|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 5, 2015 17:17:36 GMT
Well I srand corrected then, something certain posters on here could learn to do (but he's already got wound twice on this thread). So what have all criticism about pension been about, thought he lent the original amount (through his pension pot) & charged interest. Still there must have been some reason for all the pension comments. Or perhaps everyone loves him. Really surprised it's taken the intelligent,cough, people on here so long to cotton onto APRs & compounded interest. My understanding is that GoD made remarks and/or comments about protecting his investment as in the long run it was his pension fund. As in most cases both sides pick up on sound bites which are remembered because they are usually said at crucial times. In effect the money lent was potentially his pension fund as it was lent by his own company into BRFC. Now that the money has been repaid, and of course provided Deltavon doesn't falter, his money is safely back in his own hands and in a place where he can make decisions about its usage. He could of course lend that money back into BRFC on a personal basis or buy additional preference shares but I don't see that happening somehow. I find the fact that he is effectively withdrawing from the political arena of BRFC as worrying as the fact that we are now borrowing from a bridging finance company. As a director he would have been party to signing off the accounts stating, as Oldie said, that the company is still a going concern in spite of its insolvent position. I would say that his underwriting would carry far more weight than Boycie, Ed Ware and others on the Board. Thanks for correcting my understanding, you are so much more reasonable to deal with than other posters on this forum. As a further question the money he lent, through Deltavon, did he charge interest on it? Personally not sure what to make of GDs move away from things. Love him or hate him I think everyone regonises him as a Rovers man. He has made positive noises about our chances in the court case & I'm more bullish than most on our chances (gut feel on the limited information available rather intheknow information) but I accept if we lose the most likely outcome is administration. Hence I keep on wondering if GD has separated himself from the board now to be in a position to 'rescue' the club. Hence when I didn't agree with you that if the 'book' exists its purpose would be to divide the fans. On the off chance that the 'book' does exist & is released in the near future I'd see its intended purpose as uniting the fans behind GD. As to lending the money back to Rovers why? I presented the idea to 'businessmen' on this forum & they wanted nothing to do with it why should GD be any different?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 5, 2015 17:27:19 GMT
I'm (only mildly) intrigued as to why they're quoting a monthly rate, anyway. Is that usual with certain types of loans / repayment terms / securities / types of lender / whatever? I thought that, I guess there is a clause allowing the Club to pay it back at any time, hence the monthly rate? Other than that I am as intrigued (a bit)
I would guess as well (hence only my opinion) that as they are quoting a monthly interest rate rather than annual that it is probably a revolving credit facility with a fixed expiry date. I'd also guess that means they are none or limited early repayment charges (which would put me at loggerheads with Swiss). God I hope we have negotiated some favourable terms for that extortionate interest rate But I'm on dangerous ground here agreeing with Oldie! PS: thats a joke in case your irony detector is switched off (do you have one?)
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 5, 2015 17:32:33 GMT
Don't suppose anyone has spoken to Peter Hargreaves to see if he wants to come on board? I think Peter Hargreaves fully understands if you want to make a small fortune out of football you need to start with a big fortune. I've always suspected he was the brains behind the outfit
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Mar 5, 2015 17:54:03 GMT
At the AGM, the Directors said that they had received no offer from Sainsbury to settle this case and any offer would be re[f]used. I suspect that has been misreported, but if correct is madness. If the club got offered £ 30m they should bite their hand off. No case is 100 percent concrete period. You'll have to go onto Gaschat to check with severncider, but he seemed quite definite. I'd agree with your logic, but I suppose implied in the response was that any offer if it was to come from Sainsbury's would be some fraction of the total contract price. I'd ask again though, whether there are any minutes of the Q&A being prepared and whether they would be made available to us mere fans. To save you looking, here is severncider's response: "Every Director and shareholder were of he opinion that any offer, other than the full £30m+ should be refused. That was part of the reason for the short term £2m+ loan and accepting less would mean we would not get that £2m back. We were told that all documents with regard to the writ have now been placed with the Court, including all the recent costs and we will look to Sainsbury for these costs WHEN we win our case."
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Mar 5, 2015 17:56:13 GMT
Don't suppose anyone has spoken to Peter Hargreaves to see if he wants to come on board? I think Peter Hargreaves fully understands if you want to make a small fortune out of football you need to start with a big fortune. I've always suspected he was the brains behind the outfit I fear the only option in this would be an acrimonious split between Mr Hargreaves and Mr Lansdown and investment in Rovers resulting from some sort of "left Twix / right Twix" affair. One can dream.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 5, 2015 18:05:42 GMT
You'll have to go onto Gaschat to check with severncider, but he seemed quite definite. I'd agree with your logic, but I suppose implied in the response was that any offer if it was to come from Sainsbury's would be some fraction of the total contract price. I'd ask again though, whether there are any minutes of the Q&A being prepared and whether they would be made available to us mere fans. To save you looking, here is severncider's response: "Every Director and shareholder were of he opinion that any offer, other than the full £30m+ should be refused. That was part of the reason for the short term £2m+ loan and accepting less would mean we would not get that £2m back. We were told that all documents with regard to the writ have now been placed with the Court, including all the recent costs and we will look to Sainsbury for these costs WHEN we win our case." Thanks curly. Not attempting to bring you into any argument.... I could only think of 2 reasons for ending up with a circa 15% loan a) we had run out of time to get something better; b) we beleve so strongly in our case Sainsburys will be paying anyway. On b) as one of the more bullish on our chances I still accept we could lose so would be going for the lowest rate possible (& I'm tightwad). But I also wonder if in awarding costs ( if we win) the judge can view some as excessive & dismiss them?
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Mar 5, 2015 18:22:24 GMT
This is true but the loan might not be in place for a full 12 months. Say for example that it was repaid some time in May, the actual cost of funds would be closer to 7%. As for other funding options, the directors are almost certainly capable of raising £2.7m between them. But why liquidate more remunerative investments if the funding is only required for a few months? Perhaps But I do wonder, in todays environment which lucrative investment is generating positive cash at 1.2% a month or 15% plus annually... Just a thought
A valid one but my point is that the yield on something like an investment property isn't worth exchanging for a fast buck on a 3 month loan to the club. A different proposition if the MSP loan is still outstanding in 9 or 12 months time.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,167
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Mar 5, 2015 18:34:14 GMT
Thanks for correcting my understanding, you are so much more reasonable to deal with than other posters on this forum. As a further question the money he lent, through Deltavon, did he charge interest on it? Personally not sure what to make of GDs move away from things. Love him or hate him I think everyone regonises him as a Rovers man. He has made positive noises about our chances in the court case & I'm more bullish than most on our chances (gut feel on the limited information available rather intheknow information) but I accept if we lose the most likely outcome is administration. Hence I keep on wondering if GD has separated himself from the board now to be in a position to 'rescue' the club. Hence when I didn't agree with you that if the 'book' exists its purpose would be to divide the fans. On the off chance that the 'book' does exist & is released in the near future I'd see its intended purpose as uniting the fans behind GD. As to lending the money back to Rovers why? I presented the idea to 'businessmen' on this forum & they wanted nothing to do with it why should GD be any different? With regard to interest there is agreement that interest has been payable on some of the loans and preference shares however folks disagree on whether it was actually taken or not. I think it was down to the individual directors/pref share owners. Interesting thought on his distancing himself from the BoD to then come in as a "white knight". As past experience has shown if a group of fans get behind one person/director it can be just as divisive. I'm not sure GoD is the one to unite the fans, but that is just my opinion. He doesn't have his father's talents or humility and a divisive/revelatory book certainly isn't the way to go about it ~ if it is as he is supposed to have said it will be! Apparently he still has some money lent to the club. From a cold and clinical analysis no experienced businessman in their right mind would lend new money to a financially poorly run football club that is risking the house (or stadium) on a High Court battle especially when their own bank won't lend any more to the business.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 5, 2015 18:37:53 GMT
To save you looking, here is severncider's response: "Every Director and shareholder were of he opinion that any offer, other than the full £30m+ should be refused. That was part of the reason for the short term £2m+ loan and accepting less would mean we would not get that £2m back. We were told that all documents with regard to the writ have now been placed with the Court, including all the recent costs and we will look to Sainsbury for these costs WHEN we win our case." Thanks curly. Not attempting to bring you into any argument.... I could only think of 2 reasons for ending up with a circa 15% loan a) we had run out of time to get something better; b) we beleve so strongly in our case Sainsburys will be paying anyway. On b) as one of the more bullish on our chances I still accept we could lose so would be going for the lowest rate possible (& I'm tightwad). But I also wonder if in awarding costs ( if we win) the judge can view some as excessive & dismiss them? I agree completely with your last sentence there CGH and it's why I criticise what I call the "man in the pub" approach which we hear so often from Rovers board. It stands to reason that any judge awarding costs for interest charges incurred would have to decide whether they were reasonable costs. There would be an obligation on the injured party to obtain the best interest rate terms reasonably possible and they may have to prove they had done so. To think otherwise is, IMO, adopting the simplistic view of the archetypal "man in the pub" whom I'm sure we have all heard boasting about what he was going to do or not going to do, and how he was going to "make em pay", only to go very quiet when common sense prevailed. Similarly the post above quoting severnciders comment about what the directors said at the AGM (if accurate) doesn't make sense. It says "accepting less would mean we would not get that 2M back". The implication is that the board took out the 2M + loan and accepted an exorbitant interest rate because Sainsburys would be paying it all anyway. Again it's such a flawed analysis and I think it's plain wrong for them to lead unsuspecting fans into believe it will be that simple. If the 2M loan is being used to pay back a directors loan and fund working capital (ie trading losses) for the next two years how can Sainsburys be ordered to pay that amount if they lose the case ? Of course any portion of that money used for legal costs may be recoverable but those costs and any damages will have to be proved to the satisfaction of the judge, will have to be fully justified and will probably be contested.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,167
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Mar 5, 2015 18:45:54 GMT
It stands to reason that any judge awarding costs for interest charges incurred would have to decide whether they were reasonable costs. There would be an obligation on the injured party to obtain the best interest rate terms reasonably possible and they may have to prove they had done so. To think otherwise is, IMO, adopting the simplistic view of the archetypal "man in the pub" whom I'm sure we have all heard boasting about what he was going to do or not going to do, and how he was going to "make em pay", only to go very quiet when common sense prevailed. Similarly the post above quoting severnciders comment about what the directors said at the AGM (if accurate) doesn't make sense. It says "accepting less would mean we would not get that 2M back". The implication is that the board took out the 2M + loan and accepted an exorbitant interest rate because Sainsburys would be paying it all anyway. Again it's such a flawed analysis and I think it's plain wrong for them to lead unsuspecting fans into believe it will be that simple. If the 2M loan is being used to pay back a directors loan and fund working capital (ie trading losses) for the next two years how can Sainsburys be ordered to pay that amount if they lose the case ? Of course any portion of that money used for legal costs may be recoverable but those costs and any damages will have to be proved to the satisfaction of the judge, will have to be fully justified and will probably be contested. I have been working on a project recently where the FCA recommended interest rate for damages was 8% pa simple interest. The onus will most likely be on the BoD to prove to the judge that they were forced to take out the loan to assist them in the period of Sainsbury's refusal to pay the funds. That will be made more difficult by the fact that Sainsbury could look at our accounts and say that the club was leaking cashflow anyway and that it was not their fault that BRFC had to borrow money at exorbitant rates. Further Sainsbury could take the position that the refusal of the club's bank to lend further funds was down to historic performance and ineptitude rather than their not paying up. The lawyers are going to have a field day on this one and to get compensation BRFC will have to have a very strong virtually bullet proof case. They are few and far between in my experience.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Mar 5, 2015 19:01:07 GMT
It stands to reason that any judge awarding costs for interest charges incurred would have to decide whether they were reasonable costs. There would be an obligation on the injured party to obtain the best interest rate terms reasonably possible and they may have to prove they had done so. To think otherwise is, IMO, adopting the simplistic view of the archetypal "man in the pub" whom I'm sure we have all heard boasting about what he was going to do or not going to do, and how he was going to "make em pay", only to go very quiet when common sense prevailed. Similarly the post above quoting severnciders comment about what the directors said at the AGM (if accurate) doesn't make sense. It says "accepting less would mean we would not get that 2M back". The implication is that the board took out the 2M + loan and accepted an exorbitant interest rate because Sainsburys would be paying it all anyway. Again it's such a flawed analysis and I think it's plain wrong for them to lead unsuspecting fans into believe it will be that simple. If the 2M loan is being used to pay back a directors loan and fund working capital (ie trading losses) for the next two years how can Sainsburys be ordered to pay that amount if they lose the case ? Of course any portion of that money used for legal costs may be recoverable but those costs and any damages will have to be proved to the satisfaction of the judge, will have to be fully justified and will probably be contested. I have been working on a project recently where the FCA recommended interest rate for damages was 8% pa simple interest. The onus will most likely be on the BoD to prove to the judge that they were forced to take out the loan to assist them in the period of Sainsbury's refusal to pay the funds. That will be made more difficult by the fact that Sainsbury could look at our accounts and say that the club was leaking cashflow anyway and that it was not their fault that BRFC had to borrow money at exorbitant rates. Further Sainsbury could take the position that the refusal of the club's bank to lend further funds was down to historic performance and ineptitude rather than their not paying up. The lawyers are going to have a field day on this one and to get compensation BRFC will have to have a very strong virtually bullet proof case. They are few and far between in my experience. As a complete lamem, wouldn't you assume as NH has had some level of success in the construction game, he would be experienced in this particular field? Or maybe it's about whom has the squidgiest handshake..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 19:29:10 GMT
It stands to reason that any judge awarding costs for interest charges incurred would have to decide whether they were reasonable costs. There would be an obligation on the injured party to obtain the best interest rate terms reasonably possible and they may have to prove they had done so. To think otherwise is, IMO, adopting the simplistic view of the archetypal "man in the pub" whom I'm sure we have all heard boasting about what he was going to do or not going to do, and how he was going to "make em pay", only to go very quiet when common sense prevailed. Similarly the post above quoting severnciders comment about what the directors said at the AGM (if accurate) doesn't make sense. It says "accepting less would mean we would not get that 2M back". The implication is that the board took out the 2M + loan and accepted an exorbitant interest rate because Sainsburys would be paying it all anyway. Again it's such a flawed analysis and I think it's plain wrong for them to lead unsuspecting fans into believe it will be that simple. If the 2M loan is being used to pay back a directors loan and fund working capital (ie trading losses) for the next two years how can Sainsburys be ordered to pay that amount if they lose the case ? Of course any portion of that money used for legal costs may be recoverable but those costs and any damages will have to be proved to the satisfaction of the judge, will have to be fully justified and will probably be contested. I have been working on a project recently where the FCA recommended interest rate for damages was 8% pa simple interest. The onus will most likely be on the BoD to prove to the judge that they were forced to take out the loan to assist them in the period of Sainsbury's refusal to pay the funds. That will be made more difficult by the fact that Sainsbury could look at our accounts and say that the club was leaking cashflow anyway and that it was not their fault that BRFC had to borrow money at exorbitant rates. Further Sainsbury could take the position that the refusal of the club's bank to lend further funds was down to historic performance and ineptitude rather than their not paying up. The lawyers are going to have a field day on this one and to get compensation BRFC will have to have a very strong virtually bullet proof case. They are few and far between in my experience. And this potentially cross-references to the (guesswork and conjecture) possible Sainsbury's case that they were not sufficiently confident that the club had the means to complete the stadium at UWE, vacate the Mem, and fulfill the contract.
|
|
|
Post by 2nd May 1990 on Mar 5, 2015 20:06:49 GMT
My understanding is that GoD made remarks and/or comments about protecting his investment as in the long run it was his pension fund. As in most cases both sides pick up on sound bites which are remembered because they are usually said at crucial times. In effect the money lent was potentially his pension fund as it was lent by his own company into BRFC. Now that the money has been repaid, and of course provided Deltavon doesn't falter, his money is safely back in his own hands and in a place where he can make decisions about its usage. He could of course lend that money back into BRFC on a personal basis or buy additional preference shares but I don't see that happening somehow. I find the fact that he is effectively withdrawing from the political arena of BRFC as worrying as the fact that we are now borrowing from a bridging finance company. As a director he would have been party to signing off the accounts stating, as Oldie said, that the company is still a going concern in spite of its insolvent position. I would say that his underwriting would carry far more weight than Boycie, Ed Ware and others on the Board. Thanks for correcting my understanding, you are so much more reasonable to deal with than other posters on this forum. As a further question the money he lent, through Deltavon, did he charge interest on it? Personally not sure what to make of GDs move away from things. Love him or hate him I think everyone regonises him as a Rovers man. He has made positive noises about our chances in the court case & I'm more bullish than most on our chances (gut feel on the limited information available rather intheknow information) but I accept if we lose the most likely outcome is administration. Hence I keep on wondering if GD has separated himself from the board now to be in a position to 'rescue' the club.Hence when I didn't agree with you that if the 'book' exists its purpose would be to divide the fans. On the off chance that the 'book' does exist & is released in the near future I'd see its intended purpose as uniting the fans behind GD. As to lending the money back to Rovers why? I presented the idea to 'businessmen' on this forum & they wanted nothing to do with it why should GD be any different? Good post. Exactly what I was thinking about GD, I have a feeling it is not the last we've seen of him.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 5, 2015 20:34:21 GMT
when you say 'rescue', I'm thinking that it would in fact be a rescue
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Mar 5, 2015 20:48:22 GMT
Thanks for correcting my understanding, you are so much more reasonable to deal with than other posters on this forum. As a further question the money he lent, through Deltavon, did he charge interest on it? Personally not sure what to make of GDs move away from things. Love him or hate him I think everyone regonises him as a Rovers man. He has made positive noises about our chances in the court case & I'm more bullish than most on our chances (gut feel on the limited information available rather intheknow information) but I accept if we lose the most likely outcome is administration. Hence I keep on wondering if GD has separated himself from the board now to be in a position to 'rescue' the club.Hence when I didn't agree with you that if the 'book' exists its purpose would be to divide the fans. On the off chance that the 'book' does exist & is released in the near future I'd see its intended purpose as uniting the fans behind GD. As to lending the money back to Rovers why? I presented the idea to 'businessmen' on this forum & they wanted nothing to do with it why should GD be any different? Good post. Exactly what I was thinking about GD, I have a feeling it is not the last we've seen of him. Agood summary of Geoff's remaining stake in the club was posted by severnsider on gaschat - (apologies severncider, I feel like I'm copying your homework!) "9 hours ago severncider said: Deltavon Developments Ltd had loans outstanding of £677,054 as at 30/06/2014 of which £200,00 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff Dunford had a loan of £143,066 outstanding as at 30/06/2014. So there are loans still outstanding of £620,120 as of now. There were also one year bonds outstanding, as at 30/06/2014, G Dunford £51,134, Barrs Court £147,983 and Deltavon £102,758. My understanding is that just £200,000 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff owned 1,218,221 shares at 30/06/2014 and as far as I am aware continues to own these. These figures taken from the recently published accounts." Investment, pension fund or whatever, these are not insignificant funds for someone to invest in something as precarious as a non-league football club. It does put into context some of the statements mde on here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 20:58:59 GMT
Was Geoff Dunford at the AGM?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 21:00:31 GMT
Good post. Exactly what I was thinking about GD, I have a feeling it is not the last we've seen of him. Agood summary of Geoff's remaining stake in the club was posted by severnsider on gaschat - (apologies severncider, I feel like I'm copying your homework!) "9 hours ago severncider said: Deltavon Developments Ltd had loans outstanding of £677,054 as at 30/06/2014 of which £200,00 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff Dunford had a loan of £143,066 outstanding as at 30/06/2014. So there are loans still outstanding of £620,120 as of now. There were also one year bonds outstanding, as at 30/06/2014, G Dunford £51,134, Barrs Court £147,983 and Deltavon £102,758. My understanding is that just £200,000 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff owned 1,218,221 shares at 30/06/2014 and as far as I am aware continues to own these. These figures taken from the recently published accounts." Investment, pension fund or whatever, these are not insignificant funds for someone to invest in something as precarious as a non-league football club. It does put into context some of the statements mde on here. And he still was invited to the ball.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 5, 2015 21:32:59 GMT
Good post. Exactly what I was thinking about GD, I have a feeling it is not the last we've seen of him. Agood summary of Geoff's remaining stake in the club was posted by severnsider on gaschat - (apologies severncider, I feel like I'm copying your homework!) "9 hours ago severncider said: Deltavon Developments Ltd had loans outstanding of £677,054 as at 30/06/2014 of which £200,00 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff Dunford had a loan of £143,066 outstanding as at 30/06/2014. So there are loans still outstanding of £620,120 as of now. There were also one year bonds outstanding, as at 30/06/2014, G Dunford £51,134, Barrs Court £147,983 and Deltavon £102,758. My understanding is that just £200,000 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff owned 1,218,221 shares at 30/06/2014 and as far as I am aware continues to own these. These figures taken from the recently published accounts." Investment, pension fund or whatever, these are not insignificant funds for someone to invest in something as precarious as a non-league football club. It does put into context some of the statements mde on here. So if we only repaid £200K of the loans whereas the other £2.5m gone, surely the legal costs won't be more than £1m? Was any hint given at the AGM on what grounds Sainsbury's are fighting the case, as that one's still a mystery, did we miss a cut off date or are Sainsbury's on dodgy ground as seems their defence must have now been served at the court?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 5, 2015 21:55:00 GMT
Agood summary of Geoff's remaining stake in the club was posted by severnsider on gaschat - (apologies severncider, I feel like I'm copying your homework!) "9 hours ago severncider said: Deltavon Developments Ltd had loans outstanding of £677,054 as at 30/06/2014 of which £200,00 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff Dunford had a loan of £143,066 outstanding as at 30/06/2014. So there are loans still outstanding of £620,120 as of now. There were also one year bonds outstanding, as at 30/06/2014, G Dunford £51,134, Barrs Court £147,983 and Deltavon £102,758. My understanding is that just £200,000 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff owned 1,218,221 shares at 30/06/2014 and as far as I am aware continues to own these. These figures taken from the recently published accounts." Investment, pension fund or whatever, these are not insignificant funds for someone to invest in something as precarious as a non-league football club. It does put into context some of the statements mde on here. So if we only repaid £200K of the loans whereas the other £2.5m gone, surely the legal costs won't be more than £1m? Was any hint given at the AGM on what grounds Sainsbury's are fighting the case, as that one's still a mystery, did we miss a cut off date or are Sainsbury's on dodgy ground as seems their defence must have now been served at the court? It's hard to keep up as more of the picture is revealed but I thought a couple of weeks ago we were told the 2.7 million loan was to cover repayment of a directors loan, expected legal costs of the Sainsburys case and two years working capital requirements (funding anticipated losses).
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Mar 5, 2015 22:36:53 GMT
Agood summary of Geoff's remaining stake in the club was posted by severnsider on gaschat - (apologies severncider, I feel like I'm copying your homework!) "9 hours ago severncider said: Deltavon Developments Ltd had loans outstanding of £677,054 as at 30/06/2014 of which £200,00 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff Dunford had a loan of £143,066 outstanding as at 30/06/2014. So there are loans still outstanding of £620,120 as of now. There were also one year bonds outstanding, as at 30/06/2014, G Dunford £51,134, Barrs Court £147,983 and Deltavon £102,758. My understanding is that just £200,000 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff owned 1,218,221 shares at 30/06/2014 and as far as I am aware continues to own these. These figures taken from the recently published accounts." Investment, pension fund or whatever, these are not insignificant funds for someone to invest in something as precarious as a non-league football club. It does put into context some of the statements mde on here. So if we only repaid £200K of the loans whereas the other £2.5m gone, surely the legal costs won't be more than £1m? Was any hint given at the AGM on what grounds Sainsbury's are fighting the case, as that one's still a mystery, did we miss a cut off date or are Sainsbury's on dodgy ground as seems their defence must have now been served at the court? I'd suggest that the total legal costs and consequential costs - including increased building costs as a result of Sainsbury's crerated delays may be well in excess of £2m. The legal action is certainly something that the club is not being half-hearted about. The "if we are stuck with this contract" comment of their barrister seems to give their position in a nutshell to me. Pretty much " We're J Sainsbury's, we do what we want!" - as we have seen in many cases up and down the country.
|
|