[gazberg]

I remember hearing about an American group that wanted to buy the club for about £50m. I understand why Lai wouldn't enjoy the idea of selling for 25% of the amount he paid but the club isn't getting any more valuable here. He massively overpaid originally and as the club takes on all this debt, the sale value is diminishing. It's just his ego and stubbornness at this point, and he's dragging us down with him. He has no interest in being the owner, sell the frigging club!

Dread to think where another 5 years of Lai would take us.

[overseas baggie]

Has been for a while though so can't imagine that will change anytime soon. So long as 1's and 2's keep popping up there is no reason for the bubble for burst.

Our hope, as has been for a while, is one of those is interested in us.

On a separate note, is Lai a director of all the WBA group companies?

He’s certainly not a member of Group board (which is interesting) because Ken is the sole director, but is definitely on the Club board

[overseas baggie]

I'd suggest you take a look at the accounts.

We made our first loss in years in season 19/20, last year we made a small profit.

Absolutely correct.  I think at one stage under Peace (and first couple of years under Lai) we made a profit 10 years in succession and only Arsenal could match that

[baggiejohn]

We made a loss in that year of 23.4 million.

The season before we made a loss of 6.6 million

The season before we made a loss of 7.4 million

source - the companies house accounts

We made an operational profit every year until 2019/20 season.

The losses in 2018/19 were due to losses in player trading (we spent more on incoming players than we received on outgoing players). What I'm not sure about is if this includes transfer fees, or is just the costs involved in carrying out the transfer.

Losses in 2017/18 were due to reduction in media related income & an exceptional level of player amortisation.

There is nothing to suggest that WBAFC historic income to wages ratio is out of control.

[bidbaggie]

We made an operational profit every year until 2019/20 season.

The losses in 2018/19 were due to losses in player trading (we spent more on incoming players than we received on outgoing players). What I'm not sure about is if this includes transfer fees, or is just the costs involved in carrying out the transfer.

Losses in 2017/18 were due to reduction in media related income & an exceptional level of player amortisation.

There is nothing to suggest that WBAFC historic income to wages ratio is out of control.

Whichever way you dress it up, they were still losses though - ie the club has less retained profits at the end of the year than at the start

Apologies if i have misunderstood your post but your point that says about player trading losses due to spending more on new players than monies received for those we have sold - this isnt correct - this figure is a write down of all the player valuations we have on our books (whether old or new) plus or minus the profit/loss on the ones that have left in that period.

I can explain more if you want with examples of what i mean but it would probably bore the flaps off most people

[Jordie1471]

We made an operational profit every year until 2019/20 season.

The losses in 2018/19 were due to losses in player trading (we spent more on incoming players than we received on outgoing players). What I'm not sure about is if this includes transfer fees, or is just the costs involved in carrying out the transfer.

Losses in 2017/18 were due to reduction in media related income & an exceptional level of player amortisation.

There is nothing to suggest that WBAFC historic income to wages ratio is out of control.

I'm not disputing we made small regular profits in the years 2010-2016. A period where we were;
a) In the premier league
b) Consistently having one of the smallest wage bill in the division

I will reserve more judgement until the June 2022 accounts are actually submitted, but being as our most recent Championship season accounts (June 2020) showed a loss of 23.4 million, I am not expecting these accounts be posting a profit.

Just fyi I have just again jumped into the mostly recently filed group accounts (our parent company). Per the consolidated balance sheet

Cash at bank as at June 2021 - £2.7 million
Cash at bank as at June 2020 - £14.2 million

[baggiejohn]

I'm not disputing we made small regular profits in the years 2010-2016. A period where we were;
a) In the premier league
b) Consistently having one of the smallest wage bill in the division

I will reserve more judgement until the June 2022 accounts are actually submitted, but being as our most recent Championship season accounts (June 2020) showed a loss of 23.4 million, I am not expecting these accounts be posting a profit.

Just fyi I have just again jumped into the mostly recently filed group accounts (our parent company). Per the consolidated balance sheet

Cash at bank as at June 2021 - £2.7 million
Cash at bank as at June 2020 - £14.2 million

This is the statement I'm challenging

The thing is West Brom, like a lot of football clubs are operating at consistent losses due to the rapid wage inflation outstripping revenue increases.

There is no evidence to suggest that our income to wages ratio is negative.

[baggiejohn]

Whichever way you dress it up, they were still losses though - ie the club has less retained profits at the end of the year than at the start

Apologies if i have misunderstood your post but your point that says about player trading losses due to spending more on new players than monies received for those we have sold - this isnt correct - this figure is a write down of all the player valuations we have on our books (whether old or new) plus or minus the profit/loss on the ones that have left in that period.

I can explain more if you want with examples of what i mean but it would probably bore the flaps off most people

What I meant was the profit/loss against the book value of the player, which is entered on the P/L statement. I though write downs were recognised on the balance sheet?

You can dm me on it, if you think it's a boring topic for most people

[tegga]

Is it the Year of the Rat?

The Chinese New year 22nd January and it's the year of the rabbit, let's hope he pulls more than a rabbit out of the hat. More like the money he owes.

[skyclad99]

Adrian Goldberg has posted an interesting article on Twitter identifying that up to 80 separate investors have a stake in the club, including the Chinese Government, financial arms from two regions, and a Singaporean bank. Lai has put very little money in himself and is merely ‘managing’ the investment on behalf of others

What a mess.

[gerry m]

Adrian Goldberg has posted an interesting article on Twitter identifying that up to 80 separate investors have a stake in the club, including the Chinese Government, financial arms from two regions, and a Singaporean bank. Lai has put very little money in himself and is merely ‘managing’ the investment on behalf of others

What a mess.

Am i right in saying that at any time these investors could simply pull out due to the problems Lai is having?

[skyclad99]

Am i right in saying that at any time these investors could simply pull out due to the problems Lai is having?

It occurred to me that Lai may have borrowed the money to pay off investors who wanted out. This is probably like any investment you could make on the markets or with an Investment company, when the going is good then everyone is happy but when things start to go pear shaped then at least you have the option of damage limitation and cashing out.

[gerry m]

It occurred to me that Lai may have borrowed the money to pay off investors who wanted out. This is probably like any investment you could make on the markets or with an Investment company, when the going is good then everyone is happy but when things start to go pear shaped then at least you have the option of damage limitation and cashing out.

Good god that first line sounds ominous. What a mess if this is right!

[baggiejohn]

For perspective S4A, who represent 12% of WBA Group, have 430 investors.

Any of Lai's group could pull-out by selling their shares, but it wouldn't change the value of the total shareholding.

Personally, I'm finding it really difficult to understand how Lai isn't a key investor in Yunyi Guokai SSDC. I  would need some serious persuasion to put in a larger stake than the person who's leading (and making decisions) on behalf of the group.

[baggiejohn]

It occurred to me that Lai may have borrowed the money to pay off investors who wanted out. This is probably like any investment you could make on the markets or with an Investment company, when the going is good then everyone is happy but when things start to go pear shaped then at least you have the option of damage limitation and cashing out.

You do if you can persuade someone to buy your shares.

[skyclad99]

You do if you can persuade someone to buy your shares.

Perhaps that’s what he borrowed the money for....

[skyclad99]

For perspective S4A, who represent 12% of WBA Group, have 430 investors.

Any of Lai's group could pull-out by selling their shares, but it wouldn't change the value of the total shareholding.

Personally, I'm finding it really difficult to understand how Lai isn't a key investor in Yunyi Guokai SSDC. I  would need some serious persuasion to put in a larger stake than the person who's leading (and making decisions) on behalf of the group.

The difference there John is that we know who those 430 investors are, we don't really know much about the Chinese side.

If you look back at the news releases in 2016, nobody had heard of Lai, either here or in China, but he rocked up with the biggest bag of cash and the rest is history. Of course there was one person who could have asked about the provenance of the investment........

[baggiejohn]

The difference there John is that we know who those 430 investors are, we don't really know much about the Chinese side.

If you look back at the news releases in 2016, nobody had heard of Lai, either here or in China, but he rocked up with the biggest bag of cash and the rest is history. Of course there was one person who could have asked about the provenance of the investment........

I've got a small share portfolio which is being overseen by an account manager. I haven't got a clue what companies I am investing in, or they in who I am, that's the way it works.
The Lai consortium is being portrayed as something sinister, when, IMO, it looks perfectly legitimate.

Allegedly JP paid lawyers & accountants a princely sum of money to test the provenance of the investment.

[overseas baggie]

For perspective S4A, who represent 12% of WBA Group, have 430 investors.

Any of Lai's group could pull-out by selling their shares, but it wouldn't change the value of the total shareholding.

Personally, I'm finding it really difficult to understand how Lai isn't a key investor in Yunyi Guokai SSDC. I  would need some serious persuasion to put in a larger stake than the person who's leading (and making decisions) on behalf of the group.

He is the biggest investor with in excess of 55%, but that doesn’t mean that everything registered in his name is his.  He could be a nominee for all of some of that investment.

[overseas baggie]

You do if you can persuade someone to buy your shares.

Correct - for unlisted closed-ended investment vehicles you can’t just pull your money out, you need to find a buyer for your investment. 

[overseas baggie]

I've got a small share portfolio which is being overseen by an account manager. I haven't got a clue what companies I am investing in, or they in who I am, that's the way it works.
The Lai consortium is being portrayed as something sinister, when, IMO, it looks perfectly legitimate.

Allegedly JP paid lawyers & accountants a princely sum of money to test the provenance of the investment.

Not in this case.  This is an investment vehicle set up to hold just one investment.  There is no diversification.  These investors were clearly brought together to invest in buying this club.

[baggiejohn]

Not in this case.  This is an investment vehicle set up to hold just one investment.  There is no diversification.  These investors were clearly brought together to invest in buying this club.

I accept the technicality, but the make up of the Lai consortium is being portrayed as sinister in some quarters.
Although the loan from the football club & the earlier report of under the table dealings in the MP sale are concerning, in principle, there's nothing wrong with having a number of smaller investors in a consortium.

[gazberg]

Not in this case.  This is an investment vehicle set up to hold just one investment.  There is no diversification.  These investors were clearly brought together to invest in buying this club.

Sounds like a SPAC in stock market teams. A shell company/group created to absorb another existing business

[wbawill]

It's not every day you come to a football forum and end up reading a detailed discussion of the technicalities of investment practices and law  whatever the fine details of his ownership of the club, it sure seems like he's flat out broke. I wonder how the Chinese culture of honour reacts to a bloke unable to pay back money he owed more than a year after he was supposed to pay it back! Must not be doing his reputation any favours.

[overseas baggie]

Sounds like a SPAC in stock market teams. A shell company/group created to absorb another existing business

No.  A SPAC is when you don’t even know what the investment will be (a “football club” rather than a named club).  This structure was set up specifically to buy West Brom.