| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) 08:21 - Nov 27 with 5565 views | danehoop |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34941119
Think this probably explains the previous pressures on our owners on their loans against the shares of Air Asia. To be honest it might actually be a good time to buy Air Asia shares as the negatives are priced in. The business model, aside from the long haul trial, is generally a proven one that does generate cash over the long term.
It does appear to make the decision to write off the Debt an even more generous gesture by the club. But also does underline their change of priority to get promoted back to Premiership as clearly the Tune Group cant keep pishing away money through QPR like it has. [Post edited 27 Nov 2015 8:22]
|  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |  |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 15:17 - Nov 30 with 1410 views | Mvpeter |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 14:43 - Nov 30 by isawqpratwcity |
"Effectively the change means that a new owner would have to pay 200 million for the club rather than a new owner having to spend 20 million on the club and 180 million to pay off the debt."
That looks to me like you were talking about after Tony's reign, too. Do you reckon the club is now worth £200 million? Is that what a new owner would "have to pay"? Is that based on a £180 million debt? Or were you getting confused? |
Yes I was talking about after Tony's reign. Not comparing it to before though.
I reckon the book value of the clubs shares has increased by £186.4 million. That is not what a new owner would have to pay to get the club. They might only have to pay £10m. The point is that it would have been the same before debt conversion. Tony has given up zero value. He's simply converted how that value is represented. The overwhelming majority of times that this is done is to borrow more money. From banks. That is my point. |  |
| |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 15:27 - Nov 30 with 1402 views | Mvpeter |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 15:00 - Nov 30 by Jamie |
As we have been trying to tell you, what Tony values the club at is completely irrelevant. The owners will get whatever a buyer is willing to pay for the club, which they will be extremely lucky if it's the £50m they put in to buy it initially.
It's abundantly clear that the write off - coming days after the banks the board have leveraged their AA shares with had gotten twitchy - has been undertaken purely to try and attract a buyer, as they would've been lucky to get £1 for the club beforehand.
If they get back the money to settle with the banks and get their AA shares out of the banks grasp, they'll happily write the rest off as a learning epoerience gone wrong IMO. |
I agree. The value of the club is what the market deems it. The value of the debt is what the market deems it. Pre conversion we had the club valued at X and the debt valued at Y whatever those figures might be. Now post conversion the club is valued at X+Y. The market value of removing the club from Tony's control has not changed.
That is not abundantly clear as it doesn't make financial sense. Do you think tony would have sold the club but not the debt? That would have been part of the sale.
Let's suppose that to buy the club today you'd have to offer Tony £20 million. The point I am making is that if that is the case then it would also have cost you £20 million pre conversion to buy his shares and remove his debt. | |
| |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 16:41 - Nov 30 with 1369 views | isawqpratwcity |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 15:17 - Nov 30 by Mvpeter |
Yes I was talking about after Tony's reign. Not comparing it to before though.
I reckon the book value of the clubs shares has increased by £186.4 million. That is not what a new owner would have to pay to get the club. They might only have to pay £10m. The point is that it would have been the same before debt conversion. Tony has given up zero value. He's simply converted how that value is represented. The overwhelming majority of times that this is done is to borrow more money. From banks. That is my point. |
So the new owner would have to pay 200 million, but he need only pay 10 million? At risk of letting you wave your degree in our faces again, are you sure your lecturers can understand you? Do you perhaps study in another language?
(It's a 'bout of food poisoning', btw, not a "bought". Need a dictionary?)
And despite the ill-expressed, misguided and often redundant nature of your preambulatory statements, I do take your point. A bank will not be so forgiving about debts. Of course, going to a bank was an option from Day 1. |  |
| |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 17:05 - Nov 30 with 1333 views | Mvpeter |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 16:41 - Nov 30 by isawqpratwcity |
So the new owner would have to pay 200 million, but he need only pay 10 million? At risk of letting you wave your degree in our faces again, are you sure your lecturers can understand you? Do you perhaps study in another language?
(It's a 'bout of food poisoning', btw, not a "bought". Need a dictionary?)
And despite the ill-expressed, misguided and often redundant nature of your preambulatory statements, I do take your point. A bank will not be so forgiving about debts. Of course, going to a bank was an option from Day 1. |
The new owner would need to pay to account for the roughly £200 million in book value both before and after the debt conversion. What they are willing to pay for that is different. What the current owners are willing to sell that for is different. He might only need to pay £10 million if that is what they judge its market value to be. Seeing as you know fck all about this could it perhaps mean that your confusion is due to you not understanding basic terms like book value and market value? Wouldn't it be arrogant to assume otherwise?
O woe is me I had an autocorrect faux pas on another thread let me concede the argument.
You have entirely missed the point. The point is that this did not affect the book or market value of Tony's shares. The point is that the major reason that people do this is to acquire more bank debt. | |
| |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 20:14 - Nov 30 with 1275 views | danehoop |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 17:05 - Nov 30 by Mvpeter |
The new owner would need to pay to account for the roughly £200 million in book value both before and after the debt conversion. What they are willing to pay for that is different. What the current owners are willing to sell that for is different. He might only need to pay £10 million if that is what they judge its market value to be. Seeing as you know fck all about this could it perhaps mean that your confusion is due to you not understanding basic terms like book value and market value? Wouldn't it be arrogant to assume otherwise?
O woe is me I had an autocorrect faux pas on another thread let me concede the argument.
You have entirely missed the point. The point is that this did not affect the book or market value of Tony's shares. The point is that the major reason that people do this is to acquire more bank debt. |
Ah, I see that you have missed the point.
The new owner will pay whatever they like for the club (its a buyers market for football clubs like ours). There is no debt to be taken account of within the sale. So they are not buying debt, they are buying the club without further complication or third party debt. That is more attractive than anything requiring more complicated financial structuring.
Sorry business studies background as well. You are I think overly complicating and confusing two separate things with book value and market value in this scenario. | |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 05:04 - Dec 1 with 1231 views | isawqpratwcity |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 17:05 - Nov 30 by Mvpeter |
The new owner would need to pay to account for the roughly £200 million in book value both before and after the debt conversion. What they are willing to pay for that is different. What the current owners are willing to sell that for is different. He might only need to pay £10 million if that is what they judge its market value to be. Seeing as you know fck all about this could it perhaps mean that your confusion is due to you not understanding basic terms like book value and market value? Wouldn't it be arrogant to assume otherwise?
O woe is me I had an autocorrect faux pas on another thread let me concede the argument.
You have entirely missed the point. The point is that this did not affect the book or market value of Tony's shares. The point is that the major reason that people do this is to acquire more bank debt. |
"The new owner would need to pay to account for...book value..." No, he doesn't. The only thing he needs to pay to account for is a price that the current owners think better than anybody else is going to pay. Book value is irrelevant. Toss up all the clever-dick vvankery all you like, that is the value of the club.
"autocorrect faux pas"?   You just got it wrong!
"this did not affect the book or market value of Tony's shares" Who gives a f*ck about Tony's shares beside Tony? It's how it affects the club that counts. And it removed the uncertainty of that debt from the club, scot free! But your sh*t-on-the-liver view of the ownership and administration of the club can't resist the chance to cast a dark shadow on anything they do, spinning bullsh*t on what is essentially a very positive act.
"the major reason that people do this is to acquire more bank debt" What other reasons might there be? To clarify the uncertainty of a debt? That's a good thing, right? "Major reason", got any stats? Even better, got any ITK? No. Let's wait and see.
(Why 'Mvpeter'? Did Dad name a boat after you? Ah, that's nice.) | |
| |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 08:06 - Dec 1 with 1197 views | Northernr |
Before Petey gets his degree certificate out and starts waving it around...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/01/airasia-crew-actions-caused-jet-to-
Air Asia crash caused by crew response to a faulty part. Part had malfunctioned four times prior to the crash during that flight alone, and 23 times in the 12 months leading up to the crash. That's going to be expensive. |  | | |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 08:19 - Dec 1 with 1182 views | Mvpeter |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 20:14 - Nov 30 by danehoop |
Ah, I see that you have missed the point.
The new owner will pay whatever they like for the club (its a buyers market for football clubs like ours). There is no debt to be taken account of within the sale. So they are not buying debt, they are buying the club without further complication or third party debt. That is more attractive than anything requiring more complicated financial structuring.
Sorry business studies background as well. You are I think overly complicating and confusing two separate things with book value and market value in this scenario. |
The new owner would pay whatever he liked before the debt restructuring. That figure remains the same.
Of course all debt is taken into account.
Are you under the impression that debt can't be sold for prices other than their book value? The debt would have been taken into account in the 'The new owner will pay whatever they like for the club ' figure. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 08:34 - Dec 1 with 1161 views | Jamie |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 08:06 - Dec 1 by Northernr |
Before Petey gets his degree certificate out and starts waving it around...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/01/airasia-crew-actions-caused-jet-to-
Air Asia crash caused by crew response to a faulty part. Part had malfunctioned four times prior to the crash during that flight alone, and 23 times in the 12 months leading up to the crash. That's going to be expensive. |
Expect another 'always said, promotion is everything' tweet in the coming hours.. | | | |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 08:45 - Dec 1 with 1154 views | Mvpeter |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 05:04 - Dec 1 by isawqpratwcity |
"The new owner would need to pay to account for...book value..." No, he doesn't. The only thing he needs to pay to account for is a price that the current owners think better than anybody else is going to pay. Book value is irrelevant. Toss up all the clever-dick vvankery all you like, that is the value of the club.
"autocorrect faux pas"? You just got it wrong!
"this did not affect the book or market value of Tony's shares" Who gives a f*ck about Tony's shares beside Tony? It's how it affects the club that counts. And it removed the uncertainty of that debt from the club, scot free! But your sh*t-on-the-liver view of the ownership and administration of the club can't resist the chance to cast a dark shadow on anything they do, spinning bullsh*t on what is essentially a very positive act.
"the major reason that people do this is to acquire more bank debt" What other reasons might there be? To clarify the uncertainty of a debt? That's a good thing, right? "Major reason", got any stats? Even better, got any ITK? No. Let's wait and see.
(Why 'Mvpeter'? Did Dad name a boat after you? Ah, that's nice.) |
' The only thing he needs to pay to account for is a price' Complete nonsense.
'a price that the current owners think better than anybody else is going to pay.'
Right. And how would that change pre and post debt conversion hmm? It wouldn't.
'Who gives a f*ck about Tony's shares beside Tony?' Tony does. The one making the sale. The one unwilling to sell the club until his demands are met. It hasn't removed any uncertainty. That debt must be accounted for regardless.
Please tell me why companies convert debt to shares? I'm not sure you understand what that is. It seems to me like you think he just waved his hands and the debt was gone. There is a reason this is done. It is not to increase saleability. It is to add debt. When we see the financial crisis that the owners other company is in and we see it's because he was willing to leverage large debts against his shares to purchase unrelated companies then hmm.... maybe wait and see what unfolds next.
This all sounds very similar to when they announced we'll be playing in our new stadium by 2016/17. A few people said 'well that doesn't sound very likely' and it was 'boo you casting a dark shadow.'
When has casting a dark shadow on anything they've done been incorrect?
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cfmmanual/cfm11180.htm
If you have anything to dispute either the governments explanation or my education in the matter I'd like to hear it.
There was little uncertainty with that debt. That's the point I've been making. It was never recoverable and there's no point attempting to or you destroy your asset. It's factored into the sale. The uncertainty comes from the £27m+ bank loan against the stadium. They claim their money regardless of how you're getting on. If they wanted to remove uncertainty they'd avoid creating debts like that.
Don't have a clue what boat you're talking about.
MVP is the man of the match in america. (most valuable player) Friend called me at as a joke because I did something good in some game or whatever. | |
| |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 08:51 - Dec 1 with 1145 views | Jamie |
Wind it in Petey. You were wrong initially as several of us pointed out and you're now going round in ever more elaborate, but ultimately unsuccessful circles trying to find some way in which you may have been partly right.
I think it's fully run its course now. | | | |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 09:26 - Dec 1 with 1118 views | pomanjou |
Interesting thread with divergent views with elements of truth all over the place mixed with unlikely assumptions.
The paper value of the club is unchanged.
Shareholders ability to get back their money in the long term have disappeared without a return to Prem footie and even then its going to be a long road.
Thats a very generous gesture.
In its current situation banks will not be rushing to lend more money to QPR until it can prove its put its house in order and is breaking even.
What its worth on the open market is anyone's guess but has no relationship to its book value in the mad world of football clubs. [Post edited 1 Dec 2015 9:32]
|  |
| |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 09:38 - Dec 1 with 1093 views | johncharles |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 08:06 - Dec 1 by Northernr |
Before Petey gets his degree certificate out and starts waving it around...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/01/airasia-crew-actions-caused-jet-to-
Air Asia crash caused by crew response to a faulty part. Part had malfunctioned four times prior to the crash during that flight alone, and 23 times in the 12 months leading up to the crash. That's going to be expensive. |
Just read that on yahoo. God knows if their insurance will cover that. |  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 09:44 - Dec 1 with 1090 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 09:26 - Dec 1 by pomanjou |
Interesting thread with divergent views with elements of truth all over the place mixed with unlikely assumptions.
The paper value of the club is unchanged.
Shareholders ability to get back their money in the long term have disappeared without a return to Prem footie and even then its going to be a long road.
Thats a very generous gesture.
In its current situation banks will not be rushing to lend more money to QPR until it can prove its put its house in order and is breaking even.
What its worth on the open market is anyone's guess but has no relationship to its book value in the mad world of football clubs. [Post edited 1 Dec 2015 9:32]
|
That is a great summary of the situation mate and you did it wothout any textbooks. |  | | |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 09:47 - Dec 1 with 1079 views | isawqpratwcity |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 08:06 - Dec 1 by Northernr |
Before Petey gets his degree certificate out and starts waving it around...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/01/airasia-crew-actions-caused-jet-to-
Air Asia crash caused by crew response to a faulty part. Part had malfunctioned four times prior to the crash during that flight alone, and 23 times in the 12 months leading up to the crash. That's going to be expensive. |
Jeez, how much insurance does Air Asia carry? That's bang-to-rights negligence. | |
| |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 10:09 - Dec 1 with 944 views | francisbowles |
I have very limited knowledge on this, as I am not an aircraft engineer, but there is a maintenance term ADD, which I think stands for Acceptable Deferred Defect, which enables a plane to carry on flying with a number of known defects that are considered non critical.
I don't know whether this defect would be included under this 'dispensation'.
I don't suppose we have any aviation engineers or experts on this forum who might share their knowledge? | | | |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 10:13 - Dec 1 with 933 views | Mvpeter |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 10:09 - Dec 1 by francisbowles |
I have very limited knowledge on this, as I am not an aircraft engineer, but there is a maintenance term ADD, which I think stands for Acceptable Deferred Defect, which enables a plane to carry on flying with a number of known defects that are considered non critical.
I don't know whether this defect would be included under this 'dispensation'.
I don't suppose we have any aviation engineers or experts on this forum who might share their knowledge? |
Well I just happened to have studied..... | |
| |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 10:15 - Dec 1 with 924 views | karl |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 05:04 - Dec 1 by isawqpratwcity |
"The new owner would need to pay to account for...book value..." No, he doesn't. The only thing he needs to pay to account for is a price that the current owners think better than anybody else is going to pay. Book value is irrelevant. Toss up all the clever-dick vvankery all you like, that is the value of the club.
"autocorrect faux pas"? You just got it wrong!
"this did not affect the book or market value of Tony's shares" Who gives a f*ck about Tony's shares beside Tony? It's how it affects the club that counts. And it removed the uncertainty of that debt from the club, scot free! But your sh*t-on-the-liver view of the ownership and administration of the club can't resist the chance to cast a dark shadow on anything they do, spinning bullsh*t on what is essentially a very positive act.
"the major reason that people do this is to acquire more bank debt" What other reasons might there be? To clarify the uncertainty of a debt? That's a good thing, right? "Major reason", got any stats? Even better, got any ITK? No. Let's wait and see.
(Why 'Mvpeter'? Did Dad name a boat after you? Ah, that's nice.) |
I'm assuming he sailed the good ship 'Pete' with the jolly crew from WATRB for a few years, you land lubbers know nothing! |  | | |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 10:45 - Dec 1 with 888 views | Northernr |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 10:09 - Dec 1 by francisbowles |
I have very limited knowledge on this, as I am not an aircraft engineer, but there is a maintenance term ADD, which I think stands for Acceptable Deferred Defect, which enables a plane to carry on flying with a number of known defects that are considered non critical.
I don't know whether this defect would be included under this 'dispensation'.
I don't suppose we have any aviation engineers or experts on this forum who might share their knowledge? |
Well either way it's not looking good. If it's a fault that shouldn't have brought the aircraft down then it's the crew's fault - i.e. Air Asia liable. If it's a fault that meant the aircraft shouldn't have been in the air then that's Air Asia maintenance's fault - i.e. Air Asia liable.
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 10:55 - Dec 1 with 856 views | francisbowles |
It looks like that but speculating further, there may be a case that they were following the manufacturers operating instructions or industry standards and if these are proven to be faulty.......? | | | |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 10:57 - Dec 1 with 855 views | Mytch_QPR |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 10:45 - Dec 1 by Northernr |
Well either way it's not looking good. If it's a fault that shouldn't have brought the aircraft down then it's the crew's fault - i.e. Air Asia liable. If it's a fault that meant the aircraft shouldn't have been in the air then that's Air Asia maintenance's fault - i.e. Air Asia liable.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
The real worry is that the part had apparently failed 23 times in the past 12 months - fingers will be pointed at Air Asia's maintenance schedule. You have to worry whether increasingly cheaper flights ultimately mean corner-cutting.
As Clive has said, not good from whichever angle you view it. |  |
| |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 11:02 - Dec 1 with 844 views | hopphoops |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 08:06 - Dec 1 by Northernr |
Before Petey gets his degree certificate out and starts waving it around...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/01/airasia-crew-actions-caused-jet-to-
Air Asia crash caused by crew response to a faulty part. Part had malfunctioned four times prior to the crash during that flight alone, and 23 times in the 12 months leading up to the crash. That's going to be expensive. |
Blimey. That'll be Air Asia broken up for parts, then. No cash and now no reputation. QPR fire sale to follow shortly...? |  |
| |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 11:04 - Dec 1 with 834 views | francisbowles |
It looks like that but speculating further, there may be a case that they were following the manufacturers operating instructions or industry standards and if these are proven to be faulty.......? | | | |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 11:05 - Dec 1 with 834 views | isawqpratwcity |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 10:15 - Dec 1 by karl |
I'm assuming he sailed the good ship 'Pete' with the jolly crew from WATRB for a few years, you land lubbers know nothing! |
That's not fair! What did we do to them? | |
| |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 11:11 - Dec 1 with 823 views | pomanjou |
| More Air Asia bad news (in the short term at least) on 09:44 - Dec 1 by CroydonCaptJack |
That is a great summary of the situation mate and you did it wothout any textbooks. |
TKU Captain. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
