I’m not quite clear what he means by that - that £8m can he used to offset the FFP loss but the other £13.5m doesn’t? - but as for covering previous years:
5.4 Any amounts claimed to be included within Contributions from Equity Participants and / or Related Party(ies) must have been invested during the relevant Reporting Period or by 1 December immediately following the end of that relevant Reporting Period.
The actual "transaction" could have been before the 1st?
I am not really sure how ffp actually works in terms of rolling 3 years but didn't we sell Lookman 3 years ago next month? I know it can't be a rolling 36 month figure, as the information isn't avaliable, but could be a consideration?
When Roland sold STTV to the Japanese (which as has already been said was just the club, not the ground) he did so in 2 parts some months apart. Presumably the Buyers needed time to liquidate some assets before completing the purchase.
IF we have a similar situation here, would the business of the shares issue facilitate such a scenario? (Genuine question - I know nothing about business finance)
The last published accounts show debts of £71m which were not due to be repaid within one year. This event could merely be Roland capitalising some of the debt, ahead of sale into shares. When the change of control happens a form PSC02 will need to be filed to show who is the new controller of the shares (currently the confirmation statement identifies Roland D as the ultimate controller even though the shares are held by Baton 10 Limited which in turn is owned by ..... Staprix which is in turn s controlled by RD) The reasons for capitalising the debt may be many such as the loss made int he current year against . However, East Street Inestments is still only showing one director and issued capital of £1. All of this will change when the EFL stop mucking around and pull their finger out.
This looks right to me. Although the shares are issued for cash only, a controlling director can surely convert his own loan to equity at any point - he's not a third party creditor that would cause a change of share ownership. I'm not an accountant, so apologies if I have this wrong.
That wouldn't change the price of the club, just the structure of the balance sheet. I don't think it changes stamp duty either, as that would be payable on the total price, including the value of the land?
This would potentially give the football company headroom on FFP rules under Rule 4.2.2, settlement of liabilities by a Related Party. These would be treated under the allowable equity contribution rules and then have to be less than the rules allow and transferred 'at fair value'.
2.2.1 capital contributions being a contribution by a Related Party that is an unconditional gift made to the Championship Club by a Related Party which increases the Championship Club’s equity without any obligation for repayment or to do anything in consideration for receiving them. This is an increase in equity and typically, such amounts are recorded in a separate reserve, often known as the ‘capital reserve’. For example, a permanent and unconditional waiver of inter-company or Related Party debt must be treated as a capital contribution, as it results in an increase in equity;
As far as I know, any historical losses have been funded only by loans from RD and are currently running under the FFP rules rate of investment? The three year rule still seems to apply for any 'member club', i.e. on a rolling average over the last three years, regardless that we are a promoted club, in which case GBP 21m should be within those limits.
As stated by many on there, the only person that can put equity in right now is RD and he wouldn't put that money at risk ('unconditional gift ... which increases equity') unless he was certain he was about to back it straight out to a new owner ....
There are people who are accountants on here (though I do work in the private equity industry) and understand the EFL rules in more detail, so apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick on this and happy to be corrected ....
Grateful to the people with more knowledge than me of this stuff for their posts on this subject - this seems a feasible explanation although as it doesn’t involve RD doing anything in the real world and he still owns the club I am not sure there is any risk to him entailed. If he has an agreed sale price for Baton that reflects the Staprix loan and wipes the debt it presumably won’t really matter to him whether it is equity or debt at the point of sale.
If the sale then collapsed it isn’t as if he has committed any new funds and he is still in control of the price at which he offers Baton for sale.
True - it doesn't stop him taking the money out again. I'm still not totally sure what I outlined really helps in terms of FFP rules, but I can't help thinking it has something to do with completion.
I don’t think you can retrospectively improve your FFP position by converting loans from previous years, so perhaps it doesn’t work as an idea. Maybe it’s a mechanism to show proof of funds as has also been suggested. I think it’s clear the EFL have had doubts.
Your getting hot - your about where DA9 was yesterday
Reliance on a balance sheet for proof of funds is very intangiable and is only a snapshot of a business at a given point in time. A statement of funds by the purchasers banker is again as at a certain date. Placing the funds in a solicitors Client's account to be held in escrow might do the trick.
Cling to the hope that Nimer, as successful as he is, and who is trusted with other's fortunes, has done his homework and wouldn't have started this unless he was sure it was all above board and achievable. Add to that MS, who should know EFL inside out, even though it would have been from an agents perspective in the past?
I suspect their doubts have more to do with the complexity of financial structure of the takeover (or RD’s ownership) than the net worth of the buyers? Perhaps the debt conversion is a solution to try to cut through the current issues, whatever they are.
Comments
I am not really sure how ffp actually works in terms of rolling 3 years but didn't we sell Lookman 3 years ago next month? I know it can't be a rolling 36 month figure, as the information isn't avaliable, but could be a consideration?
IF we have a similar situation here, would the business of the shares issue facilitate such a scenario?
(Genuine question - I know nothing about business finance)
Everybody swears they have seen it, know someone that has seen it or seen a photo of it. Yet there is no physical evidence that exists.
Fishing with his mate Bowyer 🎣👍🏻