|
Post by gasheadpirate on Oct 19, 2017 17:46:36 GMT
Surely if they want their money back, they are going about it the wrong way? If they don't build the training ground and don't build a new stadium (new or Mem rebuild) then there is nothing to attract investors. If we carry on as we are, the debt will be larger than the value of the Club's assets and in theory it will be bust. Who would buy a club in that state?
Whilst they, the owners, can charge interest, it will take some years, even at six percent to make a profit. All this whilst the club continues to incurs further losses.
If, as some people think, the owners want out, surely they would have started shifting out the big backroom staff supporting the first team and development squad?
For the reasons above, I don't think it is time to panic but I do understand the worries/concerns expressed and am extremely disappointed with the UWE decision and the time being taken to progres the training ground.
|
|
|
Post by Colyton Gas. on Oct 19, 2017 18:49:02 GMT
Would have hoped that whilst the UWE project was being negotiated over the wasted 18 months,that plan B the revamped MEM wasn't laying dormant.So much could have been done then as the saga of no new build goes on and on with nothing to show-other than a second tent.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2017 20:32:03 GMT
Well, you're wrong, but correction's maybe not the issue: you've heard and repeated some words, reassembled them in the wrong order, got the wrong end of the stick, and misssed the point. It reminds me of the old joke: Q: How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: Banana. There's nothing wrong with debt, generically. It's often a very good thing. It's the who and the how and the when and the what and the what-if. After all, owing Higgs and co in the old regime wasn't an issue: owing NCP or whatever they were called, or any lender of last resort, secured against a bet that we'll win a court case that we'd already lost, and with the clock ticking towards 'boom', was. So you are saying that it is untrue that the mem has been used to gunwanted loans made to dwayne sports by its parent company. You would stake your life on that would you
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2017 21:00:11 GMT
But you did not make that point, did you? You told him to log off, to delete his account, and never to come back. That's what I quoted you on. Just scroll up, Sir. Do you need 24hr care to avoid you taking any comment or situation so literally? No. So Bluesky should neither log off nor delete his account, whether we agree with him or not. That's great, I agree, and thanks for clarifying it. Sorry for presuming that you meant anything you write.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 1:29:02 GMT
So how long does hani have to a] deliver a redeveloped mem? b] a high quality training facility? c] the much mentioned when the owner took over category 2 academy?
I went to barnet in the conference season and it was obviously a very commercially active set up,shrewsbury have a nice new ground. Do we need to prepare for life back in league 2 or worse while we wait for the evolution to happen? We are so far behind most clubs in our infrastructure that only urgent action can prevent us from falling further behind even modest little clubs like fleetwood. If the colony rumour is true will people say "it was clearly not a good deal for the club"? The UWE was frankly our one last shot at a brand new ground in a prime location but there was no money. Nothing else just no money.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 20, 2017 6:56:18 GMT
So how long does hani have to a] deliver a redeveloped mem? b] a high quality training facility? c] the much mentioned when the owner took over category 2 academy? I went to barnet in the conference season and it was obviously a very commercially active set up,shrewsbury have a nice new ground. Do we need to prepare for life back in league 2 or worse while we wait for the evolution to happen? We are so far behind most clubs in our infrastructure that only urgent action can prevent us from falling further behind even modest little clubs like fleetwood. If the colony rumour is true will people say "it was clearly not a good deal for the club"? The UWE was frankly our one last shot at a brand new ground in a prime location but there was no money. Nothing else just no money. If all that is true, it was the same under the last ownership, but it was ok because Nick was a Gashead etc, etc
If the Al-Qadi's left, how long do we give the next owner, or the one after that
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 13:59:08 GMT
Well, you're wrong, but correction's maybe not the issue: you've heard and repeated some words, reassembled them in the wrong order, got the wrong end of the stick, and misssed the point. It reminds me of the old joke: Q: How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: Banana. There's nothing wrong with debt, generically. It's often a very good thing. It's the who and the how and the when and the what and the what-if. After all, owing Higgs and co in the old regime wasn't an issue: owing NCP or whatever they were called, or any lender of last resort, secured against a bet that we'll win a court case that we'd already lost, and with the clock ticking towards 'boom', was. So you are saying that it is untrue that the mem has been used to gunwanted loans made to dwayne sports by its parent company. You would stake your life on that would you You're missing the point, again. I disagreed with your description of the financial arrangements between BRFC, DS, AJIB, and members of the Al-Qadi family, but the details of that aren't the issue. In either interpretation, the same people control the funds throughout. Just as the financial arrangements under which Nick Higgs (or Geoff Dunford, or other Directors) provided funds didn't really matter - up to the point that he contracted with a lender of last resort. You equate financial arrangements between entities under the same control, with borrowing from a loan shark, for futile reasons, with no means of repayment beyond vain hope, and a repayment date months away. We are, financially, in a different universe than we were, both in security and how the money is being spent, so I don't feel let down by the people who did that. I don't expect you to get that, so let's agree to differ.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 14:11:42 GMT
So you are saying that it is untrue that the mem has been used to gunwanted loans made to dwayne sports by its parent company. You would stake your life on that would you You're missing the point, again. I disagreed with your description of the financial arrangements between BRFC, DS, AJIB, and members of the Al-Qadi family, but the details of that aren't the issue. In either interpretation, the same people control the funds throughout. Just as the financial arrangements under which Nick Higgs (or Geoff Dunford, or other Directors) provided funds didn't really matter - up to the point that he contracted with a lender of last resort. You equate financial arrangements between entities under the same control, with borrowing from a loan shark, for futile reasons, with no means of repayment beyond vain hope, and a repayment date months away. We are, financially, in a different universe than we were, both in security and how the money is being spent, so I don't feel let down by the people who did that. I don't expect you to get that, so let's agree to differ. Are you assuming that Higgs didn't have £3m? I think he did. Of course I may be wrong, but my reading of why we went to MSP was one of the 2 following reasons; 1. Other Directors wouldn't fund the action, Higgs thought that he shouldn't do that by himself so sought external funding. Or, 2. His legal people actually convinced him that he would win and he thought that the interest, facility fees etc would all fall in Sainsbury's lap. Maybe a combination of both of the above, I don't know, just guessing, but I'm pretty sure he has £3m in the bank.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 14:27:20 GMT
You're missing the point, again. I disagreed with your description of the financial arrangements between BRFC, DS, AJIB, and members of the Al-Qadi family, but the details of that aren't the issue. In either interpretation, the same people control the funds throughout. Just as the financial arrangements under which Nick Higgs (or Geoff Dunford, or other Directors) provided funds didn't really matter - up to the point that he contracted with a lender of last resort. You equate financial arrangements between entities under the same control, with borrowing from a loan shark, for futile reasons, with no means of repayment beyond vain hope, and a repayment date months away. We are, financially, in a different universe than we were, both in security and how the money is being spent, so I don't feel let down by the people who did that. I don't expect you to get that, so let's agree to differ. Are you assuming that Higgs didn't have £3m? I think he did. Of course I may be wrong, but my reading of why we went to MSP was one of the 2 following reasons; 1. Other Directors wouldn't fund the action, Higgs thought that he shouldn't do that by himself so sought external funding. Or, 2. His legal people actually convinced him that he would win and he thought that the interest, facility fees etc would all fall in Sainsbury's lap. Maybe a combination of both of the above, I don't know, just guessing, but I'm pretty sure he has £3m in the bank. That's also irrelevant. If he has got £3m in the bank (who knows, who cares, it's none of our business and good luck to him) that's where it stayed. I don't blame him for that. Meanwhile the club was paying 14% interest on vanishing funds on which repayment was increasingly imminent, and he was selling up. Plus, the club was being run sub-optimally (to say the least).
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 20, 2017 14:27:37 GMT
You're missing the point, again. I disagreed with your description of the financial arrangements between BRFC, DS, AJIB, and members of the Al-Qadi family, but the details of that aren't the issue. In either interpretation, the same people control the funds throughout. Just as the financial arrangements under which Nick Higgs (or Geoff Dunford, or other Directors) provided funds didn't really matter - up to the point that he contracted with a lender of last resort. You equate financial arrangements between entities under the same control, with borrowing from a loan shark, for futile reasons, with no means of repayment beyond vain hope, and a repayment date months away. We are, financially, in a different universe than we were, both in security and how the money is being spent, so I don't feel let down by the people who did that. I don't expect you to get that, so let's agree to differ. Are you assuming that Higgs didn't have £3m? I think he did. Of course I may be wrong, but my reading of why we went to MSP was one of the 2 following reasons; 1. Other Directors wouldn't fund the action, Higgs thought that he shouldn't do that by himself so sought external funding. Or, 2. His legal people actually convinced him that he would win and he thought that the interest, facility fees etc would all fall in Sainsbury's lap. Maybe a combination of both of the above, I don't know, just guessing, but I'm pretty sure he has £3m in the bank. But was he prepared to pay off the MSP loan? I guess we will never know
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 15:16:05 GMT
So you are saying that it is untrue that the mem has been used to gunwanted loans made to dwayne sports by its parent company. You would stake your life on that would you You're missing the point, again. I disagreed with your description of the financial arrangements between BRFC, DS, AJIB, and members of the Al-Qadi family, but the details of that aren't the issue. In either interpretation, the same people control the funds throughout. Just as the financial arrangements under which Nick Higgs (or Geoff Dunford, or other Directors) provided funds didn't really matter - up to the point that he contracted with a lender of last resort. You equate financial arrangements between entities under the same control, with borrowing from a loan shark, for futile reasons, with no means of repayment beyond vain hope, and a repayment date months away. We are, financially, in a different universe than we were, both in security and how the money is being spent, so I don't feel let down by the people who did that. I don't expect you to get that, so let's agree to differ. But surely a debt is a debt no matter who you owe it to or the financial jiggers pokey. Moving money between companies still means rovers owe the owners via dwayne sports close to 10 million no matter how you phrase
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 16:56:29 GMT
Are you assuming that Higgs didn't have £3m? I think he did. Of course I may be wrong, but my reading of why we went to MSP was one of the 2 following reasons; 1. Other Directors wouldn't fund the action, Higgs thought that he shouldn't do that by himself so sought external funding. Or, 2. His legal people actually convinced him that he would win and he thought that the interest, facility fees etc would all fall in Sainsbury's lap. Maybe a combination of both of the above, I don't know, just guessing, but I'm pretty sure he has £3m in the bank. That's also irrelevant. If he has got £3m in the bank (who knows, who cares, it's none of our business and good luck to him) that's where it stayed. I don't blame him for that. Meanwhile the club was paying 14% interest on vanishing funds on which repayment was increasingly imminent, and he was selling up. Plus, the club was being run sub-optimally (to say the least). OK. But now I'm struggling to see your point, can you make it a bit easier to understand, for us simple folk please? I would also have to add that minus £1.6m during a promotion season has a hint of sub-optimum management about it also
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on Oct 20, 2017 17:12:58 GMT
City have an owner who, at the click of an email / a quick phonecall, can raise £188m of totally clear money by selling shares in his ex-company.
We don't. Boo.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 0:10:00 GMT
City have an owner who, at the click of an email / a quick phonecall, can raise £188m of totally clear money by selling shares in his ex-company. We don't. Boo. and to be fair to the bloke he spends it on city
|
|
|
Post by chelt_gas on Oct 21, 2017 2:18:25 GMT
My theory, which I’ve just made up with very little basis and no evidence, is that Rovers are to be used as an entity to absorb excess capital from a larger international group of companies under the AL-Q umbrella. Unlike PSG the owners want their future success to be earned through good management and not by chucking sovereign wealth money obtained by political deception.
Can’t wait for our tour of Jordan; Gareth Gates gave it good reviews when he went there ten years ago.
|
|
dinsdale
Andy Rammell
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 495
|
Post by dinsdale on Oct 21, 2017 5:22:32 GMT
Questions need to be asked in high places about finance/investment and development of the stadium. Maybe BRSC can demand answers ? Wait they are a bunch of self serving ****
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Oct 22, 2017 10:16:26 GMT
The consolidated statement of cash flows in the 2016 accounts indicates the interest was paid out. The interest waived by the previous owners is included in that statement but nothing to show that interest due to MSP Capital or Dwane Sports was waived. As faggotygas posted a few weeks ago the interest could have been taken out and then loaned back. But what is the logic in charging yourself interest and then loaning yourself money to pay that interest ? Rovers are not likely to be paying tax in the foreseeable future and the corporate tax rate in Jersey is 0%. The owners of clubs as big as Brighton and as small as Forest Green put their money in through equity and/or interest free loans so Steve Hamer needs to explain what makes Rovers owners different. If he is not able to then I think it's a fair assumption that interest payments are the reason why Rovers can't seem to compete in the transfer market against clubs which have much lower attendances. It seems to me that the Glazers/Manure model is to milk cash out while piling on debt secured against future income streams, and hoping that the growth in TV/branding/global rights will enable the 'notional asset value' of the club to grow that doesn't obviously translate to Rovers, or even Rovers in the Championship, especially given cash outflows to the much larger staff list (I presume) would you you care to speculate on what the current owners' financial plan is Swiss? one perspective on club-buying, from the Grauniad re Toon being up for sale... 'The possibility of Chinese investors is limited by government restrictions in China following the great rush that led to Aston Villa, Birmingham City, Wolverhampton Wanderers and West Bromwich Albion being bought last year. US sports investors are still broadly interested, with major stakes having been bought recently in Swansea, Crystal Palace, Bournemouth and Portsmouth, but they tend to look at making money by paying an economic price for clubs that have a significant medium-term prospect of gaining in value.' www.theguardian.com/football/2017/oct/22/newcastle-united-up-for-sale-mike-ashley-amanda-staveley
|
|
|
Post by alloutofgas on Oct 22, 2017 14:17:27 GMT
It seems to me that the Glazers/Manure model is to milk cash out while piling on debt secured against future income streams, and hoping that the growth in TV/branding/global rights will enable the 'notional asset value' of the club to grow that doesn't obviously translate to Rovers, or even Rovers in the Championship, especially given cash outflows to the much larger staff list (I presume) would you you care to speculate on what the current owners' financial plan is Swiss? one perspective on club-buying, from the Grauniad re Toon being up for sale... 'The possibility of Chinese investors is limited by government restrictions in China following the great rush that led to Aston Villa, Birmingham City, Wolverhampton Wanderers and West Bromwich Albion being bought last year. US sports investors are still broadly interested, with major stakes having been bought recently in Swansea, Crystal Palace, Bournemouth and Portsmouth, but they tend to look at making money by paying an economic price for clubs that have a significant medium-term prospect of gaining in value.' www.theguardian.com/football/2017/oct/22/newcastle-united-up-for-sale-mike-ashley-amanda-staveleyExactly this. Is it not obvious to anyone with a shred of intelligence that the current owners are actively seeking to sell?
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Oct 23, 2017 8:56:42 GMT
one perspective on club-buying, from the Grauniad re Toon being up for sale... 'The possibility of Chinese investors is limited by government restrictions in China following the great rush that led to Aston Villa, Birmingham City, Wolverhampton Wanderers and West Bromwich Albion being bought last year. US sports investors are still broadly interested, with major stakes having been bought recently in Swansea, Crystal Palace, Bournemouth and Portsmouth, but they tend to look at making money by paying an economic price for clubs that have a significant medium-term prospect of gaining in value.' www.theguardian.com/football/2017/oct/22/newcastle-united-up-for-sale-mike-ashley-amanda-staveleyExactly this. Is it not obvious to anyone with a shred of intelligence that the current owners are actively seeking to sell? Let's hope so. Let's also hope the UWE ship hasn't sailed quite yet.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Oct 23, 2017 9:01:51 GMT
one perspective on club-buying, from the Grauniad re Toon being up for sale... 'The possibility of Chinese investors is limited by government restrictions in China following the great rush that led to Aston Villa, Birmingham City, Wolverhampton Wanderers and West Bromwich Albion being bought last year. US sports investors are still broadly interested, with major stakes having been bought recently in Swansea, Crystal Palace, Bournemouth and Portsmouth, but they tend to look at making money by paying an economic price for clubs that have a significant medium-term prospect of gaining in value.' www.theguardian.com/football/2017/oct/22/newcastle-united-up-for-sale-mike-ashley-amanda-staveleyExactly this. Is it not obvious to anyone with a shred of intelligence that the current owners are actively seeking to sell? Not obvious at all quite the opposite in fact
|
|