|
Post by swissgas on Feb 12, 2015 23:05:48 GMT
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? When questions arose about the sale of the Mem and fans wondered whether there was a loophole for the directors to sell the ground and pay back their loans but not build the stadium Nick responded immediately to reassure us by saying the Sainsburys money was "ring fenced" and could only be used to build the UWE Stadium. If that was true, and the ring fencing is part of the contract, then he may have to prove that he is able to put the cash to the use specified in the contract because he does have all of the finance necessary to build the stadium and there are no barriers being set by the freeholders of the land which would prevent it being built. But how does that sit with his recent Gulf Weekly interview in which he admitted there was a large shortfall and that he was looking for investors to cover it ? Will the money be in place by the time of the hearing in May ? If the money is ring fenced and can only be used for the UWE Stadium then it can't be used for refurbishing the Mem or paying off the directors or anything else can it ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 0:15:46 GMT
Yes - I asked that question in another thread and no one seems to have provided an answer to it yet. The decision from high court judge may be appealed to the court of appeal or House of Lords; the decision of court of appeal may be appealed to the House of Lords. I can see this going all the way to the top. you mean the queen? blimey!
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Feb 13, 2015 0:23:50 GMT
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? When questions arose about the sale of the Mem and fans wondered whether there was a loophole for the directors to sell the ground and pay back their loans but not build the stadium Nick responded immediately to reassure us by saying the Sainsburys money was "ring fenced" and could only be used to build the UWE Stadium. If that was true, and the ring fencing is part of the contract, then he may have to prove that he is able to put the cash to the use specified in the contract because he does have all of the finance necessary to build the stadium and there are no barriers being set by the freeholders of the land which would prevent it being built. But how does that sit with his recent Gulf Weekly interview in which he admitted there was a large shortfall and that he was looking for investors to cover it ? Will the money be in place by the time of the hearing in May ? If the money is ring fenced and can only be used for the UWE Stadium then it can't be used for refurbishing the Mem or paying off the directors or anything else can it ? That's very true but it would sure make attracting additional financial investment a hell of a lot easier
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 0:46:04 GMT
When questions arose about the sale of the Mem and fans wondered whether there was a loophole for the directors to sell the ground and pay back their loans but not build the stadium Nick responded immediately to reassure us by saying the Sainsburys money was "ring fenced" and could only be used to build the UWE Stadium. If that was true, and the ring fencing is part of the contract, then he may have to prove that he is able to put the cash to the use specified in the contract because he does have all of the finance necessary to build the stadium and there are no barriers being set by the freeholders of the land which would prevent it being built. But how does that sit with his recent Gulf Weekly interview in which he admitted there was a large shortfall and that he was looking for investors to cover it ? Will the money be in place by the time of the hearing in May ? If the money is ring fenced and can only be used for the UWE Stadium then it can't be used for refurbishing the Mem or paying off the directors or anything else can it ? That's very true but it would sure make attracting additional financial investment a hell of a lot easier Maybe, but if someone asked me to get involved in a deal where I knew they were well and truly kernackered without my money, if I did the deal it would be on my terms, not theirs.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Feb 13, 2015 0:58:28 GMT
That's very true but it would sure make attracting additional financial investment a hell of a lot easier Maybe, but if someone asked me to get involved in a deal where I knew they were well and truly kernackered without my money, if I did the deal it would be on my terms, not theirs. Ah but I was erring on the side of caution assuming we'd get the original £30 million offered plus several other millions awarded for their dastardly delaying tactics, additional loan costs, lost income as the result of the delay in building the new stadium, compensation for the increase in raw materials, levels of increased stress and generally hurt feelings......of course then I woke up in the shower
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Feb 13, 2015 1:02:50 GMT
When questions arose about the sale of the Mem and fans wondered whether there was a loophole for the directors to sell the ground and pay back their loans but not build the stadium Nick responded immediately to reassure us by saying the Sainsburys money was "ring fenced" and could only be used to build the UWE Stadium. If that was true, and the ring fencing is part of the contract, then he may have to prove that he is able to put the cash to the use specified in the contract because he does have all of the finance necessary to build the stadium and there are no barriers being set by the freeholders of the land which would prevent it being built. But how does that sit with his recent Gulf Weekly interview in which he admitted there was a large shortfall and that he was looking for investors to cover it ? Will the money be in place by the time of the hearing in May ? If the money is ring fenced and can only be used for the UWE Stadium then it can't be used for refurbishing the Mem or paying off the directors or anything else can it ? That's very true but it would sure make attracting additional financial investment a hell of a lot easier It may be that the contract is not binding on one party if it is found that the other party cannot prove it is able to honour the terms of the contract which might include a commitment to build the UWE Stadium within a set time frame. The solution would be to have an agreement with a financier who will bridge the funding gap if Sainsburys pay the full 29 million and make sure that agreement is binding to the satisfaction of the Judge. But if Nick was talking to appropriate financiers along these lines, and making a strong case for the project, I wonder why he could not secure a better deal than paying 14% for a 1 year deal with MSP ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 2:13:44 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. This included £8m for the value of the UWE land which we are not paying outright for just giving them the naming rights for the stadium
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Feb 13, 2015 2:35:58 GMT
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. You always seem to be making reference to your connections so I'd suggest picking up the phone & asking Geoff. As I haven't seen the accounts or the current charges against the Mem but if you are saying Deltavon now have unsecured loans I would take that as a positive as Geoff presumably feels he doesn't need security against those loans.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 7:50:49 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. This included £8m for the value of the UWE land which we are not paying outright for just giving them the naming rights for the stadium Did it? Where/when was that made public?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 8:17:42 GMT
This included £8m for the value of the UWE land which we are not paying outright for just giving them the naming rights for the stadium Did it? Where/when was that made public? Indeed, I had not read that anywhere either
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 13, 2015 8:44:24 GMT
This included £8m for the value of the UWE land which we are not paying outright for just giving them the naming rights for the stadium Did it? Where/when was that made public? Tat's been suggested a few times, I'm not sure if it's been said officially of just by those ITK, although as we're not paying for the ground UWE clearly need to get something back hence why it's was going to be named the UWE Staduim rather than Barclays etc. Not being able to finance the staduim is something I raised a week or so ago, wouldn't it be ironic if come may we found out Sainsbury's reasons for walking away was that they now felt Rovers couldn't raise the extra finance needed in the times scales set in the contract? As so far we've no idea how Sainsbury's are going to defend this action?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 13, 2015 8:49:29 GMT
The 8m was mentioned before We have been given the land, have to call ot UWE stadium and build them a car park.
That said, over what period of time is that relised
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,165
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Feb 13, 2015 10:16:23 GMT
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. You always seem to be making reference to your connections so I'd suggest picking up the phone & asking Geoff. As I haven't seen the accounts or the current charges against the Mem but if you are saying Deltavon now have unsecured loans I would take that as a positive as Geoff presumably feels he doesn't need security against those loans. CGH I am sure someone referenced the June 14 accounts which have been sent to shareholders as indicating that post end year the loans to the bank and Deltavon were repaid so GoD's company no longer lends funds to BRFC 1883.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Feb 13, 2015 11:30:07 GMT
Sainsbury's (as we're finding out) are not a charity. They are not giving us £30m on the off chance we can eventually leave the Mem after building a new stadium some time in the future. Surely there must a timescale in the contract and BRFC will have to be able to show they have the total amount of money necessary for the UWE and all planning issues resolved. On the 'ring fencing' of the money NH also said we had a 'watertight contract' so are we reassured on this issue?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 11:32:38 GMT
Yes
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 11:50:20 GMT
As so far we've no idea how Sainsbury's are going to defend this action? EP said that Sainsbury's wouldn't/couldn't complete as the contract had expired. But I would imagine that they have a list of reasons why they won't/can't complete.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Feb 13, 2015 11:57:22 GMT
You always seem to be making reference to your connections so I'd suggest picking up the phone & asking Geoff. As I haven't seen the accounts or the current charges against the Mem but if you are saying Deltavon now have unsecured loans I would take that as a positive as Geoff presumably feels he doesn't need security against those loans. CGH I am sure someone referenced the June 14 accounts which have been sent to shareholders as indicating that post end year the loans to the bank and Deltavon were repaid so GoD's company no longer lends funds to BRFC 1883. Sorry Cheshire can you re-direct your post to Swiss please, he's the one saying the loan wasn't repaid in full. I'm only saying 'if that's the case'.
|
|
|
Post by Bristol Rovers on Feb 13, 2015 11:57:34 GMT
As so far we've no idea how Sainsbury's are going to defend this action? EP said that Sainsbury's wouldn't/couldn't complete as the contract had expired. But I would imagine that they have a list of reasons why they won't/can't complete. I'd doubt it was as easy as that. If it was something as simple surely BRFC's lawyers would have said so.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Feb 13, 2015 12:05:11 GMT
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. Exactly aghast, I have explained this previously in friendly, reasonable tone but no-one wants to read it I can only guess it doesn't fit their narrative of doom, gloom & eternal damnation. So the tone of my message was very carefully chosen. And for 2 reasons obviously our concern for the ownership of the Mem but also because whilst most posters in their life will be party to a legal charge some clearly have no idea what that means. A sad reflection on financial education in the country today.
|
|
|
Post by upminstergas on Feb 13, 2015 12:11:45 GMT
Sainsbury's (as we're finding out) are not a charity. They are not giving us £30m on the off chance we can eventually leave the Mem after building a new stadium some time in the future. Surely there must a timescale in the contract and BRFC will have to be able to show they have the total amount of money necessary for the UWE and all planning issues resolved. On the 'ring fencing' of the money NH also said we had a 'watertight contract' so are we reassured on this issue? Personally, i think far too much has been made of the 'watertight contract' comment, what did people expect him to say when asked about the contract, 'it has more holes in it than a piece of Swiss Cheese', 'its sh*t, not worth the paper its written on'!!!!
|
|