|
Post by PessimistGas on Jul 15, 2014 9:27:57 GMT
I haven't heard the debt free line for some time. It looks like it has been quietly dropped in the hope that no one will remember.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 9:33:12 GMT
I haven't heard the debt free line for some time. It looks like it has been quietly dropped in the hope that no one will remember. Not sure we have heard ANYTHING for some time, to date its all been rumor and hearsay. Lets hope and pray that we have more info on the 21st, but i don't think we will somehow and even if we did certain people on here won't believe it
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 15, 2014 9:35:48 GMT
I haven't heard the debt free line for some time. It looks like it has been quietly dropped in the hope that no one will remember. the last one was no debt attached to Stadium as per condition of UWE
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 15, 2014 9:42:39 GMT
Agreed. From where I'm standing there's no evidence of anything else other than this. Is there? If so, where? Hiding somewhere? "Build it and they will come!" seems all they have up their sleeve. There's certainly not enough expertise currently within the club and it's structure to suggest anything else. And the CEO business, and the BoD's current stance on it, as you say doesn't make any sound business sense. Direction is needed now, not the same old inept rudderless ship that is BRFC. Again agreed As for this from Henbury..
Is that right Henbury? and if so how does that stack up to pronouncements from the BoD that the club will own its own stadium, debt free? That the revenues accruing from non football related activities are the only way forward for the club? If the current BoD are not in full control of stadium activities then how can they even pretend that they have control of those incremental revenues that they, and everyone who believes them apparently, say are so crucial to the future of the club? One last word on that last comment in your post. If the UWE has attracted "many millions" in private investment, I don't know but have no reason to doubt your assertion, do you think those investors did that without an eye on the ROI and exit route? Of course, I am sure you will concede. Can you define an ROI and exit route to justify investing in either the Stadium Company or the football club as currently constituted and contractually obligated? I cannot, maybe you know more, but if you cannot this constant red flagging of "attracting investment" is just nonsense, a deflection from the true issues of the performance of the BoD.
I'm going to guess henbury might be referring to the possibility I have raised a couple of times (but some people won't contemplate because they didn't think of it themselves first) that UWE may have contractually bound the board to placing the Sainsburys money into an account that can solely be used for the development of the stadium. Clever buggers at UWE & the best way they can avoid any potentiainvestment I have . If anything left then the directors can get loans repaid. I also suspect there maybe clauses included in the lease forbidding borrowing against the stadium (hence stadium debt free) & that they get first dibs to buy stadium in event of administration etc. I truly hope my guesses on the above are all correct then as soon as the bulldozers start rolling I'll feel much more comfortable in the future of Bristol Rovers & confident in a future free of current directors. As to further investment i had always assumed that was on the rest of the land UWE own & nothing to do with the stadium or Bristol rovers, which would increase the chances of those investors getting an ROI
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 15, 2014 10:48:42 GMT
Again agreed As for this from Henbury..
Is that right Henbury? and if so how does that stack up to pronouncements from the BoD that the club will own its own stadium, debt free? That the revenues accruing from non football related activities are the only way forward for the club? If the current BoD are not in full control of stadium activities then how can they even pretend that they have control of those incremental revenues that they, and everyone who believes them apparently, say are so crucial to the future of the club? One last word on that last comment in your post. If the UWE has attracted "many millions" in private investment, I don't know but have no reason to doubt your assertion, do you think those investors did that without an eye on the ROI and exit route? Of course, I am sure you will concede. Can you define an ROI and exit route to justify investing in either the Stadium Company or the football club as currently constituted and contractually obligated? I cannot, maybe you know more, but if you cannot this constant red flagging of "attracting investment" is just nonsense, a deflection from the true issues of the performance of the BoD.
I'm going to guess henbury might be referring to the possibility I have raised a couple of times (but some people won't contemplate because they didn't think of it themselves first) that UWE may have contractually bound the board to placing the Sainsburys money into an account that can solely be used for the development of the stadium. Clever buggers at UWE & the best way they can avoid any potentiainvestment I have . If anything left then the directors can get loans repaid. I also suspect there maybe clauses included in the lease forbidding borrowing against the stadium (hence stadium debt free) & that they get first dibs to buy stadium in event of administration etc. I truly hope my guesses on the above are all correct then as soon as the bulldozers start rolling I'll feel much more comfortable in the future of Bristol Rovers & confident in a future free of current directors. As to further investment i had always assumed that was on the rest of the land UWE own & nothing to do with the stadium or Bristol rovers, which would increase the chances of those investors getting an ROI I thought Nick Higgs said the Sainsburys money was ring fenced for the stadium already
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 11:11:52 GMT
Again agreed As for this from Henbury..
Is that right Henbury? and if so how does that stack up to pronouncements from the BoD that the club will own its own stadium, debt free? That the revenues accruing from non football related activities are the only way forward for the club? If the current BoD are not in full control of stadium activities then how can they even pretend that they have control of those incremental revenues that they, and everyone who believes them apparently, say are so crucial to the future of the club? One last word on that last comment in your post. If the UWE has attracted "many millions" in private investment, I don't know but have no reason to doubt your assertion, do you think those investors did that without an eye on the ROI and exit route? Of course, I am sure you will concede. Can you define an ROI and exit route to justify investing in either the Stadium Company or the football club as currently constituted and contractually obligated? I cannot, maybe you know more, but if you cannot this constant red flagging of "attracting investment" is just nonsense, a deflection from the true issues of the performance of the BoD.
I'm going to guess henbury might be referring to the possibility I have raised a couple of times (but some people won't contemplate because they didn't think of it themselves first) that UWE may have contractually bound the board to placing the Sainsburys money into an account that can solely be used for the development of the stadium. Clever buggers at UWE & the best way they can avoid any potentiainvestment I have . If anything left then the directors can get loans repaid. I also suspect there maybe clauses included in the lease forbidding borrowing against the stadium (hence stadium debt free) & that they get first dibs to buy stadium in event of administration etc. I truly hope my guesses on the above are all correct then as soon as the bulldozers start rolling I'll feel much more comfortable in the future of Bristol Rovers & confident in a future free of current directors. As to further investment i had always assumed that was on the rest of the land UWE own & nothing to do with the stadium or Bristol rovers, which would increase the chances of those investors getting an ROI You 100% correct Sir, i could not have put it any better ! and i bet the hold up in proceedings is all to do with this and not Sainsbury
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 15, 2014 11:19:50 GMT
I'm going to guess henbury might be referring to the possibility I have raised a couple of times (but some people won't contemplate because they didn't think of it themselves first) that UWE may have contractually bound the board to placing the Sainsburys money into an account that can solely be used for the development of the stadium. Clever buggers at UWE & the best way they can avoid any potentiainvestment I have . If anything left then the directors can get loans repaid. I also suspect there maybe clauses included in the lease forbidding borrowing against the stadium (hence stadium debt free) & that they get first dibs to buy stadium in event of administration etc. I truly hope my guesses on the above are all correct then as soon as the bulldozers start rolling I'll feel much more comfortable in the future of Bristol Rovers & confident in a future free of current directors. As to further investment i had always assumed that was on the rest of the land UWE own & nothing to do with the stadium or Bristol rovers, which would increase the chances of those investors getting an ROI You 100% correct Sir, i could not have put it any better ! and i bet the hold up in proceedings is all to do with this and not Sainsbury Amazing what you can deduce from reading between the lines with an open mind. PP i think the diffence is NH can say whatever he likes & UWE would like a legal guarantee behind what he says. Perhaps they distrust our board more than we do!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 13:34:54 GMT
County Ground Hotel states
I cannot see how that is legally enforceable when the receipts from the sale of the mem are owned by the shareholders, including minority shareholders, unless there has been an EGM where this resolution was proposed and passed...I don't think so. I can however agree that the UWE would want the financial contribution from 1883 ltd to the build cost of the new stadium to be deposited upon signing of the contract. I agree with you also that this requirement says an awful lot about the credibility of our BoD, as some of us have been saying. It also begs an intriguing question, who is responsible for the stadium specification? If the Sainsburys revised offer is indeed one that does not pay back outstanding debt nor covers the projected capital cost on the specification designed and costed, who has the authority to change the specification and design to match the budget? Also, on the assumption that all the accrued debt will not be cleared and given the demand that no debt be attached to the new stadium, how will directors loans be secured? Will they convert them into worthless equity into the football club, or write them off? (Same thing in affect)
Bottom line...marry all this up to the bravado statements from the BoD over the last 2-3 years...worthy of a Black Adder sketch
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 15, 2014 13:55:34 GMT
County Ground Hotel states
I cannot see how that is legally enforceable when the receipts from the sale of the mem are owned by the shareholders, including minority shareholders, unless there has been an EGM where this resolution was proposed and passed...I don't think so. I can however agree that the UWE would want the financial contribution from 1883 ltd to the build cost of the new stadium to be deposited upon signing of the contract. I agree with you also that this requirement says an awful lot about the credibility of our BoD, as some of us have been saying. It also begs an intriguing question, who is responsible for the stadium specification? If the Sainsburys revised offer is indeed one that does not pay back outstanding debt nor covers the projected capital cost on the specification designed and costed, who has the authority to change the specification and design to match the budget? Also, on the assumption that all the accrued debt will not be cleared and given the demand that no debt be attached to the new stadium, how will directors loans be secured? Will they convert them into worthless equity into the football club, or write them off? (Same thing in affect)
Bottom line...marry all this up to the bravado statements from the BoD over the last 2-3 years...worthy of a Black Adder sketch
The term "to ride roughshod over" is an interesting one and a definition is "to domineer without thinking or caring about the opinions, rights or feelings of others". I suppose someone could find it relatively easy to ride roughshod over football players, football managers, football supporters, weaker football clubs, employees, local residents, local media and minority shareholders. But they may not find it so easy to ride roughshod over The UWE and Sainsburys ?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 15, 2014 13:56:55 GMT
Oh dear, as a succesfull businessman you would know that just about anything can be written into a contract. The legally enforceable bit will be in the UWE lease ie the lease will not come into effect until £xm is deposited into a controlled account. I would imagine the legal hold up is in the timing of the execution of the back to back contracts & how Sainsburys money ends up in that account. As to stadium design I'd guess (& it's only a guess, so perhaps attend the fans forum on Monday & ask NH) stays with Rovers subject to broad specifications in the lease with UWE.
I think the problem some people are having is divorcing the building of the stadium & the running of such stadium. Basically there are 3 parties to the related transactions undoubtedly Sainsburys are far to professional not to get the superstore they want & UWE will have done their homework on ensuring the stadium is built (& where future ownership of that stadium lies). Then you have the 3rd party who have to make the stadium work. Worse case scenario for UWE is theyddon't make it work Rovers into administration, UWE invoke a lease clause to take ownership of stadium, rovers taken out of administration by a new BoD & lease handed back.
Once the contracts are finalised & stadium build begins the risk, I feel, is all with the current BoD who could lose everything in administration.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 15, 2014 13:58:57 GMT
County Ground Hotel states
I cannot see how that is legally enforceable when the receipts from the sale of the mem are owned by the shareholders, including minority shareholders, unless there has been an EGM where this resolution was proposed and passed...I don't think so. I can however agree that the UWE would want the financial contribution from 1883 ltd to the build cost of the new stadium to be deposited upon signing of the contract. I agree with you also that this requirement says an awful lot about the credibility of our BoD, as some of us have been saying. It also begs an intriguing question, who is responsible for the stadium specification? If the Sainsburys revised offer is indeed one that does not pay back outstanding debt nor covers the projected capital cost on the specification designed and costed, who has the authority to change the specification and design to match the budget? Also, on the assumption that all the accrued debt will not be cleared and given the demand that no debt be attached to the new stadium, how will directors loans be secured? Will they convert them into worthless equity into the football club, or write them off? (Same thing in affect)
Bottom line...marry all this up to the bravado statements from the BoD over the last 2-3 years...worthy of a Black Adder sketch
The term "to ride roughshod over" is an interesting one and a definition is "to domineer without thinking or caring about the opinions, rights or feelings of others". I suppose someone could find it relatively easy to ride roughshod over football players, football managers, football supporters, weaker football clubs, employees, local residents, local media and minority shareholders. But they may not find it so easy to ride roughshod over The UWE and Sainsburys ? Exactly Swiss, fortunately UWE & Rovers apparently want the same shiny new thing. A blessing hopefully in disguise.
|
|