Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 15:11:33 GMT
You think? Homeless, with not enough money to build the planned for stadium. That's not a worry? I'm not sure, but I think he may be suggesting that Higgs may have found a way to pocket the dosh and scarper? He didn't have 100% shareholding did he?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 15:22:02 GMT
I'm not sure, but I think he may be suggesting that Higgs may have found a way to pocket the dosh and scarper? He didn't have 100% shareholding did he? Neither did Geoff. What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Apr 22, 2020 15:23:54 GMT
I think it was an acceptable risk from their POV - get something worth, say £17m for £7m, and see if the UWE thing stacked up (or could be made to) Exactly this. And they must have realised pretty quickly that the UWE didn't stack up. Consultants were heralded in, and quietly ushered out in the space of a few months. It's been a sh*t show ever since. IMHO. I have spoken to two ex directors recently , both shared the same opinion that the family never had any intention of going through with the UWE project.I also recall Nick Higgs saying at an AGM that when you put a professional football club up for sale you always get a load of chancers come out of the woodwork.They promptly disappear however when you ask to see the money.A while back someone posted on here about UWE asking for a bond from Rovers to as act as a guarantee that the project would be completed.If true perhaps UWE saw us as the chancers and the line about the deal not being in Rovers best interests was just a smoke screen .All speculation , of course
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Apr 22, 2020 15:27:26 GMT
Exactly this. And they must have realised pretty quickly that the UWE didn't stack up. Consultants were heralded in, and quietly ushered out in the space of a few months. It's been a sh*t show ever since. IMHO. I have spoken to two ex directors recently , both shared the same opinion that the family never had any intention of going through with the UWE project. do you know what drew them to that conclusion please gastower?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 15:28:24 GMT
He didn't have 100% shareholding did he? Neither did Geoff. What's your point? They would have to have liquidated the relevant company to realise net cash, you would have needed 76% of shareholding to do that, did NH have 75%+ at that time?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 15:29:20 GMT
I have spoken to two ex directors recently , both shared the same opinion that the family never had any intention of going through with the UWE project. do you know what drew them to that conclusion please gastower? Then they went to some lengths, and expense, with the people they hired, to throw us off of the scent.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 15:31:06 GMT
Neither did Geoff. What's your point? They would have to have liquidated the relevant company to realise net cash, you would have needed 76% of shareholding to do that, did NH have 75%+ at that time? I don't know, but it's all speculation and pub talk anyway. But who knows what people may do if they see it as their last and only chance to get back money they've put in. Anyway, who says you need 76%, maybe a show of hands would have got the resolution through. And some people have a history of voting against their own proposals, as you well know, so literally anything is possible.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,156
|
Post by eppinggas on Apr 22, 2020 15:34:48 GMT
Exactly this. And they must have realised pretty quickly that the UWE didn't stack up. Consultants were heralded in, and quietly ushered out in the space of a few months. It's been a sh*t show ever since. IMHO. I have spoken to two ex directors recently , both shared the same opinion that the family never had any intention of going through with the UWE project.I also recall Nick Higgs saying at an AGM that when you put a professional football club up for sale you always get a load of chancers come out of the woodwork.They promptly disappear however when you ask to see the money.A while back someone posted on here about UWE asking for a bond from Rovers to as act as a guarantee that the project would be completed.If true perhaps UWE saw us as the chancers and the line about the deal not being in Rovers best interests was just a smoke screen .All speculation , of course But surely there would be absolutely no point in buying BRFC if there was no chance of UWE going ahead? Unless of course they just asset stripped it, sold the Mem, left us homeless and ran off into the sunset - but they haven't. So whilst I respect your view/information, I don't think that can be correct. I believe that the original intentions of Dwane Sports with regard to UWE were honourable. But ever since the UWE numbers refused to add up - it's been like watching a very slow motion car crash.
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Apr 22, 2020 16:09:47 GMT
I have spoken to two ex directors recently , both shared the same opinion that the family never had any intention of going through with the UWE project. do you know what drew them to that conclusion please gastower? Well one thought it was an asset stripping exercise but I am not so sure.I think their intentions were honourable to start with but as the full cost implications of the running a D1 club sunk, in the family ( and in particular the father) got cold feet and maybe no one could blame them .However they are bankers and ,as so many have stated before, how could they have got their due diligence so badly wrong?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Apr 22, 2020 16:15:42 GMT
do you know what drew them to that conclusion please gastower? Well one thought it was an asset stripping exercise but I am not so sure.I think their intentions were honourable to start with but as the full cost implications of the running a D1 club sunk, in the family ( and in particular the father) got cold feet and maybe no one could blame them .However they are bankers and ,as so many have stated before, how could they have got their due diligence so badly wrong? I go back to the above - if you can get something worth, say, £17m for £7m, the need for detailed due diligence might be viewed as very reduced edit - ta for the clear and fast reply though
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 16:22:20 GMT
Well one thought it was an asset stripping exercise but I am not so sure.I think their intentions were honourable to start with but as the full cost implications of the running a D1 club sunk, in the family ( and in particular the father) got cold feet and maybe no one could blame them .However they are bankers and ,as so many have stated before, how could they have got their due diligence so badly wrong? I go back to the above - if you can get something worth, say, £17m for £7m, the need for detailed due diligence might be viewed as very reduced edit - ta for the clear and fast reply though TBH, it would scare me to death. To put it into a house analogy, if that house is worth £170k and someone has their arm around your shoulder saying that you can have it for £50k plus clear a loan secured against it of £20k, I would be all over that looking for the catch, if I didn't find the problem I would ask everybody I know and trust to look at it as well.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Apr 22, 2020 16:24:34 GMT
do you know what drew them to that conclusion please gastower? Well one thought it was an asset stripping exercise but I am not so sure.I think their intentions were honourable to start with but as the full cost implications of the running a D1 club sunk, in the family ( and in particular the father) got cold feet and maybe no one could blame them .However they are bankers and ,as so many have stated before, how could they have got their due diligence so badly wrong? But that's a contradiction as you suggested they never had any intention, not they changed their minds once they realised the full costs? As far my earlier comment I was simply referring to the fact we'd have every chancer knocking on our door if we suddenly had £30m in our bank out when most of football is in debt.
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Apr 22, 2020 16:26:54 GMT
I have spoken to two ex directors recently , both shared the same opinion that the family never had any intention of going through with the UWE project.I also recall Nick Higgs saying at an AGM that when you put a professional football club up for sale you always get a load of chancers come out of the woodwork.They promptly disappear however when you ask to see the money.A while back someone posted on here about UWE asking for a bond from Rovers to as act as a guarantee that the project would be completed.If true perhaps UWE saw us as the chancers and the line about the deal not being in Rovers best interests was just a smoke screen .All speculation , of course But surely there would be absolutely no point in buying BRFC if there was no chance of UWE going ahead? Unless of course they just asset stripped it, sold the Mem, left us homeless and ran off into the sunset - but they haven't. So whilst I respect your view/information, I don't think that can be correct. I believe that the original intentions of Dwane Sports with regard to UWE were honourable. But ever since the UWE numbers refused to add up - it's been like watching a very slow motion car crash. Yes I think they started off with every intention of building the UWE.Waels enthusiasm for the club and its future was refreshing but as the months passed I agree they couldnt make the figures add up and the funding options began to dry up Have you notice every time Twentyman interviews Wael he always asks questions about funding and Wael has repeatedly stated it was no problem ..This has led us all to believe its just the wrong deal so who to believe ? We can all have a discussion about the level of debt ( internal /external ) but once it reaches a critical level it will just snow ball leading to only one outcome and all of this before virus issues
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 16:30:35 GMT
Well one thought it was an asset stripping exercise but I am not so sure.I think their intentions were honourable to start with but as the full cost implications of the running a D1 club sunk, in the family ( and in particular the father) got cold feet and maybe no one could blame them .However they are bankers and ,as so many have stated before, how could they have got their due diligence so badly wrong? But that's a contradiction as you suggested they never had any intention, not they changed their minds once they realised the full costs? As far my earlier comment I was simply referring to the fact we'd have every chancer knocking on our door if we suddenly had £30m in our bank out when most of football is in debt. Jiggered if I can remember the details now, but I thought that the Sainsbury's and UWE contracts were interlinked in as much as the funds were to be paid into a secure account and could only be used, in stages, to pay for the stadium build. That meant UWE didn't get a half built shell on their land and administrators arguing with creditors for years on end over equity / liability. Or summat like that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 16:43:01 GMT
They would have to have liquidated the relevant company to realise net cash, you would have needed 76% of shareholding to do that, did NH have 75%+ at that time? I don't know, but it's all speculation and pub talk anyway. But who knows what people may do if they see it as their last and only chance to get back money they've put in. Anyway, who says you need 76%, maybe a show of hands would have got the resolution through. And some people have a history of voting against their own proposals, as you well know, so literally anything is possible. A resolution to liquidate is an EGM resolution which requires 76% of shareholders, not a show of hands which is an AGM style resolution
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 16:55:01 GMT
I don't know, but it's all speculation and pub talk anyway. But who knows what people may do if they see it as their last and only chance to get back money they've put in. Anyway, who says you need 76%, maybe a show of hands would have got the resolution through. And some people have a history of voting against their own proposals, as you well know, so literally anything is possible. A resolution to liquidate is an EGM resolution which requires 76% of shareholders, not a show of hands which is an AGM style resolution Not being funny, but a DS01 only needs to be signed by the majority of Directors, unless there are either 1 or 2, in which case they both need to sign. Can you point me towards legislation requiring 76% approval please. Keen to learn.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 18:10:51 GMT
A resolution to liquidate is an EGM resolution which requires 76% of shareholders, not a show of hands which is an AGM style resolution Not being funny, but a DS01 only needs to be signed by the majority of Directors, unless there are either 1 or 2, in which case they both need to sign. Can you point me towards legislation requiring 76% approval please. Keen to learn. For reference For example, the company may not make an application for voluntary strike off if, at any time in the last 3 months, it has: - traded or otherwise carried on business - changed its name - engaged in any other activity except one which is necessary for the purpose of: i) concluding the affairs of the company, such as settling trading or business debts ii) complying with any statutory requirement iii) dispose of assets used to carry the business For example, a company in business to sell apples could not continue selling apples during that 3 month period but it could sell the truck it once used to deliver the apples or the warehouse where they were stored. Yes?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 18:41:16 GMT
Not being funny, but a DS01 only needs to be signed by the majority of Directors, unless there are either 1 or 2, in which case they both need to sign. Can you point me towards legislation requiring 76% approval please. Keen to learn. For reference For example, the company may not make an application for voluntary strike off if, at any time in the last 3 months, it has: - traded or otherwise carried on business - changed its name - engaged in any other activity except one which is necessary for the purpose of: i) concluding the affairs of the company, such as settling trading or business debts ii) complying with any statutory requirement iii) dispose of assets used to carry the business For example, a company in business to sell apples could not continue selling apples during that 3 month period but it could sell the truck it once used to deliver the apples or the warehouse where they were stored. Yes? OK, so Company X ceases trading (by agreement with the majority of Directors, as required for form DS01, no need for 76%) 3 months later it's struck off. No doubt that would get challenged with most League football clubs, but that's the process as I understand it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 19:24:57 GMT
For reference For example, the company may not make an application for voluntary strike off if, at any time in the last 3 months, it has: - traded or otherwise carried on business - changed its name - engaged in any other activity except one which is necessary for the purpose of: i) concluding the affairs of the company, such as settling trading or business debts ii) complying with any statutory requirement iii) dispose of assets used to carry the business For example, a company in business to sell apples could not continue selling apples during that 3 month period but it could sell the truck it once used to deliver the apples or the warehouse where they were stored. Yes? OK, so Company X ceases trading (by agreement with the majority of Directors, as required for form DS01, no need for 76%) 3 months later it's struck off. No doubt that would get challenged with most League football clubs, but that's the process as I understand it. I don't think so Bamber, if you are, as a director, proposing doing something that will most likely affect shareholder value, you need 76%, through an EGM. But the point being Higgs could not have taken the proceeds which may have affected the viability of the company without authorisation. Interestingly Wael can as they own 92%. On that point, with 92% they could force the SC to sell their shares to him at current market value. Or the last rights issue value or purchased value I would if I was him, gets rid of the pests.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Apr 22, 2020 19:42:41 GMT
Perhaps. But history says otherwise. They have not expanded anything on that site, have they? For me the question has always been, wtf happened to due diligence? That sits with the current owners I don't know what they've done with the site. Swiss has spoken at length about cultural differences in the way business is done here as opposed to Jordan, whether there's anything in that or not, I have no idea. It was Steve Hamer who first brought up the culture differences between doing business in Jordan as opposed to the UK and I could understand what he meant. I guess if you nag your Mum and Dad enough they eventually give in, let you have what you want and hope for the best. Michael Cunnah and Lee Atkins could see what was happening and disappeared very quickly. We are talking about a man who last November accepted an invitation to sit on a panel of experts discussing how the football business should be run. There is no rational explanation.
|
|