The Dundee United Thread 22/23

[Dee Bliss]

2 hours ago, Junior_Arab said:

Not even minimal interest - completely interest free. It would have been bordering on negligent NOT to take a loan on that basis, regardless of the financial state of the club. 
 

Occasionally, just occasionally when the Dees pop up on Utd threads like they have done every few weeks since their own admin (the first one I mean) predicting financial Armageddon for United I start to get a little worried that maybe they’re right THIS time (in the same way a broken clock is right eventually). But then you see a post like the one above suggesting that this loan was a reason to worry and you remember that most of them really don’t have a clue. 

Holy phuck  The fact they took a loan for nearly £3m should be a worry

[ArabianKnight]

1 minute ago, Yenitit said:

Holy phuck  The fact they took a loan for nearly £3m should be a worry

Its really not. 

 

I'll break this down in simple terms for you.

If you have debt on which you are paying actual interest on, which you are perhaps just managing rather than paying down would you not then take the opportunity to replace that with an interest free loan you could pay off? 

[Dee Bliss]

12 minutes ago, ArabianKnight said:

Its really not. 

 

I'll break this down in simple terms for you.

If you have debt on which you are paying actual interest on, which you are perhaps just managing rather than paying down would you not then take the opportunity to replace that with an interest free loan you could pay off? 

Let’s break this down in simple terms. It’s a £3m loan because they were still losing at the very least £54 000 per week last season

 

Nope, not worrying. Certainly not for me!

[Granny Danger]

22 minutes ago, ArabianKnight said:

Hes not far wrong though afaik. 

The points about the academy and internal structures of the club are absolutely spot on. 

I know however that they are looking to bring in a few more coaches for lower age groups atm. 

Fair enough.  I don’t know enough about the academy and it’s too early to laud the changes to the club.

However.  I’m hesitant to compare these things to rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, but you get my vibe.

[locheedee]

19 minutes ago, ArabianKnight said:

Its really not. 

 

I'll break this down in simple terms for you.

If you have debt on which you are paying actual interest on, which you are perhaps just managing rather than paying down would you not then take the opportunity to replace that with an interest free loan you could pay off? 

The only problem with your answer is that that goes against the rules of the loan system. The 2.8m you've taken out is on top of any existing debt and while it might remove the need to take out any further loans (for a while given the way Utd are spending money) it is still additional debt.

"The borrowing rules state the loans can not be used to pay off existing commercial or director loans and bans most dividend payments"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58104430

 

The other bit you might want to take notice of is "in the event of any club with a loan going into administration, the unpaid money is expected to be paid back with interest."

Edited August 6, 2021 by locheedee

[Dee Bliss]

1 minute ago, locheedee said:

The only problem with your answer is that that goes against the rules of the loan system. The 2.8m you've taken out is on top of any existing debt and while it might remove the need to take out any further loans (for a while given the way Utd are spending money).

"The borrowing rules state the loans can not be used to pay off existing commercial or director loans and bans most dividend payments"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58104430

 

The other bit you might want to take notice of is "in the event of any club with a loan going into administration, the unpaid money is expected to be paid back with interest."

Telt
 

Edited August 6, 2021 by Yenitit

[ArabianKnight]

3 minutes ago, Yenitit said:

Let’s break this down in simple terms. It’s a £3m loan because they were still losing at the very least £54 000 per week last season

 

Nope, not worrying. Certainly not for me!

The point still stands though. Even if the club is losing that much money, the repayment terms of the loan means its the easy choice to make. Take the loan and cover your losses and not have to pay interest on it. 

Its an absolute no brainer. 

3 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Fair enough.  I don’t know enough about the academy and it’s too early to laud the changes to the club.

However.  I’m hesitant to compare these things to rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, but you get my vibe.

The structural changes will definitely bode well for the future in terms of attracting and retaining young talent along with meeting elite criteria for tue academy. 

[ArabianKnight]

6 minutes ago, locheedee said:

The only problem with your answer is that that goes against the rules of the loan system. The 2.8m you've taken out is on top of any existing debt and while it might remove the need to take out any further loans (for a while given the way Utd are spending money) it is still additional debt.

"The borrowing rules state the loans can not be used to pay off existing commercial or director loans and bans most dividend payments"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58104430

 

The other bit you might want to take notice of is "in the event of any club with a loan going into administration, the unpaid money is expected to be paid back with interest."

See my second point then. If you dont explicitly use the money from the loan and use other sources of income it still has the desired effect. 

 

" telt"

[locheedee]

2 minutes ago, ArabianKnight said:

See my second point then. If you dont explicitly use the money from the loan and use other sources of income it still has the desired effect. 

 

" telt"

The bit you seem to be glossing over is that on top of the 7m+ debts you already have to Ogren and others you now have an additional 2.8m debt to repay too

While that may be interest free it still needs repaid each month for the next 21 years. Given your club can't manage to make ends meet as it is, surely any additional repayments will only make things worse?

Someone overspending on their wages each month might be ecstatic at the idea of a short term fix of an interest free loan to pay the mortgage and electricity bill, but if they keep spunking their wages on shite and don't address the problem, all that interest free loan will do is hasten the arrival of the bailiffs to take the wide-screen TV off the wall and evict them out onto the street.

 

[Dee Bliss]

17 minutes ago, ArabianKnight said:

The point still stands though. Even if the club is losing that much money, the repayment terms of the loan means its the easy choice to make. Take the loan and cover your losses and not have to pay interest on it. 

Its an absolute no brainer. 

The structural changes will definitely bode well for the future in terms of attracting and retaining young talent along with meeting elite criteria for tue academy. 

[RossBFaeDundee]

Admin Friday again already, is it? Can't wait for the next one!

[Granny Danger]

28 minutes ago, locheedee said:

The only problem with your answer is that that goes against the rules of the loan system. The 2.8m you've taken out is on top of any existing debt and while it might remove the need to take out any further loans (for a while given the way Utd are spending money) it is still additional debt.

"The borrowing rules state the loans can not be used to pay off existing commercial or director loans and bans most dividend payments"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58104430

 

The other bit you might want to take notice of is "in the event of any club with a loan going into administration, the unpaid money is expected to be paid back with interest."

That last paragraph is a belter.  Whilst well intentioned it is hilarious in its naivety.  All that means is that the SG would get 20p or whatever in the £ with maybe another 2p in the £ in interest.

[2426255]

I'm liking the look of your new boss Tam Courts, speaks very well. 

[locheedee]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

That last paragraph is a belter.  Whilst well intentioned it is hilarious in its naivety.  All that means is that the SG would get 20p or whatever in the £ with maybe another 2p in the £ in interest.

That is the wording from the article.

I would question how practical it would be to try and retrieve 2.8m from an insolvent club or company but I would hope the Govt and its legal advisors have made sure securities are written into any loan contract to ensure they wouldn't merely be a creditor like any other in an administration case.

[Dee Man]

4 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

I'm liking the look of your new boss Tam Courts, speaks very well. 

Hiya Mrs Courts, hiya pal!

[2426255]

 yous lot are bein too harsh on my wee husband Tommy so he asked me to have a word. Can you no just give him a chance?

[Dundee Hibernian]

I'm glad to have these contributions concerning our finances from our near neighbours, as I'm no expert on the money world, and don't know much about US tax regulations and loopholes to understand Mark Ogren's involvement at Tannadice.

If only these same neighbours had been so presciently alert in 2003 and 2010.

[2426255]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58103699 Read this if you want to know the real Tam Courts

[Dundee Hibernian]

17 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58103699 Read this if you want to know the real Tam Courts

I did earlier: it's not entirely accurate (but it is, of course, the BBC) in that the writer implies he made a sacrifice "spending time away from home at West Ham, Sheffield United and NAC Breda in the Netherlands."

Or perhaps you could argue it is, as he maybe went for interviews there. But then the article mentions "stints in England and the Netherlands"..............

Edited August 6, 2021 by Dundee Hibernian

[Granny Danger]

23 minutes ago, locheedee said:

That is the wording from the article.

I would question how practical it would be to try and retrieve 2.8m from an insolvent club or company but I would hope the Govt and its legal advisors have made sure securities are written into any loan contract to ensure they wouldn't merely be a creditor like any other in an administration case.

I have no doubt that the wording is genuine.

Not sure if any such loan would be secured and where said security would rank in relation to other secured debt.  I get the feeling it will be unsecured and as such would have no greater ranking than any other unsecured debt.  IIRC even the government* are no longer preferred creditors in the event of administration/liquidation.  I was only partly joking before; I think the only benefit would be that the SG would get a marginally bigger share due to the interest being added to the principal.

*ETA by that I mean the Revenue.

Edited August 6, 2021 by Granny Danger