Tom and Scott loan Tigers money

[MurphysLaw]

[quote=L.F post_id=767768 time=1613667264 user_id=3183]
There is a rather different take on this on the unofficial website, which is worth reading.
[/quote]

Yes, there's some interesting points of view there.
Is a 5% return reasonable given the current lending rates and the risk factors? Probably. Although, given they are by far the largest shareholders and effectively are in control of running the Club, in a way, they are protecting their existing interests.

Other clubs have raised funds via bond issues in the past - Wasps and Quins included. Probably too much risk for most atm?

[jgriffin]

If the Govt bails Prem rugby out, they make a profit.

[TigerBoy1880]

If the Govt bails Prem rugby out, they make a profit.

Well they are business men.

[Ian Cant]

Well done to both. Hope the “fans” on here praise their support along with all of our fantastic sponsors. Yes we can donate our season ticket money like many of us did last year but Tigers need the generous support of Tom, Scott, Mattioli etc.
Hope fans don’t get cynical. It’s not needed.

[Tigerbeat]

Tom and Scott did not have to put this loan in place.....they have done it to protect the future of the club and any profit that they may make (interest) is a small price to pay. Well done to both and thank you for your support financially.

[BigDan50]

Have we now become a club owned by rich businessmen like Saracens and Bath?

[TigerFeetSteve]

Have we now become a club owned by rich businessmen like Saracens and Bath?

No we're still owned by shareholders. Two of the main shareholders (figures of ownership share may be out of date)

Tom Scott (owns 46%) & Peter Tom (owns 9%), but is also the chairman of the club are the two being discussed here. Shareholders loaning money is completely different to owners funding their pet projects.

[BigDan50]

So the two Toms are majority shareholders and basically control the club much like Bruce Craig and Nigel Wray, at least Wray and Craig are not in it to make a profit from their ownership of their clubs unlike the two Toms who are charging interest on the money they put in to Leicester Tigers.

[TigerFeetSteve]

So the two Toms are majority shareholders and basically control the club much like Bruce Craig and Nigel Wray, at least Wray and Craig are not in it to make a profit from their ownership of their clubs unlike the two Toms who are charging interest on the money they put in to Leicester Tigers.

Operating as a independent company is more stable and therefore less affected by the shareholders health for example.
Our shareholders are investing and placing their money at risk, with significantly lower intrest than a bank or other loan company would charge. I don't think it's unreasonable to have a small level of interest there. This money is clearly critical to the club. Other avenues of getting it would be much more expensive than this. This is very common form of investment where large shareholders loan money for minimal interest. Especially when this loan is due to the club losing money, it's not investing in a new project or similar this is momey to keep us afloat, this is the riskiest type of money to loan as there is very little guarantee of it returning. So yes they're entitled to have a small amount of interest, especially as they are doing this to ensure that FANS are not left out of pocket trying to keep the club afloat.

I am not their biggest fan and think many points of their leadership is highly flawed but in this I'm 100% complementary of their actions.

[MurphysLaw]

[quote=TigerFeetSteve post_id=767830 time=1613722944 user_id=34255]
[quote=BigDan50 post_id=767828 time=1613722084 user_id=11038]
Have we now become a club owned by rich businessmen like Saracens and Bath?
[/quote]

No we're still owned by shareholders. Two of the main shareholders (figures of ownership share may be out of date)

Tom Scott (owns 46%) & Peter Tom (owns 9%), but is also the chairman of the club are the two being discussed here. Shareholders loaning money is completely different to owners funding their pet projects.
[/quote]

When the club first became a plc, it was touted as being owned by the fans, and it is still the case that the majority of shareholders are fans. The shares pay no dividend. There were restrictions prohibiting majority shareholding. Those restrictions have been removed, first when Scott invested, a few years back, and secondly at the recent 'closed' AGM, when a further threshold was agreed. Each time this allowed an increased shareholding, and presumably this has paved the way for this latest 'investment', which has come from the two major shareholders (their off-shore investment vehicles, and this investment pays interest at 5%).

Clubs need to survive this crisis, and I imagine that all of the 'owners' of the prem clubs are having to further fund them somehow (at least until/if govt funding comes).I would say that most are primarily motivated by the love of their clubs, and are not out to make money. But, all are businessmen and equally, they are looking at protecting their interests. I think Peter Tom falls under this description.

What I find interesting is that LFC was put up for sale by the major shareholders fairly recently, and they failed to get the value they wanted. Since then the make-up of the Board has changed considerably, and the two main shareholders have increased their investment and influence. It makes you wonder, beyond this crisis, what the future plans are.

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

They may not be perfect, but also they aren't the Wray family...or some of the more debatable Wendyball club owners, (some of whom have deplorable views)

The ideal world might of been if the City's owners had been interested, but that might of been at the cost of WR.

[Tigerbeat]

Have we now become a club owned by rich businessmen like Saracens and Bath?

No we're still owned by shareholders. Two of the main shareholders (figures of ownership share may be out of date)

Tom Scott (owns 46%) & Peter Tom (owns 9%), but is also the chairman of the club are the two being discussed here. Shareholders loaning money is completely different to owners funding their pet projects.

When the club first became a plc, it was touted as being owned by the fans, and it is still the case that the majority of shareholders are fans. The shares pay no dividend. There were restrictions prohibiting majority shareholding. Those restrictions have been removed, first when Scott invested, a few years back, and secondly at the recent 'closed' AGM, when a further threshold was agreed. Each time this allowed an increased shareholding, and presumably this has paved the way for this latest 'investment', which has come from the two major shareholders (their off-shore investment vehicles, and this investment pays interest at 5%).

Clubs need to survive this crisis, and I imagine that all of the 'owners' of the prem clubs are having to further fund them somehow (at least until/if govt funding comes).I would say that most are primarily motivated by the love of their clubs, and are not out to make money. But, all are businessmen and equally, they are looking at protecting their interests. I think Peter Tom falls under this description.

What I find interesting is that LFC was put up for sale by the major shareholders fairly recently, and they failed to get the value they wanted. Since then the make-up of the Board has changed considerably, and the two main shareholders have increased their investment and influence. It makes you wonder, beyond this crisis, what the future plans are.

Whilst we are not privy to what offers were made or not made, Peter Tom stated that any buyers would need to retain the interest of Leicester Tigers as an ongoing concern. Maybe bids were put forward but did not meet this requirement.

[trendylfj]

There is only one thing to say to these two - THANK YOU! Any business needs cash flow in order to survive and pay bills and staff and these two have enabled LTRUFC to do exactly that. I do not care if they make a bit of profit as that will mean that the club is back in profit and operating normally.

[MurphysLaw]

[quote=trendylfj post_id=767849 time=1613733110 user_id=3758]
There is only one thing to say to these two - THANK YOU! Any business needs cash flow in order to survive and pay bills and staff and these two have enabled LTRUFC to do exactly that. I do not care if they make a bit of profit as that will mean that the club is back in profit and operating normally.
[/quote]

No arguing with your cash-flow point, but I doubt that the interest payments are contingent on LFC being back in profit. If anything they will delay it.

[sam16111986]

There is a rather different take on this on the unofficial website, which is worth reading.

Yes, there's some interesting points of view there.
Is a 5% return reasonable given the current lending rates and the risk factors? Probably. Although, given they are by far the largest shareholders and effectively are in control of running the Club, in a way, they are protecting their existing interests.

Other clubs have raised funds via bond issues in the past - Wasps and Quins included. Probably too much risk for most atm?

In the current marketplace 5% would be a pretty decent rate. Banks have been pushed into making a lot of loans by government and are pretty risk averse and would have asked for guarantees on the loan in addition to interest rates possibly a little higher than thjs. Our shareholders are looking after us.