Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Sept 25, 2015 10:44:30 GMT
3) Don't forget there are other lenders including GoD and Preference Shareholders. Nicholas has I believe converted some of his debt into equity if "those in the know" are correct. There will also be expenses from the court case which if MSP are not being repaid will mean that we will have lost the case. 4) BRFC is insolvent. Its liabilities including previous losses outweigh its assets value. It only continues as a going concern because of the support of the directors. If again those "ITK" are correct only Nicholas is supporting the company now and the other directors are not prepared to put in any more finance. Any bidder will be well aware of all of this. Chesh, working on the basis that the above is true (I think its believed widely), I'm thinking.....
by turning NH's debt into equity he has lowered the amount of interest payable by the club/eased cash-flow, but probably not by a huge amount, and taken a bigger 'upside' in the event that the big rich sale happens - which hasn't really been on the cards, even under the Sainsbury's scenario (because the stadium cash was ring-fenced), at least in the short term
it might also have been a 'statement' by NH to the rest of the board, showing that he is prepared to put his money where his mouth is. This might have been after the others decided not to put more money in, maybe as a result of the court process, as a reaction to the split which meant that he was increasingly 'on his own'
the alleged consortium types, if aware of all this, will know that NH is being squeezed between the fans/fellow boardmembers/court case, so that having their offer leaked is intended to increase the pressure on him
I think he might be the sort of bloke who, under pressure, wants to tell them all to stick it and plough on with something that he thinks might make sense for the club long-term - UWE Lite, in this case. Because either that plan will work, or at worst it will encourage the consortium to up their offer (which as relayed by peeps on here contains only a 'marketing version' - 'putting money into the stadium and the team', and nothing else
is that how you read it - or if not how do you read it please?
At one point, it might have been of the AGMs NH said he reluctantly converted some loans to shares due to the UWE project and no debt being attached to the stadium
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Sept 25, 2015 10:52:52 GMT
Ah, i think that makes sense PP
But aren't there other director loans. Or have they all been consolidated into 'one monthly payment' to Wonga?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Sept 25, 2015 10:53:52 GMT
Or maybe only his was secured on the stadium?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 11:00:05 GMT
So its crap that if BRFC hadn't paid Barclays they would have said on no worries or would they have called in the administrators, put BRFC in liquidation, and sold the Mem to recoup their money. I don't appreciate being patronised to by you or Bamber. If you want that to be put in Latin then that can be arranged . We don't know what would have happened had the Barclays loan not been repaid. Maybe they would have taken action to recover the funds, maybe it was just brinkmanship and Nick blinked first. But that's not the point, the situation was in Nick's control, he re-financed, as would anybody sane. And that's exactly what will happen when the MSP loan term expires in a few weeks. Administration, whilst technically possible, was never going to happen. quae si dicam stulte ineptus sum velut detrahet mihi populus. And that's just the way of the world
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Sept 25, 2015 11:14:07 GMT
We have not wasted a million quid on a court case because the case is still alive So if Shameburry settle out of court (which they will) is that still wasted money Lord Seth of BS3 Why will they settle? And if we did i take it Rovers will lower their expectations They have made a previous offer of £1.5m i'm sure they will make another
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 11:19:58 GMT
I've never understood where the mortgage on the Mem came from. I thought the agreement between us and Bristol Rugby was that if either club went bust, the other would then own the stadium for a neglible fee, and certainly nothing like the £900k mentioned previously. The mortgage was for the initial £2.something million for the 50% share in the Mem, I think. The rugby club going bust came afterwards.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Sept 25, 2015 11:50:23 GMT
Why will they settle? And if we did i take it Rovers will lower their expectations They have made a previous offer of £1.5m i'm sure they will make another Why should they do that now? They made that offer before the court case, then they won the court case. Urgo they are in an even stronger position now than they were then. Pretty damn hard to overturn these rulings, plus if they were to lose they get another crack at it anyway. £1.5 was considered a derisory offer, I can't see any incentive on their part to offer that again or to up it given that they now have a legal ruling in their favour.
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Sept 25, 2015 12:18:28 GMT
I've never understood where the mortgage on the Mem came from. I thought the agreement between us and Bristol Rugby was that if either club went bust, the other would then own the stadium for a neglible fee, and certainly nothing like the £900k mentioned previously. The mortgage was for the initial £2.something million for the 50% share in the Mem, I think. The rugby club going bust came afterwards. £2.4 according to GD Then 10 k for the other half
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Sept 25, 2015 12:23:42 GMT
I really don't believe anything about the "consortium" If you want to buy the club, it's the majority of shares however much that is, then you need at least £15 to £20 mill to buy the Mem whilst building the UWE which will cost at least £40 mill and then you need to pay off all the debts, and it is likely you will never see a penny in return. So who has £80 million to waste? Admittedly you will get your money back on the Mem but it is a lot of cash to give away, although you would please about 7,000 people in the Bristol area
Don't think anything will happen until we have been to court
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 12:26:06 GMT
You could rent the Mem, and you could structure a deal to do it cheaply, leaving Nick the Mem to recoup his money when we move.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Sept 25, 2015 12:31:47 GMT
I really don't believe anything about the "consortium" If you want to buy the club, it's the majority of shares however much that is, then you need at least £15 to £20 mill to buy the Mem whilst building the UWE which will cost at least £40 mill and then you need to pay off all the debts, and it is likely you will never see a penny in return. So who has £80 million to waste? Admittedly you will get your money back on the Mem but it is a lot of cash to give away, although you would please about 7,000 people in the Bristol area Don't think anything will happen until we have been to court Where are you getting £80m from? Are our debts £20m now?
More like about £45m (they would sell the Mem!), and in return you get a stadium, which has an income and a value.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 12:42:41 GMT
They have made a previous offer of £1.5m i'm sure they will make another Why should they do that now? They made that offer before the court case, then they won the court case. Urgo they are in an even stronger position now than they were then. Pretty damn hard to overturn these rulings, plus if they were to lose they get another crack at it anyway. £1.5 was considered a derisory offer, I can't see any incentive on their part to offer that again or to up it given that they now have a legal ruling in their favour. Was it derisory? If I followed the case correctly, had we accepted then we wouldn't be stuck with circa £750k of their costs plus who knows how much in our own costs, maybe another £250k? So accepting the offer would have actually been worth nearer £2.5m.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Sept 25, 2015 13:13:29 GMT
Why should they do that now? They made that offer before the court case, then they won the court case. Urgo they are in an even stronger position now than they were then. Pretty damn hard to overturn these rulings, plus if they were to lose they get another crack at it anyway. £1.5 was considered a derisory offer, I can't see any incentive on their part to offer that again or to up it given that they now have a legal ruling in their favour. Was it derisory? If I followed the case correctly, had we accepted then we wouldn't be stuck with circa £750k of their costs plus who knows how much in our own costs, maybe another £250k? So accepting the offer would have actually been worth nearer £2.5m. I haven't a clue whether it was derisory or not to be honest. I don't have the neccessary frame of reference. All I was saying is that we clearly treated it as such and I can't see why it is in Sainsbury's interest to make a similar offer at this point. If they lost the appeal and had to go back to court again, I could see them making a massively improved offer to settle then but without that I don't see where the incentive is. We lost the case - that puts us in about as weak a negotiating position as you're likely to get so I don't understand people who seem to be implying we can still wheedle any kind of favourable settlement out of Sainsbury's when they clearly hold all the cards here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 13:31:32 GMT
Was it derisory? If I followed the case correctly, had we accepted then we wouldn't be stuck with circa £750k of their costs plus who knows how much in our own costs, maybe another £250k? So accepting the offer would have actually been worth nearer £2.5m. I haven't a clue whether it was derisory or not to be honest. I don't have the neccessary frame of reference. All I was saying is that we clearly treated it as such and I can't see why it is in Sainsbury's interest to make a similar offer at this point. If they lost the appeal and had to go back to court again, I could see them making a massively improved offer to settle then but without that I don't see where the incentive is. We lost the case - that puts us in about as weak a negotiating position as you're likely to get so I don't understand people who seem to be implying we can still wheedle any kind of favourable settlement out of Sainsbury's when they clearly hold all the cards here. Exactly. Some people do seem to have their heads in the clouds with this entire case, there was even talk of us getting the £30m and keeping the Mem. I shouldn't think that Sainsbury's are too worried about where the appeal is heading. It's not just the raw cash cost that we need to consider either, we are continuing to invest not only money but also precious time and emotional energy into chasing what looks like a lost cause
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 13:33:36 GMT
I really don't believe anything about the "consortium" If you want to buy the club, it's the majority of shares however much that is, then you need at least £15 to £20 mill to buy the Mem whilst building the UWE which will cost at least £40 mill and then you need to pay off all the debts, and it is likely you will never see a penny in return. So who has £80 million to waste? Admittedly you will get your money back on the Mem but it is a lot of cash to give away, although you would please about 7,000 people in the Bristol area Don't think anything will happen until we have been to court If you buy the shares then you buy the stadium. There are no shares issued in the football club itself.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,353
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Sept 25, 2015 13:46:40 GMT
I haven't a clue whether it was derisory or not to be honest. I don't have the neccessary frame of reference. All I was saying is that we clearly treated it as such and I can't see why it is in Sainsbury's interest to make a similar offer at this point. If they lost the appeal and had to go back to court again, I could see them making a massively improved offer to settle then but without that I don't see where the incentive is. We lost the case - that puts us in about as weak a negotiating position as you're likely to get so I don't understand people who seem to be implying we can still wheedle any kind of favourable settlement out of Sainsbury's when they clearly hold all the cards here. Exactly. Some people do seem to have their heads in the clouds with this entire case, there was even talk of us getting the £30m and keeping the Mem. I shouldn't think that Sainsbury's are too worried about where the appeal is heading. It's not just the raw cash cost that we need to consider either, we are continuing to invest not only money but also precious time and emotional energy into chasing what looks like a lost cause In a nutshell BG. Time that could be better spent and so many people not having to worry and get distressed about the club we love. This really is a real life soap opera, one I wish would have a happy ending. We have all seen the various schemes fail and the dream is all that we all hold onto. It really would be so great if we actually had plans that came to fruition. I think most of us need our heads testing lol. I knew that supporting Rovers would never be about glory but I never thought we could go so low. It's been one hell of a ride.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Sept 25, 2015 14:12:30 GMT
But the thing is that the JTS predictions from a few days ago didn't disappoint many, and were relatively accurate . . . well, as far as they went they were at any rate. But now having been reluctantly ''outed'' (it seems to me), what happens next to their approach? Or is that it, so to speak?
Can we expect the Birmingham-based consortium to break cover any time soon, and firm-up their rather limp approach with a more robust enquiry? Perhaps they already have, who knows? And what of the chairman, is he still "angered" by the claims and reluctant to "dignify the rumours with a response?'' Or even as we speak are they crossing the t's and dotting the i's on the contract? That would be a step too far in my opinion, much too hasty. We have all been raised on a diet of slow movement by successive Boards, to the point of them being almost sedate in their approach to virtually everything, whether on or off the field of play. I suspect that we're in for a guerilla-type campaign, when it does eventually get going.
But when on earth will that be?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 14:18:05 GMT
I haven't a clue whether it was derisory or not to be honest. I don't have the neccessary frame of reference. All I was saying is that we clearly treated it as such and I can't see why it is in Sainsbury's interest to make a similar offer at this point. If they lost the appeal and had to go back to court again, I could see them making a massively improved offer to settle then but without that I don't see where the incentive is. We lost the case - that puts us in about as weak a negotiating position as you're likely to get so I don't understand people who seem to be implying we can still wheedle any kind of favourable settlement out of Sainsbury's when they clearly hold all the cards here. Exactly. Some people do seem to have their heads in the clouds with this entire case, there was even talk of us getting the £30m and keeping the Mem. I shouldn't think that Sainsbury's are too worried about where the appeal is heading. It's not just the raw cash cost that we need to consider either, we are continuing to invest not only money but also precious time and emotional energy into chasing what looks like a lost cause Ain't that the case? Others form the same stable are: Even if we lose, we'll probably get compensation; and Three judges are easier to convince than one; and Our lawyers say we'll win an appeal (apparently) so disregard a judge going through it for a week for us and finding the contract falls Sainsbury's way. And all the time overlooking that £30 million wouldn't build the new stadium, anyway.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,353
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Sept 25, 2015 14:33:29 GMT
But the thing is that the JTS predictions from a few days ago didn't disappoint many, and were relatively accurate . . . well, as far as they went they were at any rate. But now having been reluctantly ''outed'' (it seems to me), what happens next to their approach? Or is that it, so to speak? Can we expect the Birmingham-based consortium to break cover any time soon, and firm-up their rather limp approach with a more robust enquiry? Perhaps they already have, who knows? And what of the chairman, is he still "angered" by the claims and reluctant to "dignify the rumours with a response?'' Or even as we speak are they crossing the t's and dotting the i's on the contract? That would be a step too far in my opinion, much too hasty. We have all been raised on a diet of slow movement by successive Boards, to the point of them being almost sedate in their approach to virtually everything, whether on or off the field of play. I suspect that we're in for a guerilla-type campaign, when it does eventually get going. But when on earth will that be? When our great leader decides then we still probably will never find out. NH loves his confidentiality clauses eh mate. I know big financial institutions like to use these clauses but Higgs certainly makes himself to look even more paranoid than I think most believe him to be. He certainly does himself no favours. The irony here is the Doug Shields, the new PR guy, was supposed to be advising the board on such matters but, if anything, things seem to have got worse.
|
|
|
Post by badbloodash on Sept 25, 2015 17:59:54 GMT
So why would the bod let this happen if there is a consortium ready to take over the club as a going concern administration is a costly business with usaualy the only people coming out of it happy are the administrators with there high fees / costs plus the points deduction that would follow could send us back to the conference Administration is not an option Isn't that what Craig Whyte said
|
|