The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Dec 17, 2014 0:50:34 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. The Financial Director told me that the AGM would be in the new year.
He did not say in which year
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 17, 2014 8:39:36 GMT
As above: You said: ' still own the Mem and build the UWE ' I asked in what circumstances that would be possible, as that would be far in excess of any compensation. You referred to clauses in the contract awarding compensation. I said that such clauses would be invalid as they would be in excess of any reasonable amount of compensation, so would be considered penalty clauses. You said that a contract could contain anything, I said that wasn't true. And they could still own the Mem and build the the UWE, but I ask again "where have I said "punitive"? You didn't say penalty clause (that's 'penal', not 'punitive', different terms), but you described one, as your basis for owning the Mem and also building UWE. Its highly, highly unlikely that we can have our cake and eat it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 8:46:08 GMT
Kid in the riot (seems to have inside knowledge?) on the poo forum just posted this, They don't like you henbury "Chris Windows wouldn't have a scooby doo what's going on. The problem with HenburyGas is that: a) He's been proven wrong on many occassions; b) He's practically illiterate, and I for one can't make head nor tail of what he's actually been trying to say in the last 24 hours. Most of what he has said appears to be no more than hearsay and then some guesswork on his part. I have nothing to add to this thread at the moment other than to reiterate that as far as I'm aware the UWE project has been dead for 10 months now - since Sainsburys first told Higgs they were pulling out." Famous or infamous at last so nice that our inbred friends like me so much Still as they say "the truth hurts" I wonder if that the Kid in a riot" is a member of the green party ??
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 17, 2014 8:55:39 GMT
MCP Capital Ltd have registered charges against the memorial stadium and land surrounding. Days earlier charges were released by Barclays. This is all on companies house and available for all to see (for a fee). Alternatively, you can just go to companies house website and see Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd have registered 4 new charges and satisfied 3 existing charges without a fee - you just won't see any more detail. As for refinancing securing lower rates I must admit, and based upon conversations with corporate financers I know, I just don't buy that it is that. When you consider that the effect of relegation, gate receipts, sponsorship income, no real saleable players, no academy to generate their own star, our main rivals on a (predicted) upward trajectory (new stadium, chasing promotion, alarmingly wealthy backer; new commercial strategy to go to market in a big way), in an apathetic sporting region, our credit worthiness is going to be extremely low. I don't buy that refinancing now secures a better rate or stability. As for bridging loan it is conceivable. We needed finance, couldn't get it, and under previous loan arrangements needed to release the charge on the Mem from Barclays. MCP provided the bridging loan and also enough to satisfy Barclay's debt. I could buy that; but I don't and I don't because if things were that rosey Barclays would have provided the bridging loan. As a chargeholder, as banker, if it was bread and butter earn a bit of interest they'd be all over it. But they aren't and they know better than most (or anyone else) Rovers' risk/reward ratio. Got a cheaper rate from MCP? Don't buy it - Reasons stated above re creditworthiness and also if everything was looking cushty re Sainsbury's Barclays probably would have matched it or come in at a level which meant the admin and hastle to move wasn't worth it. My honest belief is that the club is skint, it doesn't appear that any money will be coming in any time soon and Higgs has just done the equivalent of going to Macau and having one last roll of the dice. I don't necessarily agree that because Barclays don't want to continue with the loan, we must be stuffed. Banks everywhere are looking to de-risk, with private money stepping in and picking up that risk. Doesn't necessarily mean that the risk has increased. It could be that Barclays just don't want that risk on their books anymore, but MCP are happy to have it, with a similar yield, because their attitude to risk can be different. MCP aren't a bank, so have different capital requirements to a bank - they are private equity firm effectively acting as a shadow bank. They will have different attitudes to risk, can be more flexible and long term, and more involved in the company. Alternatively they could be asset strippers. Hard to tell without look at some of their past transactions.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Dec 17, 2014 9:05:55 GMT
MCP Capital Ltd have registered charges against the memorial stadium and land surrounding. Days earlier charges were released by Barclays. This is all on companies house and available for all to see (for a fee). Alternatively, you can just go to companies house website and see Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd have registered 4 new charges and satisfied 3 existing charges without a fee - you just won't see any more detail. As for refinancing securing lower rates I must admit, and based upon conversations with corporate financers I know, I just don't buy that it is that. When you consider that the effect of relegation, gate receipts, sponsorship income, no real saleable players, no academy to generate their own star, our main rivals on a (predicted) upward trajectory (new stadium, chasing promotion, alarmingly wealthy backer; new commercial strategy to go to market in a big way), in an apathetic sporting region, our credit worthiness is going to be extremely low. I don't buy that refinancing now secures a better rate or stability. As for bridging loan it is conceivable. We needed finance, couldn't get it, and under previous loan arrangements needed to release the charge on the Mem from Barclays. MCP provided the bridging loan and also enough to satisfy Barclay's debt. I could buy that; but I don't and I don't because if things were that rosey Barclays would have provided the bridging loan. As a chargeholder, as banker, if it was bread and butter earn a bit of interest they'd be all over it. But they aren't and they know better than most (or anyone else) Rovers' risk/reward ratio. Got a cheaper rate from MCP? Don't buy it - Reasons stated above re creditworthiness and also if everything was looking cushty re Sainsbury's Barclays probably would have matched it or come in at a level which meant the admin and hastle to move wasn't worth it. My honest belief is that the club is skint, it doesn't appear that any money will be coming in any time soon and Higgs has just done the equivalent of going to Macau and having one last roll of the dice. I don't necessarily agree that because Barclays don't want to continue with the loan, we must be stuffed. Banks everywhere are looking to de-risk, with private money stepping in and picking up that risk. Doesn't necessarily mean that the risk has increased. It could be that Barclays just don't want that risk on their books anymore, but MCP are happy to have it, with a similar yield, because their attitude to risk can be different. MCP aren't a bank, so have different capital requirements to a bank - they are private equity firm effectively acting as a shadow bank. They will have different attitudes to risk, can be more flexible and long term, and more involved in the company. Alternatively they could be asset strippers. Hard to tell without look at some of their past transactions. De-risk yes
However I thought the point/assumption was if Barclays were aware UWE and all it's bells and whistles were forthcoming they wouldn't have called in the loan
Not saying that is right, but you can see the logic
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 17, 2014 9:18:34 GMT
I don't necessarily agree that because Barclays don't want to continue with the loan, we must be stuffed. Banks everywhere are looking to de-risk, with private money stepping in and picking up that risk. Doesn't necessarily mean that the risk has increased. It could be that Barclays just don't want that risk on their books anymore, but MCP are happy to have it, with a similar yield, because their attitude to risk can be different. MCP aren't a bank, so have different capital requirements to a bank - they are private equity firm effectively acting as a shadow bank. They will have different attitudes to risk, can be more flexible and long term, and more involved in the company. Alternatively they could be asset strippers. Hard to tell without look at some of their past transactions. De-risk yes
However I thought the point/assumption was if Barclays were aware UWE and all it's bells and whistles were forthcoming they wouldn't have called in the loan
Not saying that is right, but you can see the logic
Clearly still a lot of risk in that project! It could be that Barclays would have been willing to refinance the loans, but MCP offered a better rate, or perhaps structured differently - maybe a lower initial rate in return for a cut of potential UWE profits. Recent regulatory changes to banks mean that they have to assess risk in a more restrictive way (underwriters can be sods lately). Certainly banks have a duty to be more cautious than years ago. Impossible to tell the reasons (although that doesn't mean that we shouldn't speculate!).
|
|
|
Post by Gas Since 1957 on Dec 17, 2014 9:20:27 GMT
How many more times - THE CLUB WILL UPDATE THE NEWS WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING TO TELL US. What's the point in all the speculation and discussion on this topic? How many more times - BECAUSE THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUMSo people are spending their valuable time discussing something no-one of us has any knowledge of, which the club won't release until they are ready and based on rumours on various forums. It's not worth fretting about - if Sainsbury's pull out there's nothing any of us can do to affect the situation, if they pay up brilliant, if they pay some kind of compensation let's see where that gets us. Meantime, everything else is idle speculation. It's not the same as discussing how the next game might pan out, or how the team played in the last game, or even who we might sign/get rid of - this is an area (i.e. Sainsbury's/UWE) where the club will reveal in due course what is happening. I'm happy to wait and see rather than get my hopes up (Henbury) or down ('ted kid's posts) or somewhere in between.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Dec 17, 2014 9:45:16 GMT
CO3's post is copied from OTIB. I think it's a fair summary other than one vital point. Barclays is not in the market for open bridging loans and no main stream funder would have an appetite to support a loss making non league football club. The club is undoubtedly skint and totally reliant on its directors. As I said in my original post, this could be a desperate measure but equally it could be a sign that something very positive is about to happen. Either way, it's new investment which secures the short to medium term future of the club.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Dec 17, 2014 10:04:57 GMT
De-risk yes
However I thought the point/assumption was if Barclays were aware UWE and all it's bells and whistles were forthcoming they wouldn't have called in the loan
Not saying that is right, but you can see the logic
Clearly still a lot of risk in that project! It could be that Barclays would have been willing to refinance the loans, but MCP offered a better rate, or perhaps structured differently - maybe a lower initial rate in return for a cut of potential UWE profits. Recent regulatory changes to banks mean that they have to assess risk in a more restrictive way (underwriters can be sods lately). Certainly banks have a duty to be more cautious than years ago. Impossible to tell the reasons (although that doesn't mean that we shouldn't speculate!). Exactly this.The banks are required to risk grade their loans based on financial performance and other measures. Regardless of what might be around the corner or the level of equity in the assets they are funding against, a loan to BRFC is not going to be an attractive proposition in today's market. I have no idea whether the decision to refinance was initiated by the bank or by the club but the fact that it has taken place does not mean we are "facing the end game".
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Dec 17, 2014 10:09:17 GMT
How many more times - BECAUSE THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUMSo people are spending their valuable time discussing something no-one of us has any knowledge of, which the club won't release until they are ready and based on rumours on various forums. It's not worth fretting about - if Sainsbury's pull out there's nothing any of us can do to affect the situation, if they pay up brilliant, if they pay some kind of compensation let's see where that gets us. Meantime, everything else is idle speculation. It's not the same as discussing how the next game might pan out, or how the team played in the last game, or even who we might sign/get rid of - this is an area (i.e. Sainsbury's/UWE) where the club will reveal in due course what is happening. I'm happy to wait and see rather than get my hopes up (Henbury) or down ('ted kid's posts) or somewhere in between. With recent team selections and tactics discussing how the game is going to pan out is pretty much idle speculation, and who mentioned the names of the last three loans on this forum? We can only work on the odd crumb that falls off the table and people on this forum with some financial or contract knowledge can make some kind of interpretation. As I have said supporting Rovers is like watching a fan dance - you get the odd tasty bits, but never the full picture.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Dec 17, 2014 10:24:33 GMT
I guess there's two ways at looking at this either Barclays have walked away as they can't see the Sainbury's money arriving anytime soon, or MCP Cap have jumped on board as they sense the money will be arriving soon and they want to get involved in the UWE project. I fear the former.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,515
|
Post by eppinggas on Dec 17, 2014 11:47:37 GMT
If there was any 'good news' - then I am sure we would have heard it loud and clear and shouted from the roof-tops. Confidentiality my arse. Even if there was a confidentiality clause, there is a hundred ways to leak good news. The lack of communication regarding the Sainsbury's purchase of the Mem and the UWE stadium fiasco is beyond a joke. I can't believe other fans would put up with this. The Board treat the fans with utter contempt. Nick Higgs promised a "top to bottom review of the club" which fails to materialise. That makes him a liar doesn't it? All this crap with Sainsbury's should have been sorted out months ago. They don't want to proceed with the Mem purchase. Fine. Compensation is agreed. Well I guess that is what a professional organisation would have done. Why does this have to drag on interminably? We aren't going to win a long legal battle. Anyone would think we are a shambles of a non-league football club run by a bunch of totally incompetent idiots. Oh hang on... Happy Christmas. UTG.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 11:56:50 GMT
If there was any 'good news' - then I am sure we would have heard it loud and clear and shouted from the roof-tops. Confidentiality my arse. Even if there was a confidentiality clause, there is a hundred ways to leak good news. The lack of communication regarding the Sainsbury's purchase of the Mem and the UWE stadium fiasco is beyond a joke. I can't believe other fans would put up with this. The Board treat the fans with utter contempt. Nick Higgs promised a "top to bottom review of the club" which fails to materialise. That makes him a liar doesn't it? All this crap with Sainsbury's should have been sorted out months ago. They don't want to proceed with the Mem purchase. Fine. Compensation is agreed. Well I guess that is what a professional organisation would have done. Why does this have to drag on interminably? We aren't going to win a long legal battle. Anyone would think we are a shambles of a non-league football club run by a bunch of totally incompetent idiots. Oh hang on... Happy Christmas. UTG. Keep taking the pills my friend things will get better and we did have a top down review you must have missed it Happy Xmas
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Dec 17, 2014 11:58:01 GMT
and we did have a top down review you must have missed it Yep, turned out everything was fine.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 17, 2014 12:27:31 GMT
How many more times - BECAUSE THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUMSo people are spending their valuable time discussing something no-one of us has any knowledge of, which the club won't release until they are ready and based on rumours on various forums. It's not worth fretting about - if Sainsbury's pull out there's nothing any of us can do to affect the situation, if they pay up brilliant, if they pay some kind of compensation let's see where that gets us. Meantime, everything else is idle speculation. It's not the same as discussing how the next game might pan out, or how the team played in the last game, or even who we might sign/get rid of - this is an area (i.e. Sainsbury's/UWE) where the club will reveal in due course what is happening. I'm happy to wait and see rather than get my hopes up (Henbury) or down ('ted kid's posts) or somewhere in between. Yes, and you are spending your valuable time telling people you (probably) don't know to stop wasting their valuable time discussing something. And I'm spending my valuable time telling you that. That's forums. With respect, it is something to fret over, as it well may be that the future of the club I have followed since I was a boy depends on the outcome. And yes, for me, it is the same as discussing how the next game will pan out - that is also something we can personally do nothing about, and result of that will also be revealed in due course whether we talk about it or not. You feel free to wait and see - don't see why that should stop other people discussing it. What skin is it off your nose? Are we only allowed to react to to results now? What's the point in discussion at all, perhaps just a poll, click here for Yay, click here for Boo. Since when do you own free speech?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 17, 2014 12:31:20 GMT
If there was any 'good news' - then I am sure we would have heard it loud and clear and shouted from the roof-tops. Confidentiality my arse. Even if there was a confidentiality clause, there is a hundred ways to leak good news. The lack of communication regarding the Sainsbury's purchase of the Mem and the UWE stadium fiasco is beyond a joke. I can't believe other fans would put up with this. The Board treat the fans with utter contempt. Nick Higgs promised a "top to bottom review of the club" which fails to materialise. That makes him a liar doesn't it? All this crap with Sainsbury's should have been sorted out months ago. They don't want to proceed with the Mem purchase. Fine. Compensation is agreed. Well I guess that is what a professional organisation would have done. Why does this have to drag on interminably? We aren't going to win a long legal battle. Anyone would think we are a shambles of a non-league football club run by a bunch of totally incompetent idiots. Oh hang on... Happy Christmas. UTG. You're taking a pop at the board for not leaking confidential information?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 17, 2014 12:32:15 GMT
I guess there's two ways at looking at this either Barclays have walked away as they can't see the Sainbury's money arriving anytime soon, or MCP Cap have jumped on board as they sense the money will be arriving soon and they want to get involved in the UWE project. I fear the former. Or what I said. Probably a bit of you, a bit of me, a bit of who knows what
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Dec 17, 2014 12:34:13 GMT
If there was any 'good news' - then I am sure we would have heard it loud and clear and shouted from the roof-tops. Confidentiality my arse. Even if there was a confidentiality clause, there is a hundred ways to leak good news. The lack of communication regarding the Sainsbury's purchase of the Mem and the UWE stadium fiasco is beyond a joke. I can't believe other fans would put up with this. The Board treat the fans with utter contempt. Nick Higgs promised a "top to bottom review of the club" which fails to materialise. That makes him a liar doesn't it? All this crap with Sainsbury's should have been sorted out months ago. They don't want to proceed with the Mem purchase. Fine. Compensation is agreed. Well I guess that is what a professional organisation would have done. Why does this have to drag on interminably? We aren't going to win a long legal battle. Anyone would think we are a shambles of a non-league football club run by a bunch of totally incompetent idiots. Oh hang on... Happy Christmas. UTG. Keep taking the pills my friend things will get better and we did have a top down review you must have missed it Happy Xmas yeah, we just needed a striker apparently
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 17, 2014 12:34:51 GMT
and we did have a top down review you must have missed it Yep, turned out everything was fine. That's right, over a decade of underperformance on and off the pitch, almost constant knocking on the door of relegation out of the league, was down to not signing a striker in January.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 12:44:41 GMT
Yep, turned out everything was fine. That's right, over a decade of underperformance on and off the pitch, almost constant knocking on the door of relegation out of the league, was down to not signing a striker in January. and a new director looking after "Squad development" who has not been seen often near the place for many weeks... How are you Mr Jelf these days...
|
|