Ipswich get big finacial boost

[Dame to Blame 108]

Ipswich will get £2.58 million from the sell on clauses in the Bent

transfer ,they could prove to be another side now going after out

targets now that they have some money to spend .

[mbncfc 1]

I think it means they''ll get Franny.

And that''ll probably be it.

[<:o)]

[ca 1]

£1m plus wages of that is going on Jeffers so I''m told by an avid Ipswich fan.

 

[Branston Pickle 4,150]

Yup - my binner season-ticket-holding brother (don''t ask) reckoned that Blackburn were waiting for the Bent transfer to go through so that they could get a better/full price for Jeffers.  I guess we could still hijack it but not sure I want to, clearly a capable player but a very poor track record with injuries.

What scares me most in this whole thing is that Bent is valued at anything like £16.5m......

 

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]

What scares me most in this whole thing is that Bent is valued at anything like £16.5m......

[/quote]

Remind me how much Henry went for again?...

Keane, Berbatov and Defoe are all much better players in my mind.

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="barclayendboy"]Ipswich will get £2.58 million from the sell on clauses in the Bent transfer ,they could prove to be another side now going after out targets now that they have some money to spend .
[/quote]

 

Perhaps they might pay off some of the money they owe to Norwich Union.

If I was one of the creditors I wouldn''t be too pleased if they splashed this around on new players when they still owe £33 million.

[Syteanric 1]

agreed Ricardo... in the "real" world surely the tax man or the creditors would demand this money go to them....?

jas :)

[a1canary 0]

Well, huge by their standards - they apparently have a 20% sell on on any profit realised by Charlton as part of the Bent deal. Meaning in excess of 2.5 million. They won''t know what to do with it!

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="a1canary"]Well, huge by their standards - they apparently have a 20% sell on on any profit realised by Charlton as part of the Bent deal. Meaning in excess of 2.5 million. They won''t know what to do with it!


[/quote]

The only creditors which matter for football clubs are football creditors - be it players, other teams or agents.

When Leeds went into administration, the only people they really had to pay off a substantial amount of debt to were their former players and any debts to other teams. The other creditors simply had to take their 1p from every £1 owed.

Magilton is quoted as saying he will look at Malcolm Christie if the Franny deal falls through. Yeah, good luck with that... [:P]

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="mbncfc"]

[quote user="a1canary"]Well, huge by their standards - they apparently have a 20% sell on on any profit realised by Charlton as part of the Bent deal. Meaning in excess of 2.5 million. They won''t know what to do with it!


[/quote]

The only creditors which matter for football clubs are football creditors - be it players, other teams or agents.

When Leeds went into administration, the only people they really had to pay off a substantial amount of debt to were their former players and any debts to other teams. The other creditors simply had to take their 1p from every £1 owed.

Magilton is quoted as saying he will look at Malcolm Christie if the Franny deal falls through. Yeah, good luck with that... [:P]

[/quote]

Maybe so MB, but I can''t see Norwich Union waiving the interest payments for another year now Ipswich have had a windfall.

[blacko 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="barclayendboy"]Ipswich will get £2.58 million from the sell on clauses in the Bent transfer ,they could prove to be another side now going after out targets now that they have some money to spend .
[/quote]

 

Perhaps they might pay off some of the money they owe to Norwich Union.

If I was one of the creditors I wouldn''t be too pleased if they splashed this around on new players when they still owe £33 million.

[/quote]

I have just been told that Norwich Union have written off £28million, is that true?

[USA Canary 7]

The scum will receive £2.58m. paid in three instalments over two years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/6252254.stm

[First Jedi 0]

"I have just been told that Norwich Union have written off £28million, is that true?"

No. Norwich Union were planning to sell the debt to another bank/creditors because they thought that Ipwich was too much of a risk, so they pass the risk on to another bank who is willing to take the risk - in doing so, they sell a £30 million debt for a smaller amount (significantly smaller as Ipswich were such a risk) for £5 million or so - not that the debt changes for Ipwich - they''d even pay Norwich Union as normal, with NU passing that on the new owner - nothing at all changes from the scums view; they still have to pay off £30 million to NU!!

BUT cue a whole bunch of reports that Ipwich were having their debt reduced to £5 million or indeed reduced to nothing. It''s was all complete rubbish. I don''t know, tho'', if Norwich Union actually found someone to off load the debt to, it doesn''t matter if they did!

[Gibbo 131]

Can''t remember where I saw it... but I think the sell on clause for Bent means that Ipswich get the money over time... (maybe 2 seasons), so they won''t immediately get a big pot ''o cash.

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="Yellow Ed"]Can''t remember where I saw it... but I think the sell on clause for Bent means that Ipswich get the money over time... (maybe 2 seasons), so they won''t immediately get a big pot ''o cash.[/quote]

 

Ipswich had a debt of £36 million as of last years accounts. Norwich Union had given them a 2 year interest holiday in exchange for about 10% of the club.

I would think therefore that N.U. will be looking to pocket a fair proportion of the Bent transfer money.

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]

£1m plus wages of that is going on Jeffers so I''m told by an avid Ipswich fan.

 [/quote]

I thought they couldn''t agree terms with fanny craddock - they''ve resigned Counago instead, he of the dodgy penalty a few years ago!

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="a1canary"]Well, huge by their standards - they apparently have a 20% sell on on any profit realised by Charlton as part of the Bent deal. Meaning in excess of 2.5 million. They won''t know what to do with it! [/quote]Moderator shennanigans alert! I wrote this at the start of a new post headed "Binners to get huge financial boost", before i saw barclayboy''s had already been started. Which is presumbaly why they didn''t start a new one and stuck it here. Which explains why it doesn''t really make any sense in this thread! Just thought i''d tell you all that!

[ca 1]

[:)][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="cityangel"]

£1m plus wages of that is going on Jeffers so I''m told by an avid Ipswich fan.

 [/quote]

I thought they couldn''t agree terms with fanny craddock - they''ve resigned Counago instead, he of the dodgy penalty a few years ago!
[/quote]

 

Yes they spent 9 weeks trying to agree terms with his club and then Fanny himself moved the goalposts and wanted more money than they''d previously agreed ,so they''ve signed  prolific scorer Pavlova instead [:D]

 

Oh Dear!!

[O.T.B.C 1]

I for one would be in such a bad mood for a fair bit of time, they really do annoy me Ipswich, infact anyone who goes into administration and only having to pay abour 5p in every £1, they should be made to pay every penny untill it is paid, even if this takes 20 years. And as for Norwich Union, well they deserve everything they get, not once have they bailed us or even offered to bail us out and to help out the scum is just, well, I would get kicked of the board if I said what I really wanted to........

[gazzathegreat 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]

Yup - my binner season-ticket-holding brother (don''t ask) reckoned that Blackburn were waiting for the Bent transfer to go through so that they could get a better/full price for Jeffers.  I guess we could still hijack it but not sure I want to, clearly a capable player but a very poor track record with injuries.

What scares me most in this whole thing is that Bent is valued at anything like £16.5m......

 

[/quote]

Sorry Branston, but I am going to ask, how did that happen? 

All I can say is it must be fun twice a year in your family!  lol

[Carrow89 185]

It''s ''bin'' quite funny watching the binners over exciting themselves about this money. Sadly our cockney wannabe neighbours haven''t quite worked out what a parlous state their ''third world club'' is in. Despite making some payments to their loans they have seen the debt rising year on year. This is spite of desperate attempts to cutback as much as possible - even sacking their kitman/driver. Unfortunately it is not possible to cutback on contracts which have to be honoured. Bit by bit these eventually fall of the balance sheet as the higher earners depart Poorman Road. If you look at their recent acquisitions they have all been lower league hopefuls or injury prone misfits. Yet here was a ''windfall'' that should have signalled a few signings to bolster their meagre squad. But as yet none. Neither will there be. The binners have seen another drop in season ticket sales, somewhere in the region of 3,000, with many of the adults tickets being replaced by kids tickets. Even the dumbest of dumb binners should twig that this amounts to a £1m or so in lost revenue. Neither are there any sales from transfers (as yet) or any share money as of last summer. So how are they going to balance the books ? Cutback on spending ie no new players. Looks like it. And/or raise money by selling. Also looks likely with Lee going. With up to eight player''s contracts ending next June there''s every certainty that they will have to try to cash in on at least one or two more. Possibly not old donkeys like Faylior and Winless but certainly others. With the impending need to keep cutting costs there is no room to offer decent contracts to keep their best players.Be under no illusion either about the mythical write down or impending investor. There is nothing to invest in. No ground or assets to secure their investment against. As to the suggestion that they have NU by the short and curlies that is farcical. Who would lose the most were the binners to go bust ? NU, nope. The value of their assets fluctuates that much daily. Imagine that you owe the bank a large amount and declaring that unless they reduced the amount drastically you would shoot yourself - then how would they get the money ! That''s who has the most to lose. They''ve no option but to continue to dance to the tune of their creditors.But fear not, all is not doom and gloom. His Lordship, the crimson faced toff, managed to shove a nice fat bonus into his pocket last summer, despite them losing another £3m and a few others managed to shove another £100,000 in bonus into their accounts as well. Any wonder that Jeffers is happy to stay in the stiffs at Blackburn , Plug prefers to play second fiddle to Green at West Ham and the only hope the binners now have is Manuel the collapsing Spaniard.You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh !

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="Ralph Wright"]

You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh !

[/quote]

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Loved it Ralph.

 

 

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="Ralph Wright"]It''s ''bin'' quite funny watching the binners over exciting themselves about this money. Sadly our cockney wannabe neighbours haven''t quite worked out what a parlous state their ''third world club'' is in. Despite making some payments to their loans they have seen the debt rising year on year.

This is spite of desperate attempts to cutback as much as possible - even sacking their kitman/driver. Unfortunately it is not possible to cutback on contracts which have to be honoured. Bit by bit these eventually fall of the balance sheet as the higher earners depart Poorman Road. If you look at their recent acquisitions they have all been lower league hopefuls or injury prone misfits.

Yet here was a ''windfall'' that should have signalled a few signings to bolster their meagre squad. But as yet none. Neither will there be. The binners have seen another drop in season ticket sales, somewhere in the region of 3,000, with many of the adults tickets being replaced by kids tickets. Even the dumbest of dumb binners should twig that this amounts to a £1m or so in lost revenue. Neither are there any sales from transfers (as yet) or any share money as of last summer.

So how are they going to balance the books ? Cutback on spending ie no new players. Looks like it. And/or raise money by selling. Also looks likely with Lee going. With up to eight player''s contracts ending next June there''s every certainty that they will have to try to cash in on at least one or two more. Possibly not old donkeys like Faylior and Winless but certainly others. With the impending need to keep cutting costs there is no room to offer decent contracts to keep their best players.

Be under no illusion either about the mythical write down or impending investor. There is nothing to invest in. No ground or assets to secure their investment against. As to the suggestion that they have NU by the short and curlies that is farcical. Who would lose the most were the binners to go bust ? NU, nope. The value of their assets fluctuates that much daily. Imagine that you owe the bank a large amount and declaring that unless they reduced the amount drastically you would shoot yourself - then how would they get the money ! That''s who has the most to lose. They''ve no option but to continue to dance to the tune of their creditors.

But fear not, all is not doom and gloom. His Lordship, the crimson faced toff, managed to shove a nice fat bonus into his pocket last summer, despite them losing another £3m and a few others managed to shove another £100,000 in bonus into their accounts as well.

Any wonder that Jeffers is happy to stay in the stiffs at Blackburn , Plug prefers to play second fiddle to Green at West Ham and the only hope the binners now have is Manuel the collapsing Spaniard.

You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh !
[/quote]

That, Ralph, is beautiful.

I heap many, many kudos points upon your good self.

[Grando 336]

Do the Binners still own Portman Lane, or did they have to do a Leeds and flog it all off?

[Essex_Canary 6]

Think the most interesting thing really remains that the board at Ipswich, including the directors renumeration was more than £700,000 last year in wages, including bonuses, including Sheepy''s £350k salary. By the time you factor in national insurance payments etc thats probably not far off £1m for a season in which they struggled to achieve anything except restructuring the outstanding debt.

In comparison our directors renumeration amounted to around £30,000 payable to Roger Munby''s company for his time on club business. It appears as though non of the board members actually draw a salary from the club which is in stark contrast to what goes on at Poorman Road.

[Carrow89 185]

The Suffolk paupers never owned Poorman Road. It is leased from the council with a proviso that the land cannot be used for anything else ie they cannot be turfed out. Like many rural communities (nah, we''re all cockneez dahn ''ere, guv) provision was made to care for the lower orders. Hence poorman road to keep the great unwashed of suffolk entertained.The club therefore has never really bothered about investing in the infrastructure and has always been able to spend the money on the playing side of things. ''Hear hear'' you cry. Well not quite. Take a look at Newmarket next time you are passing. From the stables, to the training areas and the racecourse the best is provided.The binners have succeeded on the pitch not so much through an unwillingness to invest but the fortune of having  a couple of upper class dipsos who happly funded them through much of the 70''s and 80''s. Sadly with their demise the not too bright binners thought their solution was simple, appoint another one of the same and hey presto the ''World Cups'' would start to return back to poorman road.The character they chose was a red faced old etonian who stated to anyone who would listen what a wonderful supporter he was. So wonderful that he didn''t actually go to Wembley in 1978. So wonderful that no one has any recollection of him ever attending any games in those times. But fear not. He was duly taken on board. Literally. From being on the board of directors he was appointed chairman. The club was (and is) still run as some semi- feudal 1950''s throwback.He then set about a borrowing spree that would see the club in the deathbed situation it is now. From borrowing £8m to getting them into the Premiership they embarked on redressing the years of underinvestment by taking out a huge loan of £25m. The rest is history. Or is it ? What is all to easily overlooked is Sheepshanks''s claim that the club could meet the payments outside of the Premiership. Nonsense as we now see. The realisation that even the training ground has been pawned to Barclay''s Bank. The dawning truth that far from renegotiating the debts they''ve been forced to hand over part of their club in lieu of payments.It is not known how much was defaulted on. What is known is how much Sheepshanks was paid in bonuses when the going was good. Even when it''s bad he still gets rewarded. Not for long though. This, I suggest, will be his last season. He is only on £70k a year and is in the process of setting up a football consultancy business. Helped we must assume by having a high prestige position. A consultancy that cynics might suggest he is well equiped in to tell others how to make money out of football !Finally, it is often said on here that our club lacks ''ambition''. In some people''s eyes that maybe true. What it doesn''t lack is competence. Maybe the same eyes might care to watch our impoverished neighbours as they slowly sink beneath the debts. Watch as the season tickets drop, the attendances drop and their future prospects head south as well.RIP SWICH

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="Grando"]Do the Binners still own Portman Lane, or did they have to do a Leeds and flog it all off?[/quote]

No Portakabin Road is owned by the local council. The football club leases it.

They also had to sell and lease back their training ground. It is now owned by Royal Bank of Scotland.

 

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="Grando"]Do the Binners still own Portman Lane, or did they have to do a Leeds and flog it all off?[/quote]

No Portakabin Road is owned by the local council. The football club leases it.

They also had to sell and lease back their training ground. It is now owned by Royal Bank of Scotland.

 

[/quote]It IS indeed hilarious isn''t it? They can''t afford Fanny Craddock, the stadium is the council''s, the training ground is the bank''s and the whole club is basically Norwich Union''s b*tch (even if they did write off most of that debt).No doubt we''ll get told not to laugh and given the "there but for the grace of god" speech. So why am i still laughing. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

[Dicky 0]

Love it Ralph, keep ''em coming.

[Ginja 43]

[quote user="Ralph Wright"]The Suffolk paupers never owned Poorman Road. It is leased from the council with a proviso that the land cannot be used for anything else ie they cannot be turfed out. Like many rural communities (nah, we''re all cockneez dahn ''ere, guv) provision was made to care for the lower orders. Hence poorman road to keep the great unwashed of suffolk entertained.The club therefore has never really bothered about investing in the infrastructure and has always been able to spend the money on the playing side of things. ''Hear hear'' you cry. Well not quite. Take a look at Newmarket next time you are passing. From the stables, to the training areas and the racecourse the best is provided.The binners have succeeded on the pitch not so much through an unwillingness to invest but the fortune of having  a couple of upper class dipsos who happly funded them through much of the 70''s and 80''s. Sadly with their demise the not too bright binners thought their solution was simple, appoint another one of the same and hey presto the ''World Cups'' would start to return back to poorman road.The character they chose was a red faced old etonian who stated to anyone who would listen what a wonderful supporter he was. So wonderful that he didn''t actually go to Wembley in 1978. So wonderful that no one has any recollection of him ever attending any games in those times. But fear not. He was duly taken on board. Literally. From being on the board of directors he was appointed chairman. The club was (and is) still run as some semi- feudal 1950''s throwback.He then set about a borrowing spree that would see the club in the deathbed situation it is now. From borrowing £8m to getting them into the Premiership they embarked on redressing the years of underinvestment by taking out a huge loan of £25m. The rest is history. Or is it ? What is all to easily overlooked is Sheepshanks''s claim that the club could meet the payments outside of the Premiership. Nonsense as we now see. The realisation that even the training ground has been pawned to Barclay''s Bank. The dawning truth that far from renegotiating the debts they''ve been forced to hand over part of their club in lieu of payments.It is not known how much was defaulted on. What is known is how much Sheepshanks was paid in bonuses when the going was good. Even when it''s bad he still gets rewarded. Not for long though. This, I suggest, will be his last season. He is only on £70k a year and is in the process of setting up a football consultancy business. Helped we must assume by having a high prestige position. A consultancy that cynics might suggest he is well equiped in to tell others how to make money out of football !Finally, it is often said on here that our club lacks ''ambition''. In some people''s eyes that maybe true. What it doesn''t lack is competence. Maybe the same eyes might care to watch our impoverished neighbours as they slowly sink beneath the debts. Watch as the season tickets drop, the attendances drop and their future prospects head south as well.RIP SWICH [/quote]Good to have you back Ralph [:D]