|
Post by gasbound on Dec 30, 2014 9:25:17 GMT
Well nobody has actually confirmed that the club HAS asked for cash yet and judging by the lack of responses nobody else but PP has heard the rumour. I'm pretty sure the SC can say no if it chooses to but as the rumour is unsubstantiated ISTM this is just another excuse to stir. And where did the assumption that the club has taken 5 new loans come from? Apparently there are 3 new charges registered but this represents the number of parcels of land which make up the Mem site and has nothing to do with the related finance. I think the bottom line here is that a restructure is under way. The OP (on the other thread) has drawn a positive conclusion from what he's heard and, as ever, Oldie sees only negatives. It would be nice to have an official statement but I suspect the board are holding out for Sainsbury's next move. there are 4 loans, or charges, registered against Bristol rovers (1883) ltd. on the 9th December and 1 loan registered against Bristol Rovers Football club on 10th december. if all goes wrong with the BOD plans i wonder if the club will own even one football if the loans are called in? i hope youre right (and its my hope as well) that the board are in control of the situation and are pressing sainsbury's over the contract but i do have doubts on progress.
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 29, 2014 19:53:57 GMT
I don't see the connection. Even if Rovers Directors reckoned on getting the Sainsbury's money in three months there could still be cash flow issues at the club couldn't there? It looks like Corporate sponsorship & ticket sales are reducing as the club has started opening the bar in the Dribuild stand to the public on matchdays. the club strated opening the Drbuild stand bar to the public on matchdays? i wondered about this - anyone confirm cash flow could be an issue the brewary loan was paid off some time ago, 2 deltavon loans and the bank loan paid of early december but 5 new replacment loans from MSP must take some paying off every month and money from corporate sponsurship cannot be as hoped. ticket prices cannot increase this season but will there be an increase in beer and food prices? and now elsewhere i notice a comment about the club wanting to loan £250k fron the SC. perhaps someone in the SC can comment on this little gem.
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 22, 2014 17:48:03 GMT
Or the passed on it because it was to big a deal for the con bankers to handle.... its all guess work at the moment. I'm sure more info will be coming very shortly Passed on what because it was too big a deal? All we are talking about here is the existing loan. Barclays made £5.2 billion in 2013 and another £3.35 billion in the first half of 2014. Or are you saying that Higgs is borrowing even more and Barclays didn't have the apitite for that? i thought it was mentioned on here that in the published accounts for 2008 or 2009 Nick Higgs had renegoteated the Barclays loan in July or August that year and the bank had accepted repayment in one lump sum in June 2013 or 2014, IF i remember correctly. i think the interest was something like 2% above base rate the loan outstanding being about £1 million at that time. perhaps the recent mortgages are due to the bank being fed up waiting for the payback and demanded their money back? wasnt the brewery loan paid back this year as well?
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 21, 2014 19:46:39 GMT
firstly Cheshire - I did not say you knew nothing about finance - I say you know nothing about the actual deal. and you appear to only know about MSP from their web site. secondly - I match your background (longer actually) and so you should agree with me that there could be several scenarios in play for instance it well may be a short term loan with a permanent lender waiting, it could be an arrangement made to cover specified known expenditures (legal costs? January window?) which Barclays would not cover (without personal guarantees) until Sainsburys pay up. or many other reasons. My point really is - there is no merit in 'guessing' - we will all find out the truth of the matter in due course. Can I ask, do we ever know the truth ? History suggests otherwise and also shows a real contempt for those of us that have a questioning nature. Look how far the club will go to try to silence just one person who they saw as a focus of rebellion instead of as a supporter who wanted to put us on a sound financial footing. I fear we never know the truth but just a version of it that best suits those who own the club. Sorry, but i've questions to add to the above. MSP have registerd a charge themselves dated 11 December on the companieshouse website and i thought i would have a closer look as the date might not be coincedence. and sure enough it is not. MSP raised the charge, listed the mortgage on the Memorial Stadium, etc. and names a 'noteholder' as Gwenray properties Ltd. i telephoned a frend who suggested Gwenray loaned MSP money to help with the loan to the club and had IOU's in return guarenteeing repayment sometime in the short term future. the security is again the Memorial Stadium. perhaps MSP could not come up with the full amount themselves to loan the club so come up with the remaining money with Gwenray. Gwenray is listed as a company buying and selling their own real estate. so questions, does having a third party involved in the loan push up interest on the loan? and does having a real estate company involved tend to suggest the club is moving towards selling the land for housing? i am feeling depresed. the UWE stadium is looking more like a disappearing mirage as every day goes by.
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 19, 2014 16:46:16 GMT
Henbury, you said on the OF "I understand that part of Bristol UWE land is up for sale and wondered if this has anything to do with the recent finance movements ??
Anybody got any info ??"
i know UWE recently got planing permision for 550 houses on the land to the east of Coldharbour lane behind the cemetary where the temporary car park is. just as a thought, UWE possibly wants to raise money to build their new business facalty on the main campus so i suspect this is why they are selling the land to presumably a house building company.the land value has probably gone up considerably since the plans have been approved.
It is clear from past comments from UWE that they will not sell land to Rovers forthe stadium but will agree to a 'cheap' long term lease. To be fair to UWE, there is no way they would sell land to Rovers in case the club went into receivership in the future, and then goodness knows what would be built on the land if the land was not UWE owned!
My conspiracy theory thinking mind has thought of something else ase well, the complete opposite to Henbury's thoughts. What if UWE is building up finances from the sale of the land for housing to plan for their own development on the earmarked stadium land? don't know how much money the sale will bring in but it must be 10s of millions.
I hate to think it, but perhaps they feel the UWE stadium is dead in the water.
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 18, 2014 17:29:26 GMT
In last years acounts i seem to remember the 'capitalized profesional fees' for the work done on the new stadium was an asset and there was a warning if all went wrong these fees would be written off, ie a debt? Did this happen with the previous redevelopment at the Memorial Stadium? is it possible this is about to happen again thus the bridging loans. the cost of professional fees when taking into account the recent delivery hours planning aplication must be near £2 million. i do really feel there is a coin spinning in the air and abou to come back down to the ground, heads we will have a seat in a new UWE stadium, tails we're financially doomed and dark days ahead... Why would we need loans for money that's already been spent? i seem to remember when the club accounts were discussed last year that money spent on a new development was a asset and made the balace sheet look good or for the club made it look not too bad...but if the development did not happen the money moved to the other side of the balance shhet and made the financial situation look bad. agreed the money has been spent and presumably directors loans have helped with this as the club are skint but eventually it has to be paid back. if no development no new lines of income to pay the money back and the balance sheet looks worse reducing the chance of new investment. i may be wrong with my analyses but this is how i read past comments about the accounts. anyone with an alternitive view? i still think their is a coin spinning in the air.
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 18, 2014 14:22:29 GMT
they also are a company who comes in to a business to "try" and avoid administration. Also they are like the wonga of business high interest rates ect. They have lent directly against the mem and the surrounding land sounds to me barclays have wanted there money back quick and rovers have had to borrow directly against the mem as they would never be able to borrow against the uwe as they would never actually own it Geoff has been paid off too. Don't know what to make of that as he had a legal charge for that in anycase. Strange times indeed In last years acounts i seem to remember the 'capitalized profesional fees' for the work done on the new stadium was an asset and there was a warning if all went wrong these fees would be written off, ie a debt? Did this happen with the previous redevelopment at the Memorial Stadium? is it possible this is about to happen again thus the bridging loans. the cost of professional fees when taking into account the recent delivery hours planning aplication must be near £2 million. i do really feel there is a coin spinning in the air and abou to come back down to the ground, heads we will have a seat in a new UWE stadium, tails we're financially doomed and dark days ahead...
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 17, 2014 19:57:30 GMT
That wasn't the story at the time No it wasn't a story it was and is a fact. I think Im going nuts. Barclays sign the S106 agreement on the 4th December (S106 on Council planing website) and 3 days later there loan is settled and Rovers take on 5 MSP loans instead. what happened over 3 days to change the finances at the club. I agree with holmes money to buy the Memorial stadium came from barclays and a certain ex-directors company. is it possible time was up to pay back the loan to a certaIN ex-director and Barclays refused to increase their loan so the club re-financed elsewhere. my hopes of siting in a new stadium are fading!
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 17, 2014 14:29:24 GMT
i hate to say this but i thnik Vaughan's summary could be right as well. whilst i try to remain positive about the UWE stadium a bristol city suporter i chated to today (ok, i know, don't listen to him i hear you say) said look at the companies house web site at Bristol Rovers football club. I did and my hart sank. There is yet another charge, or bl***y morgage listed. does this mean the football team itself is mortgaged to MSP?
Give me strength...
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 16, 2014 23:19:44 GMT
i still think the UWE stadium will be starting in March but with the new morgages i wonder if it will be finished. co3 could be right with his analysis and the club could strugle to meet payments to pay off the loans and so money for the new stadium might dry up. it all depends on Bristol Rovers finances at the moment. i think the auditors were in last june so anyone seen the lasted acounts.
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 15, 2014 20:04:31 GMT
spoke to a frend over lunchtime sanwich and he thinks the new loans are on 3 bits of land that are the memorial stadium. i did not know thier are 3 bits of land!. anyway it seems every thing including the office stappler is now mortgaged so repayments could be high. if UWE stadium is still a goer i wonder what price the tickets will be? i'm sure some will strugle if tickets, even season tickets, are hiked up. still want the new stadium but thought it would be debt free...
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 15, 2014 14:35:05 GMT
Henbury gas posted on OF he thinks Sainburys about to pay up. good news for UWE stadium but why the recent change in loans. hopefuly aditional loan to cover difference in stadium build costs betwen sainsburys money and full build cost. Hopefully full speed ahead for stadum in the spring!
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 13, 2014 19:15:46 GMT
hang on Henbury i thougth the 106 aproval was linked to the land. if barclays have caled in the club debt surely them signing the s106 cannot have happened? Would it not be legal?
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 13, 2014 12:41:42 GMT
Spoke to frend in the pub lasst night and she said the club has recetly paid off some loans recently, but have taken on 4 new loans with a company called MCP capital I thnk she said. had a look at companies house (not easy as website changd recently) and sure enough ther are new charges presumeably loans showing for Bristol Rovers. What I wonder are these new loans towards cost of UWE stadium? If so goood news.
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Aug 30, 2014 16:28:58 GMT
I hate chat forums but i had to pass on something i was told last night. she siad a charge or mortgage was listed against Bristol Rovers at the start of last week. I think she said companies house website. I thoght the board were reducing dept?
Goood win today.
|
|