This, I suspect unintentionally, neatly sums up the issue.NewClaret wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:59 pm
Well, of course ideally we wouldn’t need to raise debt. And to an extent I’d imagine that the way deals are structured this year should mean there’s a way to spread the cost such that that’s not necessary.
But, if it were, options would be:
1. Govt Covid Fund. I understand Spurs raised that for £175m of govt secured low cost debt. Why not us? It may be closed now, in which case we should’ve been faster to assess and utilise - especially if our financial modelling showed we would not be able to buy players this summer without. Look at Spurs; taking on massive chunks of cheap govt-backed debt, then investing it in the team this summer. Why not us?
2. Banks. To accumulate £40m of cash in the bank with no debt means we must be cash generative. Accepting others think that this would be unnatractive to banks, I see no reason whatsoever why a prudent, cash generative, debt free PL team would not be offered a decent working capital facility by a bank.
3. Bonds. Potential issuance of bonds on the bond markets. Not ideal, but better than...
4. Other capital raising - hedge funds, PE houses, etc. Debt with the ability to transfer to equity if not repaid, thus decent terms.
There’s no shortage of options. Other clubs spent £1.25bn - equivalent to £62m each while we spent -£1m. I can’t believe that the £1.25bn has all been spent from wealthy owners picking up the tabs - it will be from their clubs credit facilities and on a tab (future payments). What I’m saying is we should have access to a suitable debt facility that we draw on when needed (like now).
There aren't many avenues for extra cash that aren't either very risky/costly or involve new owners coming in.
I've seen comments like, we don't need much just a couple of £10-£15m players, as if that cash is available and it is a choice not to spend it.