Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 6:28:58 GMT
The accounts for the club for the last financial year upto June 2014 state we have loaned £2.6m to cover operating costs , Approx £1m to Barclays, £200K to GD's company This tells me only one thing - the directors are not prepared to fund the big operating shortfall each year Also states that the cost of the UWE Project to date is just short of £1m - a lot less than i thought Also states player sales are £400k  As these are accounts upto June of last year do they include any money from the Lambert Add ons as his deal went through in the summer i believe ?? So the big question is how are we going to pay the £2.6m back on that loan if we continue to hemorrhage money at this rate, bearing in mind the total club debt is now near £6m  Comments please ! |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 6:33:33 GMT
We're going to sell the Men to Sainsbury's. Do keep up!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 6:34:30 GMT
We're going to sell the Men to Sainsbury's. Do keep up! But Nick has said in the past that money is "ring fenced".... |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920 
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 11, 2015 7:51:02 GMT
We're going to sell the Men to Sainsbury's. Do keep up! But Nick has said in the past that money is "ring fenced".... and there is likely to be a shortfall as well |
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Feb 11, 2015 9:49:10 GMT
But Nick has said in the past that money is "ring fenced".... and there is likely to be a shortfall as well Well as long as it is a "watertight", "ring fenced" shortfall there is no problem...... |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 10:14:26 GMT
But Nick has said in the past that money is "ring fenced".... and there is likely to be a shortfall as well Well he is a stumpy fella. |
|
dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872
|
Post by dagnogo on Feb 11, 2015 10:25:37 GMT
The Sheikhs who read Gulf Weekly will cover it...
|
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Feb 11, 2015 10:44:23 GMT
The accounts for the club for the last financial year upto June 2014 state we have loaned £2.6m to cover operating costs , Approx £1m to Barclays, £200K to GD's company This tells me only one thing - the directors are not prepared to fund the big operating shortfall each year Also states that the cost of the UWE Project to date is just short of £1m - a lot less than i thought Also states player sales are £400k As these are accounts upto June of last year do they include any money from the Lambert Add ons as his deal went through in the summer i believe ?? So the big question is how are we going to pay the £2.6m back on that loan if we continue to hemorrhage money at this rate, bearing in mind the total club debt is now near £6m Comments please How is the other £3.4m broken down? If it's internal debt to directors I guess it's less relevant. The £2.6m is either interest only and repayable in full at a future date or its reducing in instalments. I guess we are in the same situation as we were when the mem mortgage with Barclays was first taken out. The club does not generate enough cash to service the loan so the directors will need to help. We have a lot riding on the Sainsburys outcome don't we? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 11:12:59 GMT
The accounts for the club for the last financial year upto June 2014 state we have loaned £2.6m to cover operating costs , Approx £1m to Barclays, £200K to GD's company This tells me only one thing - the directors are not prepared to fund the big operating shortfall each year Also states that the cost of the UWE Project to date is just short of £1m - a lot less than i thought Also states player sales are £400k As these are accounts upto June of last year do they include any money from the Lambert Add ons as his deal went through in the summer i believe ?? So the big question is how are we going to pay the £2.6m back on that loan if we continue to hemorrhage money at this rate, bearing in mind the total club debt is now near £6m Comments please How is the other £3.4m broken down? If it's internal debt to directors I guess it's less relevant. The £2.6m is either interest only and repayable in full at a future date or its reducing in instalments. I guess we are in the same situation as we were when the mem mortgage with Barclays was first taken out. The club does not generate enough cash to service the loan so the directors will need to help. We have a lot riding on the Sainsburys outcome don't we? Yes this is why i'm worried. if we fail with Sainsbury i think administration is not far off... |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 12:27:33 GMT
a fans share/donation scheme will soon sort that mess out [ wont it ? ]  |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 11, 2015 12:37:55 GMT
Any idea if the £2.6m is a continuing loan or the loan recently taken out with MSP Cap? Also is that loan included in the £6m debt or in addition to it? Whilst UWE costs are £1m to date what are they going to be if we lose the court action and have to pay our & Sainsbury's costs, nearer £2m overall?
If we fail to get any compo from Sainsbury's we could well go under, the worry is that's what's driving the legal case when on we haven't really got a case against Sainsbury's, as NH can't afford to fail.
Anyway nice to see GD's walked away with virtually all his loans repaid!!
|
|
|
|
Post by casey12a on Feb 11, 2015 12:44:20 GMT
I think if we see the Sainsbury deal fall through then more directors loans will be paid of by private loan companies. That way it's the finance companies that can be blamed for administration rather than the directors. Can they really afford to just take the hit on £6m?
Probably the biggest decision in our 132 year history.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 11, 2015 13:19:11 GMT
Well I'd say IF that analysis is correct it just shows the massive logical error in the 'it's Nick Higgs club and he can do what he wants with it and therefore we should be grateful for him keeping it alive' argument.
The problem there being that it ultimately isn't as we're mortgaged to the hilt in multiple directions and he hasn't because the club is now in an even more precarious position than it was before. Loading a club with more and more debt to it's directors and creditors is hardly keeping it alive - it's simply postponing the inevitable. Having excluded, marginalised and belittled alternative voices and taking a my way or the highway approach you can't then turn around and go 'help it's all gone wrong we all need to pull together'. That's my objection to the way the club has been run; according to a definition of leadership that says 'all hail the leader' and any dissenting voices should be crushed in a sea of paranoia. There is no alternative - except there is and has been consistently articulated; namely to run Bristol Rovers more like a club again not a malfunctioning business in an overcrowded market place. It was never a particularly easy way forward, nor always the most attractive one but the high risk approach we've pursued instead has always had the club's future dangling over a precipice.
You can't have it all ways under the sun. If it's your club and you have decided to take a s**t or bust approach to it's future and you fail then surely it is only right that you are held accountable for that failure. On the other hand I truly hope this isn't a correct analysis and that everything works out because I quite like having a football club to support and I don't ultimately think Nick Higgs deserves to fail because I feel his heart is in the right place but his approach has been flawed. We have not cut our cloth; they have not attempted to run the club in any kind of sustainable way they've just launched a series of sustained gambles with ever decreasing odds of success. You can't then fall back on the fans if all that turns to dust having excluded so many in such a paranoid way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 11, 2015 13:22:00 GMT
That may have well already been made when Trash decided to pursue the JR? Sainsbury's must be fairly confident of thier positionas you sense NH would taken a decent compo offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasheadnaboo on Feb 11, 2015 13:25:16 GMT
So if Sainsbury's won we remain massively in debt but still have the Memorial Ground; whereas; if we won the debts could be paid off, but we'll be homeless and there will be large shortfall on the funding for the UWE? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 13:37:27 GMT
So if Sainsbury's won we remain massively in debt but still have the Memorial Ground; whereas; if we won the debts could be paid off, but we'll be homeless and there will be large shortfall on the funding for the UWE? no, we may have 30- million awarded [ oink oink oink - pigs flying noises ] |
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Feb 11, 2015 13:40:14 GMT
Well I'd say IF that analysis is correct it just shows the massive logical error in the 'it's Nick Higgs club and he can do what he wants with it and therefore we should be grateful for him keeping it alive' argument. The problem there being that it ultimately isn't as we're mortgaged to the hilt in multiple directions and he hasn't because the club is now in an even more precarious position than it was before. Loading a club with more and more debt to it's directors and creditors is hardly keeping it alive - it's simply postponing the inevitable. Having excluded, marginalised and belittled alternative voices and taking a my way or the highway approach you can't then turn around and go 'help it's all gone wrong we all need to pull together'. That's my objection to the way the club has been run; according to a definition of leadership that says 'all hail the leader' and any dissenting voices should be crushed in a sea of paranoia. There is no alternative - except there is and has been consistently articulated; namely to run Bristol Rovers more like a club again not a malfunctioning business in an overcrowded market place. It was never a particularly easy way forward, nor always the most attractive one but the high risk approach we've pursued instead has always had the club's future dangling over a precipice. You can't have it all ways under the sun. If it's your club and you have decided to take a s*** or bust approach to it's future and you fail then surely it is only right that you are held accountable for that failure. On the other hand I truly hope this isn't a correct analysis and that everything works out because I quite like having a football club to support and I don't ultimately think Nick Higgs deserves to fail because I feel his heart is in the right place but his approach has been flawed. We have not cut our cloth; they have not attempted to run the club in any kind of sustainable way they've just launched a series of sustained gambles with ever decreasing odds of success. You can't then fall back on the fans if all that turns to dust having excluded so many in such a paranoid way. Perhaps NH one final gamble is taking on Sainsbury's, are they really that stupid to defend a case they have no chance of winning? I very much doubt it! What shocking is we're £6m in debt and only £1m of that is accountable to the UWE project, where's the other £5m gone when we were probably nearly debt free after our last promotion? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 13:40:40 GMT
So if Sainsbury's won we remain massively in debt but still have the Memorial Ground; whereas; if we won the debts could be paid off, but we'll be homeless and there will be large shortfall on the funding for the UWE? Exactly. Explains the begging for investment interview, doesn't it? |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,165
Member is Online
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Feb 11, 2015 13:42:16 GMT
At least it has cleared up some myths.
1) the directors are in for the long run and may not want their money back ~ GD has just dispelled that one resigning and getting some of his money back. Who's next?
2) that only the bank loan and Deltavon were repaid by the MSP loan ~ the club admit they are borrowing to fund cashflow as well.
3) The UWE and Sainsbury will see us debt free ~ our debt has increased and continues to do so. Cashflow is not being met thus debt wiill continue to increase and will need to be met somehow.
I sincerely hope and pray that by the next financial year end we will have a positive court outcome and be starting the UWE....
|
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Feb 11, 2015 14:01:02 GMT
Agree with 3. My preferred outcome now would be compensation of at least £6m and to retain the mem.
I don't think GD resigning dispels any myth though. His departure wasn't a surprise to anyone and you would expect him to want to get his money back. What is more concerning is that we have obviously failed to find someone daft enough to take his place which doesn't bode well for anyone else wanting out.
Higgs has definitely capitalised some of his investment and, if Sainsbury's don't cough up anything, the directors are in it for the long haul whether they like it or not.
|
|
