Quote from Arekon96
Quote from KidCuddyQuote from Arekon96
No new signing will come to 96 until Friday (Hamburg). Martin Kind says in general: “We still have time until the end of August. If money comes in by then, then maybe we can talk about it.” #NP
Worrying. Does this mean Köhn’s money? Anton’s? Or Ennali’s?
I had expected that at least a transfer in the region of 1-1.5 million + a loan would still be possible. But it seems difficult.
It is possible that the shareholders’ loans were serviced directly, the equity increased and a certain reserve created, for example for a renovation project of the stadium.
That’s how quickly 5.6 million in transfer surplus evaporates without the payments you mentioned that have not yet been made.
Even income above this amount is not “necessarily” reinvested…
Given this perspective, one can only shake one’s head.
If the thinking stays this way and the holes left in the shareholders’ wallets from previous seasons are plugged in this way, then in the medium term one can say goodbye to ambitions because in the end one only serves as a cash cow through talent development.
Well, I’m getting a transfer surplus of over 10 million this year if you include Anton and Ennali. You have to deduct the 3 million from Brainhouse24 from that. There’s still a lot left over.
I don’t understand why you’re shaking your head now. Paying off liabilities means that the annual share of the budget for this purpose decreases – in other words, our usable budget increases. And we’ll probably save interest if we pay it back early.
The holes from previous seasons just have to be plugged. That applies to a lot of clubs in Germany. If you don’t do that and keep spending money to “bet” on promotion, you’ll quickly end up in the third division or go bankrupt. There are enough examples of that in Germany too. And no “holes in the wallets” of the shareholders are being plugged here either. They gave out these loans, at low interest rates, to protect their actual investment in 96. If they hadn’t given out these loans, we would have had to go to a bank where you have to pay the money back in the same way, certainly at higher interest rates. It’s pointless to perpetuate the enemy image here.
With the exception of FC Bayern Munich, every German professional club is a seller’s club. Eintracht Frankfurt’s EL victory would not have been possible without the sales of Haller, Rebic and Jovic.
We saw what happens when you become too good for the role of trainer with Füllkrug and Maina. They turned down over 30 million, were relegated anyway and ended up getting 6.5 million. Great. What do we get out of it now?
If you proceed as we have done over the last two years, the improved financial situation will result in an ever-increasing proportion of the money raised being used to improve the quality of the sport. It is no coincidence that we were able to make a seven-figure transfer for the first time in five years.
If we continue down this path, our opportunities on the transfer market will continue to increase, which in turn will increase our chances of promotion. That’s the magic of it.
We can’t spend money that isn’t there. You might think that’s stupid, but it’s reality. And after the investors were radically attacked and their area of responsibility was reduced, you can’t get upset that they’re not letting the money rain down.
Therefore, we need other ways to generate money…and the quickest way to do that is through player development and sales. Whether you like it or not.
I’m moving this discussion to what I consider to be the appropriate thread.
Starting chronologically: I already wrote, in relation to the sum of transfers I mentioned, about “the ones you mentioned…” why a correction is necessary is beyond my understanding.
Feel free to ask if you don’t understand why I’m shaking my head, because then you could have saved yourself the rest of the post and we might even have found a consensus.
On the one hand, you usually increase your equity in order to increase your credit rating or creditworthiness – which raises the question for me: “Why?”
If the shareholders step in anyway, in the worst case scenario, you would not necessarily have to increase positive equity.
Furthermore, immediate repayment of privately granted loans – if there is an official loan agreement with interest paid – does not necessarily make sense, so the interest can actually be claimed as a tax deduction and ultimately reduces the social tax burden.
If you take this approach further, assume that the shareholders have always stepped in over the past five years when we had a balance sheet deficit, which was partly offset by equity and their loans, but then issue a “pseudo three-year plan” for advancement – phew, difficult.
Economically, we have not been consolidated since Corona, but are forced to service private loans – for which there is certainly an annuity plan – and improve our credit rating?
How come?
Accordingly, I am not trying to create an enemy image here, but I am dissatisfied with the “stirred up” expectations – although I could have expressed that more clearly, I agree with you there.
This is where the cash cow comparison comes in. Of course, that’s an exaggeration.
Furthermore…with regard to the transfer you mentioned as a “benchmark”. Nobody knows the payment terms, and we spent more money cumulatively last season. Accordingly, the way of looking at things is too simple.
What now? At first you expected that 1-1.5 million EUR could still be spent, but after my contribution there is no money left? I don’t understand 
I don’t want to argue at all, I understand what you’re getting at.
Operating from financially secure waters is correspondingly less risky, more sustainable – referring to our “new talent factory” orientation – and has been positive so far.
• • •
We’ve been to Europe before,
everyone knows that very well,
Battle-tourists from Hanover,
FIGHT for HSV!
