faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Feb 13, 2015 12:16:02 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'!!!! Howabout just, 'a contract'?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Feb 13, 2015 12:22:33 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. Being a bit sensitive there. It is surely obvious that when someone loans you money, they cannot legally make you give back more than the amount of the loan, and fees and interest that you agreed when you took the loan out. You don't need to know financial regulations to work that out, common sense surely?
|
|
|
Post by upminstergas on Feb 13, 2015 12:24:06 GMT
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'!!!! Howabout just, 'a contract'? That probably would have been a better choice of words, but we've reached the stage in proceedings where there's going to be a pit of posturing and bullishness, i just think some posters have used that comment as a stick to beat NH with,when in fairness there are plenty of other sticks to do the job with. And please no one mention olive branches.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 12:27:56 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. You must have a wonderful imagination that can mind read their legal dept
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 12:33:44 GMT
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. All I'm doing is repeating what the media said a few days ago. Sainsbury's say they are no longer obligated under the terms of the contract as it has time expired. Or maybe what they meant is that Sainsbury's are not able to complete as the contract has now expired and as such is no longer valid?
|
|
|
Post by Blue Mist on Feb 13, 2015 12:47:43 GMT
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! yep, then the Queen appeals to CofE, Justin Welby appeals to God (the real one) and as football is Gods game, we win. Have faith brother.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 12:50:51 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'!!!! No because he doesn't have a very good record for telling the truth.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 13, 2015 12:57:34 GMT
Howabout just, 'a contract'? That probably would have been a better choice of words, but we've reached the stage in proceedings where there's going to be a pit of posturing and bullishness, i just think some posters have used that comment as a stick to beat NH with,when in fairness there are plenty of other sticks to do the job with. And please no one mention olive branches. It is rather indicative of a poor communications approach though. Rovers have tried to behave in a totally bullish way through this whole process; but to me it's come across the other way. Not as confident and dynamic; but as paranoid and insecure. I think I'd have been a lot happier if the emphasis from the word go had been along the lines of 'look this is a great opportunity but there's no guarantees because this is a complicated project and we're going to have to work very hard to get all our duck in a row'. Instead it feels like the more the project has come under pressure the more grandstanding we've seen. I never understood all the people who came on here to celebrate as if that was the last hurdle when the case went through in October that seemed really premature; all it did was keep us in the game for the next stage. There's been a lack of humility and realism about this whole thing; and far too much blind hope and over confident statements. There seems to be this feeling from the board that fans can't cope with complexity or uncertainty and they'll cop more flak that way - but I think in truth what pisses fans off more than anything else is if they feel they're being taken for a ride and bulls**tted and there's no doubt that there have been moments in this process where the confidence that we've expressed in public has not been justified by what was going on behind the scenes. I'm not saying that they should be behaving like eeyores but realistic optimism is a much better approach than default bullishness. You shouldn't treat people like fools - there have been many moments where it became pretty obvious that this project was in the balance but the noises coming out of Rovers have never really been anything other than 'it's in the bag'. That's a good way to lose some of the goodwill Rovers fans had towards the project and the board in the aftermath if the original proposals.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Feb 13, 2015 13:04:16 GMT
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'. The notes to the accounts said the £2.6m loan has been drawn after the period end and used to repay the Barclays loan of just under £1m, SOME of the Deltavon loan with the balance to be used to fund working capital for this season and next. So the only charge holder on the Mem now is MSP and the directors loans are all unsecured. Re some of the other points: A secured creditor ranks ahead of HMRC. The mem is undervalued in the accounts - even if it was only sold for £10m to a house builder everyone would get their money back. I have no idea of the source but there have been several references to a figure of £8m in respect of the UWE leasehold being included within the overall project cost of £40m. Net build amount was therefore £32m before taking into account rising costs. if Sainsburys pay £30m and we repay £2.6m to MSP there is only £27.4m left over.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 13:07:12 GMT
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'!!!! No because he doesn't have a very good record for telling the truth. Quite a few like that on here.....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 13:08:53 GMT
That probably would have been a better choice of words, but we've reached the stage in proceedings where there's going to be a pit of posturing and bullishness, i just think some posters have used that comment as a stick to beat NH with,when in fairness there are plenty of other sticks to do the job with. And please no one mention olive branches. It is rather indicative of a poor communications approach though. Rovers have tried to behave in a totally bullish way through this whole process; but to me it's come across the other way. Not as confident and dynamic; but as paranoid and insecure. I think I'd have been a lot happier if the emphasis from the word go had been along the lines of 'look this is a great opportunity but there's no guarantees because this is a complicated project and we're going to have to work very hard to get all our duck in a row'. Instead it feels like the more the project has come under pressure the more grandstanding we've seen. I never understood all the people who came on here to celebrate as if that was the last hurdle when the case went through in October that seemed really premature; all it did was keep us in the game for the next stage. There's been a lack of humility and realism about this whole thing; and far too much blind hope and over confident statements. There seems to be this feeling from the board that fans can't cope with complexity or uncertainty and they'll cop more flak that way - but I think in truth what pisses fans off more than anything else is if they feel they're being taken for a ride and bulls***ted and there's no doubt that there have been moments in this process where the confidence that we've expressed in public has not been justified by what was going on behind the scenes. I'm not saying that they should be behaving like eeyores but realistic optimism is a much better approach than default bullishness. You shouldn't treat people like fools - there have been many moments where it became pretty obvious that this project was in the balance but the noises coming out of Rovers have never really been anything other than 'it's in the bag'. That's a good way to lose some of the goodwill Rovers fans had towards the project and the board in the aftermath if the original proposals. I would have preferred he said nothing at all then we would have had great fun with that on here
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Feb 13, 2015 13:17:37 GMT
Who knows, the contract may yet prove to be watertight. And the word writ certainly includes letters that require dotting and crossing. Oh and for the record, prior to Opal having their borrowing facilities reduced (I believe they have since gone bust) BRFC's funding was in place and it had been for some time.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Feb 13, 2015 13:28:18 GMT
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'. The notes to the accounts said the £2.6m loan has been drawn after the period end and used to repay the Barclays loan of just under £1m, SOME of the Deltavon loan with the balance to be used to fund working capital for this season and next. So the only charge holder on the Mem now is MSP and the directors loans are all unsecured. Re some of the other points: A secured creditor ranks ahead of HMRC. The mem is undervalued in the accounts - even if it was only sold for £10m to a house builder everyone would get their money back. I have no idea of the source but there have been several references to a figure of £8m in respect of the UWE leasehold being included within the overall project cost of £40m. Net build amount was therefore £32m before taking into account rising costs. if Sainsburys pay £30m and we repay £2.6m to MSP there is only £27.4m left over. There's also the £300K+ interest to pay back on the £2.4m loan - I assume the fact we've needed to take out such an high interest loan indicates all our BoD have lent as much as they intend doing? Assuming a slice of the £2.6m is to fund the legal case against Sainsbury's if we win then those costs will be paid back, we may also get additional compensation of Sainsbury's delaying payment? Although we may still have around a few £m shortfall plus there's the o/s debts which I assume we can't simply carry over if we move to the UWE as we need to be debt free, unless the debts can be transferred to shares in the UWE? The big question is should Sainsbury's be forced to pay us £30m can we then qucikly raise the money needed to actually build the stadium/complete the contract?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 13:34:03 GMT
Who knows, the contract may yet prove to be watertight. And the word writ certainly includes letters that require dotting and crossing. Oh and for the record, prior to Opal having their borrowing facilities reduced (I believe they have since gone bust) BRFC's funding was in place and it had been for some time. Let's hope that the Sainsbury's contract is more watertight than the Opal one then or Rovers survival will have to rely on luck and chemistry.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 13:39:39 GMT
That probably would have been a better choice of words, but we've reached the stage in proceedings where there's going to be a pit of posturing and bullishness, i just think some posters have used that comment as a stick to beat NH with,when in fairness there are plenty of other sticks to do the job with. And please no one mention olive branches. It is rather indicative of a poor communications approach though. Rovers have tried to behave in a totally bullish way through this whole process; but to me it's come across the other way. Not as confident and dynamic; but as paranoid and insecure. I think I'd have been a lot happier if the emphasis from the word go had been along the lines of 'look this is a great opportunity but there's no guarantees because this is a complicated project and we're going to have to work very hard to get all our duck in a row'. Instead it feels like the more the project has come under pressure the more grandstanding we've seen. I never understood all the people who came on here to celebrate as if that was the last hurdle when the case went through in October that seemed really premature; all it did was keep us in the game for the next stage. There's been a lack of humility and realism about this whole thing; and far too much blind hope and over confident statements. There seems to be this feeling from the board that fans can't cope with complexity or uncertainty and they'll cop more flak that way - but I think in truth what pisses fans off more than anything else is if they feel they're being taken for a ride and bulls***ted and there's no doubt that there have been moments in this process where the confidence that we've expressed in public has not been justified by what was going on behind the scenes. I'm not saying that they should be behaving like eeyores but realistic optimism is a much better approach than default bullishness. You shouldn't treat people like fools - there have been many moments where it became pretty obvious that this project was in the balance but the noises coming out of Rovers have never really been anything other than 'it's in the bag'. That's a good way to lose some of the goodwill Rovers fans had towards the project and the board in the aftermath if the original proposals. If I could double or triple 'like' this, I would.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Feb 13, 2015 13:44:20 GMT
I think interest and legal costs are part of the expenditure that the surplus loan money will cover. We need to be realistic here, unless there are new investors in the background, it is hard to see how we can build the UWE. Ironically, the directors personally, are in a better position now because liquidation would allow repayment of their loans. UWE will much be better for the future of the club but if they leave their money in there is no saleable asset. A good outcome would be substantial compensation allowing debt to be cleared, the mem to be tarted up and the squad improved. A massive anti climax but so much better than the consequences of getting nothing.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Feb 13, 2015 13:49:48 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. Not if you read into what their brief said in court -
|
|
|
Post by gasheadnaboo on Feb 13, 2015 14:01:41 GMT
I think interest and legal costs are part of the expenditure that the surplus loan money will cover. We need to be realistic here, unless there are new investors in the background, it is hard to see how we can build the UWE. Ironically, the directors personally, are in a better position now because liquidation would allow repayment of their loans. UWE will much be better for the future of the club but if they leave their money in there is no saleable asset. A good outcome would be substantial compensation allowing debt to be cleared, the mem to be tarted up and the squad improved. A massive anti climax but so much better than the consequences of getting nothing.If that happened, in an ideal world after the directors are repaid they convert their shares to the supporters club for the £1,000,000+ raised through the scam share scheme, considering a supporter owned club is the complete antithesis of the franchising of Bristol Sport. If only eh?
|
|
|
Post by upminstergas on Feb 13, 2015 14:20:22 GMT
That probably would have been a better choice of words, but we've reached the stage in proceedings where there's going to be a pit of posturing and bullishness, i just think some posters have used that comment as a stick to beat NH with,when in fairness there are plenty of other sticks to do the job with. And please no one mention olive branches. It is rather indicative of a poor communications approach though. Rovers have tried to behave in a totally bullish way through this whole process; but to me it's come across the other way. Not as confident and dynamic; but as paranoid and insecure. I think I'd have been a lot happier if the emphasis from the word go had been along the lines of 'look this is a great opportunity but there's no guarantees because this is a complicated project and we're going to have to work very hard to get all our duck in a row'. Instead it feels like the more the project has come under pressure the more grandstanding we've seen. I never understood all the people who came on here to celebrate as if that was the last hurdle when the case went through in October that seemed really premature; all it did was keep us in the game for the next stage. There's been a lack of humility and realism about this whole thing; and far too much blind hope and over confident statements. There seems to be this feeling from the board that fans can't cope with complexity or uncertainty and they'll cop more flak that way - but I think in truth what pisses fans off more than anything else is if they feel they're being taken for a ride and bulls***ted and there's no doubt that there have been moments in this process where the confidence that we've expressed in public has not been justified by what was going on behind the scenes. I'm not saying that they should be behaving like eeyores but realistic optimism is a much better approach than default bullishness. You shouldn't treat people like fools - there have been many moments where it became pretty obvious that this project was in the balance but the noises coming out of Rovers have never really been anything other than 'it's in the bag'. That's a good way to lose some of the goodwill Rovers fans had towards the project and the board in the aftermath if the original proposals. I totally agree with you, but when i was talking about posturing and bullishness i meant since it became clear that Sainsburys were no longer interested in the project, at that point when it became obvious they wanted out and there were no prospects of sitting round a table and thrashing out a compromise, it was inevitable that the language and attitudes would change, and i don't blame the BOD for that. But you're right, i think from the very start of this process they should have been more pragmatic and more open with the fans,i think they were definately guilty of getting carried away when the planning permission was granted, and you felt they thought it was a done deal, when someone like NH who has made a living in the building trade should have know better.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 14:35:48 GMT
It is rather indicative of a poor communications approach though. Rovers have tried to behave in a totally bullish way through this whole process; but to me it's come across the other way. Not as confident and dynamic; but as paranoid and insecure. I think I'd have been a lot happier if the emphasis from the word go had been along the lines of 'look this is a great opportunity but there's no guarantees because this is a complicated project and we're going to have to work very hard to get all our duck in a row'. Instead it feels like the more the project has come under pressure the more grandstanding we've seen. I never understood all the people who came on here to celebrate as if that was the last hurdle when the case went through in October that seemed really premature; all it did was keep us in the game for the next stage. There's been a lack of humility and realism about this whole thing; and far too much blind hope and over confident statements. There seems to be this feeling from the board that fans can't cope with complexity or uncertainty and they'll cop more flak that way - but I think in truth what pisses fans off more than anything else is if they feel they're being taken for a ride and bulls***ted and there's no doubt that there have been moments in this process where the confidence that we've expressed in public has not been justified by what was going on behind the scenes. I'm not saying that they should be behaving like eeyores but realistic optimism is a much better approach than default bullishness. You shouldn't treat people like fools - there have been many moments where it became pretty obvious that this project was in the balance but the noises coming out of Rovers have never really been anything other than 'it's in the bag'. That's a good way to lose some of the goodwill Rovers fans had towards the project and the board in the aftermath if the original proposals. I totally agree with you, but when i was talking about posturing and bullishness i meant since it became clear that Sainsburys were no longer interested in the project, at that point when it became obvious they wanted out and there were no prospects of sitting round a table and thrashing out a compromise, it was inevitable that the language and attitudes would change, and i don't blame the BOD for that. But you're right, i think from the very start of this process they should have been more pragmatic and more open with the fans,i think they were definately guilty of getting carried away when the planning permission was granted, and you felt they thought it was a done deal, when someone like NH who has made a living in the building trade should have know better. Had they been more pragmatic, rather than bullish, with residents then they may not have ceded fertile ground to people like Carstairs? Community benefits to BS7 of the plans to build Sainsbury's on that site? None whatsoever that I can think of. Hardly surprising that they met with resistance and delays, is it?
|
|