pozzo I would say most people would say you are implying 60-80%. I think you are being dishonest.

 

For what purpose?

 

Let’s calm down a second. @LeedsOrn has always been a decent poster and has never wilfully tried to start arguments or be purposely dishonest.

That said - on the case of ‘much’ against ‘some’, I would have to agree with Jumbo. If I owe someone £5 and tell them I’m going to pay then back in instalments, if they ask how much of their £5 they will get back to begin with, and I say ‘much of it’, they would certainly expect back over half the money. I think saying that and then giving £1 back would be misleading. But we should accept that @LeedsOrn wasn’t doing so purposely IMO.

I think the question was being answered honestly and purely down to us against Burnley etc.

But I do struggle when we are compared favourably in such terms - we are both screwed financially. And I don’t really think it matters that we are slightly less screwed, it’s a false equivalence of sorts.

 

So we can thank the land prices in Watford for being able to rack up a debt £150+ million? Thats great!! Burnley's short term situation is worse than ours but if they get their debt down to £25m their medium term financial outlook will be infinitely better than ours and they wont face losing their stadium.

 

Burnley's short term situation is worse than ours but if they get their debt down to £25m their medium term financial outlook will be infinitely better than ours and they wont face losing their stadium.

 

Can’t be true - Duxbury told us they were focussed on getting the ‘best in class’ in the backroom team. No way he’s laying them off.

 

Also the Pozzo network is good at recruiting top 6 championship players who cost little or no money. Thats a huge advantage over other clubs.

 

and our medium term financial outlook is apocalyptic!!

 

Well, the stadium has to be the main asset and will surely be up for grabs as security if they need to refinance now.

And this is from their accounts to June 2021 (published last month). It sounds… sub-optimal.



Dig a bit deeper and they have similar warning signs to us. For example, the subsidiary company mentioned went to Macquarie Bank earlier this month to take out a loan against the £12.5m instalment they’re due from Newcastle for Chris Wood in Feb 2023.

 

Thank you @Burnsy for jumping in and calming things down. I do disagree with you linguistically. Much means “a significant portion of.” For me what portion constitutes much/a significant amount of is context dependent. For instance, the founder of a company who is the largest shareholder of the company and owns 10% of the company could be considered to own “much” of it because as the largest shareholder their stake is significant. At the same time if I said to my wife that my daughter didn’t eat much of her dinner I’m saying she ate very little not that she didn’t eat half. I’m a lawyer by trade and when I took the aptitude tests to attend American law school there is a logic test and in that test “much” had a fairly similar meaning to “some.” Much meant a substantial proportion and some meant any proportion above zero.

To flip things around, if you or @Jumbolina were to say that “NOT much of our debt is owed to the owner” that would surely appear misleading given that it appears to be a substantial proportion, seemingly somewhere between 20 and 55%. So I don’t see how the opposite could be dishonest or even incorrect. Looking at the post above re Burnley, the note says they will have to repay “a significant proportion” of the debt upon relegation. Given that language, even without knowing the exact percentage and whether it is over 50%, I would be content to say that they will owe “much” of the debt upon relegation. That is the way in which I was using the language here. The declaration that I am misleading, dishonest and promoting propaganda is quite offensive I must say and I am disappointed to be accused of/named such by you, Jumbo.

My point with the comparison with Burnley is that their short term outlook is far worse than ours. Our long-term outlook looks bleak, though I don’t think the ballooning debt poses an immediate threat to our competitiveness this season but more a potential threat to our long-term survival should we miss out on promotion over the next two years.

 

I think the pay day loan vs large mortgage analogy is a good albeit imperfect one. I think it’s fair to say we’re potentially ****ed financially and by no means in a good position. If you’re looking at overall debt then Burnley are better off, if you’re looking at short term prospects we're better off. Ultimately we’re both in precarious positions one way or another (how we both do next season could alter how precarious our positions are relatively speaking, if one gets promoted and one doesn’t obviously the one who doesn’t will be way more ****ed either way), and there are pros and cons to both of our positions. How you view debt is subjective to an extent. So naturally some posters will see our position as worse overall and others Burnley. I don’t think it’s necessarily right or wrong to view it either way.

 

How are you arriving at 55% as a scenario? Holding company owes £142m, £51m to Pozzo. After this we then have the new £50m loan, so even if you assume all of that was used to consolidate existing debt and zero was used to pay back Pozzo (this is an unlikely scenario imo) he still only has 35%?

 

Map of away trips next season...

 

A very northern tilted Championship next season.

 

Could be a shrewd way to get some decent loan signings.

 

I think you would say "most of it" not "much of it" if you wanted to imply over half.

As Jumbo themselves said - words are important. Especially the twistable ones.