|
Post by swissgas on Mar 4, 2015 15:04:32 GMT
The Directors are confident That should set the alarm bells ringing
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 15:26:03 GMT
Wonder why, when Higgs explained B,C and D to Barclays they weren't sufficciently confident to extend the existing facility? As always with Rovers, nothing makes much sense, and when the things that people are telling you don't make much sense, there's usually a very good reason. Having some recent experience in the banking sector I suspect Barclays took it as an opportunity to divest themselves of some non-core business. Happening a lot in British banking particularly in the loan sector. Of course people can completely close their minds to this possibility as they did last time I offered it as a 'possible' explanation. You might also refer to the Co-op's experience in holding loans against a club going bust (as many seem to assume we are). Sheff Wed to make your search a bit easier. Perfectly highlights why a bank would consider a small football club as non- core business. With the stadium as equity, if they had confidence in the borrower, there's no reason for them not to continue the relationship. Especially if Higgs looks over the desk and explains plans B, C and D. That section of the bank have as their 'core business' borrowing money at one rate and lending it at another, then strapping fees onto the loan facility. It's not as if it's, in terms of business, a massive sum of money or that there was no security on offer. Something else has spoofed them. Even then, you don't go rushing straight to sub-prime lenders, do you?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 4, 2015 15:44:09 GMT
Having some recent experience in the banking sector I suspect Barclays took it as an opportunity to divest themselves of some non-core business. Happening a lot in British banking particularly in the loan sector. Of course people can completely close their minds to this possibility as they did last time I offered it as a 'possible' explanation. You might also refer to the Co-op's experience in holding loans against a club going bust (as many seem to assume we are). Sheff Wed to make your search a bit easier. Perfectly highlights why a bank would consider a small football club as non- core business. With the stadium as equity, if they had confidence in the borrower, there's no reason for them not to continue the relationship. Especially if Higgs looks over the desk and explains plans B, C and D. That section of the bank have as their 'core business' borrowing money at one rate and lending it at another, then strapping fees onto the loan facility. It's not as if it's, in terms of business, a massive sum of money or that there was no security on offer. Something else has spoofed them. Even then, you don't go rushing straight to sub-prime lenders, do you? In their heads I'm sure 99% of Rovers fans with business experience would agree with you Bamber. But all of our hearts are with Rovers so some still desperately try to justify the actions of the board and want to believe in the mythical plans B, C and D.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 4, 2015 15:51:23 GMT
Having some recent experience in the banking sector I suspect Barclays took it as an opportunity to divest themselves of some non-core business. Happening a lot in British banking particularly in the loan sector. Of course people can completely close their minds to this possibility as they did last time I offered it as a 'possible' explanation. You might also refer to the Co-op's experience in holding loans against a club going bust (as many seem to assume we are). Sheff Wed to make your search a bit easier. Perfectly highlights why a bank would consider a small football club as non- core business. With the stadium as equity, if they had confidence in the borrower, there's no reason for them not to continue the relationship. Especially if Higgs looks over the desk and explains plans B, C and D. That section of the bank have as their 'core business' borrowing money at one rate and lending it at another, then strapping fees onto the loan facility. It's not as if it's, in terms of business, a massive sum of money or that there was no security on offer. Something else has spoofed them. Even then, you don't go rushing straight to sub-prime lenders, do you? Keep that mind fully closed Jack. That's the easy option. To give an example why your thinking, whilst having a non-bankers logic to it, doesn't reflect current banking thinking on non-core business. The bank I did work for (and will soon again) decided to exit a profitable credit card & personal loans business with a large retailer (yep you can guess which one) because joint ventures (regardless of profitability) were now 'non-core'.
Hence a small nonprofitable football club which would have very negative publicity if you tried to collect your loans against could eminently be non-core on many levels.
But hey don't even consider it that wouldn't suit the picture you're desperate to paint for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 4, 2015 15:59:22 GMT
With the stadium as equity, if they had confidence in the borrower, there's no reason for them not to continue the relationship. Especially if Higgs looks over the desk and explains plans B, C and D. That section of the bank have as their 'core business' borrowing money at one rate and lending it at another, then strapping fees onto the loan facility. It's not as if it's, in terms of business, a massive sum of money or that there was no security on offer. Something else has spoofed them. Even then, you don't go rushing straight to sub-prime lenders, do you? In their heads I'm sure 99% of Rovers fans with business experience would agree with you Bamber. But all of our hearts are with Rovers so some still desperately try to justify the actions of the board and want to believe in the mythical plans B, C and D. Oh well 2 of you business men not aware of current banking trends, oh dear hope your still not running businesses in the UK. As to plans b, c, d you believe what you like, I'll only believe they exist once they become public.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 16:02:03 GMT
With the stadium as equity, if they had confidence in the borrower, there's no reason for them not to continue the relationship. Especially if Higgs looks over the desk and explains plans B, C and D. That section of the bank have as their 'core business' borrowing money at one rate and lending it at another, then strapping fees onto the loan facility. It's not as if it's, in terms of business, a massive sum of money or that there was no security on offer. Something else has spoofed them. Even then, you don't go rushing straight to sub-prime lenders, do you? In their heads I'm sure 99% of Rovers fans with business experience would agree with you Bamber. But all of our hearts are with Rovers so some still desperately try to justify the actions of the board and want to believe in the mythical plans B, C and D. In reply to something you asked on the other forum, you mentioned not being able to use the Sainsbury's money to pay off MSP, that got me wondering if they are so confident in their position that Rovers' directors are going to try to demonstrate that having to take the MSP loan is consequential to Sainsbury's not completing the countract?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 4, 2015 16:07:16 GMT
In their heads I'm sure 99% of Rovers fans with business experience would agree with you Bamber. But all of our hearts are with Rovers so some still desperately try to justify the actions of the board and want to believe in the mythical plans B, C and D. Oh well 2 of you business men not aware of current banking trends, oh dear hope your still not running businesses in the UK. As to plans b, c, d you believe what you like, I'll only believe they exist once they become public. No one is disagreeing when you say Barclays may have decided football clubs are no longer part of their core business. The question is why no other mainstream lenders wanted to take on the Rovers business given the security available and supposedly good future prospects. Why were we forced to pay 14% per annum ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 16:09:21 GMT
With the stadium as equity, if they had confidence in the borrower, there's no reason for them not to continue the relationship. Especially if Higgs looks over the desk and explains plans B, C and D. That section of the bank have as their 'core business' borrowing money at one rate and lending it at another, then strapping fees onto the loan facility. It's not as if it's, in terms of business, a massive sum of money or that there was no security on offer. Something else has spoofed them. Even then, you don't go rushing straight to sub-prime lenders, do you? Keep that mind fully closed Jack. That's the easy option. To give an example why your thinking, whilst having a non-bankers logic to it, doesn't reflect current banking thinking on non-core business. The bank I did work for (and will soon again) decided to exit a profitable credit card & personal loans business with a large retailer (yep you can guess which one) because joint ventures (regardless of profitability) were now 'non-core'.
Hence a small nonprofitable football club which would have very negative publicity if you tried to collect your loans against could eminently be non-core on many levels.
But hey don't even consider it that wouldn't suit the picture you're desperate to paint for everyone. I'm not 'desperate' on any level or any subject regarding a local 5th tier football club. You may be right. All I know is that, before MSP were ever mentioned, rumours were flying around that Barclays had lost confidence in what Rovers were telling them. But hey, people like to gossip, they like to talk rubbish, lots of them love the sound of their own voices, and plenty of them like nothing better than to stir things up. So those rumours were probably all untrue.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 4, 2015 16:25:42 GMT
Oh well 2 of you business men not aware of current banking trends, oh dear hope your still not running businesses in the UK. As to plans b, c, d you believe what you like, I'll only believe they exist once they become public. No one is disagreeing when you say Barclays may have decided football clubs are no longer part of their core business. The question is why no other mainstream lenders wanted to take on the Rovers business given the security available and supposedly good future prospects. Why were we forced to pay 14% per annum ? Have to disagree there, people just don't want to consider it as a possibility (bambers initial response proves that). But I'm only offering it as a possibility for consideration, it may equally be that they were spooked by something else they knew. As to other mainstream lenders I think they are all reviewing core & non-core business. And as to security over the loan go & check where that got the Co-op in trying to recover their loans to Sheff Wed, to summarise it they had to write off the loan as to collect it would've ment selling Hillsborough as real estate. They adjudged the adverse publicity was worth more than the loan (I believe £15m ish). So if you are a mainstream bank why lend to a football club if the adverse publicity is so bad you can't collect your loan? I'm going to guess as no-one had heard of MSP that adverse publicity is of no great concern.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 4, 2015 16:43:11 GMT
No one is disagreeing when you say Barclays may have decided football clubs are no longer part of their core business. The question is why no other mainstream lenders wanted to take on the Rovers business given the security available and supposedly good future prospects. Why were we forced to pay 14% per annum ? Have to disagree there, people just don't want to consider it as a possibility (bambers initial response proves that). But I'm only offering it as a possibility for consideration, it may equally be that they were spooked by something else they knew. As to other mainstream lenders I think they are all reviewing core & non-core business. And as to security over the loan go & check where that got the Co-op in trying to recover their loans to Sheff Wed, to summarise it they had to write off the loan as to collect it would've ment selling Hillsborough as real estate. They adjudged the adverse publicity was worth more than the loan (I believe £15m ish). So if you are a mainstream bank why lend to a football club if the adverse publicity is so bad you can't collect your loan? I'm going to guess as no-one had heard of MSP that adverse publicity is of no great concern. It's a theory but on the balance of probabilities I don't think it's plausible because other mainstream lenders offer credit to football clubs and you could argue that most of them would welcome the positive publicity from being associated with a "groundbreaking" project like the one which Rovers and the UWE have put together IF it was viable. But the real issue is that Nick Higgs could have offered a personal guarantee for the 2.7 million loan which would have been acceptable to a mainstream lender and would have ensured no adverse publicity for them in having to try to sell a football ground. Rovers could then be saving something like 20 000 per month in interest. If Nick Higgs does not want to risk a further 2.7 million of his own money then that is fair enough but it does suggest the latest "we are confident" statement is the same as the previous "we are confident" statements.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 4, 2015 16:48:46 GMT
In their heads I'm sure 99% of Rovers fans with business experience would agree with you Bamber. But all of our hearts are with Rovers so some still desperately try to justify the actions of the board and want to believe in the mythical plans B, C and D. In reply to something you asked on the other forum, you mentioned not being able to use the Sainsbury's money to pay off MSP, that got me wondering if they are so confident in their position that Rovers' directors are going to try to demonstrate that having to take the MSP loan is consequential to Sainsbury's not completing the countract? That was another question which no one attempted to answer. The nodding heads were delighted when Nick boasted about how " that money is ring fenced in the contract and can only be used for building the UWE Stadium" but the very same people are now saying if we haven't got enough for the UWE Stadium then anything we get from Sainsburys can be used to renovate the Mem, pay off the debts and set us up for the future. It's as if they are conditioned to erase from their memory the previously entered doctrine and automatically over write it with the new doctrine. When you suggest Rovers may be considering claiming damages from Sainsburys for being forced to take the loan from MSP Capital it sounds to me like something you might hear from the "man in the pub" who knows it all and likes to tell people how he is going to "make em pay".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 16:51:30 GMT
Probably best to apologise anyway, she did turn up. More in the know nonsense. I have now been advised that the Q & A are considered to be part of the AGM and on that basis it is only open to Shareholders.
I accept that answer, clearly my assumptions on this specific point, were incorrect and for that I apologise for misleading anyone.
I have also now been advised, who the individuals who turned up were and they are clearly longstanding Gasheads, as you well know.
"More in in the know nonsense" has nothing to do with this thread, to which I could respond but would not dignify causing upset to the people concerned.
End of Tthread
thank you for your views ;-]
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 4, 2015 17:04:55 GMT
Have to disagree there, people just don't want to consider it as a possibility (bambers initial response proves that). But I'm only offering it as a possibility for consideration, it may equally be that they were spooked by something else they knew. As to other mainstream lenders I think they are all reviewing core & non-core business. And as to security over the loan go & check where that got the Co-op in trying to recover their loans to Sheff Wed, to summarise it they had to write off the loan as to collect it would've ment selling Hillsborough as real estate. They adjudged the adverse publicity was worth more than the loan (I believe £15m ish). So if you are a mainstream bank why lend to a football club if the adverse publicity is so bad you can't collect your loan? I'm going to guess as no-one had heard of MSP that adverse publicity is of no great concern. It's a theory but on the balance of probabilities I don't think it's plausible because other mainstream lenders offer credit to football clubs and you could argue that most of them would welcome the positive publicity from being associated with a "groundbreaking" project like the one which Rovers and the UWE have put together IF it was viable. But the real issue is that Nick Higgs could have offered a personal guarantee for the 2.7 million loan which would have been acceptable to a mainstream lender and would have ensured no adverse publicity for them in having to try to sell a football ground. Rovers could then be saving something like 20 000 per month in interest. If Nick Higgs does not want to risk a further 2.7 million of his own money then that is fair enough but it does suggest the latest "we are confident" statement is the same as the previous "we are confident" statements. Well plausible or not is up to the individual to decide. We are all living on scraps of information, all I've tried is to add some banking rationale. Follow bamber and believe rumours, personally I wasn't aware of any barc!ays rumours I'd certainly be asking why we couldn't get better than 14% which is practically credit card rates. At least you seem to now accept the concept of non-core business.
|
|
dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872
|
Post by dagnogo on Mar 4, 2015 17:22:19 GMT
We should start a poll. Which is best, rumours or conjecture?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 17:24:53 GMT
We should start a poll. Which is best, rumours or conjecture? where is the agenda option ?
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Mar 4, 2015 17:25:24 GMT
With the stadium as equity, if they had confidence in the borrower, there's no reason for them not to continue the relationship. Especially if Higgs looks over the desk and explains plans B, C and D. That section of the bank have as their 'core business' borrowing money at one rate and lending it at another, then strapping fees onto the loan facility. It's not as if it's, in terms of business, a massive sum of money or that there was no security on offer. Something else has spoofed them. Even then, you don't go rushing straight to sub-prime lenders, do you? In their heads I'm sure 99% of Rovers fans with business experience would agree with you Bamber. But all of our hearts are with Rovers so some still desperately try to justify the actions of the board and want to believe in the mythical plans B, C and D. 100% with banking experience would disagree though. CGH is right on this one. The club may have got a continuation of the loan at the same level of borrowing but there's no way Barclays would lend more or agree to share their security with another lender.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 4, 2015 17:27:16 GMT
Rovers took out a short-term loan, believed to be in the region of £2 million with a company called MSP Capital in December, when it was clear their dispute with Sainsbury’s over sale of the Memorial Stadium site was going to end up in the High Court.
The club investigated issues of refinancing with existing partner Barclays to continue funding the legal challenge, which has so far cost the club in excess of £1 million, but were declined.
Instead, Rovers opted to take the loan from MSP Capital at a rate of 1.2 per cent interest per month and will have to repay the full amount and accrued interest by the end of the year
When asked why the directors had opted to refinance at such a high rate of interest instead of loaning the money themselves at lower rates of interest, Higgs said: “The refinancing was done for a very specific reason.
“We knew the case was likely to end up in the High Court and we wanted to make sure we were not starved into submission before it got there. The directors are already funding the football club and we continue to do so. If you look at the losses over a number of years, they have all been covered by directors and they have still contributed to the current year in terms of trading losses.
“We had gone to our bank (Barclays), who hold the mortgage on the site, to help us with restructuring in light of the increasing costs and legal fees associated with the stadium project and we couldn’t make any headway.
“We ended up bringing in alternative methods of funding that enables us to fight the court case coming up in May. We are classing these costs associated with the upcoming court case as an extraordinary thing and a separate entity. We want to make sure we have the funds available to fight this case, while still trading normally within the football club.”
A High Court trial date has been set for May 14 after Rovers made a plea to have the situation expedited as a result of their uncertain financial position and the willingness of other partners to remain on board with the project beyond the summer.
When asked how confident he was that the High Court judge would rule in Rovers’ favour, Higgs replied: “We are bound by legal agreements and the least I say at this stage the better.”
Higgs was speaking after addressing shareholders at the club’s AGM on Tuesday night. Higgs and his board of directors were all re-elected to their positions while the annual figures, which showed yearly losses cut by 27.5 per cent, were approved.
Annual losses for the year ending June 30, 2014 were down from £781,911 to £566,408 – mostly as a result of about £400,000 received as part of a sell-on clause when Rickie Lambert left Southampton to join Liverpool in the summer.
Total debt was slightly reduced year-on-year (3.7 per cent) – but current liabilities still exceed assets by almost £5.5 million.
Elsewhere, turnover was up to £4,328,341 from £3,819,633, but the wage bill across the company as a whole was up from about £3.2 million to £3.5 million as the board invested in a number of loan players to try to improve a season of struggle that eventually ended in relegation.
“There was a reduction in losses year-on-year, so we are moving in the right direction in terms of day-to-day trading,” added Higgs.
“There is another level of funding we would lose if we don’t get promotion at the end of this season, but at this moment in time all our efforts are focussed on regaining our Football League status.
“We are very pleased with the spirit and work ethic (manager) Darrell (Clarke) has built within the group of players we have here now. The players all fight for each other and we go into the last stage of the season with high hopes that we can really have achieved something special by the end of it.”
|
|
|
Post by nittygnome55 on Mar 4, 2015 17:48:30 GMT
I'm afraid The Gas was NOT wrong, the open forum AFTER the AGM was open to ANYONE.
If you look at the posting from nittygnome55, he is a first time poster and what he said was total oarlocks and I'll suggest he did not turn up at all and his posting was just to "stir it up"
My original message is correct "The Q & A at around 8.30pm is open to everyone, you do not need to be a shareholder, so that you can ask all those questions you have been dying to raise" It clearly indicates that the meeting is open to anyone after around 8.30pm and again I suggest that this individual DID NOT TURN UP.
If they insist they did, I'll ask Clare if it was true that anyone tried to attend and was refused admittance.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 18:10:56 GMT
The directors are already funding the football club and we continue to do so. If you look at the losses over a number of years, they have all been covered by directors and they have still contributed to the current year in terms of trading losses. No Nick, us paying punters provide the bulk of the money that you squander. But we aren't giving the option to call our season ticket money a loan and secure it against the stadium.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Mist on Mar 4, 2015 18:32:45 GMT
Summary from the Gas List:- Easter and Clark will return to non contact training Thursday, contact training Friday and will be assessed for Saturdays match. To be honest, DC did not sound fully confident that either would be available. There were no other injuries from Saturday’s game, Parkes is OK We are looking at bringing in a midfield player on loan. If we do not get promoted this season we will lose out on £400k+ in guaranteed revenues. We will also lose out on the Youth team revenues, not sure if that is within the £400K or will be in addition to it. The Directors are confident that the Sainsbury court case will go in our favour. They do have a plan b,c,d if we do not win and on the suggestion to nurses accommodation at The Mem for Southmead hospital, they just smiled. UWE are still on-board with the development. The confidential clause still applies as we do not want to give Sainsbury any leverage to use against us. The court case is now set to commence on 14th May and not the date previously given. All the papers are now at the Court and apparently can be inspected but I do not have a link. The BT Sport revenue for televised games is £7k for a home game and £1k for an away game, we lose money on televised home games due to fewer spectators but we cannot refuse to allow them to televise games. DC likes players to take quick throw ins, it is not permissible to use the multi ball system, Gateshead are allowed to as their ground is an athletic stadium!!!!!! I wonder how great and what the Plan B, Cs and Ds are? I mean if we lost the court case and get nothing and have a massive loan and costs to repay how viable are B, C and D and if they are that good....And no plan E, now this is shortsighted.
|
|