Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2020 19:03:11 GMT
as an accountant, (i have notifications on for companies house as it interests me) Yes I do, my point is more Swiss pontificating on here to a select few doesnt actually do much. Extrapolating that to fans puttinng their fingers in their ears is a bit much. I think most people just take what Wael has said at face value. Nothing more Swiss could easily write/contact Martyn Starnes/Wael and express his concerns I am sure instead of inventing potential scenarios I’m sure this forum is not just read by a select few and that Wael, the other board members, the local media including Sam Frost and very many Gaschat members are fully aware of what is posted here. I can understand what you say about people taking Wael at face value because for many that is a comforting thing to do since it provides a sense of loyalty. So where an element of doubt is involved it makes sense that fans would fall back on the position of “I have faith in Wael and until I see evidence to the contrary I’ll continue to have faith in him”. But in this case there is no doubt, he said he was taking 90% control of Dwane Sports, the loan would be capitalized to eliminate the debt and this would show at Companies House. But it doesn’t. Let me try to take a different angle instead of what you call pontificating because clearly, I know, even just laying out the facts leaves me open to people thinking I must have something against Wael or the club otherwise I’d keep quiet. When you are running a business there are some things you have a lot of control over and others you have very little control over. In the football business you have very little control of what happens on the field and particularly at the start of the season you will have serious concerns that all the goodwill you have built up could be rapidly swept away by a series of bad results. So one way of mitigating this is to reinforce that goodwill, address any negative issues you can and do everything possible to strengthen your position in case you have to draw on the “bank of goodwill” in the months ahead. I am suggesting that this Dwane Sports/debt elimination issue will not go away just by ignoring it and that it would be far better for Rovers as well as for Wael if it was addressed honestly now so that everyone understands what is happening and a maximum amount of goodwill is maintained. Otherwise the danger exists that it will blow up badly just when the football team is experiencing a crisis making the whole sh*tfest a lot worse than it need be. As long as the debt, until it is capitalised as Wael says it will be, is internal, is between companies wholly owned by the same shareholders, everything you worry about is irrelevant. Even capitalising doesn't mean much in those circumstances, other than a tidy balance sheet. Ultimately the debt or the share capital is owned by the same person / people. To the fans it's utterly irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 5, 2020 22:36:29 GMT
I’m sure this forum is not just read by a select few and that Wael, the other board members, the local media including Sam Frost and very many Gaschat members are fully aware of what is posted here. I can understand what you say about people taking Wael at face value because for many that is a comforting thing to do since it provides a sense of loyalty. So where an element of doubt is involved it makes sense that fans would fall back on the position of “I have faith in Wael and until I see evidence to the contrary I’ll continue to have faith in him”. But in this case there is no doubt, he said he was taking 90% control of Dwane Sports, the loan would be capitalized to eliminate the debt and this would show at Companies House. But it doesn’t. Let me try to take a different angle instead of what you call pontificating because clearly, I know, even just laying out the facts leaves me open to people thinking I must have something against Wael or the club otherwise I’d keep quiet. When you are running a business there are some things you have a lot of control over and others you have very little control over. In the football business you have very little control of what happens on the field and particularly at the start of the season you will have serious concerns that all the goodwill you have built up could be rapidly swept away by a series of bad results. So one way of mitigating this is to reinforce that goodwill, address any negative issues you can and do everything possible to strengthen your position in case you have to draw on the “bank of goodwill” in the months ahead. I am suggesting that this Dwane Sports/debt elimination issue will not go away just by ignoring it and that it would be far better for Rovers as well as for Wael if it was addressed honestly now so that everyone understands what is happening and a maximum amount of goodwill is maintained. Otherwise the danger exists that it will blow up badly just when the football team is experiencing a crisis making the whole sh*tfest a lot worse than it need be. As long as the debt, until it is capitalised as Wael says it will be, is internal, is between companies wholly owned by the same shareholders, everything you worry about is irrelevant. Even capitalising doesn't mean much in those circumstances, other than a tidy balance sheet. Ultimately the debt or the share capital is owned by the same person / people. To the fans it's utterly irrelevant. The club statement said the Dwane Sports debt “had” been capitalised not that it “will be”. But if capitalisation of debt is irrelevant why was there mass hysteria on June 19th ? Were fans misled into believing it was a major turning point for Rovers ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 7:09:31 GMT
As long as the debt, until it is capitalised as Wael says it will be, is internal, is between companies wholly owned by the same shareholders, everything you worry about is irrelevant. Even capitalising doesn't mean much in those circumstances, other than a tidy balance sheet. Ultimately the debt or the share capital is owned by the same person / people. To the fans it's utterly irrelevant. The club statement said the Dwane Sports debt “had” been capitalised not that it “will be”. But if capitalisation of debt is irrelevant why was there mass hysteria on June 19th ? Were fans misled into believing it was a major turning point for Rovers ? Were they misled?. Or is there a general lack of understanding of the nature of inter company debt? Either way, when timelines are not met (allegedly) this creates a wormhole for conspiracy theorists to crawl into and pontificate. The bottom line is one shareholder owns 92% plus of the share capital and can do as they please. No amount of moaning, no "fans director" no alluding to some sunny uplands, past or future, will change anything. BRFC is a small tightly held business. Move on.
|
|
knowall
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 162
|
Post by knowall on Sept 6, 2020 12:05:03 GMT
I’m sure this forum is not just read by a select few and that Wael, the other board members, the local media including Sam Frost and very many Gaschat members are fully aware of what is posted here. I can understand what you say about people taking Wael at face value because for many that is a comforting thing to do since it provides a sense of loyalty. So where an element of doubt is involved it makes sense that fans would fall back on the position of “I have faith in Wael and until I see evidence to the contrary I’ll continue to have faith in him”. But in this case there is no doubt, he said he was taking 90% control of Dwane Sports, the loan would be capitalized to eliminate the debt and this would show at Companies House. But it doesn’t. Let me try to take a different angle instead of what you call pontificating because clearly, I know, even just laying out the facts leaves me open to people thinking I must have something against Wael or the club otherwise I’d keep quiet. When you are running a business there are some things you have a lot of control over and others you have very little control over. In the football business you have very little control of what happens on the field and particularly at the start of the season you will have serious concerns that all the goodwill you have built up could be rapidly swept away by a series of bad results. So one way of mitigating this is to reinforce that goodwill, address any negative issues you can and do everything possible to strengthen your position in case you have to draw on the “bank of goodwill” in the months ahead. I am suggesting that this Dwane Sports/debt elimination issue will not go away just by ignoring it and that it would be far better for Rovers as well as for Wael if it was addressed honestly now so that everyone understands what is happening and a maximum amount of goodwill is maintained. Otherwise the danger exists that it will blow up badly just when the football team is experiencing a crisis making the whole sh*tfest a lot worse than it need be. As long as the debt, until it is capitalised as Wael says it will be, is internal, is between companies wholly owned by the same shareholders, everything you worry about is irrelevant. Even capitalising doesn't mean much in those circumstances, other than a tidy balance sheet. Ultimately the debt or the share capital is owned by the same person / people. To the fans it's utterly irrelevant. Are you sure that this is the case.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Sept 6, 2020 12:07:45 GMT
As long as the debt, until it is capitalised as Wael says it will be, is internal, is between companies wholly owned by the same shareholders, everything you worry about is irrelevant. Even capitalising doesn't mean much in those circumstances, other than a tidy balance sheet. Ultimately the debt or the share capital is owned by the same person / people. To the fans it's utterly irrelevant. Are you sure that this is the case. stop with your cryptic nonsense that implies 'I know more than you', and just be helpful and spell out what is correct Samir owns 10% of either Dwayne or 1883 I think. I can't be bothered to check
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 12:10:17 GMT
As long as the debt, until it is capitalised as Wael says it will be, is internal, is between companies wholly owned by the same shareholders, everything you worry about is irrelevant. Even capitalising doesn't mean much in those circumstances, other than a tidy balance sheet. Ultimately the debt or the share capital is owned by the same person / people. To the fans it's utterly irrelevant. Are you sure that this is the case. Not checked Companies House Knowall but my unverified understanding is that upto 92% there are no third parties. I stand to be corrected
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 12:23:26 GMT
Well, Wael seems happy enough to ''Alude to sunny uplands in the future'', so if he's going to do that, I would like to know that we can trust everything being said. But there's another interesting thing contained in the 2 minute video on this link, www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/wael-al-qadi-bristol-rovers-4256317He's asked directly about external investment, it's a simple yes / no question, but he doesn't reply to it. So here's the thing. If there is no external debt or investment, what material difference does it make if the money owed / invested is via share capital or in the form of loans secured against the stadium? I keep saying this and make no apologies for doing so, but Judge Judy warns against placing trust in situations where you can't quite understand what you are being told.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 12:25:13 GMT
Are you sure that this is the case. stop with your cryptic nonsense that implies 'I know more than you', and just be helpful and spell out what is correct Samir owns 10% of either Dwayne or 1883 I think. I can't be bothered to check Absolutely, it's tedious beyond belief when people do this 'I know something but can't tell you' stuff. If you have something to say, or an opinion, just spout it out.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 12:32:02 GMT
Well, Wael seems happy enough to ''Alude to sunny uplands in the future'', so if he's going to do that, I would like to know that we can trust everything being said. But there's another interesting thing contained in the 2 minute video on this link, www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/wael-al-qadi-bristol-rovers-4256317He's asked directly about external investment, it's a simple yes / no question, but he doesn't reply to it. So here's the thing. If there is no external debt or investment, what material difference does it make if the money owed / invested is via share capital or in the form of loans secured against the stadium? I keep saying this and make no apologies for doing so, but Judge Judy warns against placing trust in situations where you can't quite understand what you are being told. Completely right.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Sept 6, 2020 12:35:49 GMT
stop with your cryptic nonsense that implies 'I know more than you', and just be helpful and spell out what is correct Samir owns 10% of either Dwayne or 1883 I think. I can't be bothered to check Absolutely, it's tedious beyond belief when people do this 'I know something but can't tell you' stuff. If you have something to say, or an opinion, just spout it out. he's been doing it for a long time. I'm not sure if it's representative of the (tiny) Presidents Club, or just him, but either way I find it pathetic
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 6, 2020 14:39:06 GMT
The club statement said the Dwane Sports debt “had” been capitalised not that it “will be”. But if capitalisation of debt is irrelevant why was there mass hysteria on June 19th ? Were fans misled into believing it was a major turning point for Rovers ? Were they misled?. Or is there a general lack of understanding of the nature of inter company debt? Either way, when timelines are not met (allegedly) this creates a wormhole for conspiracy theorists to crawl into and pontificate. The bottom line is one shareholder owns 92% plus of the share capital and can do as they please. No amount of moaning, no "fans director" no alluding to some sunny uplands, past or future, will change anything. BRFC is a small tightly held business. Move on. There is no allegedly about it. The club statement made on July 8th has proven to be untrue. Wael said he and his brother now own 100% of Dwane Sports but the Jersey Company registry still shows that company being owned by two nominee companies as it has done since 2016. So we wipe the sand from our eyes and move on to the September 28th virtual AGM.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 6, 2020 14:59:07 GMT
Well, Wael seems happy enough to ''Alude to sunny uplands in the future'', so if he's going to do that, I would like to know that we can trust everything being said. But there's another interesting thing contained in the 2 minute video on this link, www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/wael-al-qadi-bristol-rovers-4256317He's asked directly about external investment, it's a simple yes / no question, but he doesn't rejply to it. So here's the thing. If there is no external debt or investment, what material difference does it make if the money owed / invested is via share capital or in the form of loans secured against the stadium? I keep saying this and make no apologies for doing so, but Judge Judy warns against placing trust in situations where you can't quite understand what you are being told. The material difference between share capital or secured loan capital would come into play if there were to be new investment in the company. When the announcement was made I was hoping against hope that it would soon be followed by news that a deal for new investment and a new stadium had been done and that the capitalization of the debt and removal of the charge was a precursor to that. But no announcement came and Wael stated categorically that he wanted to retain control of the club which made me reassess things and come to the same conclusion as Oldie which is that whether the club is funded by loan or share capital makes no difference. In fact if I was thinking of investing in a business (Dwane Sports) having part ownership of a loan owed to an offshore company is a more attractive proposition than having part ownership of the share capital of a loss making onshore company. If the capitalization is actually going ahead and the charge removed then one thing to be aware of (and I’ll get hammered for saying this) is that it opens up the possibility of once again using short term secured borrowing if the club starts to run short of cash and there is no other option Just adding an edit to say I’m commentating on the situation as it stands now. At the outset I believed, and still do, that if they had committed equity capital to the project instead of 100% debt then it would have produced a better outcome.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 15:07:27 GMT
Were they misled?. Or is there a general lack of understanding of the nature of inter company debt? Either way, when timelines are not met (allegedly) this creates a wormhole for conspiracy theorists to crawl into and pontificate. The bottom line is one shareholder owns 92% plus of the share capital and can do as they please. No amount of moaning, no "fans director" no alluding to some sunny uplands, past or future, will change anything. BRFC is a small tightly held business. Move on. There is no allegedly about it. The club statement made on July 8th has proven to be untrue. Wael said he and his brother now own 100% of Dwane Sports but the Jersey Company registry still shows that company being owned by two nominee companies as it has done since 2016. So we wipe the sand from our eyes and move on to the September 28th virtual AGM. Yeah maybe. But so what?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 15:09:21 GMT
Well, Wael seems happy enough to ''Alude to sunny uplands in the future'', so if he's going to do that, I would like to know that we can trust everything being said. But there's another interesting thing contained in the 2 minute video on this link, www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/wael-al-qadi-bristol-rovers-4256317He's asked directly about external investment, it's a simple yes / no question, but he doesn't reply to it. So here's the thing. If there is no external debt or investment, what material difference does it make if the money owed / invested is via share capital or in the form of loans secured against the stadium? I keep saying this and make no apologies for doing so, but Judge Judy warns against placing trust in situations where you can't quite understand what you are being told. The material difference between share capital or secured loan capital would come into play if there were to be new investment in the company. When the announcement was made I was hoping against hope that it would soon be followed by news that a deal for new investment and a new stadium had been done and that the capitalization of the debt and removal of the charge was a precursor to that. But no announcement came and Wael stated categorically that he wanted to retain control of the club which made me reassess things and come to the same conclusion as Oldie which is that whether the club is funded by loan or share capital makes no difference. In fact if I was thinking of investing in a business (Dwane Sports) having part ownership of a loan owed to an offshore company is a more attractive proposition than having part ownership of the share capital of a loss making onshore company. If the capitalization is actually going ahead and the charge removed then one thing to be aware of (and I’ll get hammered for saying this) is that it opens up the possibility of once again using short term secured borrowing if the club starts to run short of cash and there is no other option Yes. But so what?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 6, 2020 15:21:10 GMT
The material difference between share capital or secured loan capital would come into play if there were to be new investment in the company. When the announcement was made I was hoping against hope that it would soon be followed by news that a deal for new investment and a new stadium had been done and that the capitalization of the debt and removal of the charge was a precursor to that. But no announcement came and Wael stated categorically that he wanted to retain control of the club which made me reassess things and come to the same conclusion as Oldie which is that whether the club is funded by loan or share capital makes no difference. In fact if I was thinking of investing in a business (Dwane Sports) having part ownership of a loan owed to an offshore company is a more attractive proposition than having part ownership of the share capital of a loss making onshore company. If the capitalization is actually going ahead and the charge removed then one thing to be aware of (and I’ll get hammered for saying this) is that it opens up the possibility of once again using short term secured borrowing if the club starts to run short of cash and there is no other option Yes. But so what? Well if we go back to MSP Capital and get another secured loan we can buy McNulty from Reading and Humphrys from Southend, then switch to 4 3 3 and bring Kelly in at left back and Upson into midfield I think we should be OK for a top half finish.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 16:46:47 GMT
Well, Wael seems happy enough to ''Alude to sunny uplands in the future'', so if he's going to do that, I would like to know that we can trust everything being said. But there's another interesting thing contained in the 2 minute video on this link, www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/wael-al-qadi-bristol-rovers-4256317He's asked directly about external investment, it's a simple yes / no question, but he doesn't rejply to it. So here's the thing. If there is no external debt or investment, what material difference does it make if the money owed / invested is via share capital or in the form of loans secured against the stadium? I keep saying this and make no apologies for doing so, but Judge Judy warns against placing trust in situations where you can't quite understand what you are being told. The material difference between share capital or secured loan capital would come into play if there were to be new investment in the company. When the announcement was made I was hoping against hope that it would soon be followed by news that a deal for new investment and a new stadium had been done and that the capitalization of the debt and removal of the charge was a precursor to that. But no announcement came and Wael stated categorically that he wanted to retain control of the club which made me reassess things and come to the same conclusion as Oldie which is that whether the club is funded by loan or share capital makes no difference. In fact if I was thinking of investing in a business (Dwane Sports) having part ownership of a loan owed to an offshore company is a more attractive proposition than having part ownership of the share capital of a loss making onshore company. If the capitalization is actually going ahead and the charge removed then one thing to be aware of (and I’ll get hammered for saying this) is that it opens up the possibility of once again using short term secured borrowing if the club starts to run short of cash and there is no other option Just adding an edit to say I’m commentating on the situation as it stands now. At the outset I believed, and still do, that if they had committed equity capital to the project instead of 100% debt then it would have produced a better outcome. I'm aware of that, hence linking to that particular video of Wael talking and making the comments that I did.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 17:26:32 GMT
Well if we go back to MSP Capital and get another secured loan we can buy McNulty from Reading and Humphrys from Southend, then switch to 4 3 3 and bring Kelly in at left back and Upson into midfield I think we should be OK for a top half finish. So You are actively promoting taking on debt through a third party? When currently the club has none? As backward thinking as that is, I wonder which, or what sort of, organisation would loan money to an organisation like BRFC which has such negative cash flow? I know which sort... I do wonder about you sometimes Swiss
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,165
Member is Online
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Sept 6, 2020 17:57:20 GMT
There is no allegedly about it. The club statement made on July 8th has proven to be untrue. Wael said he and his brother now own 100% of Dwane Sports but the Jersey Company registry still shows that company being owned by two nominee companies as it has done since 2016. So we wipe the sand from our eyes and move on to the September 28th virtual AGM. Swiss Are those nominee companies Jersey companies or other third parties own by the Al-Qadis in which the share capital could have changed?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 6, 2020 18:23:21 GMT
Well if we go back to MSP Capital and get another secured loan we can buy McNulty from Reading and Humphrys from Southend, then switch to 4 3 3 and bring Kelly in at left back and Upson into midfield I think we should be OK for a top half finish. So You are actively promoting taking on debt through a third party? When currently the club has none? As backward thinking as that is, I wonder which, or what sort of, organisation would loan money to an organisation like BRFC which has such negative cash flow? I know which sort... I do wonder about you sometimes Swiss It was a joke Oldie, you must have realized that when you saw me advocating player signings and team formations.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 6, 2020 18:39:26 GMT
There is no allegedly about it. The club statement made on July 8th has proven to be untrue. Wael said he and his brother now own 100% of Dwane Sports but the Jersey Company registry still shows that company being owned by two nominee companies as it has done since 2016. So we wipe the sand from our eyes and move on to the September 28th virtual AGM. Swiss Are those nominee companies Jersey companies or other third parties own by the Al-Qadis in which the share capital could have changed? They are Jersey nominee companies, Equiom Nominees number 1 ( Jersey) Ltd and Equiom Nominees number 2 (Jersey) Ltd. I know what you are getting at Chesh and it’s quite possible that in June a revised agreement was made between the nominees and the family so they are now holding shares on behalf of Wael (90%) and Samer (10%). This is what we were told had happened and using a nominee structure doesn’t prevent it. But what I am really getting at is the July 8th statement which said the capitalization of the loan had taken place and been processed at Companies House but in fact it never was. Once this was queried I should have thought good practice would have been for Wael to issue a short statement saying the announcement on July 8th was made prematurely because some administrative issues had arisen which need to be addressed. Most would have accepted that and all the goodwill from June 19th would have been maintained. Now, depending what happens in the coming weeks, there is a danger that any hiccup with the capitalization and debt elimination will be tied in with poor team and managerial performance leading to a bigger crisis than it need be.
|
|