Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2015 14:32:48 GMT
have i missed the post where nh agrees a consortium are in talks with the board ? Bulbous - NH does not like the word Consortium, please refrain from that and use Investors. ah , unless ive missed it weve jumped to signed agreements and the stadium going ahead whatever happens in court. i hope so
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Nov 28, 2015 14:49:24 GMT
From.FB Nick Higgs on the Stadium at last night's Supporters Club AGM: The hearing at the Court of Appeal is about holding Sainsbury's to the original terms of the contract, £30.05 million. It is not about compensation although he did add the club will be seeking an extra £5 million to compensate them for delays, rising costs etc. The hearing will be heard by a panel of three judges who will listen to the solicitors arguments. If we win Sainsbury's do technically have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights but they are not certain to get a hearing and probably wouldn't go that far because of the negative PR. Interestingly he added that there around 20-30 other organisations who are suffering from a Sainsbury's change of mind who are waiting to see how our appeal goes before commencing their own action against them. I find that an awful lot of all of this goes right over my head, but I think that it's fair to say that things are not going too well for us at the moment, and that we are currently either in (or close-by) The Last Chance Saloon in several respects. From what I've been reading we shall all be fortunate to get out of this with our pride intact, never mind collecting the £30 million plus that we are still seeking. So I was a little surprised to read that on top of that £30m figure, BRFC is seeking a further £5 million to compensate them for delays and rising costs. Quite right too I say. After all, you may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Nov 28, 2015 14:50:54 GMT
Bulbous - NH does not like the word Consortium, please refrain from that and use Investors. ah , unless ive missed it weve jumped to signed agreements and the stadium going ahead whatever happens in court. i hope so Bulbous - I have NOT said "signed agreements" as that is untrue but you can interpret what NH said to suggest your second point has some validity according to NH.
I just hope he can follow through on that suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 28, 2015 14:55:10 GMT
Before the AGM, NH arrived and came straight over to three of us and had a wide ranging discussion and answered all the questions we asked, we did not ask him the questions we had prepared. After the AGM he came up to me and spent about 10 mins answering some more questions, nothing appeared to be off limits. He said:- 1 – The MSP loan is not being repaid in instalments. The interest is being added to the capital sum and will be repaid at the latest by the third quarter day of 2016 which I take to be 29th September 2016. So you work out the total cost, £2.6m @ 1.2% per month over a maximum period of 21 months. He did say that if the sale of The Mem went through earlier it would be repaid immediately and the balance of the sale would be used to build UWE. 2 – The takeover/consortium talks are advanced and going well. I have no idea if the investors NH is talking about is the Consortium that several of us have been talking about. They may be or maybe not separate entities. 3 – As and when the investment/takeover takes place he did say that although he wasn’t sure, he didn’t believe any shares would be available to fans. I find that difficult to accept if true, as it would bar fans from buying shares and attending any AGM. Also, BRSC would have no stake in BRFC. 4 – The funding will be in place, no matter what decision is made by the Appeal Court AND that the stadium will be for 21,700 as originally planned and fully fitted out 5 – He indicated that as and when the talks are successfully concluded, that a start date for building UWE could be between February and June 2016. The first date seems very ambitious, even if an investment/takeover is completed by the end of December 2015. I have said many times, quoting dates is a nonsense as it tends to “bit you on the bum” when the date quoted fails to materialise. 6 – We asked “what if two offers are received and they both met the financial requirements, ie £40+ million in a bank account acceptable to BRFC, would an EGM be called to enable Shareholders to consider both offers and give their views?”. NH said not necessarily. I found this answer amazing, yes NH holds around 54% of the voting shares so will always win in a “card vote”. However does he not owe a duty to all the Shareholders to let them know what has been offered and for them to have their say. NH seems to think not. I think that covers everything else. blinking flip, that's a lot of information. And all very positive to boot
FWIW I tend to agree with NH on point 6 - he can't say 'yes' it might be a bit like giving a start date, so 'not necessarily' seems OK to me
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Nov 28, 2015 15:24:22 GMT
Bulbous - NH does not like the word Consortium, please refrain from that and use Investors. ah , unless ive missed it weve jumped to signed agreements and the stadium going ahead whatever happens in court. i hope so As far as i am aware the only 'agreements' signed are 'confidentiality agreements' but they are in talks which is good and at least there are at least two avenues to possibly fund UWE!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2015 18:23:04 GMT
ah , unless ive missed it weve jumped to signed agreements and the stadium going ahead whatever happens in court. i hope so Bulbous - I have NOT said "signed agreements" as that is untrue but you can interpret what NH said to suggest your second point has some validity according to NH.
I just hope he can follow through on that suggestion.
no not you gas though im sure i read it on here, its hard to keep up sometimes
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 28, 2015 18:28:29 GMT
ah , unless ive missed it weve jumped to signed agreements and the stadium going ahead whatever happens in court. i hope so Bulbous - I have NOT said "signed agreements" as that is untrue but you can interpret what NH said to suggest your second point has some validity according to NH.
I just hope he can follow through on that suggestion.
I just hope he DOES follow through With excitement, when the stadium gets built. Lol
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Nov 29, 2015 10:08:25 GMT
Bulbous - I have NOT said "signed agreements" as that is untrue but you can interpret what NH said to suggest your second point has some validity according to NH.
I just hope he can follow through on that suggestion.
no not you gas though im sure i read it on here, its hard to keep up sometimes Bulbous - Sorry, if your reference to "signed agreements" refereed to the Confidentiality Agreements, you are of course correct as confirmed by JTS.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2015 22:13:14 GMT
1 – The MSP loan is not being repaid in instalments. The interest is being added to the capital sum and will be repaid at the latest by the third quarter day of 2016 which I take to be 29th September 2016. So you work out the total cost, £2.6m @ 1.2% per month over a maximum period of 21 months. This makes me wonder if the interest is compound and added per-month, if that's the case, assuming my abacus is operating correctly, £2,600,000 @ 1.2% per month over 21 months will cost us £740,135.69 in interest alone! WOW!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2015 22:20:09 GMT
From.FB Nick Higgs on the Stadium at last night's Supporters Club AGM: The hearing at the Court of Appeal is about holding Sainsbury's to the original terms of the contract, £30.05 million. It is not about compensation although he did add the club will be seeking an extra £5 million to compensate them for delays, rising costs etc. The hearing will be heard by a panel of three judges who will listen to the solicitors arguments. If we win Sainsbury's do technically have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights but they are not certain to get a hearing and probably wouldn't go that far because of the negative PR. Interestingly he added that there around 20-30 other organisations who are suffering from a Sainsbury's change of mind who are waiting to see how our appeal goes before commencing their own action against them.I don't understand the logic here. If there are 20~30 others waiting on the outcome of this then surely Sainsbury's will fight to the bitter end? Our case with them simply isn't on the radar of 99.9% of the population, and even if it were and there was negative PR for them, you know what they say, today's headlines wrap tomorrow's fish.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2015 22:23:33 GMT
What human rights does a supermarket have?
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Nov 30, 2015 1:23:30 GMT
I have been smiling at some of the reporting that's been going on by some who were at the AGM with different understanding of what was said. I was with two individuals at the game on Saturday who were both there and even they couldn't agree what was said
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Nov 30, 2015 7:57:30 GMT
What human rights does a supermarket have? In fairness the same as any other individual/group - the right to remain innocent until proven guilty -UTG
|
|
|
Post by tanksfull on Nov 30, 2015 9:48:55 GMT
ah , unless ive missed it weve jumped to signed agreements and the stadium going ahead whatever happens in court. i hope so As far as i am aware the only 'agreements' signed are 'confidentiality agreements' but they are in talks which is good and at least there are at least two avenues to possibly fund UWE! Is that two or three? From GD's question there would appear to be two recent confidentiality agreements.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 30, 2015 11:13:42 GMT
many on here seemed to think that the meeting would be a bit of a waste of time/stage managed non-disclosure non-discussion event. From what I've read on here, it seems to me that it wasn't at all
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 11:37:04 GMT
many on here seemed to think that the meeting would be a bit of a waste of time/stage managed non-disclosure non-discussion event. From what I've read on here, it seems to me that it wasn't at all Apart from it seeming that the Wonga loan appears to be 1.2% per month compound, and we haven't paid a penny of even the interest back yet, what else have we learned?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 30, 2015 11:45:05 GMT
many on here seemed to think that the meeting would be a bit of a waste of time/stage managed non-disclosure non-discussion event. From what I've read on here, it seems to me that it wasn't at all Apart from it seeming that the Wonga loan appears to be 1.2% per month compound, and we haven't paid a penny of even the interest back yet, what else have we learned? yeah but why worry about that, 'we' are confident of winning the appeal, paying it back and have investors queuing up to plug the funding gap
nothing to worry about, it's all planned out
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 11:51:12 GMT
Apart from it seeming that the Wonga loan appears to be 1.2% per month compound, and we haven't paid a penny of even the interest back yet, what else have we learned? yeah but why worry about that, 'we' are confident of winning the appeal, paying it back and have investors queuing up to plug the funding gap
nothing to worry about, it's all planned out
Worrying won't change anything, but failing to get the court decision overturned and then having costs awarded is going to be very very expensive.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 11:55:26 GMT
many on here seemed to think that the meeting would be a bit of a waste of time/stage managed non-disclosure non-discussion event. From what I've read on here, it seems to me that it wasn't at all Well, yes, I'll stand up to that. It's (pleasantly) surprising but also a bit frustrating. What NH seems to have said about 'investors' is pretty diametrically opposite to what he says when talking to the press or even the OS. To be fair, this has far more credibility about it, but what's that all about? I also think there are a couple of missing follow-throughs. 'There is a Plan B' is no more helpful and reassuring than the other times it was said. I don't expect full names and details, but what's the concept? Is it elephant shaped, banana shaped, egg shaped, or pear shaped? It could mean anything or nothing. Maybe even give us a couple of potential concepts to hide anything sensitive in full sight, but at least give us a sense that things are in hand. What might happen to our football club? Still no idea. Likewise, on confidence we will win the appeal: that's okay then. On what basis, btw? Aren't we double counting £3 million? If we win, we get the cash to build the stadium; when we win, we will use part (10%) of that to pay off the debt to MSP. Um.... Notwithstanding the confidence we'll win, just in case (see also relegation as not being an option and the watertight case before Mrs Proudfoot), what then? Still, good to hear he seems to be communicating with the fan base.
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Nov 30, 2015 12:35:45 GMT
As far as i am aware the only 'agreements' signed are 'confidentiality agreements' but they are in talks which is good and at least there are at least two avenues to possibly fund UWE! Is that two or three? From GD's question there would appear to be two recent confidentiality agreements. Sorry i have only ever known about one who are currently still in talks - UTG
|
|