|
Post by frenchgashead on Feb 12, 2015 17:01:18 GMT
On the question of an appeal you can ask leave to appeal either from the judge or if he refuses the court of appeal. But it can't be on the fact you don't like the decision - it has to be on a point of law. In other words the judge got the law wrong, misinterpreted it or was biased. But it's expensive.
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Feb 12, 2015 17:20:25 GMT
Might be me not understanding business loans, but MSP couldn't just take the Mem if Rovers were unable to repay, could they? I mean, its worth way more than 2 million, so although they could repossess, the Mem would have to be sold and any profit after fees over the £2m returned to Rovers, wouldn't it? That's what happens with residential mortgage. Thank God someone else understands what a charge means. Have explained this a number of times but no-one wants to listen. So again MSP have a charge against the Mem. If we fail to pay interest on the loan or fail to repay the principle per the contract they would be able to force us into Administration at which point the Administrator would take control (not ownership) of all assets. As a secured creditor MSP would have to be paid out first from any income from the sale of those assets. Indeed as they have a charge over the Mem ownership of the Mem cannot change without their loan being repaid or with their agreement. To take ownership of the Mem MSP will have to submit a bid to the Administrator if we entered Administration. In practice this bid would have to be the market rate less what they are owed. Simple really but give it a day & two and some simpleton will be spouting that MSP will own the ground again Absolutely right ,but, I have always been under the impression rightly or wrongly that the Inland Revenue get first Dibs, custom and excise second then secured creditors ??
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 12, 2015 17:23:47 GMT
Walsall make no money from football, but on top of their stadium they have large advertising hoardings which are VERY visible from the M6. That is where the bulk of their income comes from Where they get their money from isn't really the point. Both Rovers and Walsall have turnovers of around £4,000.000 and while we're making losses of up to a million a year, Walsall are run within their means, make a small profit and are in league 1. Comparing the money available to Rovers and Walsall (as an example, but there are many more), Walsall are absolutely streets ahead of Rovers in financial management and league position. I really cannot understand the people who tell me that I should be grateful to the current board for funding their own failure. It really angers me. It is accepted with a bowing of heads and a kind of scared reverence too. I can't stand the smug nature.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 18:00:31 GMT
So, big picture thing.
We owe £2 million (plus interest) to be repaid this year (and other, maybe less scary debts).
We're suing Sainsbury's for completion of the contract.
OUTCOME A: we win. They pay us £30 million, we have time to build and move out.
This time to build thing: presumably, dare I say it, there's a time limit in there, otherwise the contrct would allow that they pay us £30 million and we're still there in the mid 2020s, and they won't have signed up to that. It's probably shorthand for 'we have (say) 2 or 3 years to build and etc., which should be more than long enough.'
But, 1. £2 million + is owed to MSP. 2. NH was saying more than a year ago that construction costs were going up by oodles a day. 3. Apparently, the contract with UWE isn't finalised (some disagreement about parking). Given this £30 million and commitment to get out, could we afford or even proceed with building at UWE ahead of vacating the Mem?
OUTCOME B: we lose. Sainsbury's are under no obligation and don't have to pay us anything, and we don't have to move out in t years' time. We still owe MSP a fortune and are running at a loss.
Sh1t or bust, indeed. Please, there have to be alternatives.
How about:
OUTCOME C: Sainsbury's offer an out of court settlement ahead of May. We bite their hand off, pay off MSP and others, and settle down at the Mem (pending, maybe, warranting a team needing a bigger stadium and ideally trying to break even). Major disappointment against what we envisaged a few years ago.
OUTCOME D: Major external investment comes in either to fund UWE in full, or at least pay off the debts if we're staying put. If this is a goer, why the delay? Waiting for May to see which cliff we're hanging over? They don't endear themselves to me if that's the case. If they're being held back until the board see which cliff we're hanging over, I wish they wouldn't.
Or is there a route E out of here? What have I missed? 'Don't trouble yourself, there are no problems, we've got it covered, everything's gonna be alright' hasn't turned out too well so far.
What should we hope for?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 18:51:39 GMT
I really cannot understand the people who tell me that I should be grateful to the current board for funding their own failure. Are they even doing that? Everything written on here suggests that they are lending money and securing it against the stadium, so they aren't even paying for the mistakes they make, are they? Vaughan. Wonga won't get their hands on the asset that the directors' loans are secured against, not for the sake of £2m anyway.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Feb 12, 2015 19:55:08 GMT
Thanks BG and CGH. Good points.
My fear is that we will have to sell the ground to pay off the creditors that we have no chance of paying back.
I predict a riot.
|
|
nsgas
Joined: July 2014
Posts: 61
|
Post by nsgas on Feb 12, 2015 20:21:18 GMT
It does seem a bleak situation. On the other hand though; back in 2011 Plymouth Argyle owed £17m. They went into administration and paid creditors at less than 1p in the pound. They're still in business, they're in a higher league than us and they still play at Home Park (owned by Plymouth City Council). www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/13313804
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 20:31:00 GMT
Thanks BG and CGH. Good points. My fear is that we will have to sell the ground to pay off the creditors that we have no chance of paying back. I predict a riot. Can anyone see a happy ending here, unless outside investment arrives? Of course, if Sainsbury's are forced to pay us they may let us rent their ground, until they think of something better to do with it?
|
|
|
Post by tauntongas on Feb 12, 2015 20:48:44 GMT
I think we need to start asking the women and children to begin queuing up for the lifeboats.
|
|
nsgas
Joined: July 2014
Posts: 61
|
Post by nsgas on Feb 12, 2015 20:53:11 GMT
Thanks BG and CGH. Good points. My fear is that we will have to sell the ground to pay off the creditors that we have no chance of paying back. I predict a riot. Can anyone see a happy ending here, unless outside investment arrives? Of course, if Sainsbury's are forced to pay us they may let us rent their ground, until they think of something better to do with it? Surely the worse case scenario here is that we go into administration and carry on as before, just like the vast majority of the more than 50 clubs that have gone into administration have been able to do. Bournemouth, Portsmouth, Crystal Palace, Exeter and Swindon have been in administration twice!
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 12, 2015 21:12:12 GMT
Can anyone see a happy ending here, unless outside investment arrives? Of course, if Sainsbury's are forced to pay us they may let us rent their ground, until they think of something better to do with it? Surely the worse case scenario here is that we go into administration and carry on as before, just like the vast majority of the more than 50 clubs that have gone into administration have been able to do. Bournemouth, Portsmouth, Crystal Palace, Exeter and Swindon have been in administration twice! Ah but where will play/what rent will have to pay
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 12, 2015 21:18:07 GMT
You do wonder why MCP Cap were brave enough to lend us £2m, as whilst 14.4% interest is high it's not a wonga style rate, surely they didn't fall for the "watertight" contract line spun no NH? If not, what else have they been promised if it all goes Pete Tong?
Given we have such poor finances can anybody see why we've splashed the cash to bring in Easter, when Taylor's doing a reasonable job and we could have probably got Goldberg in for the rest of the season for far less money . Why don't we just start living within our means?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 21:27:14 GMT
You do wonder why MCP Cap were brave enough to lend us £2m, as whilst 14.4% interest is high it's not a wonga style rate, surely they didn't fall for the "watertight" contract line spun no NH? If not, what else have they been promised if it all goes Pete Tong? Given we have such poor finances can anybody see why we've splashed the cash to bring in Easter, when Taylor's doing a reasonable job and we could have probably got Goldberg in for the rest of the season for far less money . Why don't we just start living within our means? They can't lose. Win the court case against Sainsburys, they get their money, lose the court case and Higgs doesn't pay up they issue a winding up order and get their money back from the sell of the ground.
|
|
nsgas
Joined: July 2014
Posts: 61
|
Post by nsgas on Feb 12, 2015 21:47:58 GMT
Surely the worse case scenario here is that we go into administration and carry on as before, just like the vast majority of the more than 50 clubs that have gone into administration have been able to do. Bournemouth, Portsmouth, Crystal Palace, Exeter and Swindon have been in administration twice! Ah but where will play/what rent will have to pay It's a good question, but all the clubs named are still at their original stadiums (and above us in the football pyramid) and so are virtually all the others. Some have moved to new stadiums (Swansea, Rotherham).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 22:09:47 GMT
You do wonder why MCP Cap were brave enough to lend us £2m, as whilst 14.4% interest is high it's not a wonga style rate, surely they didn't fall for the "watertight" contract line spun no NH? If not, what else have they been promised if it all goes Pete Tong? Given we have such poor finances can anybody see why we've splashed the cash to bring in Easter, when Taylor's doing a reasonable job and we could have probably got Goldberg in for the rest of the season for far less money . Why don't we just start living within our means? They can't lose. Win the court case against Sainsburys, they get their money, lose the court case and Higgs doesn't pay up they issue a winding up order and get their money back from the sell of the ground. Win the case against Sainsbury's and the money will be placed in a secure account and can only be released in stages as the build of UWE progresses (I think that's what Higgs said?) but will they have enough money to complete the build? I think the EP reported that the Sainsbury's contract was for just under £30m. UWE build cost has been quoted at £40m, and Higgs was complaining that the contruction cost was increasing as time went on. And of course Wonga need paying their capital plus £24,000 a month interest. Plus the losses from last season that haven't hit the accounts yet.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Feb 12, 2015 22:23:46 GMT
They can't lose. Win the court case against Sainsburys, they get their money, lose the court case and Higgs doesn't pay up they issue a winding up order and get their money back from the sell of the ground. Win the case against Sainsbury's and the money will be placed in a secure account and can only be released in stages as the build of UWE progresses (I think that's what Higgs said?) but will they have enough money to complete the build? I think the EP reported that the Sainsbury's contract was for just under £30m. UWE build cost has been quoted at £40m, and Higgs was complaining that the contruction cost was increasing as time went on. And of course Wonga need paying their capital plus £24,000 a month interest. Plus the losses from last season that haven't hit the accounts yet. Perhaps that's why such a long time period has been set for the hearing. Rovers may have to prove they can fulfill all conditions of the contract including getting the UWE Stadium financed and built debt free within a certain time frame ?
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Feb 12, 2015 22:26:37 GMT
Might be me not understanding business loans, but MSP couldn't just take the Mem if Rovers were unable to repay, could they? I mean, its worth way more than 2 million, so although they could repossess, the Mem would have to be sold and any profit after fees over the £2m returned to Rovers, wouldn't it? That's what happens with residential mortgage. Thank God someone else understands what a charge means. Have explained this a number of times but no-one wants to listen. So again MSP have a charge against the Mem. If we fail to pay interest on the loan or fail to repay the principle per the contract they would be able to force us into Administration at which point the Administrator would take control (not ownership) of all assets. As a secured creditor MSP would have to be paid out first from any income from the sale of those assets. Indeed as they have a charge over the Mem ownership of the Mem cannot change without their loan being repaid or with their agreement. To take ownership of the Mem MSP will have to submit a bid to the Administrator if we entered Administration. In practice this bid would have to be the market rate less what they are owed. Simple really but give it a day & two and some simpleton will be spouting that MSP will own the ground again Thank you CGH for explaining that to all the simpletons who use this forum. Some are a bit busy earning money for their families to be able to spend a lot of time studying financial regulations. Sometimes you have to be a bit patronising and insulting to fellow Rovers fans to knock the lesson into their stupid heads.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Feb 12, 2015 22:33:54 GMT
Might be me not understanding business loans, but MSP couldn't just take the Mem if Rovers were unable to repay, could they? I mean, its worth way more than 2 million, so although they could repossess, the Mem would have to be sold and any profit after fees over the £2m returned to Rovers, wouldn't it? That's what happens with residential mortgage. Thank God someone else understands what a charge means. Have explained this a number of times but no-one wants to listen. So again MSP have a charge against the Mem. If we fail to pay interest on the loan or fail to repay the principle per the contract they would be able to force us into Administration at which point the Administrator would take control (not ownership) of all assets. As a secured creditor MSP would have to be paid out first from any income from the sale of those assets. Indeed as they have a charge over the Mem ownership of the Mem cannot change without their loan being repaid or with their agreement. To take ownership of the Mem MSP will have to submit a bid to the Administrator if we entered Administration. In practice this bid would have to be the market rate less what they are owed. Simple really but give it a day & two and some simpleton will be spouting that MSP will own the ground again Why do you think Geoff (Deltavon) agreed to remove his charge completely without having his loan repaid in full ? His charge was only put in place a few months ago and yet now it's been removed completely and not even replaced by a second charge ranking behind MSP.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 22:40:31 GMT
Win the case against Sainsbury's and the money will be placed in a secure account and can only be released in stages as the build of UWE progresses (I think that's what Higgs said?) but will they have enough money to complete the build? I think the EP reported that the Sainsbury's contract was for just under £30m. UWE build cost has been quoted at £40m, and Higgs was complaining that the contruction cost was increasing as time went on. And of course Wonga need paying their capital plus £24,000 a month interest. Plus the losses from last season that haven't hit the accounts yet. Perhaps that's why such a long time period has been set for the hearing. Rovers may have to prove they can fulfill all conditions of the contract including getting the UWE Stadium financed and built debt free within a certain time frame ? Serious point: there might be mileage in a Sainsbury's defence that they have no confidence that the club can see the project through to completion. Less serious point: if the case swings on the club's financial acumen and competence, would Toni the Till be called for the Plaintiff or the Defendant?
|
|
sharkey
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 71
|
Post by sharkey on Feb 12, 2015 22:45:40 GMT
Thanks for that Blue Mist. Unlike you though I can't see it going ''all the way to the top,'' because BRFC surely couldn't afford to fund the huge legal costs that would be involved. I think that they are hoping for a first round KO, or alternatively a compromise settlement. There is no automatic right of appeal for the loser, the loser can ask the judge for leave to appeal, which he can grant or refuse, if he grants you leave its off to the Court of Appeal, if he refuses permission you can still go to the Court of Appeal and seek leave to appeal directly from them, if they refuse permission.......... In 2013 and 2014 I successfully had a win at Trial and a discontinuance. Both have failed to pay a bean to date in costs and have appealed, appealed the decision at appeal, asked for the appealed decision of the appeal to be re-heard and guess what? They both have another appeal. There was once a company called TAG who took on insurance companies and won. However, the big insurers just spent time using delay tactics and appealing so that the smaller company went bankrupt. The law system is a complete joke and set up for the big boys to succeed even if they lose a case.
|
|