Why do people give justification of our owner?

dawsonsjs

First Team
Daniels....your position is both a non sequitur and illogical. Just because TH owns the club doesn't mean to say that he has to put anything into it beyond what is required to meet legal obligations ...in fact he has now put more into it than it is worth (based on the Shef Utd v Prince case heard recently in the High Court in which the Judge commented on the Expert Witness valuations of a Championship club I would not place the open market value of PNE any higher than the £32 to £40m range|). Secondly his wealth is very unlikely to be disposable wealth. There is zero obligation to subsidise our entertainment to the extent he does. Ticket prices would need to be in the £60 to £70 a match range for the club to break even, assuming the same level of attendance. However as the owner TH cannot legally walk away,. He has a legal obligation to manage the club solvently. Fans can walk away any time they feel like it. Many of those fans are also home owners..and if you are going to refer to wealth you need to include this..in the same way you have referred to TH wealth. Disposable income and wealth are different matters and you cannot mix the two. Jakeshake is correct in what he says.

Bayside your figs are old...seemingly many based on 2018/9 side, even refer to likes of Ipswich in the Champ. The issuing of shares is not a means of getting around FFP..if it was every club falling foul of FFP across Europe would do it. FFP is based on money injected into a club no matter the source, whether it comes from selling the ground (at an inflated price) or a capital injection from shares (that only dilute the shareholding). Doing it the latter way does stop the debt spiralling though.

Whilst FFP has been relaxed allowing owners to inject more during Covid to cover losses (not to spend in the transfer market) it has always been the case that the total input of £13m a season can be exceeded if the money is spent on specified exceptions, an Academy and womens' football being two examples.

I'm still waiting for an answer from TH critics as to
a) what they would have him do given what he already puts in and FFP rules and penalties
b) what difference (and why) it would make any difference to prospects going to the limit in view of the spending power/turnover of over half the clubs in the Championship?

Whilst the odds are so financially stacked against a club PNE's size the name of the game is staying in the Champ and enjoying it. The notion that money received from incoming transfers (£10m for Hugill) should have been 'invested ' in players is bonkers on two accounts. Firstly transfer money is not paid in lump instalments but over a period (the amortisation of a player value to which someone refers) , secondly, it is quite apparent (or should be) that in PNE's case the money has been needed to pay wages, NI and pension contributions..in other words to keep going.

Perhaps surprisingly I am not a TH fan but for other reasons than the fact he keeps the club going..that I very much appreciate.
 

HunterLionheart

Forum Patron
Patron
Why do people seem to use transfer installments as an argument? Like we receive fees in installments but couldn't possibly work out how to structure payments out in the same way? Or even to balance the payment with the future incomings?
 

California_PNE

Forum Patron
Patron
Daniels....your position is both a non sequitur and illogical. Just because TH owns the club doesn't mean to say that he has to put anything into it beyond what is required to meet legal obligations ...in fact he has now put more into it than it is worth (based on the Shef Utd v Prince case heard recently in the High Court in which the Judge commented on the Expert Witness valuations of a Championship club I would not place the open market value of PNE any higher than the £32 to £40m range|). Secondly his wealth is very unlikely to be disposable wealth. There is zero obligation to subsidise our entertainment to the extent he does. Ticket prices would need to be in the £60 to £70 a match range for the club to break even, assuming the same level of attendance. However as the owner TH cannot legally walk away,. He has a legal obligation to manage the club solvently. Fans can walk away any time they feel like it. Many of those fans are also home owners..and if you are going to refer to wealth you need to include this..in the same way you have referred to TH wealth. Disposable income and wealth are different matters and you cannot mix the two. Jakeshake is correct in what he says.

Bayside your figs are old...seemingly many based on 2018/9 side, even refer to likes of Ipswich in the Champ. The issuing of shares is not a means of getting around FFP..if it was every club falling foul of FFP across Europe would do it. FFP is based on money injected into a club no matter the source, whether it comes from selling the ground (at an inflated price) or a capital injection from shares (that only dilute the shareholding). Doing it the latter way does stop the debt spiralling though.

Whilst FFP has been relaxed allowing owners to inject more during Covid to cover losses (not to spend in the transfer market) it has always been the case that the total input of £13m a season can be exceeded if the money is spent on specified exceptions, an Academy and womens' football being two examples.

I'm still waiting for an answer from TH critics as to
a) what they would have him do given what he already puts in and FFP rules and penalties
b) what difference (and why) it would make any difference to prospects going to the limit in view of the spending power/turnover of over half the clubs in the Championship?

Whilst the odds are so financially stacked against a club PNE's size the name of the game is staying in the Champ and enjoying it. The notion that money received from incoming transfers (£10m for Hugill) should have been 'invested ' in players is bonkers on two accounts. Firstly transfer money is not paid in lump instalments but over a period (the amortisation of a player value to which someone refers) , secondly, it is quite apparent (or should be) that in PNE's case the money has been needed to pay wages, NI and pension contributions..in other words to keep going.

Perhaps surprisingly I am not a TH fan but for other reasons than the fact he keeps the club going..that I very much appreciate.
@baysidepne cites sources, you just type, think I know who's telling porkies.
 

baysidepne

Living the dream
Patron
Bayside your figs are old...seemingly many based on 2018/9 side, even refer to likes of Ipswich in the Champ.
Ipswich are there because they've only reported their accounts up to the end of 2018/19 season, at which point they were a Championship club.

There's a number of accounts within that graph that highlight (2020), which would be the most recent accountancy period available for the majority of clubs if they've submitted their accounts in full and on-time (but given Sunak has given them an extra three months, a number of these are rather late).
The issuing of shares is not a means of getting around FFP..if it was every club falling foul of FFP across Europe would do it. FFP is based on money injected into a club no matter the source, whether it comes from selling the ground (at an inflated price) or a capital injection from shares (that only dilute the shareholding). Doing it the latter way does stop the debt spiralling though.
I need to do some better digging around FFP when I get chance as my understanding is that investing equity in this way circumnavigates FFP. Lansdowne has converted loans to shares in his recent move and given the Grovemoor loan is at £50m+ now (£50.72m) this may be a feasible option in the future should we continue to haemorrhage money. The thread I mentioned above is good reading if you've a spare hour or three!

Given we only have one shareholder, having 370,000 shares in the business might as well have the same effect as having 1, but if its providing equity to keep us afloat who are we to complain.
 

Doc Brown

Advisor to the Owner
So Peoro speaks about about lack of investment, then Lancs Live runs a story of how he pumped money in last season, we all know he keeps the club afloat, but that is in his interest to do so!!! We will never make the jump with Hemmings at the helm!!!
Why do people give justification of our owner?

PNE runs at a loss of several million each season and our owner picks up the tab.

I’d imagine that’s why people give him justification, despite his faults.
 

jakehake

Preachs PA
Staff member
Patron
Why do people seem to use transfer installments as an argument? Like we receive fees in installments but couldn't possibly work out how to structure payments out in the same way? Or even to balance the payment with the future incomings?

Pearson did cite something similar to this in the FTF podcast from memory. That people often obsess about the total transfer value which is incorrect but prudently planning your spending stream around the known instalments You are actually going to receive would have value
 

dawsonsjs

First Team
California, instead of posting ridiculous comments use your grey matter, go on the Companies House website and read the PNE accounts for the last few years. When you've done that read the FFP rules.

Bayside FFP may as well not exist and there would be no explanation for the likes of Derby and Wednesday falling foul of FFP if owners could simply inject capital through share issues.

I would refer to Appendix 5 of the EFL FFP regulations. Under 1.1,13

Secure Funding may not be a loan and shall consist of:

(a) contributions that an equity participant has made by way of payments for shares through the Club’s share capital account or share premium reserve account; or.........

The rules go on to explain as to why TH would make a share issue....a loan would not be allowed to cover the allowable loss ...but for the purpose of assessing FFP contribution it is still taken intro consideration. The idea behind this being to stop clubs accumulating debt.
 

europne

Advisor to the Owner
Anyone with obscene amounts of money who doesn’t mind losing huge sums and who doesn’t mind being told on a regular basis that he hasn’t a clue, or that he’s extremely mean and not putting enough millions in by people with about 30 quid in the bank, is quite welcome to put in a bid at any time to Hemmings.

Who in their right mind would do that....? Mainly lunatics from outside the UK.....

Until then TH is owner and chief financier and most of this thread is totally immaterial, but feel free to carry on chatting bullshit....
 

Ron Burgundy

Advisor to the Owner
California, instead of posting ridiculous comments use your grey matter, go on the Companies House website and read the PNE accounts for the last few years. When you've done that read the FFP rules.

Bayside FFP may as well not exist and there would be no explanation for the likes of Derby and Wednesday falling foul of FFP if owners could simply inject capital through share issues.

I would refer to Appendix 5 of the EFL FFP regulations. Under 1.1,13

Secure Funding may not be a loan and shall consist of:

(a) contributions that an equity participant has made by way of payments for shares through the Club’s share capital account or share premium reserve account; or.........

The rules go on to explain as to why TH would make a share issue....a loan would not be allowed to cover the allowable loss ...but for the purpose of assessing FFP contribution it is still taken intro consideration. The idea behind this being to stop clubs accumulating debt.

This would take California to actually understand accounts, which I can safely say he won't do.
 

sedgwick__7

Advisor to the Owner
You don't know that unless you work with him on a day to day basis.
You don't need to work at the club to know and understand how it is run.

Just as people don't need to work in Government and work with Boris Johnson to be able to give their view on his agenda or policies.

Daft argument to suggest you cannot give your view on the way a business (or any entity) is run unless you work there on a day to day basis.
 

Ron Burgundy

Advisor to the Owner
You don't need to work at the club to know and understand how it is run.

Just as people don't need to work in Government and work with Boris Johnson to be able to give their view on his agenda or policies.

Daft argument to suggest you cannot give your view on the way a business (or any entity) is run unless you work there on a day to day basis.

Not really, if you're not there you can't really comment as your opinion is based upon assumptions not fact.

It's purely subjective to comment on and say he makes no effort.
 

sedgwick__7

Advisor to the Owner
Not really, if you're not there you can't really comment as your opinion is based upon assumptions not fact.

It's purely subjective to comment on and say he makes no effort.
The whole point of this forum is to be subjective and to give an opinion. You haven't given yours, just tried to shut mine down.

With the argument you are putting forward, nobody on this forum could give their view on a player or a manager, because they don't work with them so it could not be deemed as a fact.

And yes I will reiterate that the owner, in my opinion, does not make any effort to make the club more sustainable and grow it. Look at our recruitment policy in recent years that is now producing basically no saleable assets at all. Off the field, basically all of the club's merchandising, catering, retail is outsourced. Our season ticket policy is designed to simply keep hold of existing fans, and not to grow our support. So the club's revenues off the field are basically set in stone and cannot be improved. The club, by design, is there to simply tick over and stay afloat, both on and off the pitch. There is no long-term vision, and no action at all by the club to move towards a more sustainable model.
 

Ron Burgundy

Advisor to the Owner
The whole point of this forum is to be subjective and to give an opinion. You haven't given yours, just tried to shut mine down.

With the argument you are putting forward, nobody on this forum could give their view on a player or a manager, because they don't work with them so it could not be deemed as a fact.

And yes I will reiterate that the owner, in my opinion, does not make any effort to make the club more sustainable and grow it. Look at our recruitment policy in recent years that is now producing basically no saleable assets at all. Off the field, basically all of the club's merchandising, catering, retail is outsourced. Our season ticket policy is designed to simply keep hold of existing fans, and not to grow our support. So the club's revenues off the field are basically set in stone and cannot be improved. The club, by design, is there to simply tick over and stay afloat, both on and off the pitch. There is no long-term vision, and no action at all by the club to move towards a more sustainable model.

You were saying the owner makes no effort whatsoever to make us more sustainable, that is not a subjective opinion that is trying to state a fact about Hemmings when you have no idea what he gets up to on a day to day basis or what his plans are for the club, for all you know he might be trying to make us more sustainable yet be failing miserably.

Didn't we hire a commercial guy can't remember his role a few years ago to bring in sponsorship and a more professional and commercial aspect to the business? That could be seen as trying to make us more sustainable.

Also outsourcing whether you agree with it or not could make the club more sustainable as it cuts costs whilst keeping revenue normal.

Maybe next time put "in your opinion".
 

HunterLionheart

Forum Patron
Patron
You were saying the owner makes no effort whatsoever to make us more sustainable, that is not a subjective opinion that is trying to state a fact about Hemmings when you have no idea what he gets up to on a day to day basis or what his plans are for the club, for all you know he might be trying to make us more sustainable yet be failing miserably.

Didn't we hire a commercial guy can't remember his role a few years ago to bring in sponsorship and a more professional and commercial aspect to the business? That could be seen as trying to make us more sustainable.

Also outsourcing whether you agree with it or not could make the club more sustainable as it cuts costs whilst keeping revenue normal.

Maybe next time put "in your opinion".

Everything we post is opinion, calm your tits.
 

baysidepne

Living the dream
Patron
Didn't we hire a commercial guy can't remember his role a few years ago to bring in sponsorship and a more professional and commercial aspect to the business? That could be seen as trying to make us more sustainable.
No longer with the club.

Lowest turnover in the Championship. Being the "biggest building in Preston" does not drive turnover/revenue unless the club works in a commercial manner to drive those numbers.
 

pnewortham

Forum Patron
Patron
No longer with the club.

Lowest turnover in the Championship. Being the "biggest building in Preston" does not drive turnover/revenue unless the club works in a commercial manner to drive those numbers.
Stephen Hobin, now head of commercial ops at Cheltenham Town.
 

Madferret

Manager
And thats why so many of the fans aren’t happy with Hemmings being here, we will achieve nothing whilst he is here, we may achieve less with him not here but that is still something I would still like to see. Last season was another backwards step, we are not even going in the right direction. The paying fans are wasting their money.
So you’d like to us Doing worse provided Hemings is not here. Get a grip numbnuts.
 
Top