Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 21:41:25 GMT
I think that they raised what they needed from local residents and traders. It wouldn't surprise me if they also had professional help from residents. Even if they had carried on as a trading limited company they wouldn't have had to divulge where their income had come from so best to let it go. edit: Don't fall into the Higgs trap of always trying to find somebody else to blame. I think HMRC might disagree No I agree with Mary (traded myself), yes simplified accounts are put in (which you can see) but full audited accounts are not (they are available to HMRC). Imagine me putting in accounts which state that I got 1 million pounds from Sainsburys for footballs, when you could look at it and say I could supply them that amount for 500 thousand.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 22:30:20 GMT
I think that they raised what they needed from local residents and traders. It wouldn't surprise me if they also had professional help from residents. Even if they had carried on as a trading limited company they wouldn't have had to divulge where their income had come from so best to let it go. edit: Don't fall into the Higgs trap of always trying to find somebody else to blame. I think HMRC might disagree I doubt it, they make the rules.
|
|
|
Post by alasitsgas on Jul 18, 2015 21:07:01 GMT
With the thought that Rovers are to appeal fills me with dread.Sainsbury have been down this road before as have other large supermarkets and know exactly what all the rules and laws are.So Mr Higgs if your legal team give you advice that your case is good think again, cos the only winners will be the pin stripes. PS The old saying if a deal looks too good to be true IT PROBABLY IS!So get back to reality we have a stadium.Might not be Wembley but its Rovers Home.
|
|
|
Post by thecyclist on Mar 5, 2016 18:45:33 GMT
Of course Nick Higgs should seek advice on whether there is a more than a 99 % chance of winning or not. If there isn't then he needs to pack his pencil case and go. So, if the advice is 60%, 70%, 80%, etc chance of winning, you would say go. No UWE Stadium then. Chairman must go. Then what? Replaced by who? From Where? White knights riding in need lots of money to go the the hot air, otherwise hot air on its own is useless. Pray there is one for your sake, in your world. Meanwhile, the Memorial Stadium is rapidly deteriorating and would cost nearly as much as the UWE to rebuild, with none of the facilities to gain that all important outside revenue stream to help the Club keep moving forward.. 18,000 stadium rebuilt - where is the money coming from for that? Haven't got anything to sell. It's not like we can survive on selling our best players, like we did in the old days. Maybe you don't care. Maybe your happy with being little Bristol Rovers forever, wearing it like an old comfy slipper. Got any answers Mary? Got £20 million quid to spare? Has anyone seen or heard of the Nurse since the takeover?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 15:07:25 GMT
So, if the advice is 60%, 70%, 80%, etc chance of winning, you would say go. No UWE Stadium then. Chairman must go. Then what? Replaced by who? From Where? White knights riding in need lots of money to go the the hot air, otherwise hot air on its own is useless. Pray there is one for your sake, in your world. Meanwhile, the Memorial Stadium is rapidly deteriorating and would cost nearly as much as the UWE to rebuild, with none of the facilities to gain that all important outside revenue stream to help the Club keep moving forward.. 18,000 stadium rebuilt - where is the money coming from for that? Haven't got anything to sell. It's not like we can survive on selling our best players, like we did in the old days. Maybe you don't care. Maybe your happy with being little Bristol Rovers forever, wearing it like an old comfy slipper. Got any answers Mary? Got £20 million quid to spare? Has anyone seen or heard of the Nurse since the takeover? It all went according to plan. The word from the bunker is that being taken to the cleaners by Sainsbury's and paying the thick end of a million quid in interest to Wonga was all part of a brilliant plan to attract new owners.
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Jul 8, 2017 13:37:05 GMT
The consequences of it being wrong would be x but, and she made a point of adding this, I do not think it is.Please don't hang up on 'think' and 'know': it's legalese .
What I have drawn peoples attention too is perfectly reasonable. You can spin it in anyway you want, I don't care, but it is not the language of absolute. All I think is that if the legal advice given says we have a reasonable chance of winning, then the opportunity should not be spurned. If the advice says we haven't, then that concludes the chapter. I miss this great legal mind.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 8, 2017 14:26:43 GMT
What I have drawn peoples attention too is perfectly reasonable. You can spin it in anyway you want, I don't care, but it is not the language of absolute. All I think is that if the legal advice given says we have a reasonable chance of winning, then the opportunity should not be spurned. If the advice says we haven't, then that concludes the chapter. I miss this great legal mind. Things looked quite bad in July 2015 when we owed the club's owners £3.7 million and MSP capital £2.7 million but we thought The Mem was worth up to £29 million Today we owe the club's owners about £9 million, the club's former owners nearly £1 million and we know The Mem is valued at £11 million
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 15:09:59 GMT
I miss this great legal mind. Things looked quite bad in July 2015 when we owed the club's owners £3.7 million and MSP capital £2.7 million but we thought The Mem was worth up to £29 million Today we owe the club's owners about £9 million, the club's former owners nearly £1 million and we know The Mem is valued at £11 million But sat behind that are very wealthy owners with companies that are still trading and making significant sums. And, if the smoke signals are to be believed, there's a proper plan in place to fund UWE, so I'm chilled about it all. BTW, without checking the diary, by July 2015, hadn't most of us already resigned ourselves to not getting the dosh from Sainsbury's, so even at that point the circa £29m wasn't a real number, was it? And even if it was, what would we have done with it, we would have been contracted to sell our stadium and then wouldn't have had the money to build a new one. Doooh!
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 8, 2017 16:12:23 GMT
Things looked quite bad in July 2015 when we owed the club's owners £3.7 million and MSP capital £2.7 million but we thought The Mem was worth up to £29 million Today we owe the club's owners about £9 million, the club's former owners nearly £1 million and we know The Mem is valued at £11 million But sat behind that are very wealthy owners with companies that are still trading and making significant sums. And, if the smoke signals are to be believed, there's a proper plan in place to fund UWE, so I'm chilled about it all. BTW, without checking the diary, by July 2015, hadn't most of us already resigned ourselves to not getting the dosh from Sainsbury's, so even at that point the circa £29m wasn't a real number, was it? And even if it was, what would we have done with it, we would have been contracted to sell our stadium and then wouldn't have had the money to build a new one. Doooh! I'm not sure in football terms they are very wealthy. The family's annual dividend income from the AJIB is about £6 million in total and it's unlikely they going to spend a quarter of that funding Rovers yearly losses. The charge taken against The Mem has made me reassess my opinion and I think financially we could be in a worse position now than we were in 2015.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 16:28:51 GMT
But sat behind that are very wealthy owners with companies that are still trading and making significant sums. And, if the smoke signals are to be believed, there's a proper plan in place to fund UWE, so I'm chilled about it all. BTW, without checking the diary, by July 2015, hadn't most of us already resigned ourselves to not getting the dosh from Sainsbury's, so even at that point the circa £29m wasn't a real number, was it? And even if it was, what would we have done with it, we would have been contracted to sell our stadium and then wouldn't have had the money to build a new one. Doooh! I'm not sure in football terms they are very wealthy. The family's annual dividend income from the AJIB is about £6 million in total and it's unlikely they going to spend a quarter of that funding Rovers yearly losses. The charge taken against The Mem has made me reassess my opinion and I think financially we could be in a worse position now than we were in 2015. Income and increase in worth are two very different things. How long could the previous owners have continued covering the losses they were making? As far as I'm aware, only Chris Jelf had a company that was making any money at all. Are you saying that we are still running at -£1.5m PA?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,500
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 8, 2017 17:09:23 GMT
Reading this thread reminded me of how depressing it all was. I am happy now.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 8, 2017 17:34:56 GMT
I'm not sure in football terms they are very wealthy. The family's annual dividend income from the AJIB is about £6 million in total and it's unlikely they going to spend a quarter of that funding Rovers yearly losses. The charge taken against The Mem has made me reassess my opinion and I think financially we could be in a worse position now than we were in 2015. Income and increase in worth are two very different things. How long could the previous owners have continued covering the losses they were making? As far as I'm aware, only Chris Jelf had a company that was making any money at all. Are you saying that we are still running at -£1.5m PA? The combined annual income of Nick, Barry, Chris and Ed may have not been far behind that of the Al Qadi family. The comparison of worth is an interesting one. Nick in particular had cash from the sales of his shares in Cowlin and cash is a most precious commodity. I believe Chris retained a shareholding in the Jelf Group which was a stable British company that was sold in December 2015 for £258 million. The AJIB is a small bank with sales of about £100 million on which it makes post tax profits of about £23 million most of which is distributed in dividends. It's shares are not traded regularly and it is situated in a volatile part of the world so the market valuation cannot be relied upon to the extent that a European stock exchange valuation could. Even as relatively successful businessmen the four former shareholder directors could not continue financing losses from their own resources and neither did they have the capital to invest (alongside borrowings) in a new stadium which would, in the medium term, have given Rovers a chance of stemming the losses. When the Al Qadi family took over it looked as though they were in a far better position to cover the losses and provide the capital to move the stadium project forward but if they need to take a legal charge over the Mem, which as far as I know no other active owner has ever done, it doesn't look quite so good now. Based on the 2016 accounts I should think our losses are still running at about £1.5 million per year.
|
|
|
Post by DudeLebowski on Jul 8, 2017 18:50:28 GMT
Nick Higgs is an incompetent, sleep deprived, sack of rat s**t & almost killed this football club.
The end.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Jul 8, 2017 18:53:01 GMT
Amen.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 18:58:05 GMT
Income and increase in worth are two very different things. How long could the previous owners have continued covering the losses they were making? As far as I'm aware, only Chris Jelf had a company that was making any money at all. Are you saying that we are still running at -£1.5m PA? The combined annual income of Nick, Barry, Chris and Ed may have not been far behind that of the Al Qadi family. The comparison of worth is an interesting one. Nick in particular had cash from the sales of his shares in Cowlin and cash is a most precious commodity. I believe Chris retained a shareholding in the Jelf Group which was a stable British company that was sold in December 2015 for £258 million. The AJIB is a small bank with sales of about £100 million on which it makes post tax profits of about £23 million most of which is distributed in dividends. It's shares are not traded regularly and it is situated in a volatile part of the world so the market valuation cannot be relied upon to the extent that a European stock exchange valuation could. Even as relatively successful businessmen the four former shareholder directors could not continue financing losses from their own resources and neither did they have the capital to invest (alongside borrowings) in a new stadium which would, in the medium term, have given Rovers a chance of stemming the losses. When the Al Qadi family took over it looked as though they were in a far better position to cover the losses and provide the capital to move the stadium project forward but if they need to take a legal charge over the Mem, which as far as I know no other active owner has ever done, it doesn't look quite so good now. Based on the 2016 accounts I should think our losses are still running at about £1.5 million per year. Again, as far as I'm aware, only Chris Jelf had any significant income, and didn't the Wonga situation demonstrate the appetite for investment from the previous board? I don't know for sure, but maybe that charge is to do with paying the previous owners? It looks like that's your main worry? Cash is only important when you need it. I don't think the new owners will have too much difficulty raising the required money. And it won't matter if they pop down to the local hole in the wall and draw it out or if they bring in external investors, whoever lumps in £40m+ is going to want a return. Haven't looked at 2016 accounts, but am surprised by the numbers you are quoting. What I would say though is that, ref the stadium, the clock is ticking, it's been 17 months now, experts in the field were brought in, and seem to have either left or are being very quiet, fair enough they needed to turn Higgs' shoe box out, take a look at what they had bought and consider options for building and funding the thing, but it shouldn't be much longer now before they tell us what's happening. The fact that the manager has signed up means that they've convinced him that they can deliver a stadium that will match his ambition I would have thought?
|
|
|
Post by tauntongas on Jul 8, 2017 19:07:37 GMT
Income and increase in worth are two very different things. How long could the previous owners have continued covering the losses they were making? As far as I'm aware, only Chris Jelf had a company that was making any money at all. Are you saying that we are still running at -£1.5m PA? The combined annual income of Nick, Barry, Chris and Ed may have not been far behind that of the Al Qadi family. The comparison of worth is an interesting one. Nick in particular had cash from the sales of his shares in Cowlin and cash is a most precious commodity. I believe Chris retained a shareholding in the Jelf Group which was a stable British company that was sold in December 2015 for £258 million. The AJIB is a small bank with sales of about £100 million on which it makes post tax profits of about £23 million most of which is distributed in dividends. It's shares are not traded regularly and it is situated in a volatile part of the world so the market valuation cannot be relied upon to the extent that a European stock exchange valuation could. Even as relatively successful businessmen the four former shareholder directors could not continue financing losses from their own resources and neither did they have the capital to invest (alongside borrowings) in a new stadium which would, in the medium term, have given Rovers a chance of stemming the losses. When the Al Qadi family took over it looked as though they were in a far better position to cover the losses and provide the capital to move the stadium project forward but if they need to take a legal charge over the Mem, which as far as I know no other active owner has ever done, it doesn't look quite so good now. Based on the 2016 accounts I should think our losses are still running at about £1.5 million per year. So with the Al Qadi's (also having that kind of information to hand at the time of purchasing Rovers), they have decided to take on a club that they possibly do not have the funds to keep going (or at least as much as the old board) and the risk they were inheriting was only going to make things worse, despite two promotions in two years? Hmm.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 8, 2017 20:04:41 GMT
The combined annual income of Nick, Barry, Chris and Ed may have not been far behind that of the Al Qadi family. The comparison of worth is an interesting one. Nick in particular had cash from the sales of his shares in Cowlin and cash is a most precious commodity. I believe Chris retained a shareholding in the Jelf Group which was a stable British company that was sold in December 2015 for £258 million. The AJIB is a small bank with sales of about £100 million on which it makes post tax profits of about £23 million most of which is distributed in dividends. It's shares are not traded regularly and it is situated in a volatile part of the world so the market valuation cannot be relied upon to the extent that a European stock exchange valuation could. Even as relatively successful businessmen the four former shareholder directors could not continue financing losses from their own resources and neither did they have the capital to invest (alongside borrowings) in a new stadium which would, in the medium term, have given Rovers a chance of stemming the losses. When the Al Qadi family took over it looked as though they were in a far better position to cover the losses and provide the capital to move the stadium project forward but if they need to take a legal charge over the Mem, which as far as I know no other active owner has ever done, it doesn't look quite so good now. Based on the 2016 accounts I should think our losses are still running at about £1.5 million per year. So with the Al Qadi's (also having that kind of information to hand at the time of purchasing Rovers), they have decided to take on a club that they possibly do not have the funds to keep going (or at least as much as the old board) and the risk they were inheriting was only going to make things worse, despite two promotions in two years? Hmm. Yes, I think they made a miscalculation and the legal charge over the Mem is indicative of a tightening financial position. The two promotions are entirely down to Darrell Clarke, his backroom staff and the players.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 8, 2017 20:24:29 GMT
The combined annual income of Nick, Barry, Chris and Ed may have not been far behind that of the Al Qadi family. The comparison of worth is an interesting one. Nick in particular had cash from the sales of his shares in Cowlin and cash is a most precious commodity. I believe Chris retained a shareholding in the Jelf Group which was a stable British company that was sold in December 2015 for £258 million. The AJIB is a small bank with sales of about £100 million on which it makes post tax profits of about £23 million most of which is distributed in dividends. It's shares are not traded regularly and it is situated in a volatile part of the world so the market valuation cannot be relied upon to the extent that a European stock exchange valuation could. Even as relatively successful businessmen the four former shareholder directors could not continue financing losses from their own resources and neither did they have the capital to invest (alongside borrowings) in a new stadium which would, in the medium term, have given Rovers a chance of stemming the losses. When the Al Qadi family took over it looked as though they were in a far better position to cover the losses and provide the capital to move the stadium project forward but if they need to take a legal charge over the Mem, which as far as I know no other active owner has ever done, it doesn't look quite so good now. Based on the 2016 accounts I should think our losses are still running at about £1.5 million per year. Again, as far as I'm aware, only Chris Jelf had any significant income, and didn't the Wonga situation demonstrate the appetite for investment from the previous board? I don't know for sure, but maybe that charge is to do with paying the previous owners? It looks like that's your main worry? Cash is only important when you need it. I don't think the new owners will have too much difficulty raising the required money. And it won't matter if they pop down to the local hole in the wall and draw it out or if they bring in external investors, whoever lumps in £40m+ is going to want a return. Haven't looked at 2016 accounts, but am surprised by the numbers you are quoting. What I would say though is that, ref the stadium, the clock is ticking, it's been 17 months now, experts in the field were brought in, and seem to have either left or are being very quiet, fair enough they needed to turn Higgs' shoe box out, take a look at what they had bought and consider options for building and funding the thing, but it shouldn't be much longer now before they tell us what's happening. The fact that the manager has signed up means that they've convinced him that they can deliver a stadium that will match his ambition I would have thought? We used to be accused of having a hidden agenda when we questioned and criticised what Nick Higgs was doing but our motives were always to try and promote what we thought was best for the football club. This charge does irritate me because it goes against the spirit of what (IMO) investing in a football club should be about. Geoff only took a charge when he left the board and had no control over events and I think every other director has put money in knowing it was at risk and being prepared to lose it if necessary. The charge indicates that someone does want their money back and is making sure they will get it. I disagree with you about "the difficulty in raising the required money" and I've got a feeling we will need cash quite soon.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 2:00:15 GMT
doesnt planning permission run out in august ?
|
|
|
Post by tauntongas on Jul 9, 2017 2:04:06 GMT
So with the Al Qadi's (also having that kind of information to hand at the time of purchasing Rovers), they have decided to take on a club that they possibly do not have the funds to keep going (or at least as much as the old board) and the risk they were inheriting was only going to make things worse, despite two promotions in two years? Hmm. Yes, I think they made a miscalculation and the legal charge over the Mem is indicative of a tightening financial position. The two promotions are entirely down to Darrell Clarke, his backroom staff and the players. Wael said that the project would be about "evolution not revolution" and that was largely supported by the fans (at least on here). To be honest, I have been surprised at the amounts we have been spending on transfer fees but this has been balanced by the performances returned on the pitch. If the board want to tighten things, so be it. It would seem sensible if certain risks have increased or certain funds been spent. We were never promised anything, other than effort towards the goals we all wanted, such as the stadium and training facilities. You are right - the promo's have been due to DC and the players but the board benefit from that. There is no way WAQ could have predicted we'd be two leagues higher than when he first started looking at the club, within two seasons and that must be a massive lift to everyone involved. I think the initial romance of the WAQ takeover does depend (as we all knew it would) on the outcome of the stadium plan. If I had to make a prediction, I would say the long silence of late would hopefully indicate the board are going through every aspect of the existing UWE contract/plan to make the future as profitable and as sustainable as possible for the club. I am ok with that. Add to the mix that the sale of the Mem is by no means an easy task and you have more than enough reason for the delay. Despite this, I understand some concerns that some fans have and they have every right to have them.
|
|