Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 0:31:22 GMT
There is an addendum in this years accounts which states that £1.5 million of borrowing is to fund our ongoing costs in running the club for the rest of this season and next. The mortgage of about £950k has also been cleared and GD has had £200k of his Deltavon loan repaid. All the above covered by the loan from Shylock and Co. We lost over half a million again over last season. So external borrowings is now at its highest ever level.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,260
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 10, 2015 0:38:54 GMT
Is the hearing, or whatever it is called,in febuary not happening now It just did, sweetheart. It said, 'yes, fast track the main hearing to May'. It was supposed to be Feb 23 rd mucker
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Feb 10, 2015 0:40:10 GMT
There is an addendum in this years accounts which states that £1.5 million of borrowing is to fund our ongoing costs in running the club for the rest of this season and next. The mortgage of about £950k has also been cleared and GD has had £200k of his Deltavon loan repaid. All the above covered by the loan from Shylock and Co. We lost over half a million again over last season. Thanks toteend Do these 30/6/14 accounts show money being put in by the Directors as 1 year interest bearing bonds like the 2013 ones did ? Seems a bit strange Deltavon Ltd relinquishing it's charge over the Mem if it's loan has not been repaid in full ?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Feb 10, 2015 2:55:55 GMT
So let me get this straight, the judge believes there is a case to be heard? Amazing weren't you saying that Sainsburys had walked away and that was that? No need to consider any other option, don't like to say I told you so but ..... At least you weren't on your own in that view can't wait for everyone saying they called it wrong. Quite the opposite. I suggested more than once that if Sainsbury's had walked away then one possible explanation would be that the contract had time expired. I don't recall you saying that Sainsbury's would claim that the contract had expired but that Rovers would challenge that and that would be what the case came down to. Link to the post where you called this correctly please? Exactly the response I predicted weeks ago, oh dear Jack's wrong and trying to rewrite history. Its hilarious.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 6:40:33 GMT
Quite the opposite. I suggested more than once that if Sainsbury's had walked away then one possible explanation would be that the contract had time expired. I don't recall you saying that Sainsbury's would claim that the contract had expired but that Rovers would challenge that and that would be what the case came down to. Link to the post where you called this correctly please? Exactly the response I predicted weeks ago, oh dear Jack's wrong and trying to rewrite history. Its hilarious. But the contract has not time expired because Sainsbury are going to court. Why bother if they are 100% sure that the law of contract is on their side ?? I predict that Sainsbury will get their corporate fingers burned on this one and may well set a precedent (which English Law is based on) for other cases to follow
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 10, 2015 6:52:51 GMT
If sainsburys thought the contract had expired why would they do anyrhing? Surely they would tell us and that is that. The end.
Rovers have taken sainsburys to court because they beleive they havent met their obligations.
It seems sainsburys though are about as secretive about the truth as Rovers, which at least gives me the smallest hope
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Feb 10, 2015 7:49:25 GMT
If sainsburys thought the contract had expired why would they do anyrhing? Surely they would tell us and that is that. The end. Rovers have taken sainsburys to court because they beleive they havent met their obligations. It seems sainsburys though are about as secretive about the truth as Rovers, which at least gives me the smallest hope Sainsburys aren't doing anything (other than defending their position) because we have taken them to the high court. As far as they are concerned the contract is at an end and if Rovers think otherwise they are going to have to go to the risk and expense of taking them to court. We are going to claim for costs but we might end up pay theirs if we lose.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 10, 2015 7:54:57 GMT
If sainsburys thought the contract had expired why would they do anyrhing? Surely they would tell us and that is that. The end. Rovers have taken sainsburys to court because they beleive they havent met their obligations. It seems sainsburys though are about as secretive about the truth as Rovers, which at least gives me the smallest hope Sainsburys aren't doing anything (other than defending their position) because we have taken them to the high court. As far as they are concerned the contract is at an end and if Rovers think otherwise they are going to have to go to the risk and expense of taking them to court. We are going to claim for costs but we might end up pay theirs if we lose. Exactly, so why are people saying it can't have time expires as Sainsbury's are going to court?
As I say the only thing that gives me a bit of hope is Sainsbury's are as elusive about everything as BRFC, given that Rovers have hardly talked straight.
All we can do is hope for a big victory, because the rest doesn't bear thinking about
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Feb 10, 2015 8:08:41 GMT
Sainsburys aren't doing anything (other than defending their position) because we have taken them to the high court. As far as they are concerned the contract is at an end and if Rovers think otherwise they are going to have to go to the risk and expense of taking them to court. We are going to claim for costs but we might end up pay theirs if we lose. Exactly, so why are people saying it can't have time expires as Sainsbury's are going to court?
As I say the only thing that gives me a bit of hope is Sainsbury's are as elusive about everything as BRFC, given that Rovers have hardly talked straight.
All we can do is hope for a big victory, because the rest doesn't bear thinking about
People are saying it can't have time expired because they don't seem to be understanding the simple concept that it is us taking them to the high court not the other way around. Sainsburys have walked away hence the need to take them to court.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 8:58:56 GMT
I am not saying there isn't an 'end date'. My argument is who inserted this and when ?. Let us refresh ourselves once more on the timescale. We received planning permission in January 2013: the 106 was signed in June 2013: we at to wait 3 months until September 2013. Trash came in on the last day and we waited until Spring 2014 for a full J.R. Then we had the EH challenge which took us beyond the summer of 2014. Therefore: work could of started last September 2014 once all legal challenges ended. Suddenly: Sainsbury's indicate around this period they don't want to proceed. So there are two possibilities . One : we foolishly signed up to an 'end date' after the 106 agreement in the summer of 2013 ( as you can't enforce 'end dates' until 106 is signed off). It must of sounded a bit like ' We BRFC will agree a date for access to site within 12 months of the signing of the 106 ' . Which interesting takes us to around late summer 2014. If that is the case then we are in big trouble. Or Sainsbury's enforced an 'end date' at the end of the 106 for access to be made within ' one year'. We hope and pray we didn't sign up to it due to any legal challenges . So to conclude. Did we legally agree to an 'end date' or was it 'enforced'. If we agreed then our defence is rocky. If it was 'enforced' and not signed or agreed ( bearing in mind the legal challenges). Then we have a strong case and sainsbury's should know about lengthy timescales. Also why were the members voting on 'extended hours' only a few months ago ; If they knew the 'games up'. All the legal papers are on the council website and my contacts haven't indicated any omega. How would Labour ( trade unions ) my party and the Tories feel if that was hide from us. Surely the 'own goal' couldn't be this great ?
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Feb 10, 2015 9:01:26 GMT
"Sainsbury's say that planning conditions were not met by a cut-off date last year, and so they were entitled to terminate the deal which was to buy the Memorial Stadium for just short of £30m"
That seems easy to grasp to me, Sainsbury's clearly suggest there was a cut-off date, apparently it's common to have a long-stop date in such contracts, if so, we could be on dodgy ground, hence, why Sainsbury's seem so confident in thier case and the likes of Leslie have gone quiet?
I guess our case might be based on Sainsbury's dragging their feet in order to get to the cut-off date, but surely our case was discussed in court yesterday, why hasn't that been reported??
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 10, 2015 9:08:33 GMT
its not a 'cut-off date', its clearly a 'sell-by date'
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 9:09:02 GMT
The issue of an 'end date' to sale is an easy theory to understand. However: how was it communicated . Example: I was speeding last week on the motorway . Therefore 1) I received notification and agreed 2) I haven;t received notification and haven't agreed. So either we 'signed and agreed' and kept silent or ' it is enforced' and they are being unreasonable. Why didn't they take up the offer last September
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 10, 2015 9:11:13 GMT
The stadium is everything to Rovers’ future now. Without it and what’s left? a football team, a stadium that works for now, a fanbase - in fact everything that we've had for the last 15 years
life goes on, I think
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,140
|
Post by eppinggas on Feb 10, 2015 9:13:10 GMT
Why are we going to the High Court? Judge Rinder should be dealing with this! Quicker, cheaper and far more entertaining. On a more serious note. I don't think the case is necessarily "all or nothing". We should end up with some compensation - it's been a question of 'how much' for some time now. In an ideal world if that is around £10mil (plucking that figure out of the air) then that clears our debts and the Board can have their money back. And then they can then go forth and multiply. If the figure is significantly less than £10mil then you have to fear the worse - as we would remain in a deadly embrace with the Board still 'running' the Club and unable to get their cash back and walk away.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 9:20:30 GMT
JUNE 2014
Outstanding contractual agreements between all parties have been on hold since legal proceedings got underway last autumn but we are NOW in the process of addressing these agreements.
So mr. Sainsbury's why didn't you sign the contract last June 2014 if you want access ??.
Either we are hiding information or they wanted out.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 9:20:33 GMT
There is an addendum in this years accounts which states that £1.5 million of borrowing is to fund our ongoing costs in running the club for the rest of this season and next. The mortgage of about £950k has also been cleared and GD has had £200k of his Deltavon loan repaid. All the above covered by the loan from Shylock and Co. We lost over half a million again over last season. So external borrowings is now at its highest ever level. That may be true, but as the debt to asset ratio is still less than 1:1, it's nothing to lose sleep over...even if we ran up against repayment issues refinancing shouldn't be a problem with the Mem as security.
|
|
dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872
|
Post by dagnogo on Feb 10, 2015 9:35:15 GMT
So external borrowings is now at its highest ever level. That may be true, but as the debt to asset ratio is still less than 1:1, it's nothing to lose sleep over...even if we ran up against repayment issues refinancing shouldn't be a problem with the Mem as security. Thing is, we shouldn't have to mortgage the crown jewels to keep the lights on. We spent decades not owning our own ground, and to GD's credit we now do.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 9:55:31 GMT
That may be true, but as the debt to asset ratio is still less than 1:1, it's nothing to lose sleep over...even if we ran up against repayment issues refinancing shouldn't be a problem with the Mem as security. Thing is, we shouldn't have to mortgage the crown jewels to keep the lights on. We spent decades not owning our own ground, and to GD's credit we now do. Just pointing out a bit of debt isn't necessarily a disaster waiting to happen...most businesses work from (long) leasehold premises because they can't afford the, typically 30%, deposit generally required to set up a commercial mortgage, we're well head of that and any compensation from Sainsburys should allow us to pay off senior debt commitments. The issue of struggling to pay running costs is just about revenue, getting back into the FL and one promotion along with everything we will have learned this year about running lean should see us in a much better position...of course if we go back to spending money like water trying to buy a frankly impossible dream we'll be ****ed again.
|
|
|
Post by belmontman on Feb 10, 2015 10:30:43 GMT
That may be true, but as the debt to asset ratio is still less than 1:1, it's nothing to lose sleep over...even if we ran up against repayment issues refinancing shouldn't be a problem with the Mem as security. Thing is, we shouldn't have to mortgage the crown jewels to keep the lights on. We spent decades not owning our own ground, and to GD's credit we now do.
|
|