Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Feb 16, 2016 9:42:40 GMT
Unless it's a down payment that would be refunded on sale. It doesn't read that way though. So, who's going to the AGM?
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Feb 16, 2016 9:46:18 GMT
We've paid Edward Ware £125k for the right to pay over the odds for a house on Filton Avenue? I thought that the club had already purchased all the properties it needed back from directors that it required for The Mem redevelopment project ages ago. Unless this is something else I'm guessing if EW owned it then as a Director it was considered Rovers owned it, or we just hadn't told Sainsbury's we did anyway! The bigger question is why does EW want to make £100k+ out of selling the property to the club and why do we still need it if Sainsbury's aren't building the store? Has NH found a replacement buyer who wants to proceed with Sainsbury's plans?
|
|
|
Post by Portishead Pirate on Feb 16, 2016 11:10:45 GMT
Revised accounts for adoption at the AGM are now in circulation. Nick's Ord. shareholding has been re-stated to 4,419,828.
PP
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 16, 2016 11:17:08 GMT
looking with fresh eyes this morning I spotted a few other things:
the key difference between the Group and Company statements seem to be the £6m due to the Company from 'Group undertakings' - pretty much unchanged from last year. This is a debtor on the Company statement, but not a creditor on the Group ones. I'm not sure what this is - something to do with the stadium, which is used as an asset to keep the club afloat? the £1m spent on tangible fixed assets is capitalisation of legal and planning fees etc paid (Note 9 is pretty clear on this - it adds to the £900k spent the previous year). There is another £950k 'at risk' - hanging on the Appeal verdict it seems (Note 23). That really is big bucks for Rovers
pre-Wonga, it really was the directors and their financing keeping the club afloat. Presumably with some element of security/lien/collateral via the stadium £6m thing. With the 'plan' to take on more risk via the court case, I can see why they were minded to draw stumps on their personal financing. Conceivably, there might also have been something of a reduction in faith in the project proposals
if the Appeal is not successful, it looks like some kind of 'white knight' will be required to move things forward. Which might include new investment, the current directors stumping up more cash, sale of the stadium etc. But the current directors, PR apart, do seem to have put money where their mouth is so far
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 16, 2016 11:19:31 GMT
Revised accounts for adoption at the AGM are now in circulation. Nick's Ord. shareholding has been re-stated to 4,419,828. PP if true that represents f**kwittage of the highest order surely?
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Feb 16, 2016 11:20:37 GMT
Have to say, when I looked at the sums of money 'invested' in the club I was pretty staggered. Why would anyone put so much cash into something as precarious as a football club. It's crazy imo, or self indulgent. They must have money to burn.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Feb 16, 2016 11:21:18 GMT
Revised accounts for adoption at the AGM are now in circulation. Nick's Ord. shareholding has been re-stated to 4,419,828. PP if true that represents fwittage of the highest order surely? Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 16, 2016 11:21:59 GMT
Note 16 states that there are 8.2 million fully paid ordinary shares. The directors have about 4 million of them per page 2. Do I take it that the Share Scam and the like hold the balance? based on posts above, 3 million of the missing 4 million have now been found. Huzzah!
Note 27 seems a bit odd in that context - 'no single related controlling party'. Maybe that's a standard disclosure?
|
|
|
Post by Portishead Pirate on Feb 16, 2016 11:30:21 GMT
Note 16 states that there are 8.2 million fully paid ordinary shares. The directors have about 4 million of them per page 2. Do I take it that the Share Scam and the like hold the balance? based on posts above, 3 million of the missing 4 million have now been found. Huzzah!
Note 27 seems a bit odd in that context - 'no single related controlling party'. Maybe that's a standard disclosure?
Correct. PP
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 16, 2016 11:31:38 GMT
Have to say, when I looked at the sums of money 'invested' in the club I was pretty staggered. Why would anyone put so much cash into something as precarious as a football club. It's crazy imo, or self indulgent. They must have money to burn. I think what the directors have been saying for years is true on this one - its a place for them to burn money, and maybe watch and dabble in football while they do it
just passing the time of day.....if you've made, say, £10m and don't have any expensive hobbies (big boat sailing, the geegees, formula one, shooting exotic wild things etc) what would you do with it? You can spend 2-3 million on a house near Bristol, but you have to try reasonably hard to spend a lot more than that, put a bit in the pension, and then what?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 16, 2016 11:32:10 GMT
ta PP for the reply above
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 16, 2016 11:34:20 GMT
looking with fresh eyes this morning I spotted a few other things: the key difference between the Group and Company statements seem to be the £6m due to the Company from 'Group undertakings' - pretty much unchanged from last year. This is a debtor on the Company statement, but not a creditor on the Group ones. I'm not sure what this is - something to do with the stadium, which is used as an asset to keep the club afloat? the £1m spent on tangible fixed assets is capitalisation of legal and planning fees etc paid (Note 9 is pretty clear on this - it adds to the £900k spent the previous year). There is another £950k 'at risk' - hanging on the Appeal verdict it seems (Note 23). That really is big bucks for Rovers pre-Wonga, it really was the directors and their financing keeping the club afloat. Presumably with some element of security/lien/collateral via the stadium £6m thing. With the 'plan' to take on more risk via the court case, I can see why they were minded to draw stumps on their personal financing. Conceivably, there might also have been something of a reduction in faith in the project proposals if the Appeal is not successful, it looks like some kind of 'white knight' will be required to move things forward. Which might include new investment, the current directors stumping up more cash, sale of the stadium etc. But the current directors, PR apart, do seem to have put money where their mouth is so far I don’t doubt they have put the money in. My question would be when they say they have received interest in the club, but no one has shown the required funds what do they mean a) No one Is willing to pay the directors off b) Potential investors/buyers don’t have the capital to take on the running of the club I don’t see any potential investors or buyers wanting to pay the directors off with a £3m outside loan to be repaid if we lose this appeal. Any buyers I would guess would want to take on the club for next to nothing when/if we lose the court appeal. If we win then the circumstances are different and we will probably want investment first and foremost, rather than a buyout as the debt/outside loan will need to be serviced whilst still funding the building and full fit out of UWE stadium Whilst the appeal is in play if there are any consortium or investors agreements must be hard to come to. One side will want in for nothing (risk) v one side wanting more holding out for a positive court decision. Once the result is known one sides hand become stronger than the others
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 16, 2016 13:36:52 GMT
Looking on google street view, I think that's the next one along from one which will be demolished 'when' Sainsbury's build their new supermarket. Not sure what advantage that would give BRFC but maybe there is a method in their madness? (Zoopla valuation estimate £400,000) Are we saying 31 Filton Avenue. Zoopla says it was last sold 1997 for £94k, so has Ed Ware purchased this recently
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Feb 16, 2016 14:08:14 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2016 15:03:05 GMT
Thanks for posting that. I couldn't muster the enthusiasm to ask the club for it.
I've only had a quick scan, but a few thoughts occurred:
1. Blimey this is complicated. There seems to be a huge amount of Peter owing Paul and pots of money under the bed. Never a good sign.
2. The big changes on the P&L with its doubled the annual loss are a reduction in income from selling players (so previous years have maybe 'got lucky' and masked the true operating figures - also not something we can work on and resolve for future years) and an increase in interest payments (so we're sinking).
3. In assets, where's the Mem?
4. Note 26 is odd. D Dunford and R Craig? We still owe quite a lot to G Dunford / Deltavon / Barr's Court. If I were G Dunford I'd feel exposed. Oh, and did I miss him being made President, after all? The second paragraph should probably be deleted, but hey.
5. I don't think Nick Higgs satisfactorily addresses the big issue in the accounts in his statement by talking about the nuisance of the court case rather than the £1m swinging on it and currently recorded in the accounts. If we win we will have to move quickly (why?). If we don't, we will do something I'm not telling you about (um....)
5a. Oh, and in general, do the accounts actually record both that we have £1m 'invested' in the court case (therefore still have it), which might not be the case, AND fail to say that we might be about to have a significant liability for Sainsbury's costs? Is it actually the case that £2m might (probably) be about to drop out of the accounts? Along with another £500k for a house in Filton Ave.
All a bit shaky to me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2016 15:28:53 GMT
Thanks for posting that. I couldn't muster the enthusiasm to ask the club for it. I've only had a quick scan, but a few thoughts occurred: 1. Blimey this is complicated. There seems to be a huge amount of Peter owing Paul and pots of money under the bed. Never a good sign. 2. The big changes on the P&L with its doubled the annual loss are a reduction in income from selling players (so previous years have maybe 'got lucky' and masked the true operating figures - also not something we can work on and resolve for future years) and an increase in interest payments (so we're sinking). 3. In assets, where's the Mem? 4. Note 26 is odd. D Dunford and R Craig? We still owe quite a lot to G Dunford / Deltavon / Barr's Court. If I were G Dunford I'd feel exposed. Oh, and did I miss him being made President, after all? The second paragraph should probably be deleted, but hey. 5. I don't think Nick Higgs satisfactorily addresses the big issue in the accounts in his statement by talking about the nuisance of the court case rather than the £1m swinging on it and currently recorded in the accounts. If we win we will have to move quickly (why?). If we don't, we will do something I'm not telling you about (um....) 5a. Oh, and in general, do the accounts actually record both that we have £1m 'invested' in the court case (therefore still have it), which might not be the case, AND fail to say that we might be about to have a significant liability for Sainsbury's costs? Is it actually the case that £2m might (probably) be about to drop out of the accounts? Along with another £500k for a house in Filton Ave. All a bit shaky to me. 3. The mem will not be listed as an asset as it belongs to a different company. This is the accounts for the club not the stadium company. Still trying to get my head around the loan being made to the club but fixed to the mem.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 16, 2016 15:37:17 GMT
Thanks for posting that. I couldn't muster the enthusiasm to ask the club for it. I've only had a quick scan, but a few thoughts occurred: 1. Blimey this is complicated. There seems to be a huge amount of Peter owing Paul and pots of money under the bed. Never a good sign. 2. The big changes on the P&L with its doubled the annual loss are a reduction in income from selling players (so previous years have maybe 'got lucky' and masked the true operating figures - also not something we can work on and resolve for future years) and an increase in interest payments (so we're sinking). 3. In assets, where's the Mem? 4. Note 26 is odd. D Dunford and R Craig? We still owe quite a lot to G Dunford / Deltavon / Barr's Court. If I were G Dunford I'd feel exposed. Oh, and did I miss him being made President, after all? The second paragraph should probably be deleted, but hey. 5. I don't think Nick Higgs satisfactorily addresses the big issue in the accounts in his statement by talking about the nuisance of the court case rather than the £1m swinging on it and currently recorded in the accounts. If we win we will have to move quickly (why?). If we don't, we will do something I'm not telling you about (um....) 5a. Oh, and in general, do the accounts actually record both that we have £1m 'invested' in the court case (therefore still have it), which might not be the case, AND fail to say that we might be about to have a significant liability for Sainsbury's costs? Is it actually the case that £2m might (probably) be about to drop out of the accounts? Along with another £500k for a house in Filton Ave. All a bit shaky to me. 3. The mem will not be listed as an asset as it belongs to a different company. This is the accounts for the club not the stadium company. Still trying to get my head around the loan being made to the club but fixed to the mem. the loan (I presume you mean MSP) has to be to 1883 ltd which owns the club and the ground. the ground is the only thing of value to secure it against because the club is worth sod all
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Feb 16, 2016 15:50:31 GMT
Thanks for posting that. I couldn't muster the enthusiasm to ask the club for it. I've only had a quick scan, but a few thoughts occurred: 1. Blimey this is complicated. There seems to be a huge amount of Peter owing Paul and pots of money under the bed. Never a good sign. 2. The big changes on the P&L with its doubled the annual loss are a reduction in income from selling players (so previous years have maybe 'got lucky' and masked the true operating figures - also not something we can work on and resolve for future years) and an increase in interest payments (so we're sinking). 3. In assets, where's the Mem? 4. Note 26 is odd. D Dunford and R Craig? We still owe quite a lot to G Dunford / Deltavon / Barr's Court. If I were G Dunford I'd feel exposed. Oh, and did I miss him being made President, after all? The second paragraph should probably be deleted, but hey. 5. I don't think Nick Higgs satisfactorily addresses the big issue in the accounts in his statement by talking about the nuisance of the court case rather than the £1m swinging on it and currently recorded in the accounts. If we win we will have to move quickly (why?). If we don't, we will do something I'm not telling you about (um....) 5a. Oh, and in general, do the accounts actually record both that we have £1m 'invested' in the court case (therefore still have it), which might not be the case, AND fail to say that we might be about to have a significant liability for Sainsbury's costs? Is it actually the case that £2m might (probably) be about to drop out of the accounts? Along with another £500k for a house in Filton Ave. All a bit shaky to me. Talking of Presidents, you'll probably find it is all owned by the Duke of Beaufort anyway. Seems to be emerging that the missing shares was just a typo............nothing to see here..........move along quietly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2016 15:54:18 GMT
Thanks for posting that. I couldn't muster the enthusiasm to ask the club for it. I've only had a quick scan, but a few thoughts occurred: 1. Blimey this is complicated. There seems to be a huge amount of Peter owing Paul and pots of money under the bed. Never a good sign. 2. The big changes on the P&L with its doubled the annual loss are a reduction in income from selling players (so previous years have maybe 'got lucky' and masked the true operating figures - also not something we can work on and resolve for future years) and an increase in interest payments (so we're sinking). 3. In assets, where's the Mem? 4. Note 26 is odd. D Dunford and R Craig? We still owe quite a lot to G Dunford / Deltavon / Barr's Court. If I were G Dunford I'd feel exposed. Oh, and did I miss him being made President, after all? The second paragraph should probably be deleted, but hey. 5. I don't think Nick Higgs satisfactorily addresses the big issue in the accounts in his statement by talking about the nuisance of the court case rather than the £1m swinging on it and currently recorded in the accounts. If we win we will have to move quickly (why?). If we don't, we will do something I'm not telling you about (um....) 5a. Oh, and in general, do the accounts actually record both that we have £1m 'invested' in the court case (therefore still have it), which might not be the case, AND fail to say that we might be about to have a significant liability for Sainsbury's costs? Is it actually the case that £2m might (probably) be about to drop out of the accounts? Along with another £500k for a house in Filton Ave. All a bit shaky to me. 3. The mem will not be listed as an asset as it belongs to a different company. This is the accounts for the club not the stadium company. Still trying to get my head around the loan being made to the club but fixed to the mem. You are wrong Oxon. These are the accounts for the company which owns the stadium and the football club.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2016 15:57:03 GMT
3. The mem will not be listed as an asset as it belongs to a different company. This is the accounts for the club not the stadium company. Still trying to get my head around the loan being made to the club but fixed to the mem. You are wrong Oxon. These are the accounts for the company which owns the stadium and the football club. Thank you for correcting me.
|
|