| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? 08:54 - Sep 6 with 12109 views | TheResurrection |
Please explain why have you have never informed the fans that the Americans had put money into the Club?
The very reason the selling shareholders gave for selling was that they couldn't get the borrowing required to keep the club afloat when cashflow would all too often squeeze us. They said the new owners had the means to step in and cover these periods to keep us going.
For years fans have moaned they've not put their own money in. The selling shareholders never said they would capitalise us. But they have indeed done what was stated.
Why have you never told anyone this? |  |
| |  |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:01 - Sep 6 with 5184 views | omarjack |
I'l tell you why, Because they didn't.
They paid for the shares (66%) of the club of course (was it 69 m ?) But since then they haven't put an American cent into the club. [Post edited 6 Sep 2018 9:02]
|  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:04 - Sep 6 with 5166 views | TheResurrection |
It's been clear to see the Trust have been in some self imposed posting ban the last few weeks and now this forum is out of the way they all appeared last night, as if to take some kind of glory.
But can the Trust respond to the OP and not some kind of deranged weirdo that doesn't know what day of the week it is. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:15 - Sep 6 with 5119 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
Jason can help answer your question, from the interview with the JL and SK.
JL: If we did not have that money back then it would equity. We would be putting equity in, we have not done that. If we put equity in then there would be no requirement for it to come back to us. Up to now, we have said that they are advances to the club that banks will not give us, and we are ready to step in and do that.
They lend the club money in the short term, but they would not disclose the interest, fees or charges associated with that.
They have not put any equity in, no money "put into the club" only lent to help cashflow at a cost. |  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:21 - Sep 6 with 5101 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:15 - Sep 6 by JACKMANANDBOY |
Jason can help answer your question, from the interview with the JL and SK.
JL: If we did not have that money back then it would equity. We would be putting equity in, we have not done that. If we put equity in then there would be no requirement for it to come back to us. Up to now, we have said that they are advances to the club that banks will not give us, and we are ready to step in and do that.
They lend the club money in the short term, but they would not disclose the interest, fees or charges associated with that.
They have not put any equity in, no money "put into the club" only lent to help cashflow at a cost. |
Err yes, I know, we all should know, but that's the whole point mate.
They always said this is what they'd do and to be able to keep the club afloat where the old shareholders struggled.
For some reason the Trust have always failed to disclose this information.
And it seems pretty scandalous but let's hear what they've got to say (after they frantically take to their whatsapp group or other form of messaging - could be a while then I guess, even though they've all been on here this morning) | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:24 - Sep 6 with 5089 views | omarjack |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:21 - Sep 6 by TheResurrection |
Err yes, I know, we all should know, but that's the whole point mate.
They always said this is what they'd do and to be able to keep the club afloat where the old shareholders struggled.
For some reason the Trust have always failed to disclose this information.
And it seems pretty scandalous but let's hear what they've got to say (after they frantically take to their whatsapp group or other form of messaging - could be a while then I guess, even though they've all been on here this morning) |
Unfortunately, They've all been here but failed to respond because they don't have the answers.
They're not strong enough to challenge the majority owners. It's even clear to you. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:26 - Sep 6 with 5085 views | MoscowJack |
I think you'll find that the previous board didn't have problems borrowing money while in the PL but repaying it if/when we got relegated.
They were finding cashflow issues tough to resolve, always having to borrow on future revenue, so believed the Yanks would improve on this.
Now the banks don't want to lend us money (as the Yanks presumably won't give guarantees) and we're in exactly the same position as we were a few years ago.
It's the fault of the old board for selling to the Yanks and the Yanks fault for promising that they had the "financial resources" to take us to a new level.
We're in almost exactly the same position now as we would have been had the old board not sold, but the main difference is I don't believe we would have got ourselves so much in the financial cr@p trying to stay up (believing the Yanks would bail us out if we went down) and therefore would have been able to provide a slightly deeper squad this season.
Finally, they haven't 'put money in' as such - it's a bridging loan until the first payments to the club are made, so they get it back almost immediately. It's different from saying that they were going to cover, for example, £20m of losses this season to ensure that Potter had the best possible chance of getting us back first attempt. It's a short term loan and with guaranteed repayment....it's not 'investment'. |  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:29 - Sep 6 with 5063 views | omarjack |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:26 - Sep 6 by MoscowJack |
I think you'll find that the previous board didn't have problems borrowing money while in the PL but repaying it if/when we got relegated.
They were finding cashflow issues tough to resolve, always having to borrow on future revenue, so believed the Yanks would improve on this.
Now the banks don't want to lend us money (as the Yanks presumably won't give guarantees) and we're in exactly the same position as we were a few years ago.
It's the fault of the old board for selling to the Yanks and the Yanks fault for promising that they had the "financial resources" to take us to a new level.
We're in almost exactly the same position now as we would have been had the old board not sold, but the main difference is I don't believe we would have got ourselves so much in the financial cr@p trying to stay up (believing the Yanks would bail us out if we went down) and therefore would have been able to provide a slightly deeper squad this season.
Finally, they haven't 'put money in' as such - it's a bridging loan until the first payments to the club are made, so they get it back almost immediately. It's different from saying that they were going to cover, for example, £20m of losses this season to ensure that Potter had the best possible chance of getting us back first attempt. It's a short term loan and with guaranteed repayment....it's not 'investment'. |
As I said, they haven't invested a penny into the club, other than the takeover of course.
They sometimes help with cash flow problems waiting for other payments (TV/league money, season tickets, commercial, transfer fees paid in full etc)..but they always get their money back in few months. That means nothing, all owners and businessmen do it. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:32 - Sep 6 with 5053 views | 3swan |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:26 - Sep 6 by MoscowJack |
I think you'll find that the previous board didn't have problems borrowing money while in the PL but repaying it if/when we got relegated.
They were finding cashflow issues tough to resolve, always having to borrow on future revenue, so believed the Yanks would improve on this.
Now the banks don't want to lend us money (as the Yanks presumably won't give guarantees) and we're in exactly the same position as we were a few years ago.
It's the fault of the old board for selling to the Yanks and the Yanks fault for promising that they had the "financial resources" to take us to a new level.
We're in almost exactly the same position now as we would have been had the old board not sold, but the main difference is I don't believe we would have got ourselves so much in the financial cr@p trying to stay up (believing the Yanks would bail us out if we went down) and therefore would have been able to provide a slightly deeper squad this season.
Finally, they haven't 'put money in' as such - it's a bridging loan until the first payments to the club are made, so they get it back almost immediately. It's different from saying that they were going to cover, for example, £20m of losses this season to ensure that Potter had the best possible chance of getting us back first attempt. It's a short term loan and with guaranteed repayment....it's not 'investment'. |
"Now the banks don't want to lend us money (as the Yanks presumably won't give guarantees) and we're in exactly the same position as we were a few years ago. "
Nick i very closely agree with your last couple of posts, I would want a bit of clarity on the above (not from you).
Banks will give money on the right terms to them, and is as you say it would be down to no guarantee being given. If that being the case haven't the owners taken an easier option by loaning the money at an interest rate agreeable to them knowing that they are in a position to get it back whatever happens. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:32 - Sep 6 with 5052 views | Uxbridge |
What a strange thread.
The Americans haven't put money into the club. They lent the club money in very specific circumstances against totally guaranteed (by the PL) future income from past sales (i.e. accelerated payments), which is a massively different thing.
The idea that this has somehow kept the club afloat is laughable. The idea that the Trust should be the press officers for the Americans is hilarious. I won't even get into the discussion around commercially sensitive info.
If this is the stick you're going to use to beat the Trust with, then I think I'll bow out of this. Iesu mawr. |  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:34 - Sep 6 with 5035 views | 3swan |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:32 - Sep 6 by Uxbridge |
What a strange thread.
The Americans haven't put money into the club. They lent the club money in very specific circumstances against totally guaranteed (by the PL) future income from past sales (i.e. accelerated payments), which is a massively different thing.
The idea that this has somehow kept the club afloat is laughable. The idea that the Trust should be the press officers for the Americans is hilarious. I won't even get into the discussion around commercially sensitive info.
If this is the stick you're going to use to beat the Trust with, then I think I'll bow out of this. Iesu mawr. |
Looks like you've answered my question in the post above. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:36 - Sep 6 with 5022 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:34 - Sep 6 by 3swan |
Looks like you've answered my question in the post above. |
Think so. Worth noting we don't believe any impropriety and that loans were at the same rate as other lenders. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:39 - Sep 6 with 4999 views | 3swan |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:36 - Sep 6 by Uxbridge |
Think so. Worth noting we don't believe any impropriety and that loans were at the same rate as other lenders. |
So to put my question and opinion very simply.
The owners, as is their right, decided to loan money to the club at the going rate, instead of getting it from a financial institute.
As you say nothing wrong. they get the interest value and not a bank etc. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:42 - Sep 6 with 4983 views | Jack11 |
In answer to the OP, sure because it goes without saying! Owners lend money to solvent going concern and receive it back with interest shocker. Talk about scraping the barrel. You also miss another crucial point as per usual. The previous owners had the financial capability to do exactly what the yanks are doing. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. The only difference this time is that between the lot of them they’ve managed to relegate us. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:43 - Sep 6 with 4977 views | majorraglan |
If you are directing questions to the Trust why not do it on their Forum or attend a Trust meeting? This is from what I can see a site owned by the Chair of the Trust, it’s a public message board and not an official Trust site. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:46 - Sep 6 with 4955 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:26 - Sep 6 by MoscowJack |
I think you'll find that the previous board didn't have problems borrowing money while in the PL but repaying it if/when we got relegated.
They were finding cashflow issues tough to resolve, always having to borrow on future revenue, so believed the Yanks would improve on this.
Now the banks don't want to lend us money (as the Yanks presumably won't give guarantees) and we're in exactly the same position as we were a few years ago.
It's the fault of the old board for selling to the Yanks and the Yanks fault for promising that they had the "financial resources" to take us to a new level.
We're in almost exactly the same position now as we would have been had the old board not sold, but the main difference is I don't believe we would have got ourselves so much in the financial cr@p trying to stay up (believing the Yanks would bail us out if we went down) and therefore would have been able to provide a slightly deeper squad this season.
Finally, they haven't 'put money in' as such - it's a bridging loan until the first payments to the club are made, so they get it back almost immediately. It's different from saying that they were going to cover, for example, £20m of losses this season to ensure that Potter had the best possible chance of getting us back first attempt. It's a short term loan and with guaranteed repayment....it's not 'investment'. |
That's not what was promised though Nick, covering short term cashflow issues was.
Nowhere was it said if we went down they'd have the resources to bail us out.
Why have the Trust not said anything about this vital piece of information? | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:48 - Sep 6 with 4944 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:32 - Sep 6 by 3swan |
"Now the banks don't want to lend us money (as the Yanks presumably won't give guarantees) and we're in exactly the same position as we were a few years ago. "
Nick i very closely agree with your last couple of posts, I would want a bit of clarity on the above (not from you).
Banks will give money on the right terms to them, and is as you say it would be down to no guarantee being given. If that being the case haven't the owners taken an easier option by loaning the money at an interest rate agreeable to them knowing that they are in a position to get it back whatever happens. |
The bank has already loaned us money last week so not sure what's meant by them not dealing with us. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:48 - Sep 6 with 4935 views | MoscowJack |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:29 - Sep 6 by omarjack |
As I said, they haven't invested a penny into the club, other than the takeover of course.
They sometimes help with cash flow problems waiting for other payments (TV/league money, season tickets, commercial, transfer fees paid in full etc)..but they always get their money back in few months. That means nothing, all owners and businessmen do it. |
OJ,
I don't mean to be picky but....they didn't invest in the club during the takeover. None of their £60m went into the club, it all went to the old board. Not one cent or penny went into the club so, to date, they haven't invested additional money into the club. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:52 - Sep 6 with 4908 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:32 - Sep 6 by Uxbridge |
What a strange thread.
The Americans haven't put money into the club. They lent the club money in very specific circumstances against totally guaranteed (by the PL) future income from past sales (i.e. accelerated payments), which is a massively different thing.
The idea that this has somehow kept the club afloat is laughable. The idea that the Trust should be the press officers for the Americans is hilarious. I won't even get into the discussion around commercially sensitive info.
If this is the stick you're going to use to beat the Trust with, then I think I'll bow out of this. Iesu mawr. |
Haha, I could find a thousand posts where what you've just said is a pile of bollocks.
We've just gone to Barclay's, yeah, and borrowed on the central payments. This happens every year.
But we've clearly been in positions where we haven't gone, or haven't been able to go to the banks, and that's when they've stepped in to cover cashflow issues.
This is what was explained to us by the selling shareholders, that they'd have the means to be able to step in and cover these periods. Nowhere was it mentioned they'd pump millions into the Club to recapitalise us.
Why have you not said? | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:53 - Sep 6 with 4897 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:21 - Sep 6 by TheResurrection |
Err yes, I know, we all should know, but that's the whole point mate.
They always said this is what they'd do and to be able to keep the club afloat where the old shareholders struggled.
For some reason the Trust have always failed to disclose this information.
And it seems pretty scandalous but let's hear what they've got to say (after they frantically take to their whatsapp group or other form of messaging - could be a while then I guess, even though they've all been on here this morning) |
I suppose I've known this from day one, HJ has been clear that the American's lend the club short term money, so its public knowledge I guess. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:54 - Sep 6 with 4887 views | omarjack |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:48 - Sep 6 by MoscowJack |
OJ,
I don't mean to be picky but....they didn't invest in the club during the takeover. None of their £60m went into the club, it all went to the old board. Not one cent or penny went into the club so, to date, they haven't invested additional money into the club. |
Certainly. I'm with you 100%
I meant that there are the only funds they allowed out of their hedge funds to be invested into purchasing the shares to take over the majority stake of the club.
It's clear to anyone (who isn't the Resurrection and E20Jack) that they haven't invested any money INTO the club. I apologise if I rephrased my previous sentence poorly. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:57 - Sep 6 with 4873 views | 3swan |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:52 - Sep 6 by TheResurrection |
Haha, I could find a thousand posts where what you've just said is a pile of bollocks.
We've just gone to Barclay's, yeah, and borrowed on the central payments. This happens every year.
But we've clearly been in positions where we haven't gone, or haven't been able to go to the banks, and that's when they've stepped in to cover cashflow issues.
This is what was explained to us by the selling shareholders, that they'd have the means to be able to step in and cover these periods. Nowhere was it mentioned they'd pump millions into the Club to recapitalise us.
Why have you not said? |
Chris I understand your point but isn't this what MM has done in the past?
There was no big announcement then by the Trust so why now?
In the perfect world we would know a large amount of detail of what goes on at the club, but we all know (my opinion) that lines have been drawn, and there is now lack of recognition on both sides.
I've posted recently in other threads that as it stands I will side with the Trust but not in blind faith. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:59 - Sep 6 with 4866 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:52 - Sep 6 by TheResurrection |
Haha, I could find a thousand posts where what you've just said is a pile of bollocks.
We've just gone to Barclay's, yeah, and borrowed on the central payments. This happens every year.
But we've clearly been in positions where we haven't gone, or haven't been able to go to the banks, and that's when they've stepped in to cover cashflow issues.
This is what was explained to us by the selling shareholders, that they'd have the means to be able to step in and cover these periods. Nowhere was it mentioned they'd pump millions into the Club to recapitalise us.
Why have you not said? |
The club has gone to various other financial sources too.
I find this a very strange argument I'm afraid, and if you want to use this is a scenario to justify the words of the selling shareholders then you crack on. I suspect many will see through that. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 10:07 - Sep 6 with 4824 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:57 - Sep 6 by 3swan |
Chris I understand your point but isn't this what MM has done in the past?
There was no big announcement then by the Trust so why now?
In the perfect world we would know a large amount of detail of what goes on at the club, but we all know (my opinion) that lines have been drawn, and there is now lack of recognition on both sides.
I've posted recently in other threads that as it stands I will side with the Trust but not in blind faith. |
Yes he has, but it was something they stated they could not continue doing and that's why they needed new owners with the more ready means to be able to do so. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 10:10 - Sep 6 with 4807 views | FerrisBuellerJB |
While we’re at it Res ask your lord and master Jenkins why he refused the Chinese interest in purchasing the club. |  | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 10:10 - Sep 6 with 4804 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:59 - Sep 6 by Uxbridge |
The club has gone to various other financial sources too.
I find this a very strange argument I'm afraid, and if you want to use this is a scenario to justify the words of the selling shareholders then you crack on. I suspect many will see through that. |
I will find the exact words that they repeatedly stated when selling and we'll all see.
The Trust has deliberately misled its fans when witch hunts started forming when they have had copious amounts of opportunity to put posters correct.
It's shameful in the extreme.
Once again you're caught with your pants down. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
