GMF

As a point of principle, I’ve never had an issue with them not being involved with the day-to-day running of the Club. However, they are the principal non-executive directors of the Club and therefore have primary responsibility for the appointment of other non-executive directors, who are appropriately qualified people and capable of challenging any proposals, or recommendations put forward by the executive team. I will leave it to others to decide for themselves if that has always been the case.

It was completely disingenuous to blame everything on Covid and the £30m loss in revenues arising there from. It was unforeseen at the time, obviously, but did that excuse what happened subsequently in the summer of 2021? Unforeseen events, like Covid, should have been reflected in the subsequent, revised budget for 2021-22, a season in the Premier League, with its subsequent record revenues. The gamble failed, and meant the need for a significant working capital injection following relegation. That was, undoubtedly, the primary driver behind MF’s subsequent decision. Any outside rhetoric about his sale price completely ignores the reality of the situation.

Quite, and that’s what happens when you put too much faith in certain people….

The tribunal has ruled that the APT rules are an important thread to the wider PSR assessments, so they’re not going to be binned off completely. All that’s likely to happen is that they will be redrafted, and approved by the clubs, to ensure that PSR will continue. At least until they overhaul the system next season.

B-preference shares have historically been categorised as repayable at between 1 to 2 years when we’re in the Championship, or within a year, when we’re in the Premier League. That’s because they carry a redemption option by shareholders, if we’re promoted to the Premier League, or retain our Premier League status (I’m getting dreamy about that prospect - haha) for another season. In reality, most B-preference shareholders don’t actually redeem their shares when the opportunity comes. Unless, of course, they’re in a pissy mood, because the CEO still got a big bonus, or because someone else, presumably with a decent WiFi connection, then did well by investing in a bond issue. 😉 🎣

I don’t think that is quite right, as the ruling gives no indication that such loans being banned, not least because shareholder loans are recognised as an important source of funding for clubs. In this context the tribunal actually agreed with Man City. What it does mean is that for PSR purposes, the loans will be assumed to have loan interest accruing at fair market rates, irrespective of the actual charge rates, with an appropriate adjustment added into each club’s P&L within their PSR assessment. One unintended consequence may be, in future, that shareholder loans will simply be converted into equity in order to take them out of the PSR calculations.

If I’ve understood it correctly, it highlighted the fact that interest free loans are presently excluded from certain clubs’ PSR calculations, Arsenal and Brighton, for example (because they don’t have any interest rates to recharge to the P&L account) hence they should be captured by the APT rules. The Tribunal agreed with Man City on this. However, that’s not to say that all loans should be charged at the same rate.

I can assure you that we (the Trust) did NOT receive any dividend cheques this year, and I had a discussion about this very topic with the relevant member of the Executive team about the subject. I am aware of the differences between ordinary and preference shares, the latter can also be treated differently from an accounting perspective, depending upon the likelihood of redemption, or not. All of this is less important in the wider context of things. The loans are a reflection of current market rates from external sources. We’re now entering an era of internal funding, so the real questions are; will NG actually charge out those actual interest rates, or will they be looking to build something much bigger - softer deals now for much bigger upside down the line. Although I’m not a betting man I know where my money would be!

There are legal reasons for the loaner having to make loans at commercial rates to the loanee, otherwise they might be considered to be a gift, and subject to further tax considerations. However, interest on loans has to be treated as an operating expense, which is charged to the P&L, which, in turn, has PSR consequences. I’m not an accountant, and will happily be corrected, but my understanding is that dividends on Preference shares can only be paid out if there’s distributable reserves available on the balance sheet. Having preference share dividends is therefore favourable to the Club from a PSR perspective, rather than loan interest payments. However, all of this needs to be considered having regards to the actual interest payments showing up in the cash flow statements. It’s possible that the full loan interests are showing up in the P&L, but not actually being taken by the loaner in the cash flow statement. Whether that’s because there’s insufficient distributable reserves in the balance sheet preventing payment, or because the loaner has opted against taking their dividend payments all have to be taken into consideration.

Don’t be a numpty, it’s an EFL and Premier League requirement for their clubs to provide corporate hospitality to their opponents each match for free.

Apologies for not responding sooner. I wasn’t being defensive at all, but you have to appreciate that the minutes are a high level summary of the meeting. They were never intended to be a full transcript of all discussions, as much as some might like them to be, not least because there are elements of confidentiality on certain subjects. Some of the points you mentioned in your previous response to me were discussed, so some of your ‘surprise’ is misplaced, and, as much as I’d to clarify them, sadly I can’t for the reason just given. The issues regarding advance notice of meeting dates, details of agenda items, together with interactions with the wider fan base are topics to be reviewed. No promises given, but this will require the agreement of all parties. Specific personal issues should all be directed to the Club’s customer services, not least because they are recorded and monitored internally. I would always recommend that to anyone, even if I’m also approached via personal messages on here regarding something, which, in most instances, I’ll happily respond to, if possible.

I’m not going down the rabbit hole of what was said, or should have been said, in your opinion, at the meeting. The Club indicated that this was a requirement, following a review by the Sports Ground Safety Authority and the Safety Advisory Group. Fan safety is clearly of paramount importance to everyone and, had the recommendations not been implemented, it is highly likely that certain seats would have been deemed unsafe and unusable until compliance occurred. Like I mentioned before, the fact that the current design layout was approved, beggars belief, both from the Club’s perspective and by the two safety groups. I too have sympathy with the OP, but we are where we are and have to deal with the consequences of the decision of the safety groups.

To be honest, John, I can live with the shade thrown at the Supporters Panel in this instance, but quite how that was signed off in the first place beggars belief.

Having regards to the above discourse, the minutes of the supporters panel meeting, relating specifically to safe-standing, actually read as follows: ”The club sought feedback from the Panel on safe-standing following its installation over the summer. The Panel were positive about the project and stated that it does what it says on the tin and creates a safer environment for supporters, although exit from the ground is longer and space slightly tighter. The club informed the Panel that following a review by the Sports Ground Safety Authority and the Safety Advisory Group it has been identified that for safety reasons further Safe Standing rails are required to be installed in the remainder of the Thorpe Area. These supporters will be being notified shortly.” None of the panel members sit in the relevant section of the Thorpe area, and were therefore unfamiliar with the exact issues surrounding the proposals. Being informed that this was a requirement of the Sports Ground Safety Authority and the Safety Advisory Group, probably means that it was readily accepted by those in attendance, especially given the assurances that consultations would occur with the relevant fans Although I can understand why some might be critical of the role of the Supporters Panel in this instance, frankly, having subsequently seen the photos, it begs a question of how the initial proposal was actually signed off by the safety groups in the first place?

I’ve just posted a separate message on this with a link to the minutes.