dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872
|
Post by dagnogo on Feb 11, 2015 20:46:43 GMT
Show me the post where I made accusations of illegality? I said I find avoiding tax that you can easily afford to pay classless. Don't care if you employ 1 person or 1000, it doesn't excuse you from paying your share - although living in Guernsey does, perversely. You're free to disagree but don't put words in my mouth. So, we agree, he has acted, as far as we know, 100% lawfully, but you don't think he 'pays his share'. Well, if we had more people making the same contribution locally then Bristol would be a wealthier and more vibrant place. Have you ever written to HMRC asking to pay more than you are required to? Are you struggling here? What he does is unfortunately legal but it lacks class. He reduced his share significantly by moving house. I've never done that, no. What makes you think income tax paid by one man is given to Bristol?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 21:11:01 GMT
So, we agree, he has acted, as far as we know, 100% lawfully, but you don't think he 'pays his share'. Well, if we had more people making the same contribution locally then Bristol would be a wealthier and more vibrant place. Have you ever written to HMRC asking to pay more than you are required to? Are you struggling here? What he does is unfortunately legal but it lacks class. He reduced his share significantly by moving house. I've never done that, no. What makes you think income tax paid by one man is given to Bristol? I didn't say that he paid his income tax locally. What I said was that he has made, and continues to make a massive local contribution. Nationally, his company pays a small fortune in corporation tax. Honestly it's not difficult, the man contributes more both locally and nationally every year than most of us will in our entire lives. You are aware of the Laffer curve I assume? If not, go Google If you don't like the tax laws then maybe you need to speak to your MP? Or better still, become a billionaire yourself and then you can give as much as you like to HMRC.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 21:18:10 GMT
So if Sainsbury's won we remain massively in debt but still have the Memorial Ground; whereas; if we won the debts could be paid off, but we'll be homeless and there will be large shortfall on the funding for the UWE? but there would be plenty of investors wanting in on the deal - debt free club with pp for a new stadium and associated assets You're being silly now, have you learned nothing over the last 2 years. Debt free yes, assets none, either FL status or Conference plus invitation to invest how much, £20/30/40million to get an out of town stadium, who with enough money would be so totally dense!? The dream deal is, Sainsburys lose, we get compo max £5-£10million but my take is towards the lower end and we retain the Mem, pay off the finance company and hopefully someone pays NH some money for his shares and o/s loans to **** off into the sunset. Then we build a club to be proud of and hopefully we achieve success organically without loading ourselves up with debt...again; or we sell the Mem and enter into a ground share with Bath and invest the cash in the team.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 21:19:17 GMT
How is the other £3.4m broken down? If it's internal debt to directors I guess it's less relevant. The £2.6m is either interest only and repayable in full at a future date or its reducing in instalments. I guess we are in the same situation as we were when the mem mortgage with Barclays was first taken out. The club does not generate enough cash to service the loan so the directors will need to help. We have a lot riding on the Sainsburys outcome don't we? Yes this is why i'm worried. if we fail with Sainsbury i think administration is not far off... Surely not if, as you contend, we are loaning money?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 21:22:02 GMT
Yes this is why i'm worried. if we fail with Sainsbury i think administration is not far off... Surely not if, as you contend, we are loaning money? ?? Please someone explain what this means?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 21:31:30 GMT
Are you struggling here? What he does is unfortunately legal but it lacks class. He reduced his share significantly by moving house. I've never done that, no. What makes you think income tax paid by one man is given to Bristol? I didn't say that he paid his income tax locally. What I said was that he has made, and continues to make a massive local contribution. Nationally, his company pays a small fortune in corporation tax. Honestly it's not difficult, the man contributes more both locally and nationally every year than most of us will in our entire lives. You are aware of the Laffer curve I assume? If not, go Google If you don't like the tax laws then maybe you need to speak to your MP? Or better still, become a billionaire yourself and then you can give as much as you like to HMRC. I have a feeling that the Laffer curve arguement will fall on deaf ears here, if he gave his whole fortune and his wifes virtue to a hospice he would still be a **** because he backed City not us...oh and because he's wealthy he should be forced to share it around.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Feb 11, 2015 21:43:58 GMT
Surely not if, as you contend, we are loaning money? ?? Please someone explain what this means? TG typed loaned instead of borrowed
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 21:46:29 GMT
?? Please someone explain what this means? TG typed loaned instead of borrowed Thanks but that's not in context is it? Why would we not be in danger of administration if we couldn't pay back money we've borrowed?
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Feb 11, 2015 21:49:37 GMT
Lansdown cannot own two clubs. Classless man that he is, I wouldn't put it past him to offer a peppercorn sum for the Mem if we went into administration though. as ive said before, ive met him twice and found him sound This provides some comfort. But some might say he is duty bound to pay loads of tax to compensate for those work shy, scrounging, unemployable wasters who follow his football club.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Feb 11, 2015 21:54:08 GMT
TG typed loaned instead of borrowed Thanks but that's not in context is it? Why would we not be in danger of administration if we couldn't pay back money we've borrowed? I think Oldie was being sarcastic? TG was saying if we can't repay MSP they could take possession of the mem and / or if we can't pay our bills we might go into administration. I later made the point that the mem is worth much more than the club owes so if we did run out of cash administration is not necessarily the likely outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 11, 2015 22:08:42 GMT
Not sure that's the case as surely there's plenty of clubs who've gone bust whilst still owning their ground? Also isn't the club set up so we can't lose the ground if the club goes into administration?
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Feb 11, 2015 22:20:51 GMT
Not sure that's the case as surely there's plenty of clubs who've gone bust whilst still owning their ground? Also isn't the club set up so we can't lose the ground if the club goes into administration? This is what I don't understand. I thought that the club and ground were separate entities, I assume this means separate companies. As above this is to protect one or the other. So which company has the debts and loans and what is the position of the other? Also we were told that the Uwe would be debt free not the club. I have no idea what all this means.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Feb 11, 2015 22:47:39 GMT
Yes the football club and stadium are separate companies so theoretically the mem is protected if BRFC enters administration. The MSP loan is secured on the mem but income from the football club covers the interest and repayments. The directors loans are to the club. If the MSP loan is in default the lender can take possession / control of the mem. As it's not a trading business the stadium company is unlikely to ever go into full administration. The football club is responsible for day to day bills like wages, taxes and expenses. I'm not sure if unsecured creditors can force the ckub into administration but they can initiate insolvency proceedings which may prompt the directors to take that option. If the club went into administration BRFC2015 would need to be able to service the MSP loan to ensure the stadium is protected. The directors would probably get nothing back in respect of their loans and they would definitely get nothing back for their shareholdings. The bottom line is that the people who own the club also own the stadium. It is in their interests to avoid administration but, if it was unavoidable, they could sell off the mem, repay MSP and take any surplus to compensate for money they lost on the football club.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 11, 2015 23:01:37 GMT
I was told we will get nearly £500,000 by September 2015 ( in stages ) and if Lambert makes 25 apperances in 2014/15 another 20% of £2 million will also be paid. Also if he hits 25 in 2015/16 another 20% of £2 million..
I also think we only pay out 20& on the transfer not the add's on...
SUMMARY
20% £4 MILLION -( 20% to Stockport nearly £500'000 20% £2 MILLION ( 25 games in 2014/15 ) £400'000 20% £2 MILLION ( 25 games in 2015/16 ) £400'000 £ 500'000 mis ( Based on other factors )
£8:5 million
If we are very very lucky we could get just under £ 1.5 million over 24 months : until July 2016. But this would be based on regular football on 25 plus a season and European football...
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Feb 11, 2015 23:06:06 GMT
Yes the football club and stadium are separate companies so theoretically the mem is protected if BRFC enters administration. The MSP loan is secured on the mem but income from the football club covers the interest and repayments. The directors loans are to the club. If the MSP loan is in default the lender can take possession / control of the mem. As it's not a trading business the stadium company is unlikely to ever go into full administration. The football club is responsible for day to day bills like wages, taxes and expenses. I'm not sure if unsecured creditors can force the ckub into administration but they can initiate insolvency proceedings which may prompt the directors to take that option. If the club went into administration BRFC2015 would need to be able to service the MSP loan to ensure the stadium is protected. The directors would probably get nothing back in respect of their loans and they would definitely get nothing back for their shareholdings. The bottom line is that the people who own the club also own the stadium. It is in their interests to avoid administration but, if it was unavoidable, they could sell off the mem, repay MSP and take any surplus to compensate for money they lost on the football club. But the football club has no income it loses money every year. The money from the loan is being used to pay the interest on the loan. It's a "groundbreaking" financial strategy
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Feb 11, 2015 23:16:07 GMT
Yes the football club and stadium are separate companies so theoretically the mem is protected if BRFC enters administration. The MSP loan is secured on the mem but income from the football club covers the interest and repayments. The directors loans are to the club. If the MSP loan is in default the lender can take possession / control of the mem. As it's not a trading business the stadium company is unlikely to ever go into full administration. The football club is responsible for day to day bills like wages, taxes and expenses. I'm not sure if unsecured creditors can force the ckub into administration but they can initiate insolvency proceedings which may prompt the directors to take that option. If the club went into administration BRFC2015 would need to be able to service the MSP loan to ensure the stadium is protected. The directors would probably get nothing back in respect of their loans and they would definitely get nothing back for their shareholdings. The bottom line is that the people who own the club also own the stadium. It is in their interests to avoid administration but, if it was unavoidable, they could sell off the mem, repay MSP and take any surplus to compensate for money they lost on the football club. But the football club has no income it loses money every year. The money from the loan is being used to pay the interest on the loan. It's a "groundbreaking" financial strategy True enough. The old Barclays loan was covered by payments from the club and rent from Bristol Rugby. In the years that we lost money, directors covered any cash shortfall. You can look at this in 2 ways, the directors have no more money to put in and they are gambling on the court case or, they are confident that the court case will result in a cash windfall for the club and this is merely a short term bridging loan. Either way, unless there is a mystery investor waiting in the wings I don't think Sainsburys money will be enough to unravel all of this AND build the UWE.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 23:31:16 GMT
But the football club has no income it loses money every year. The money from the loan is being used to pay the interest on the loan. It's a "groundbreaking" financial strategy True enough. The old Barclays loan was covered by payments from the club and rent from Bristol Rugby. In the years that we lost money, directors covered any cash shortfall. You can look at this in 2 ways, the directors have no more money to put in and they are gambling on the court case or, they are confident that the court case will result in a cash windfall for the club and this is merely a short term bridging loan. Either way, unless there is a mystery investor waiting in the wings I don't think Sainsburys money will be enough to unravel all of this AND build the UWE. So at last the penny finally drops
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Feb 11, 2015 23:53:54 GMT
True enough. The old Barclays loan was covered by payments from the club and rent from Bristol Rugby. In the years that we lost money, directors covered any cash shortfall. You can look at this in 2 ways, the directors have no more money to put in and they are gambling on the court case or, they are confident that the court case will result in a cash windfall for the club and this is merely a short term bridging loan. Either way, unless there is a mystery investor waiting in the wings I don't think Sainsburys money will be enough to unravel all of this AND build the UWE. So at last the penny finally drops Who for? I've been saying compo would be the best result for some time now. The debate today has been around the short term viability of the club and whether administration is imminent. I don't think so but debt free in no stadium is more likely than debt free in new stadium.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 0:01:44 GMT
I didn't say that he paid his income tax locally. What I said was that he has made, and continues to make a massive local contribution. Nationally, his company pays a small fortune in corporation tax. Honestly it's not difficult, the man contributes more both locally and nationally every year than most of us will in our entire lives. You are aware of the Laffer curve I assume? If not, go Google If you don't like the tax laws then maybe you need to speak to your MP? Or better still, become a billionaire yourself and then you can give as much as you like to HMRC. I have a feeling that the Laffer curve arguement will fall on deaf ears here, if he gave his whole fortune and his wifes virtue to a hospice he would still be a **** because he backed City not us...oh and because he's wealthy he should be forced to share it around. I think we will find that he actually shares an awful lot of it around, but being a classy sort of chap doesn't insist that every donation and bit of support he gives is turned into a public event.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 0:23:46 GMT
You can look at this in 2 ways, the directors have no more money to put in and they are gambling on the court case or, they are confident that the court case will result in a cash windfall for the club and this is merely a short term bridging loan. Either way, unless there is a mystery investor waiting in the wings I don't think Sainsburys money will be enough to unravel all of this AND build the UWE. Surely between them they could have come up with the money they have borrowed from Wonga? Makes you wonder why they would pay loan facility fees and, presumably, if the advance is secured against the stadium they would have had to pay for a valuation and for legal searches to check what else was secured against the asset, if they could have just lumped the dosh in themselves, charged more than the money will be earning them sat in the Halifax and still leave the FC with a better deal than it has from Wonga?
|
|