|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Mar 5, 2015 0:15:34 GMT
I vote for complete guesswork slanted to support an agenda. That seems to be most common around here. Who is guessing? Please confirm Oldie, you are priceless. Who isn't guessing?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 5, 2015 1:23:24 GMT
For all those who ask '"why didn't the directors lend the money themselves at lower rates" refer to the threads criticising GD having his loans repaid and generally consider how theywould have reacted had a Director loaned 2.7m at an interest rate of (say) 8% or more. You do wonder sometimes how the BOD can win over the many doubters? Having said that, at 14% that loan does appear excessive. Secured on the mem! Seems to me that some money had to be found, to prove to Sainsbury's (the true last villains in this after TRASH, Carstairs, et al) that we had both the appetite and money for the fight to the High Court - and FAST! Yep let's completely ignore the fact that GD has faced continual abuse since he lent the club money to purchase the Mem & pretend that those same people will now accept that lending money and charging interest is suddenly acceptable. Next thing you know people will be apologising to GD.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 1:29:11 GMT
Who is guessing? Please confirm Oldie, you are priceless. Who isn't guessing? Thankyou, my wife thinks so, but surprised you do. I am not guessing when I ask the question why any director / shareholder confident of a winning position would take out a loan at onerous interest rates when they could fund it themselves? And, if they do not have the capacity to do so then the directors statements in the accounts re going concern are going to sound pretty hollow very soon. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 5, 2015 1:30:44 GMT
Well said. Everyone is guessing! There is no way Barclays would lend any more based on our P&L and Balance Sheet deficit! Affordability, that thing you have to prove these days to get a Mortgage - is a non starter. No lender would take on a £2m debt just secured by one mans Personal Guarantee. What if he goes Bankrupt tomorrow? Guarantee worthless. I am not condoning this new borrowing - just putting some if the facts in place having worked for Barclays in a Corporate Lending role since 1974. Again, too many guessers. I appreciate your experience Alveston but surely Barclays or any other bank would take a personal guarantee backed by a charge over secure investments or real estate ? We are talking about paying 390 000 pa interest instead of 190 000 pa Couldn't the board have come up with a better explanation than "we had no other option" when it's as clear as night and day they did have other options. Swiss I'm guessing you have no more knowledge of NH (or any other directors) financial situation than I do (other than knowing they are all a lot less rich than Lansdowne). So how can you know he has the available cash or free assets to be secured? Of course there is the other point that fans have never accepted that a director should be able to charge the club interest. Still there is a great lending opportunity for yourself & the other 'business men' on this forum, just club together, pick up the phone to NH & offer a rate somewhere below 14%?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 5, 2015 1:31:35 GMT
For all those who ask '"why didn't the directors lend the money themselves at lower rates" refer to the threads criticising GD having his loans repaid and generally consider how theywould have reacted had a Director loaned 2.7m at an interest rate of (say) 8% or more. You do wonder sometimes how the BOD can win over the many doubters? Having said that, at 14% that loan does appear excessive. Secured on the mem! Seems to me that some money had to be found, to prove to Sainsbury's (the true last villains in this after TRASH, Carstairs, et al) that we had both the appetite and money for the fight to the High Court - and FAST! A lot of fans probably don't realize that the 2013 show the directors were putting money into the club through 1 year bonds which paid them interest at 3.5% above base rate. It is a much higher rate than a bank deposit account would have paid yet I'm sure it can be justified. But, as one of the doubters, the difficulty for me is that if it was questioned the immediate response would be "if you don't like it lump it", put up or shut up", "find someone else to put the money in" etc etc. All that does is betray a sense of huge insecurity and IMO that insecurity transmits itself throughout the club and is one of the causes of our under performance. We all understand that things go wrong in sport and in business and failure is a part of life none of us can avoid at one time or the other. The important thing, whether it is in a business, a sports club or even a family, is that people are straight with each other. Some may be at the top of the tree and others at the bottom but if we share the experience, work together and treat each other with respect then we have far more chance of earning success and enjoying the journey. Nick said today "we had no other options" which is simply not true. If he could only overcome his insecurity and tell it to us straight then he would stand a chance of winning over the doubters. Here is my suggestion of what could have been said today which you can pull to pieces at your leisure "After we realized the Sainsburys case was likely to end up in the High Court we approached Barclays for further funding to cover legal costs and extra working capital but they were unable to help us. With hindsight we should have prepared earlier and put together a convincing case which would have allowed us a better chance of negotiating a facility with a mainstream lender. However we did not do so and with this lesson learned we will be taking immediate steps to improve our financial planning. With Barclays seeking repayment of their mortgage, an obligation to repay Geoff Dunford's loan and a substantial cash requirement to cover legal costs and projected trading losses we needed to refinance urgently and MSP Capital offered the best deal available in the required timescale. The interest rate is high and some fans have questioned why the directors did not provide the finance themselves or use our personal assets to secure lower cost lending. The frank answer to that question is that our first responsibility is to our families, we have already provided substantial amounts of cash to the club and at some point we must say enough is enough. Our resolve to bring success to the club remains undiminished and we will continue to work hard on a day to day basis to rectify the mistakes of the past and to turn around Rovers' fortunes. We are determined to spend the cash the loan provides wisely and we will use our best endeavours to win the forthcoming legal case with Sainsburys and carry through the UWE Stadium project. I have not always honoured my pledge to provide regular and comprehensive updates on business matters at the club but I now realize how important this is. You have my word that in future you will be kept fully informed, whether it is good news or bad news, because at this critical time in our history unity is essential".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 1:49:27 GMT
I appreciate your experience Alveston but surely Barclays or any other bank would take a personal guarantee backed by a charge over secure investments or real estate ? We are talking about paying 390 000 pa interest instead of 190 000 pa Couldn't the board have come up with a better explanation than "we had no other option" when it's as clear as night and day they did have other options. Swiss I'm guessing you have no more knowledge of NH (or any other directors) financial situation than I do (other than knowing they are all a lot less rich than Lansdowne). So how can you know he has the available cash or free assets to be secured? Of course there is the other point that fans have never accepted that a director should be able to charge the club interest. Still there is a great lending opportunity for yourself & the other 'business men' on this forum, just club together, pick up the phone to NH & offer a rate somewhere below 14%? Can you imagine the response?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 5, 2015 2:02:58 GMT
Swiss I'm guessing you have no more knowledge of NH (or any other directors) financial situation than I do (other than knowing they are all a lot less rich than Lansdowne). So how can you know he has the available cash or free assets to be secured? Of course there is the other point that fans have never accepted that a director should be able to charge the club interest. Still there is a great lending opportunity for yourself & the other 'business men' on this forum, just club together, pick up the phone to NH & offer a rate somewhere below 14%? Can you imagine the response? Undoubtedly the same response you and others have been giving GD for years. I take it you're are out as your ego couldn't take that sort of bashing or you haven't the funds from your successful business career?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 5, 2015 2:06:54 GMT
For all those who ask '"why didn't the directors lend the money themselves at lower rates" refer to the threads criticising GD having his loans repaid and generally consider how theywould have reacted had a Director loaned 2.7m at an interest rate of (say) 8% or more. You do wonder sometimes how the BOD can win over the many doubters? Having said that, at 14% that loan does appear excessive. Secured on the mem! Seems to me that some money had to be found, to prove to Sainsbury's (the true last villains in this after TRASH, Carstairs, et al) that we had both the appetite and money for the fight to the High Court - and FAST! A lot of fans probably don't realize that the 2013 show the directors were putting money into the club through 1 year bonds which paid them interest at 3.5% above base rate. It is a much higher rate than a bank deposit account would have paid yet I'm sure it can be justified. But, as one of the doubters, the difficulty for me is that if it was questioned the immediate response would be "if you don't like it lump it", put up or shut up", "find someone else to put the money in" etc etc. All that does is betray a sense of huge insecurity and IMO that insecurity transmits itself throughout the club and is one of the causes of our under performance. We all understand that things go wrong in sport and in business and failure is a part of life none of us can avoid at one time or the other. The important thing, whether it is in a business, a sports club or even a family, is that people are straight with each other. Some may be at the top of the tree and others at the bottom but if we share the experience, work together and treat each other with respect then we have far more chance of earning success and enjoying the journey. Nick said today "we had no other options" which is simply not true. If he could only overcome his insecurity and tell it to us straight then he would stand a chance of winning over the doubters. Here is my suggestion of what could have been said today which you can pull to pieces at your leisure "After we realized the Sainsburys case was likely to end up in the High Court we approached Barclays for further funding to cover legal costs and extra working capital but they were unable to help us. With hindsight we should have prepared earlier and put together a convincing case which would have allowed us a better chance of negotiating a facility with a mainstream lender. However we did not do so and with this lesson learned we will be taking immediate steps to improve our financial planning. With Barclays seeking repayment of their mortgage, an obligation to repay Geoff Dunford's loan and a substantial cash requirement to cover legal costs and projected trading losses we needed to refinance urgently and MSP Capital offered the best deal available in the required timescale. The interest rate is high and some fans have questioned why the directors did not provide the finance themselves or use our personal assets to secure lower cost lending. The frank answer to that question is that our first responsibility is to our families, we have already provided substantial amounts of cash to the club and at some point we must say enough is enough. Our resolve to bring success to the club remains undiminished and we will continue to work hard on a day to day basis to rectify the mistakes of the past and to turn around Rovers' fortunes. We are determined to spend the cash the loan provides wisely and we will use our best endeavours to win the forthcoming legal case with Sainsburys and carry through the UWE Stadium project. I have not always honoured my pledge to provide regular and comprehensive updates on business matters at the club but I now realize how important this is. You have my word that in future you will be kept fully informed, whether it is good news or bad news, because at this critical time in our history unity is essential". Mostly absolute rubbish based on hindsight Swiss, the giveaway was 'important thing is being straight with each other' makes me wonder if you have been in business. Interesting that you also want to change the tact of your argument. I take it from your response that like Oldie you aren't willing to look into this business opportunity?
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Mar 5, 2015 2:07:05 GMT
My this is an interesting thread.....
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 5, 2015 2:13:49 GMT
For all those who ask '"why didn't the directors lend the money themselves at lower rates" refer to the threads criticising GD having his loans repaid and generally consider how theywould have reacted had a Director loaned 2.7m at an interest rate of (say) 8% or more. You do wonder sometimes how the BOD can win over the many doubters? Having said that, at 14% that loan does appear excessive. Secured on the mem! Seems to me that some money had to be found, to prove to Sainsbury's (the true last villains in this after TRASH, Carstairs, et al) that we had both the appetite and money for the fight to the High Court - and FAST! A lot of fans probably don't realize that the 2013 show the directors were putting money into the club through 1 year bonds which paid them interest at 3.5% above base rate. It is a much higher rate than a bank deposit account would have paid yet I'm sure it can be justified. But, as one of the doubters, the difficulty for me is that if it was questioned the immediate response would be "if you don't like it lump it", put up or shut up", "find someone else to put the money in" etc etc. All that does is betray a sense of huge insecurity and IMO that insecurity transmits itself throughout the club and is one of the causes of our under performance. We all understand that things go wrong in sport and in business and failure is a part of life none of us can avoid at one time or the other. The important thing, whether it is in a business, a sports club or even a family, is that people are straight with each other. Some may be at the top of the tree and others at the bottom but if we share the experience, work together and treat each other with respect then we have far more chance of earning success and enjoying the journey. Nick said today "we had no other options" which is simply not true. If he could only overcome his insecurity and tell it to us straight then he would stand a chance of winning over the doubters. Here is my suggestion of what could have been said today which you can pull to pieces at your leisure "After we realized the Sainsburys case was likely to end up in the High Court we approached Barclays for further funding to cover legal costs and extra working capital but they were unable to help us. With hindsight we should have prepared earlier and put together a convincing case which would have allowed us a better chance of negotiating a facility with a mainstream lender. However we did not do so and with this lesson learned we will be taking immediate steps to improve our financial planning. With Barclays seeking repayment of their mortgage, an obligation to repay Geoff Dunford's loan and a substantial cash requirement to cover legal costs and projected trading losses we needed to refinance urgently and MSP Capital offered the best deal available in the required timescale. The interest rate is high and some fans have questioned why the directors did not provide the finance themselves or use our personal assets to secure lower cost lending. The frank answer to that question is that our first responsibility is to our families, we have already provided substantial amounts of cash to the club and at some point we must say enough is enough. Our resolve to bring success to the club remains undiminished and we will continue to work hard on a day to day basis to rectify the mistakes of the past and to turn around Rovers' fortunes. We are determined to spend the cash the loan provides wisely and we will use our best endeavours to win the forthcoming legal case with Sainsburys and carry through the UWE Stadium project. I have not always honoured my pledge to provide regular and comprehensive updates on business matters at the club but I now realize how important this is. You have my word that in future you will be kept fully informed, whether it is good news or bad news, because at this critical time in our history unity is essential". A quick change of attack there Swiss. I take it from your reply that like Oldie you won't be investigating this business opportunity?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 4:04:50 GMT
Can you imagine the response? Undoubtedly the same response you and others have been giving GD for years. I take it you're are out as your ego couldn't take that sort of bashing or you haven't the funds from your successful business career? I was never in, having been invited once and declined. As for the rest of your ignorant attempt at sarcasm......well its just tedious
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 5, 2015 5:11:53 GMT
A lot of fans probably don't realize that the 2013 show the directors were putting money into the club through 1 year bonds which paid them interest at 3.5% above base rate. It is a much higher rate than a bank deposit account would have paid yet I'm sure it can be justified. But, as one of the doubters, the difficulty for me is that if it was questioned the immediate response would be "if you don't like it lump it", put up or shut up", "find someone else to put the money in" etc etc. All that does is betray a sense of huge insecurity and IMO that insecurity transmits itself throughout the club and is one of the causes of our under performance. We all understand that things go wrong in sport and in business and failure is a part of life none of us can avoid at one time or the other. The important thing, whether it is in a business, a sports club or even a family, is that people are straight with each other. Some may be at the top of the tree and others at the bottom but if we share the experience, work together and treat each other with respect then we have far more chance of earning success and enjoying the journey. Nick said today "we had no other options" which is simply not true. If he could only overcome his insecurity and tell it to us straight then he would stand a chance of winning over the doubters. Here is my suggestion of what could have been said today which you can pull to pieces at your leisure "After we realized the Sainsburys case was likely to end up in the High Court we approached Barclays for further funding to cover legal costs and extra working capital but they were unable to help us. With hindsight we should have prepared earlier and put together a convincing case which would have allowed us a better chance of negotiating a facility with a mainstream lender. However we did not do so and with this lesson learned we will be taking immediate steps to improve our financial planning. With Barclays seeking repayment of their mortgage, an obligation to repay Geoff Dunford's loan and a substantial cash requirement to cover legal costs and projected trading losses we needed to refinance urgently and MSP Capital offered the best deal available in the required timescale. The interest rate is high and some fans have questioned why the directors did not provide the finance themselves or use our personal assets to secure lower cost lending. The frank answer to that question is that our first responsibility is to our families, we have already provided substantial amounts of cash to the club and at some point we must say enough is enough. Our resolve to bring success to the club remains undiminished and we will continue to work hard on a day to day basis to rectify the mistakes of the past and to turn around Rovers' fortunes. We are determined to spend the cash the loan provides wisely and we will use our best endeavours to win the forthcoming legal case with Sainsburys and carry through the UWE Stadium project. I have not always honoured my pledge to provide regular and comprehensive updates on business matters at the club but I now realize how important this is. You have my word that in future you will be kept fully informed, whether it is good news or bad news, because at this critical time in our history unity is essential". "Mostly absolute rubbish based on hindsight Swiss, the giveaway was 'important thing is being straight with each other' makes me wonder if you have been in business. Interesting that you also want to change the tact of your argument. I take it from your response that like Oldie you aren't willing to look into this business opportunity?"
CGH you should know better than most that it's not based on hindsight because I've been putting forward the same arguments for at least seven years. So if it is rubbish at least it's consistent rubbish ! When you criticise my suggestion about "being straight with each other" it sounds as if you think no one in business is straight with each other and the norm is to act in a sort of double-dealing Arthur Daley sort of way way ? Almost as if you agree with Nick's apparent philosophy of keeping us in our place, only telling us what he thinks we should be allowed to know and making sure we are aware of how grateful we should be because without him there would be no Bristol Rovers. I'm no spring chicken myself but even to me it's obvious that way of dealing with people is old hat and a relic from the industrial strife of 40+ years ago. In the 21st century stakeholders in businesses of every size have a right to know a great deal about that business. In fact here in the US there are requirements to provide dossiers which are actually titled "the right to know" and which cover all kinds of matters from safety practises and employment policies to the financial stability of the company. The reason for this is not that some Government do gooders decided it would entitle them to a bit of extra overtime but because it's become generally accepted that a business which involves it's stakeholders and promotes teamwork and transparency will perform better than one which continues to live in the dark ages. In response to your question about "why don't some posters on here club together and offer Nick an interest rate slightly lower than 14%" I should say that because of the early settlement penalties which MSP Capital would likely charge the net result would be to burden the club with even more debt and none of us want that. But here's a question for you. With all the secrecy we are used to, and with no legal obligation to do so, why did the club reveal the MSP Capital loan interest rate of 1.2% per month to the press ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 6:57:49 GMT
My this is an interesting thread..... I disagree!
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Mar 5, 2015 7:50:06 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. it isn't the Co-op its their business.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,167
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Mar 5, 2015 8:06:21 GMT
For all those who ask '"why didn't the directors lend the money themselves at lower rates" refer to the threads criticising GD having his loans repaid and generally consider how theywould have reacted had a Director loaned 2.7m at an interest rate of (say) 8% or more. You do wonder sometimes how the BOD can win over the many doubters? Having said that, at 14% that loan does appear excessive. Secured on the mem! Seems to me that some money had to be found, to prove to Sainsbury's (the true last villains in this after TRASH, Carstairs, et al) that we had both the appetite and money for the fight to the High Court - and FAST! Yep let's completely ignore the fact that GD has faced continual abuse since he lent the club money to purchase the Mem & pretend that those same people will now accept that lending money and charging interest is suddenly acceptable. Next thing you know people will be apologising to GD. CGH, you have lost me a bit there. I thought that the club borrowed the money from Barclays to buy the Mem. Are you saying that GoD lent the club the money to buy the Mem? Wasn't his loan in place before the Mem was bought? I believe it was from Deltavon for about £200k although I am happy to be corrected.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 8:09:10 GMT
Yep let's completely ignore the fact that GD has faced continual abuse since he lent the club money to purchase the Mem & pretend that those same people will now accept that lending money and charging interest is suddenly acceptable. Next thing you know people will be apologising to GD. CGH, you have lost me a bit there. I thought that the club borrowed the money from Barclays to buy the Mem. Are you saying that GoD lent the club the money to buy the Mem? Wasn't his loan in place before the Mem was bought? I believe it was from Deltavon for about £200k although I am happy to be corrected. Chesh Shhhhhhh......let him sleep it off
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Mar 5, 2015 8:12:03 GMT
Oldie, you are priceless. Who isn't guessing? Thankyou, my wife thinks so, but surprised you do. I am not guessing when I ask the question why any director / shareholder confident of a winning position would take out a loan at onerous interest rates when they could fund it themselves? And, if they do not have the capacity to do so then the directors statements in the accounts re going concern are going to sound pretty hollow very soon. What do you think? My guessing comment was a general one, loads of speculation which in reality is just guesswork. I think you may have nailed it bringing wives into it though, i know what my wife would say if I wanted to put my hard-earned fortune into a football club. Particularly if I was having to risk my money to pay back someone else who was asking for their money back. And just when you need everyone to keep a steady nerve. It's could all get quite nasty at the next Valentines Day Ball. Purely guesswork of course !!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 8:20:15 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. But nobody is forcing you to buy a ticket you do so out of love for our club
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 8:26:05 GMT
Thankyou, my wife thinks so, but surprised you do. I am not guessing when I ask the question why any director / shareholder confident of a winning position would take out a loan at onerous interest rates when they could fund it themselves? And, if they do not have the capacity to do so then the directors statements in the accounts re going concern are going to sound pretty hollow very soon. What do you think? My guessing comment was a general one, loads of speculation which in reality is just guesswork. I think you may have nailed it bringing wives into it though, i know what my wife would say if I wanted to put my hard-earned fortune into a football club. Particularly if I was having to risk my money to pay back someone else who was asking for their money back. And just when you need everyone to keep a steady nerve. It's could all get quite nasty at the next Valentines Day Ball. Purely guesswork of course !!!!! My wife objects to me paying the gate money, let alone anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 5, 2015 8:29:37 GMT
For all those who ask '"why didn't the directors lend the money themselves at lower rates" refer to the threads criticising GD having his loans repaid and generally consider how theywould have reacted had a Director loaned 2.7m at an interest rate of (say) 8% or more. You do wonder sometimes how the BOD can win over the many doubters? Having said that, at 14% that loan does appear excessive. Secured on the mem! Seems to me that some money had to be found, to prove to Sainsbury's (the true last villains in this after TRASH, Carstairs, et al) that we had both the appetite and money for the fight to the High Court - and FAST! A lot of fans probably don't realize that the 2013 show the directors were putting money into the club through 1 year bonds which paid them interest at 3.5% above base rate. It is a much higher rate than a bank deposit account would have paid yet I'm sure it can be justified. But, as one of the doubters, the difficulty for me is that if it was questioned the immediate response would be "if you don't like it lump it", put up or shut up", "find someone else to put the money in" etc etc. All that does is betray a sense of huge insecurity and IMO that insecurity transmits itself throughout the club and is one of the causes of our under performance. We all understand that things go wrong in sport and in business and failure is a part of life none of us can avoid at one time or the other. The important thing, whether it is in a business, a sports club or even a family, is that people are straight with each other. Some may be at the top of the tree and others at the bottom but if we share the experience, work together and treat each other with respect then we have far more chance of earning success and enjoying the journey. Nick said today "we had no other options" which is simply not true. If he could only overcome his insecurity and tell it to us straight then he would stand a chance of winning over the doubters. Here is my suggestion of what could have been said today which you can pull to pieces at your leisure "After we realized the Sainsburys case was likely to end up in the High Court we approached Barclays for further funding to cover legal costs and extra working capital but they were unable to help us. With hindsight we should have prepared earlier and put together a convincing case which would have allowed us a better chance of negotiating a facility with a mainstream lender. However we did not do so and with this lesson learned we will be taking immediate steps to improve our financial planning. With Barclays seeking repayment of their mortgage, an obligation to repay Geoff Dunford's loan and a substantial cash requirement to cover legal costs and projected trading losses we needed to refinance urgently and MSP Capital offered the best deal available in the required timescale. The interest rate is high and some fans have questioned why the directors did not provide the finance themselves or use our personal assets to secure lower cost lending. The frank answer to that question is that our first responsibility is to our families, we have already provided substantial amounts of cash to the club and at some point we must say enough is enough. Our resolve to bring success to the club remains undiminished and we will continue to work hard on a day to day basis to rectify the mistakes of the past and to turn around Rovers' fortunes. We are determined to spend the cash the loan provides wisely and we will use our best endeavours to win the forthcoming legal case with Sainsburys and carry through the UWE Stadium project. I have not always honoured my pledge to provide regular and comprehensive updates on business matters at the club but I now realize how important this is. You have my word that in future you will be kept fully informed, whether it is good news or bad news, because at this critical time in our history unity is essential". How can you accuse NH for lying? It seems the only other alternative option is for the BoD to lend money but what if they choose not to, surely that does make them liars?
|
|