|
Post by a more piratey game on Sept 19, 2020 12:28:00 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. what would you have done in the circumstances kP? as a bit of background, I'll suggest that NH had been told that the chances of the legal case being successful were around 30% (which I'm going to surmise for this purpose)?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 12:59:01 GMT
Very good advice. NH was out of control and lost. It was a bullheaded folly. what would you have done in the circumstances kP? as a bit of background, I'll suggest that NH had been told that the chances of the legal case being successful were around 30% (which I'm going to surmise for this purpose)? First thing I would have done is consider who it was telling me that and what he was charging me for that advice. Then weigh up what happens if; A. You win. B. You lose. You have to assume that on the day that Higgs signed that contract he had funding in place that made some kind of sense?
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,149
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Sept 20, 2020 9:15:23 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. Swiss Just one thought on the Dwane Sports Charge and the Revolving Credit Facility of £10mln. Did Wael say that he would capitalise all future debt obligations? If the Rev Cr is still in place to allow for working capital in the event that crowds are prevented from coming back all season, which might require >£1mln + then surely you wouldn't expect that money to be lent unencumbered? Also, what if, as Wael says, he is looking at building a stadium and wanted to secure land at short notice to prevent a third party beating them, surely having the facility and charge in pace would enable him to do that without having to go through all the legal processes again. This is just a thought and not a defence of a timing failure in administration. Attachments:Dwane Sports charge.pdf (272.85 KB)
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,149
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Sept 20, 2020 9:45:35 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 up to a value that equate to an agreed pay back period. 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. It was a popular way of raising at the time by borrowing the net present value of future revenues as you say Oldie. Provided you had good advisors and could agree the right terms (usually fixed term and fixed rate) it might have worked IF and it is a big IF the right numbers could be negotiated on the calculation of the NPV and revenue streams. As many have eluded to, building a new stadium can bring great results (cf Brighton and others). In the circumstances the zeitgeist would have been against such a deal if done as interest rates and inflation fell (both when rising could have benefitted the club) and as known we were not good negotiators and would probably have been taken for a ride.... Also there are two reasons for failure that would have worried me both revolving around Higgs ability and his advisors. 1) when the student partner pulled out on the Mem rebuild Higgs said that other accommodation providers weren't building and conditions weren't right. At that time I worked in Manchester and the bank was still putting out millions to a number of student providers. Steel prices were low and construction firms were desperate for work yet he just seem to give up. 2) when Higgs was fighting Sainsbury with his watertight contract it was obvious whoever advised him were seemingly oblivious to Sainsbury's success rate in legal disputes which was high enough to frighten off all but the foolhardy. If as someone says (or surmises) that he WAS advised that his likelihood was around 30% success then I know of few people in business who would risk all on a deluded gamble.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Sept 20, 2020 9:47:11 GMT
Very good advice. NH was out of control and lost. It was a bullheaded folly. what would you have done in the circumstances kP? as a bit of background, I'll suggest that NH had been told that the chances of the legal case being successful were around 30% (which I'm going to surmise for this purpose)? It was widely reported and I am fairly certain, NH was told it was an higher percentage but, if it were me and I knew the club was in danger because of the outcome then I’d like to think I would know when to gracefully withdraw. From what I was told, at that time, we were very lucky to have the current owners buy us or we could have easily gone out of business. NH was out of control and I would hope that if I was faced with the same, that I’d know when to call it a day. If we had won then there would have been appeal after appeal. We were never going to win that one. I am not going to get into the cost of fitting the stadium.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Sept 20, 2020 10:15:01 GMT
what would you have done in the circumstances kP? as a bit of background, I'll suggest that NH had been told that the chances of the legal case being successful were around 30% (which I'm going to surmise for this purpose)? It was widely reported and I am fairly certain, NH was told it was an higher percentage but, if it were me and I knew the club was in danger because of the outcome then I’d like to think I would know when to gracefully withdraw. From what I was told, at that time, we were very lucky to have the current owners buy us or we could have easily gone out of business. I'm not sure, but I think the club was in danger either way and the choice was at the time was invidious; 'fold' with Sainsbury's, lose face, lose personal money and become someone remembered as adding to the club's debts. And remain a Gashead owner of a loss-making club without a training ground or the prospect of a new stadium, but with the chance to 'fight again' or sell take the chance on the court case (which I think was always likely to lose on the basis of a legal reading of the contract, but which might have succeeded based on a wider reading), which if successful might make the club more successful, or at least a more attractive sales proposition - or a less attractive proposition if it failed
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2020 15:12:20 GMT
No I think you are right It basically means you forgo receiving the revenues up to a value that equate to an agreed pay back period. 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. It was a popular way of raising at the time by borrowing the net present value of future revenues as you say Oldie. Provided you had good advisors and could agree the right terms (usually fixed term and fixed rate) it might have worked IF and it is a big IF the right numbers could be negotiated on the calculation of the NPV and revenue streams. As many have eluded to, building a new stadium can bring great results (cf Brighton and others). In the circumstances the zeitgeist would have been against such a deal if done as interest rates and inflation fell (both when rising could have benefitted the club) and as known we were not good negotiators and would probably have been taken for a ride.... Also there are two reasons for failure that would have worried me both revolving around Higgs ability and his advisors. 1) when the student partner pulled out on the Mem rebuild Higgs said that other accommodation providers weren't building and conditions weren't right. At that time I worked in Manchester and the bank was still putting out millions to a number of student providers. Steel prices were low and construction firms were desperate for work yet he just seem to give up. 2) when Higgs was fighting Sainsbury with his watertight contract it was obvious whoever advised him were seemingly oblivious to Sainsbury's success rate in legal disputes which was high enough to frighten off all but the foolhardy. If as someone says (or surmises) that he WAS advised that his likelihood was around 30% success then I know of few people in business who would risk all on a deluded gamble. Excellent stuff Cheshire, as always.
|
|
swissgas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,190
Member is Online
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 20, 2020 16:03:21 GMT
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. Swiss Just one thought on the Dwane Sports Charge and the Revolving Credit Facility of £10mln. Did Wael say that he would capitalise all future debt obligations? If the Rev Cr is still in place to allow for working capital in the event that crowds are prevented from coming back all season, which might require >£1mln + then surely you wouldn't expect that money to be lent unencumbered? Also, what if, as Wael says, he is looking at building a stadium and wanted to secure land at short notice to prevent a third party beating them, surely having the facility and charge in pace would enable him to do that without having to go through all the legal processes again. This is just a thought and not a defence of a timing failure in administration. Cheshire, I think you would agree it is quite normal for a charge to be used to secure third party lending but very unusual for a 92% owner to take one and even more so for a 96.5% owner. And if Wael needed funds quickly for a land deal then presumably these would come from his own resources. Otherwise, if he needed outside finance, a completely new charge would be required anyway. But what this recent episode has exposed is how power can be abused and followers kept in the dark if leaders are not subject to scrutiny and you touched on this in your post about the Higgs era Mem regeneration plan. When Opal pulled out Nick first told us "don't worry, there are plenty of other student accommodation providers interested in our project". He then changed his tune to "the bottom has dropped out of the market and the project is no longer viable". As many of us pointed out at the time this sudden change of heart seemed very dubious and there was plenty of evidence to suggest student accommodation was still in high demand. But Nick could rely on Gasheads taking him at face value and not subjecting him to scrutiny so he didn't need to explain further. We shall never truly know what happened with that project, with UWE I, with UWE II, with Lyde Green or with the FM plan because we don't ask. At the end of July, a month after the capitalisation and "debt free" announcement, I queried why Companies House was not showing it and there was speculation here that new shares would need to be issued. Nothing was heard from the club so a few weeks ago I brought the subject up again, others started to ask questions and the local media eventually pressed the "club spokesman" into making a statement. From that we learned that debt capitalisation had not actually taken place yet so the club was not actually "debt free", Wael was continuing to lend the club money and he would decide later whether or not this will be capitalised. So the June 19th hysteria and national news headlines about Rovers being "debt free" were based upon a false premise. I don't necessarily think this was an attempt at deliberate deception but more likely was a "typical Rovers cock up" borne out of the complacency and sloppiness which comes about when leaders know they will never be questioned. I already hear the cries of "they can do what they like, why does it matter ?". This is why. If we can so easily expose such incompetence in arranging what was supposed to be a momentous turning point for Rovers then what is happening elsewhere at the club ? Do we think this is a completely isolated incident or is it possible that complacency and sloppiness is endemic at Rovers ? Could lack of planning, lack of organization and lack of direction be the cause of our failings on and off the pitch ? How confident are we that our leaders are doing their best and working at an optimum level of competence when they go into battle on Rovers behalf with the likes of Darragh MacAnthony, Paul Scally, the UWE Board of Governors, South Gloucestershire Council, Bristol City Council or the Fruit Market Developers ?
|
|