Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2020 17:52:53 GMT
Swiss might be dealing in facts, but he is also adding a pinch of supposition And even if the charge remains on The Mem, what has changed? Dwane own the club and can do what they want, anytime they want. The only difference is, it's down to Wael (and his accountant) and not the rest of the family Which bit was supposition? I thought that he was quoting company law when referencing the important bits. Riddle me this. Wael has said that he's covering all financial liabilities (or maybe I imagined that) there is no external debt to speak of, so why is a charge on the stadium required? But you are right. Previously it was called debt, now it's called share capital. Same difference as far as I'm concerned, at any moment the assets can be realised to recover the investment. Honestly didn't understand the hysteria a few weeks back. Which I have to say, was whipped up in no small degree by the local media.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 18, 2020 18:21:33 GMT
Yeah, I get that. But as you said previously none of this makes much difference. As far as the optics go, yeah it's a bit lazy, not making clear that the actual technical event of converting debt to equity could not happen until the EGM had approved the increase in uncalled share capital. In this thread someone said that Wael (or club spokesman) said it couldn't happen until the AGM, which is not right as only an EGM can approve this resolution. They could have called an EGM at anytime, but I guess they intend to tack it on to the AGM. So, in reality, it's about expectation management and they really do need to better. If they don't you get the conspiracy theorists pontificating, even when some like Swiss should know better, and sowing the seeds of division. It is indeed sowing the seeds of division. Some might even call it sh*t stirring. Swiss may well have been involved with the board 30 years ago and should be respected for that. But times have changed. Those were the days when you could sell Martyn & Penrice for £1.5m, use the income from high interest rates to help fund the club, pay the players peanuts and somehow survive. (And what a fantastic job we did) But you cant do that now, if you tried to run a balanced budget you would be in Conf South. Factor in the lack of opportunities because of the Mem and its even worse for us. Fund by debt, loans, share capitalisation whatever, thats the only game in town, so be careful what you wish for when knocking Wael every bloody chance. But not many are listening thankfully. And for what its worth, the strategy now makes sense (IMHO) - we have a commercial guy who has dragged the club from the days of Boycie having to negotiate Snack box shirt sponsorship in his lunchtime to what is now a professionally run organisation. Commercial income is considerably up. Well done Tom, keep it up and remember Bamber is clearly a wind up merchant. If you think I’m 30 years out of date you won’t want to hear about my foray into the cryptocurrency markets then contradiction ? I’m sorry if you think I’m being divisive but having explained my stance on this issue many times don’t want to go over it again. You say you are relaxed about the current situation but it doesn’t come across that way and neither did the recent statement by the “Club spokesman” in the Bristol Post. When someone is truly relaxed and confident it can be readily discerned and they are able to easily and comprehensively deal with questions and criticisms from the likes of me. A few weeks back we had an exchange on Gaschat about how football club funding has changed over the past thirty years and as I said then, IMO, the principle remains the same and the only real difference, as Bamber has pointed out many times, is the sums of money involved. The principle is that you run the business as efficiently as you can and make it as sustainable as you can while knowing that there is likely to be a shortfall which you will have to meet from your own resources. And whether you use outside debt, inside debt, or share capital it doesn’t much matter so long as you are confident and your stakeholders are confident that you will always be able to meet your financial commitments. You are clearly a fan of Tom Gorringe and to an extent I am as well because I know how difficult the job is and I think he’s a darned sight better than what we had before. However, you say “commercial income is up” and left it there as if Tom and his colleagues sole job was to increase sales but you must know this is only half the story. What is important is the amount of profit which the commercial department generates for the club. There is no point in boasting about increasing sales if your cost of sales is increasing at a faster rate which, in total, is what the audited accounts show. Between 2018 and 2019 sales rose by £ 561 534 but the cost of sales rose by £ 1 063 793. Some clubs allow precise scrutiny of their finances by including a lot of detail in their accounts but Rovers don’t and in the 2019 format we have even less detail than before. The obvious conclusion is that the club prefer not to be scrutinised but why should this be so ? If Tom is doing a great job and all the extra advertising, sponsorship and digital platform income is bringing increased profits then why not explain how it is being done ? Show us the individual commercial department sales figures, the cost of sales and the overhead base and then, hopefully, we shall know that the perception of success is real not imagined. Does this sound like an attack on Tom ? Is it being divisive ? I don’t think so but if anyone does perhaps they could explain why.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 18, 2020 18:34:42 GMT
Swiss might be dealing in facts, but he is also adding a pinch of supposition And even if the charge remains on The Mem, what has changed? Dwane own the club and can do what they want, anytime they want. The only difference is, it's down to Wael (and his accountant) and not the rest of the family I'm still puzzled as to how you, Oldie and others have ended up on on the opposite side to me when it comes to the subject of scrutiny because in the Higgs era you were all for it and it was the Old Guard / SC who wouldn't have a word said against Nick and branded us as renegades and our criticisms as divisive.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2020 19:37:40 GMT
Swiss might be dealing in facts, but he is also adding a pinch of supposition And even if the charge remains on The Mem, what has changed? Dwane own the club and can do what they want, anytime they want. The only difference is, it's down to Wael (and his accountant) and not the rest of the family I'm still puzzled as to how you, Oldie and others have ended up on on the opposite side to me when it comes to the subject of scrutiny because in the Higgs era you were all for it and it was the Old Guard / SC who wouldn't have a word said against Nick and branded us as renegades and our criticisms as divisive. It's more than strange. This is the exact opposite of what he's been preaching as the reason that the SS didn't reach some imaginary target that he set in his mind. As for Tom. We clearly have a club apologist on our hands as I've always given credit where it's due, but have also pointed out his mistakes. And there have been plenty. Mr Contradiction may think that accepting sponsorship that was in breach of an existing contract is something to be forgiven and forgotten, for me it's a good measure of the calibre of the person responsible.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Sept 18, 2020 20:06:31 GMT
Swiss might be dealing in facts, but he is also adding a pinch of supposition And even if the charge remains on The Mem, what has changed? Dwane own the club and can do what they want, anytime they want. The only difference is, it's down to Wael (and his accountant) and not the rest of the family I'm still puzzled as to how you, Oldie and others have ended up on on the opposite side to me when it comes to the subject of scrutiny because in the Higgs era you were all for it and it was the Old Guard / SC who wouldn't have a word said against Nick and branded us as renegades and our criticisms as divisive. I dont think I am on a different side per se. The difference is under NH there was still a chance, we as a collective could have done something. Wonga and Sainsburys changed that. Once NH and co sold up to the AQ's it is/was game over for that. Wael seems a decent bloke and well intentioned and I am sure Nick Higgs was. I cant say Wael/the AQs have done a fantastic job, but at least I see efforts to do better and change things Whats been has past and what opportunities there were to affect change are gone. I can only hope it works out and point out the fact that, it doesnt really matter if there is a charge on The Mem or not. Dwane can do what it wants and none of us can change that
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2020 20:47:26 GMT
I'm not convinced that it was Sainsbury's as such.
I could never see where the money was coming from to build UWE, so I've always felt that losing that case may have provided Nick with a way out that enabled him to blame someone else.
Of course, if anybody who was 'close to the action' at the time can fill in the gaps, namely, how did we get from Sainsbury's £28m to the £45m needed to build UWE, I would like to know.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Sept 18, 2020 20:55:17 GMT
During the court case against Sainsbury’s, the build cost for the UWE stadium was stated as £32m. Whether that was the fully fitted out cost I have no idea.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2020 21:06:59 GMT
I agree with words from both sides here. I'd never win at Twitter. I read with enjoyment and interest, the faith, optimism, and enthusiasm (which I share) for the improvements made since the departure of Higgs. But I also enjoy the scrutiny and questions raised by Swiss, Bambi, and previously (before his recent conversion) Uncle Eppers. One thing though. I can't see why Swiss is wrong to think and say anything. Disagree. Put your evidence or case for the defence of Al Qadi. But please lay off insulting a former Director for doing the Swiss Diligence. He's not inciting anything. He's just a raging sceptic. Long may he continue. You don't have to defend yourself, swissgas. We all just need to stop disliking each other people expressing dissenting opinions about a third division football club. That is, after all, why we're all here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 8:24:58 GMT
During the court case against Sainsbury’s, the build cost for the UWE stadium was stated as £32m. Whether that was the fully fitted out cost I have no idea. That number sounds familiar, but £45m came from somewhere as well. Maybe our present owners should have called Swiss and had him look over all of the contracts before they rushed in?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 8:42:51 GMT
During the court case against Sainsbury’s, the build cost for the UWE stadium was stated as £32m. Whether that was the fully fitted out cost I have no idea. That number sounds familiar, but £45m came from somewhere as well. Maybe our present owners should have called Swiss and had him look over all of the contracts before they rushed in? I believe the £32M was shell and core works, the balance was an estimated fit out cost.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 9:12:35 GMT
That number sounds familiar, but £45m came from somewhere as well. Maybe our present owners should have called Swiss and had him look over all of the contracts before they rushed in? I believe the £32M was shell and core works, the balance was an estimated fit out cost. That sounds right, it was something that was being said, and is what made me wonder quite what happened next if we won the court case.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 9:16:44 GMT
I believe the £32M was shell and core works, the balance was an estimated fit out cost. That sounds right, it was something that was being said, and is what made me wonder quite what happened next if we won the court case. Exactly. Rumours abound at the time that Nicky boy had mortgaged future revenues to plug the gap. I have no idea if that was true or not.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 9:38:22 GMT
That sounds right, it was something that was being said, and is what made me wonder quite what happened next if we won the court case. Exactly. Rumours abound at the time that Nicky boy had mortgaged future revenues to plug the gap. I have no idea if that was true or not. I have zero experience of borrowing against future revenue in that way / on that scale, but it wouldn't have been unsecured. That sort of deal would have made our arrangement with MSP look subbing a tenner off of a mate until pay day, and if it had of gone wrong things could have disintegrated rapidly I would have thought?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 11:13:27 GMT
Exactly. Rumours abound at the time that Nicky boy had mortgaged future revenues to plug the gap. I have no idea if that was true or not. I have zero experience of borrowing against future revenue in that way / on that scale, but it wouldn't have been unsecured. That sort of deal would have made our arrangement with MSP look subbing a tenner off of a mate until pay day, and if it had of gone wrong things could have disintegrated rapidly I would have thought? No I think you are right It basically means you forgo receiving the revenues upto a value that equate to an agreed pay back period. I first became aware of this method when the Miami Dolphins built a new stadium in North Miami in the mid 80s. But they sold out every home game and had massive TV revenues. For us I believe it would have meant forgoing all the incremental revenue streams we so badly needed, which was in itself one of they drivers. During that period I had dinner with the preferred architect (at the time) and he was strongly advocating this method. Whether it was actually adopted I don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 11:37:14 GMT
I have zero experience of borrowing against future revenue in that way / on that scale, but it wouldn't have been unsecured. That sort of deal would have made our arrangement with MSP look subbing a tenner off of a mate until pay day, and if it had of gone wrong things could have disintegrated rapidly I would have thought? No I think you are right It basically means you forgo receiving the revenues upto a value that equate to an agreed pay back period. I first became aware of this method when the Miami Dolphins built a new stadium in North Miami in the mid 80s. But they sold out every home game and had massive TV revenues. For us I believe it would have meant forgoing all the incremental revenue streams we so badly needed, which was in itself one of they drivers. During that period I had dinner with the preferred architect (at the time) and he was strongly advocating this method. Whether it was actually adopted I don't know. OK, so stick a finger in the air and have a guess, were we better off losing that court case?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Sept 19, 2020 11:49:39 GMT
No I think you are right It basically means you forgo receiving the revenues upto a value that equate to an agreed pay back period. I first became aware of this method when the Miami Dolphins built a new stadium in North Miami in the mid 80s. But they sold out every home game and had massive TV revenues. For us I believe it would have meant forgoing all the incremental revenue streams we so badly needed, which was in itself one of they drivers. During that period I had dinner with the preferred architect (at the time) and he was strongly advocating this method. Whether it was actually adopted I don't know. OK, so stick a finger in the air and have a guess, were we better off losing that court case? I know it’s not directed at me but it was foolhardy and bloody dangerous. Whoever advised that we would win must need help
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on Sept 19, 2020 11:49:48 GMT
I agree with words from both sides here. I'd never win at Twitter. I read with enjoyment and interest, the faith, optimism, and enthusiasm (which I share) for the improvements made since the departure of Higgs. But I also enjoy the scrutiny and questions raised by Swiss, Bambi, and previously (before his recent conversion) Uncle Eppers. One thing though. I can't see why Swiss is wrong to think and say anything. Disagree. Put your evidence or case for the defence of Al Qadi. But please lay off insulting a former Director for doing the Swiss Diligence. He's not inciting anything. He's just a raging sceptic. Long may he continue. You don't have to defend yourself, swissgas . We all just need to stop disliking each other people expressing dissenting opinions about a third division football club. That is, after all, why we're all here. Brilliantly put!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 11:59:24 GMT
OK, so stick a finger in the air and have a guess, were we better off losing that court case? I know it’s not directed at me but it was foolhardy and bloody dangerous. Whoever advised that we would win must need help Agree totally. At the time it seems that you 'weren't a real Rovers' fan' if you voiced concern over the path we were taking. Here's a good rule of thumb for engaging legal service. Book an appointment, go in and be totally honest about the detail of the dispute, but pretend that you are the other party in the case, if they look worried about your prospects then they may be the right people to represent you.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Sept 19, 2020 12:01:28 GMT
I know it’s not directed at me but it was foolhardy and bloody dangerous. Whoever advised that we would win must need help Agree totally. At the time it seems that you 'weren't a real Rovers' fan' if you voiced concern over the path we were taking. Here's a good rule of thumb for engaging legal service. Book an appointment, go in and be totally honest about the detail of the dispute, but pretend that you are the other party in the case, if they look worried about your prospects then they may be the right people to represent you. Very good advice. NH was out of control and lost. It was a bullheaded folly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 12:05:59 GMT
Agree totally. At the time it seems that you 'weren't a real Rovers' fan' if you voiced concern over the path we were taking. Here's a good rule of thumb for engaging legal service. Book an appointment, go in and be totally honest about the detail of the dispute, but pretend that you are the other party in the case, if they look worried about your prospects then they may be the right people to represent you. Very good advice. NH was out of control and lost. It was a bullheaded folly. Well, this is what I'm talking around, losing may not have been the disaster it appeared. Winning could have been worse. At least this way he walks away and can blame those pesky supermarket people for everything.
|
|