Theoz

No, I’ve no idea what you mean. He is a youth player. He was promoted to the first team set up last season at a time when we were short on players and equipped himself well. This season he’s been thrown back into the first team due to our dear leader allowing 16 senior pros to leave and not be replaced. His development hasn’t been managed as it should be due to the situation the club is in. Rather than being supported by our fans he’s being castigated as “not good enough” “never going to make it at this level” “can’t defend” “looks terrified with the ball at his feet” Give it a few weeks and the same will be being said of the other youth players being thrust into the first team. I genuinely don’t understand people calling for youth to be given a chance and then not giving them a chance. It’s weird and really unhelpful in providing a platform for us to bring players through from the academy.

Otegbayo is 20 years old, he is one of the youth players who should be given a chance. I cannot fathom those who call for youth to be given a chance in one breath and condemn them in the next. Whether he makes it or not is still very much unknown. That’s what taking a chance on youth is all about.

Maybe we should all start buying tickets and attending the matches so we can boo him when he makes a mistake. That’s usually how we help the lads from the academy learn they’re not good enough.

No

Yep. Still dealing with idiots who rather than admitting they don’t know what they’re on about keep on posting rubbish. I mean, it’s a football forum, so I expect people to have subjective views on football topics. And disagreeing with them, no matter how off the wall they are, is part of the fun of this forum. Though people posting things about corporate finance, administration processes, legislative procedures, or assets of community value that are demonstrably incorrect, and then refusing to back down when it’s pointed out to them just makes it tiring. And by doing so means that the things people come onto the forum to find out gets lost. And the fact they start multiple threads about their nonsense makes it even worse. So yeah, bad evening.

Again, not what was being discussed. Just put the thread down and walk away from the keyboard.

Not only is that not true - there’s currently an ITV drama on this very topic - it’s also fairly irrelevant. Chansiri had to apply for a provisional licence to operate the club. The legislation outlines what he needs to demonstrate in order to be granted this licence. His past behaviour very much comes into that. It is not that he has broken the law, it is that he is unable to demonstrate compliance with the licensing requirements, and is therefore subject to the powers the regulator is granted by the law.

Stop. Digging.

You mean Chansiri demonstrating he’s a competent owner in order to obtain his provisional licence won’t just be based on him saying “look, I’ve paid this month’s wages”? I’m shocked.

You’ve demonstrated you don’t know what you’re talking about. It would be sensible to just admit that and stop posting.

He can, he did, and he’s not.

Incorrect

The football governance act is primary legislation which received royal assent in July. Now a regulator has to be set up and secondary legislation implemented in order for the act to be enforced.

You should start a thread about it so that everyone is aware. Icebergs are a subject that hardly anyone is talking about.

Yep. And triggered by the same comments being made by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

FFS. Yes. And that doesn’t prevent the stadium being sold.

That’s what I just said… almost. The asset can be sold, not taken. Only the loan amount plus interest and fees required to be covered from the sale amount. Sheffield 3 being placed into administration is the bit I was saying is incorrect from your OP.

As Waddle_8 points out, the loan belongs to SWFC Ltd. Sheffield 3 put their asset, the stadium, against the loan. There is no reason why Sheffield 3 would be placed into administration - the loan is not theirs to repay. If SWFC Ltd defaults, NAP are able to sell the stadium at a fair market rate, returning any excess to Sheffield 3.

You wouldn’t lend him £10 under any circumstances, and he managed to borrow £7m at 12.5%… so I’d say that’s probably a good indication that the loan brokered by NAP was, based on the risk profile, a good deal. We seem, based on not being able to argue the original point, to now be discussing an entirely different topic. NAP are not, based on the available information, doing anything unusual in the world of sport financing in brokering the loan. Not knowing who the actual lender(s) is not, based on available information, in the context of corporate finance a reason to be concerned. The interest rate of 12.5%, based on the risk profile of the club and the loan amount, when compared with rates paid by other clubs is not unreasonable or unexpected. Whether Chansiri was desperate, someone that anyone on this forum would like to lend money to, or any other bonkers comment that is being made, is not something I have an opinion on.

Ah, when you said “The mention that New Avenue are a broker” I didn’t realise I should ignore that part. My bad. DC could personally be loaded up in debt to anyone. Why does this cause any more concern?

I can tell you’re confused. You clearly don’t understand risk. 12.5% doesn’t seem at all unreasonable for a Championship / League One club that is already has a high debt to revenue ratio when compared to that of a Premier League club.

We start off about using NAP as a broker with unknown lenders sounding alarm bells, and now we’re at Chansiri being desperate for money. The former is the conspiracy theory, the latter is not contentious.

“On June 29 [2020], English Premier League club Southampton struck an agreement with MSD UK Holdings Limited, a subsidiary of technology billionaire Michael Dell’s investment firm MSD Partners and a newcomer to football finance. Industry insiders say MSD is providing a credit facility of roughly £80m to the club at an interest rate of between nine and ten per cent – a rate considered unusually high for the sector, but representative of the risk MSD is taking.” https://newcenturyfinance.co.uk/latest-news

What are you comparing that to? Do you have any examples of available rates for a £7m corporate loan with an equivalent risk profile and security?

Yep. More than just a newspaper article on the Watford court case too. You?