Inter's Financial Situation

[Campione]

Infantino is a nerazzurro. Probably had some work in Milano and decided to attend the game.

Onana and his presence is more curious case to me.

 

[crzdcolombian]

If we were a feeder club would we still have bastoni etc? Sure we sold Hakimi and Lukaku when we didn't really want to, but the price for both was insane and I dont think they'll either get back to that price/quality in their careers, so it's not really regretted sale?

Does the fact that we sold Ronaldo and Crespo make us a feeder club too?

we are a feeder club when a mid table EPL team is taking our starters because mid table there == more money to our owners than champions in Italy.

I mean other than giving Brozo away almost for free all our sales have been great. He must have pissed someone off or done something. Also not like you hear he tearing up his new league or anything

 

[Corrode]

The best clubs in terms of selling Players i know are Portuguese clubs, Netherlands clubs, Germans clubs, Southampton, and Atalanta (since Percassi).

I'm sorry but Inter achieved nothing in term of selling Players, compared to them.

 

[brehme1989]

The best clubs in terms of selling Players i know are Portuguese clubs, Netherlands clubs, Germans clubs, Southampton, and Atalanta (since Percassi).

I'm sorry but Inter achieved nothing in term of selling Players, compared to them.

Inter is an end boss, Inter doesn't sell.

 

[Il Drago]

New sponsor for naming rights at Appiano now that Suning are gone. There's an agreement with BPER bank that will bring 3m.

 

[brehme1989]

New sponsor for naming rights at Appiano now that Suning are gone. There's an agreement with BPER bank that will bring 3m.

We found a local sponsor? Color me surprised

 

[Capo]

Yeah no shit. Default was never ever even close to being a realistic possibility, despite what the media and uneducated fans fell for.

Uneducated, lol tell me again how this works?

 

[IM21]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1797322783921230026

 

[Dave54]

Paramount at the back?

 

[IM21]

Paramount at the back?

 

[Aries]

Great partnership I hope it continues. I think it brought us a sizable amount of fans and vice versa for them too. The jersey varieties also generated an extra source of income.

 

[IM21]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1797667861684703298

 

[wera]

That extra 3m will help us sign another 36 year old veteran <3

 

[crzdcolombian]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1797322783921230026

crazy ugly uniform... I WANT THE TMNT ONES BACK !!! Make Inter Radical again !!!

 

[junior55]

Inter Bond

Anyone qualified in this group to explain how this bond of 415M that apparently expires in 2027 is any different from the loan we had towards Oaktree that expired now?
Are there different terms on a bond compared to this loan? Implications of paying not paying it ?

I would be curious to understand how much of our P&L is made of loans and credits and how much of the costs we can actually sustain based on our revenues

 

[brehme1989]

1) Oaktree provided a loan to Inter's main shareholder.
Failure to repay was subject to the private agreeement.

2) The bond is a financing tool Inter - as a company - used, effectively asking for a loan from market participants in exchange for an interest rate repayment.
If a company fails to repay its bond, it's considered in default. Which then could mean a number of things.

 

[.h.]

Inter Bond

Anyone qualified in this group to explain how this bond of 415M that apparently expires in 2027 is any different from the loan we had towards Oaktree that expired now?
Are there different terms on a bond compared to this loan? Implications of paying not paying it ?

I would be curious to understand how much of our P&L is made of loans and credits and how much of the costs we can actually sustain based on our revenues

Last year - for the first time ever - the MAJORITY of our losses were because of financing. Note, not all of the losses - without bonds and loans we'd still be losing money, but the result would be just less bad.

The bonds are secured creditors, so in the case of inter going baknrupt, they get paid before equity holders for example. In the case of those bonds, I believe its secured against future Inter media revenue.

Not paying it would be much worse than, e.g., not paying the loan. The loan just changes ownership - a bit who gives a fuck - the bonds are held by Inter, non-payment means we could theoretically be petitioned for bankruptcy


I dont recall the exact figure, but I think for last year, if you wanted to run Inter on a sustainable basis without the loans + interest costs, you'd still have needed to cut costs another 40mil - in a year we made the CL final - so, for example, bye bye frattesi + lautaro without replacement, in effect?

 

[IM21]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1798623991348998376

 

[Adriano@10]

Inter Bond

Anyone qualified in this group to explain how this bond of 415M that apparently expires in 2027 is any different from the loan we had towards Oaktree that expired now?
Are there different terms on a bond compared to this loan? Implications of paying not paying it ?

I would be curious to understand how much of our P&L is made of loans and credits and how much of the costs we can actually sustain based on our revenues

WHat brehme and H said..
Not paying the bonds back would put us into bankruptcy think Parma back in the early 2000s... Of course there is some leeway as to how short we d fall and one can always negotiate with creditors but basically bankruptcy would be the consequence as these bonds are held by Inter and not the owners of inter like the oaktree loan was.
H. s number on breakeven are probably correct i d add that this season with the removal of the suning(oaktree) loan cost with the increase of the sponsorship money and with the club WC we should break even with our current debt load.
Also should be easier for us to refinance these 415mio then it was to refinance the oaktree loan keep in mind that we raised these 415 to refinance a 375 mio bond that came due that year....
My guess wuld be that oaktree wants to lower the debt slightly but i d guess we ll refinance it.

 

[.h.]

WHat brehme and H said..
Not paying the bonds back would put us into bankruptcy think Parma back in the early 2000s... Of course there is some leeway as to how short we d fall and one can always negotiate with creditors but basically bankruptcy would be the consequence as these bonds are held by Inter and not the owners of inter like the oaktree loan was.
H. s number on breakeven are probably correct i d add that this season with the removal of the suning(oaktree) loan cost with the increase of the sponsorship money and with the club WC we should break even with our current debt load.
Also should be easier for us to refinance these 415mio then it was to refinance the oaktree loan keep in mind that we raised these 415 to refinance a 375 mio bond that came due that year....
My guess wuld be that oaktree wants to lower the debt slightly but i d guess we ll refinance it.

If I were oaktree, I'd pay off the loan. It's an EBIDTA impact that will improve the valuation of the club and therefore how much money they get back in a sale, so it makes sense for a PE to do (in a double dip fashion, as well. You knock off 415m of debt so it directly impacts enterprise value by +415m, and then you knock off the interest payments of lets say 25m a year which, x10, is another 250m of valuation impact as well)


the breakeven figure for this season is probably in the right ballpark, but that's obviously with the world club as an exception that we shouldnt be relying on - IMHO we should be aiming for break even to be something like Scudetto win + CL QF as the baseline target, with improved sponsorship etc as well

Things like the Betsson sponsorship help, of course, and apparently there's a forecast of 20-25mil euros of revenue from the jersey production too, etc