I watched some of the Commons Select Committee questioning Masters, the MP's seemed to be pretty clueless, there's a lot more football savvy people on this forum that would have interrogated Masters and blown his cover.The APT case has confirmed what the Commons Select Committee told Masters last year:”That he doesn’t know what he is doing.” How long is this farce going to continue?
Yep, business rate loans for high risk would be well in excess of a BOE base rate of 5%.That's exactly right, re Portsmouth. As to the rate on loans, if a football club is effectivey bankrupt, but for having had loans, it has little in the way of creditworthiness. So, to say that the rate on a £200M loan might be 5% p.a. is pure guesswork. The funder - a bank or whatever institution - would charge a high rate of return, or would never give the loan, because of the risk of a default.
A club might think it has £300/400M of players and a ground to sell, but if it comes to a fire-sale, that valuation comes tumbling down. So, if you are guessing the likely rate of return on a big loan to a borderline-bankrupt club, I submit you have to pitch in a figure much higher than the present bank base rate of 5%.
"Mates rates" can't be applied. In the Premier League, most of the teams appear stable enough, but they still wouldn't get a cheap rate of loan - and 5% is the base rate. How stable would they appear but for the interest free shareholder loans?
I assume you're talking about the rags where you quote "mid-table football club"?Plus, there's no way a football club could borrow at 5%, because they just don't offer a sufficiently secure investment.
Take the CFG as an example. This is arguably the most secure investment in the game. It is headed up by one of the world's leading clubs, has diverse global investments, is profitable at MCFC level and is ultimately owned by a multi-billionaire. Plus, the CFG money is used to invest in infrastructure, rather than make punts on footballing potential.
However, its borrowings bear an interest rate of LIBOR plus 3-3.5%. That's 8-8.5% overall.
I doubt an upper mid-table football club could borrow at less than 10%.
Ah hence the handling charge they put on doing the deal.Part of the deal with Scruffy was 3 years without a divi for the Glazres.
Independent regulation has failed in plenty of other sectors but something has to be done to change the current situation. The PL cant regulate the game because it is not impartial and has been corrupted by a small group of clubs. We have no choice at present. I fully understand your concerns about political interference though.I watched some of the Commons Select Committee questioning Masters, the MP's seemed to be pretty clueless, there's a lot more football savvy people on this forum that would have interrogated Masters and blown his cover.
I'm just not confident at all that an Independent Regulator will be anything other than influenced by the media and other members of the House of Parliament
Because so many clubs know they'd generate bugger all TV revenue if they weren't hanging on to the coat-tails of the rags, dippers and other clubs with huge TV followings. Though I admit that doesn't explain Newcastle's silence.Further to my earlier post about why didn't the PL seek legal advice when City said the amendments were illegal;
Why were we left to stand alone ?
I'm looking at you Newcastle in particular but other clubs also voted against the amendments.
Why wasn't there a joint action by those clubs ?
Why were we left to be the bad guys ?
It's natural to be sceptical with the way things are at the moment. In relation to an IR, it would come down to their remit coupled with what powers they would have. It would be refreshing though to have a body that acts for the benefit of the game as a whole and not the select few. The PL has tied itself in knots at the behest of the red cartel in attempting to thwart City, and only has itself to blame.I watched some of the Commons Select Committee questioning Masters, the MP's seemed to be pretty clueless, there's a lot more football savvy people on this forum that would have interrogated Masters and blown his cover.
I'm just not confident at all that an Independent Regulator will be anything other than influenced by the media and other members of the House of Parliament
They knew that excluding shareholder loans was unlawful but chose to ignore it after a club owner who has lent his club a substantial amount of money, interest free, asked them to exclude it. So they did.Further to my earlier post about why didn't the PL seek legal advice when City said the amendments were illegal;
Why were we left to stand alone ?
I'm looking at you Newcastle in particular but other clubs also voted against the amendments.
Why wasn't there a joint action by those clubs ?
Why were we left to be the bad guys ?