|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jun 2, 2019 11:17:07 GMT
Benji's point is that for some reason he seems to think that Bet365s money is actully OUR (SCFC's) money that should be spent on the club and players.
He doesn't seem to be at all aware that the club and Bet365 are 2 entirely separate companies.
No idea about their money being our money but this from our website. Banji would appear to be right? www.stokecityfc.com/club/club-directorySpot on there is no obligation. But absolutely it’s a choice . Our demise over the last 4 years is because of poor choices especially by those entrusted and hugely rewarded by the brilliant owners to get more right than wrong
|
|
|
Post by sd22 on Jun 2, 2019 11:21:39 GMT
Benji's point is that for some reason he seems to think that Bet365s money is actully OUR (SCFC's) money that should be spent on the club and players.
He doesn't seem to be at all aware that the club and Bet365 are 2 entirely separate companies.
No idea about their money being our money but this from our website. Banji would appear to be right? www.stokecityfc.com/club/club-directoryBenji is correct, however subsidiary companies and parent companies are completely separate entities. The cash is completely different, all have separate financial accounts(however these are consolidated in the group accounts) parents and subs can trade, give out loans etc. But their assets and liabilities are completely separate. Therefore Bet365’s cash is not necessarily Stoke City’s cash.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 2, 2019 11:23:52 GMT
Benji is correct, however subsidiary companies and parent companies are completely separate entities. The cash is completely different, all have separate financial accounts(however these are consolidated in the group accounts) parents and subs can trade, give out loans etc. But their assets and liabilities are completely separate. Therefore Bet365’s cash is not necessarily Stoke City’s cash. I have no idea how any of this works so that’s excellent thank you. I wonder if the ground and club are in two separate entities still?
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jun 2, 2019 11:31:40 GMT
They are seperate entities but stoke city can’t do anything without it’s parent co and parent co can do anything it likes with SCFC including sell it , close it , fund it ( within the rules of the competition ) in simple terms SCFC is In the total control of its parent co who can choose to treat it how they wish with the law clearly .
It’s not a bad thing at all , we’ve a brilliant and wealthy owning co who has shown unbelievable faith to date but it’s a matter of their choice how much or how little that continues within the bounds of their resources .
|
|
|
Post by sd22 on Jun 2, 2019 13:29:04 GMT
Benji is correct, however subsidiary companies and parent companies are completely separate entities. The cash is completely different, all have separate financial accounts(however these are consolidated in the group accounts) parents and subs can trade, give out loans etc. But their assets and liabilities are completely separate. Therefore Bet365’s cash is not necessarily Stoke City’s cash. I have no idea how any of this works so that’s excellent thank you. I wonder if the ground and club are in two separate entities still? No problem at all, my AAT qualification comes in handy at times!! Not a clue at all re the ground, possible have to do some digging on companies house. A lot of grounds are usually separated in case the club gets into debt, their largest asset cannot be repossessed, smart in someways. But if you have an owner like Smurfwaite, it’s a major hinderence!
|
|
|
Post by stokeykez on Jun 2, 2019 13:40:14 GMT
There was an article once in the radio stating that the ground was a separate entity owned by bet365, as is stoke FC. It also said that if bet365 gave 10% back to its subsidiaries in expenditure for players this would still be an astronomical amount of money. More than what is currently spent.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Jun 3, 2019 8:24:37 GMT
Benji's point is that for some reason he seems to think that Bet365s money is actully OUR (SCFC's) money that should be spent on the club and players.
He doesn't seem to be at all aware that the club and Bet365 are 2 entirely separate companies.
No idea about their money being our money but this from our website. Banji would appear to be right? www.stokecityfc.com/club/club-directory
That's the holding group though which contains several different companies...Bet365 itself being one of those companies and SCFC beig an entirely separate one
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 3, 2019 8:34:10 GMT
That's the holding group though which contains several different companies...Bet365 itself being one of those companies and SCFC beig an entirely separate one
Like I've said I have no idea how this works. But the wording suggests that there is a hierarchy?
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Jun 3, 2019 8:35:29 GMT
The company Stoke Holdings, owned by Bet 365, owns in turn the club and the stadium, two separate companies.
As for backing us financially, £48m on Wimmer, Berahino and Imbula was a decent wodge. If we'd even got £24m of value from that, we would be still in the Premier League. Don't get me wrong, I'd love Denise to splash the cash (although may be difficult due to FFP), but the parent company/family has been v supportive:
"gross debt significantly increased by £47m from £76m to £123m, all ultimately owed to the Coates family. So Stoke have no bank debt, but “friendly” debt with their owners in the form of interest-free loans with no fixed repayment term."
From this interesting thread...
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jun 3, 2019 9:26:30 GMT
The company Stoke Holdings, owned by Bet 365, owns in turn the club and the stadium, two separate companies. As for backing us financially, £48m on Wimmer, Berahino and Imbula was a decent wodge. If we'd even got £24m of value from that, we would be still in the Premier League. Don't get me wrong, I'd love Denise to splash the cash (although may be difficult due to FFP), but the parent company/family has been v supportive: "gross debt significantly increased by £47m from £76m to £123m, all ultimately owed to the Coates family. So Stoke have no bank debt, but “friendly” debt with their owners in the form of interest-free loans with no fixed repayment term." From this interesting thread... So Stoke City have received considerable financial backing.
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Jun 3, 2019 9:54:15 GMT
The company Stoke Holdings, owned by Bet 365, owns in turn the club and the stadium, two separate companies. As for backing us financially, £48m on Wimmer, Berahino and Imbula was a decent wodge. If we'd even got £24m of value from that, we would be still in the Premier League. Don't get me wrong, I'd love Denise to splash the cash (although may be difficult due to FFP), but the parent company/family has been v supportive: "gross debt significantly increased by £47m from £76m to £123m, all ultimately owed to the Coates family. So Stoke have no bank debt, but “friendly” debt with their owners in the form of interest-free loans with no fixed repayment term." From this interesting thread... So Stoke City have received considerable financial backing. I'd say so, yep. The Premier League is awash with TV cash, but in the absence of much in the way of gate receipts and non-TV commercial income, the owners topped it up whenever we needed it (and yes there was a return on this re profile etc but it won't have been equivalent to the loans' value). I guess the mid-term risk is that the undefined interest-free loans get called in somehow, but I'm not an expert on how that might happen, even were the parent company to want it. I also don't know if - for example - we were lent another £100m to finance a promotion push, whether that would contravene FFP. In fact FFP itself is a bloody mystery to me!
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jun 3, 2019 10:24:54 GMT
So Stoke City have received considerable financial backing. I'd say so, yep. The Premier League is awash with TV cash, but in the absence of much in the way of gate receipts and non-TV commercial income, the owners topped it up whenever we needed it (and yes there was a return on this re profile etc but it won't have been equivalent to the loans' value). I guess the mid-term risk is that the undefined interest-free loans get called in somehow, but I'm not an expert on how that might happen, even were the parent company to want it. I also don't know if - for example - we were lent another £100m to finance a promotion push, whether that would contravene FFP. In fact FFP itself is a bloody mystery to me! The bottom line with FFP is you're not allowed to post above a certain level of losses. Derby have recently got around this though by selling the stadium for a big profit. Something we can't do because the stadium is a seperate entity from the club.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2019 11:11:42 GMT
These foreign owners can fuck off.
We need to keep clubs in the hands on british and local owners, who have never fucked up a club ever.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jun 3, 2019 12:52:24 GMT
I'd say so, yep. The Premier League is awash with TV cash, but in the absence of much in the way of gate receipts and non-TV commercial income, the owners topped it up whenever we needed it (and yes there was a return on this re profile etc but it won't have been equivalent to the loans' value). I guess the mid-term risk is that the undefined interest-free loans get called in somehow, but I'm not an expert on how that might happen, even were the parent company to want it. I also don't know if - for example - we were lent another £100m to finance a promotion push, whether that would contravene FFP. In fact FFP itself is a bloody mystery to me! The bottom line with FFP is you're not allowed to post above a certain level of losses. Derby have recently got around this though by selling the stadium for a big profit. Something we can't do because the stadium is a seperate entity from the club. The answer to his question is reportedly net £190m on transfers so considerable backing courtesy of the owners who have allowed both reinvestment of income and additional Loans Sadly however they embarked on a sustainable strategy at the exact time the peer group was doing the opposite and the most. We did invert was used appallingly by those entrusted and paid to run the club.
|
|
|
Post by kelw on Jun 3, 2019 12:59:11 GMT
These foreign owners can fuck off. We need to keep clubs in the hands on british and local owners, who have never fucked up a club ever. Really ?
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jun 9, 2019 5:42:00 GMT
If this takeover happens Mourinho will be willing to negotiate to become their manager. Surely after the loyalty he's shown shouldn't Benitez be given a chance with a chunkier budget?
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Jun 10, 2019 10:31:02 GMT
These foreign owners can fuck off. We need to keep clubs in the hands on british and local owners, who have never fucked up a club ever. Because foreign ownership has worked out really badly for Man City, Man United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Leicester City, etc, etc, etc?
|
|
|
Post by nsd on Jun 10, 2019 12:24:55 GMT
Really ? Because foreign ownership has worked out really badly for Man City, Man United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Leicester City, etc, etc, etc? I can hear the wooshing from here
|
|
|
Post by kelw on Jun 10, 2019 12:43:34 GMT
Really ? Because foreign ownership has worked out really badly for Man City, Man United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Leicester City, etc, etc, etc? I can hear the wooshing from here I did wonder to be fair :-) I think like many clubs, fans of Newcastle may expect millions to be spent as new owners are potentially moving in but doesn't always work out. Sheff Weds I remember had high expectations when Chansiri came in but never really happened. The multi million pound signings never came. Newcastle is such a huge club in fan base and massive potential that they only came close to achieving under Keegan and I often wonder why they sit like they do. Actually wouldn't mind seeing them being capable of upsetting the current guard but let's see what happens.
|
|