Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2020 23:13:14 GMT
Take my boss - big Bury fan, from 3 generations of Bury fans, lives in the town. Both his kids support Man United and couldn't care less about Bury. In fact they think he's a weird eccentric for caring when there's 2 Champions League quality clubs on the doorstep. That's very sad. Having family allegiance to a club is great as a child. For them to reject that to follow the TV herd is such a waste.
|
|
o2o2bo2ba
Joined: August 2014
Posts: 6,916
Member is Online
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Aug 21, 2020 5:20:41 GMT
Take my boss - big Bury fan, from 3 generations of Bury fans, lives in the town. Both his kids support Man United and couldn't care less about Bury. In fact they think he's a weird eccentric for caring when there's 2 Champions League quality clubs on the doorstep. That's very sad. Having family allegiance to a club is great as a child. For them to reject that to follow the TV herd is such a waste. It can work both ways as there must be loads of rebellious kids and teens wanting to watch the Gas much against wishes of their inbred parent(s)... isn't there?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,053
|
Post by eppinggas on Aug 21, 2020 8:54:46 GMT
Take my boss - big Bury fan, from 3 generations of Bury fans, lives in the town. Both his kids support Man United and couldn't care less about Bury. In fact they think he's a weird eccentric for caring when there's 2 Champions League quality clubs on the doorstep. That's very sad. Having family allegiance to a club is great as a child. For them to reject that to follow the TV herd is such a waste. I blame the parents Shoveler. If you can't be bothered to brain-wash your own children in to supporting a mediocre football Club that might play 140 miles away from where you live... It's character building stuff at the very least. My son is in therapy.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Aug 21, 2020 9:57:28 GMT
Take my boss - big Bury fan, from 3 generations of Bury fans, lives in the town. Both his kids support Man United and couldn't care less about Bury. In fact they think he's a weird eccentric for caring when there's 2 Champions League quality clubs on the doorstep. That's very sad. Having family allegiance to a club is great as a child. For them to reject that to follow the TV herd is such a waste. It's all about peer pressure - if all the kids in your school think Bury are sadsack then you won't want to support them. Being a Rovers fan you can (even now) dream that one day you can compete on an equal with your mates who are City fans but that's never going to happen with kids who support Bury next to their United/City peers. It's not dislike/rivalry etc that does the damage - its mockery and irrelevance.
The thing is they don't just watch on TV. What they do is save up to go to 1 United game a month. Which is what quite a lot of young people round here do. That is a problem in itself by the way. People moan about 'tourists' and the pricing out of working class supporters from going to games but the bigger issue round here is that there are very few young fans who go to City/United every week. So that socialisation into regular attendance which is ultimately what builds the atmosphere/culture of fandom is waning. One of the striking things about living in Manchester is that despite it's claims as a footballing mecca I knew far more people who went to games on a regular basis when I lived in Bristol than I do in Manchester and that's not just the circles I'm hanging out with. For example, at the cricket clubs I played for in Bristol there were lots of season ticket holders of Rovers and City. For the one I play for in Manchester there are 2 and they are both over 60.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Aug 21, 2020 11:49:19 GMT
Those are th share scheme shares that wern't previously alloctaed that teh SC weremoaning about arent they? edit or the new additional shares purchased by the SC since the last update presumably is in respect of the capitalization of the loan between BRFC 1883 Ltd and BRFC Ltd. As Bamber has pointed out, that is a paper transaction with BRFC 1883 Ltd cancelling it's loan to BRFC Ltd in exchange for receiving new shares in BRFC Ltd. that would mean that the Board's statement that the loan has been capitalised is now documented at CH, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Aug 21, 2020 11:51:58 GMT
As bondigas has posted above, the Confirmation Statement ( Annual Return) filed last week is a mess. It looks as though 63400 more shares have been allocated since the last statement of capital on April 6th. If those shares have been allocated to Wael (Dwane Sports Ltd) then it may be that there will be an entry in the share premium account on the balance sheet to cover this. If he has capitalized £ 18.4 million of debt then he would have paid £ 290.22 for each of the 63400 shares which is a premium of £ 290.12 over the nominal value of £ 0.10 each. If he has done it this way then his (Dwane Sports Ltd) stake has increased by less than 1% so has a negligible effect on the other shareholders. Which begs the question of why he chose to bring up the issue of diluting the Supporters Club shareholding in his June statement ? I'm just speculating here about how the announced capitalization may have been carried out but the charge over the Mem is definitely still showing at Companies House as of today. My own theory, based upon nothing but speculation as is the norm on most forum ITK posts, is that this plus to training ground, is part of ongoing negotiations to make us look a better proposal and could be part of the fruity negotiations but, as usual, I could be wrong I'm seeing it as that, but also providing the base from which to build the club that Wael has talked about since he first arrived I see it as just tremendous news. I suspect BG and the players do too, and that most of the staff do - a manifestation of intent
|
|
toteend
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 305
|
Post by toteend on Aug 21, 2020 11:55:23 GMT
In reality, in Rovers terms, I think sustainability is making a manageable loss every year which can be comfortably covered from the owners surplus cash resources. If you are able to take a great leap of faith you will be confident that Wael has sufficient surplus cash resources to pay for the training ground, cover the current trading losses which must be at an all time high and has the management ability to restructure the club so he can cover future trading losses from his surplus income. If you have any misgivings about this there is a danger you will spoil “the ride” for others if you express them so it may be best to keep quiet at the moment. But it would be interesting to know why Companies House still does not show the capitalization of the the BRFC 1883 Ltd loan and why the charge over the Mem in favour of Dwane Sports Ltd remains in place ? Probably because new shares need to be authorised by the shareholders and there hasn't been an AGM or an EGM to authorise them. Therefore in theory the 'debt' has not yet been written off, although in reality it's all Waels anyway so makes no material difference. It will only become urgent if Wael needs to raise funds against the Mem, in which case the charge would need to be expunged.
|
|
toteend
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 305
|
Post by toteend on Aug 21, 2020 12:03:55 GMT
The number of shares discussed on here both allocated and unallocated total 100,000 which were authorised at the last AGM I believe. I would confirm this but I am still looking for my last lot of accounts. This is nothing to do with capitalising the debt.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2020 12:36:32 GMT
If you can't be bothered to brain-wash your own children in to supporting a mediocre football Club that might play 140 miles away from where you live... It's character building stuff at the very least. That's my duckling, described exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2020 12:37:03 GMT
In reality, in Rovers terms, I think sustainability is making a manageable loss every year which can be comfortably covered from the owners surplus cash resources. If you are able to take a great leap of faith you will be confident that Wael has sufficient surplus cash resources to pay for the training ground, cover the current trading losses which must be at an all time high and has the management ability to restructure the club so he can cover future trading losses from his surplus income. If you have any misgivings about this there is a danger you will spoil “the ride” for others if you express them so it may be best to keep quiet at the moment. But it would be interesting to know why Companies House still does not show the capitalization of the the BRFC 1883 Ltd loan and why the charge over the Mem in favour of Dwane Sports Ltd remains in place ? Probably because new shares need to be authorised by the shareholders and there hasn't been an AGM or an EGM to authorise them. Therefore in theory the 'debt' has not yet been written off, although in reality it's all Waels anyway so makes no material difference. It will only become urgent if Wael needs to raise funds against the Mem, in which case the charge would need to be expunged. EGM And as one shareholder owns a great deal more than the required 75% plus, they could just call it for any given time and pass the resolution. About 2 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Aug 21, 2020 13:41:42 GMT
presumably is in respect of the capitalization of the loan between BRFC 1883 Ltd and BRFC Ltd. As Bamber has pointed out, that is a paper transaction with BRFC 1883 Ltd cancelling it's loan to BRFC Ltd in exchange for receiving new shares in BRFC Ltd. that would mean that the Board's statement that the loan has been capitalised is now documented at CH, wouldn't it? No, the £ 16.4 million loan between BRFC 1883 Ltd and BRFC Ltd has been capitalized and that is shown at Companies House. But the £ 18.4 million loan between Dwane Sports Ltd and BRFC 1883 Ltd has not been capitalized according to Companies House. So if that loan is still outstanding it would explain why the charge over the Mem remains in place.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2020 14:30:41 GMT
that would mean that the Board's statement that the loan has been capitalised is now documented at CH, wouldn't it? No, the £ 16.4 million loan between BRFC 1883 Ltd and BRFC Ltd has been capitalized and that is shown at Companies House. But the £ 18.4 million loan between Dwane Sports Ltd and BRFC 1883 Ltd has not been capitalized according to Companies House. So if that loan is still outstanding it would explain why the charge over the Mem remains in place. Are you suggesting the total indebtedness was in fact £34.8 million?🧐
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Aug 21, 2020 15:11:51 GMT
No, the £ 16.4 million loan between BRFC 1883 Ltd and BRFC Ltd has been capitalized and that is shown at Companies House. But the £ 18.4 million loan between Dwane Sports Ltd and BRFC 1883 Ltd has not been capitalized according to Companies House. So if that loan is still outstanding it would explain why the charge over the Mem remains in place. Are you suggesting the total indebtedness was in fact £34.8 million?🧐 that would be the true aggregate of debts, but not the aggregate net debt. As I have no doubt you are aware - you are being rascally!
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Aug 21, 2020 15:12:13 GMT
that would mean that the Board's statement that the loan has been capitalised is now documented at CH, wouldn't it? No, the £ 16.4 million loan between BRFC 1883 Ltd and BRFC Ltd has been capitalized and that is shown at Companies House. But the £ 18.4 million loan between Dwane Sports Ltd and BRFC 1883 Ltd has not been capitalized according to Companies House. So if that loan is still outstanding it would explain why the charge over the Mem remains in place. ta!
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Aug 21, 2020 15:15:03 GMT
No, the £ 16.4 million loan between BRFC 1883 Ltd and BRFC Ltd has been capitalized and that is shown at Companies House. But the £ 18.4 million loan between Dwane Sports Ltd and BRFC 1883 Ltd has not been capitalized according to Companies House. So if that loan is still outstanding it would explain why the charge over the Mem remains in place. ta! is it DS's charge over the Mem, or 1883's, do you know?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Aug 21, 2020 15:27:48 GMT
No, the £ 16.4 million loan between BRFC 1883 Ltd and BRFC Ltd has been capitalized and that is shown at Companies House. But the £ 18.4 million loan between Dwane Sports Ltd and BRFC 1883 Ltd has not been capitalized according to Companies House. So if that loan is still outstanding it would explain why the charge over the Mem remains in place. Are you suggesting the total indebtedness was in fact £34.8 million?🧐 No, you old bu**er, Dwane Sports Ltd loaned BRFC 1883 Ltd £ 18.4 million and from that BRFC 1883 Ltd loaned £ 16.4 million to BRFC Ltd
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Aug 21, 2020 15:28:34 GMT
is it DS's charge over the Mem, or 1883's, do you know? The charge over the Mem is held by Dwane Sports Ltd.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Aug 21, 2020 15:29:06 GMT
is it DS's charge over the Mem, or 1883's, do you know? The charge over the Mem is held by Dwane Sports Ltd. ta again!
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Aug 22, 2020 7:51:30 GMT
that would mean that the Board's statement that the loan has been capitalised is now documented at CH, wouldn't it? No, the £ 16.4 million loan between BRFC 1883 Ltd and BRFC Ltd has been capitalized and that is shown at Companies House. But the £ 18.4 million loan between Dwane Sports Ltd and BRFC 1883 Ltd has not been capitalized according to Companies House. So if that loan is still outstanding it would explain why the charge over the Mem remains in place. I'm hoping/ wondering whether the delay in registering this capitalization is to do with Dwane Sports being registered in the Channel Islands? Would there be a need to align filings in both jurisdictions?
Certainly Wael said that the Dwane loan to 1883 had been cleared. I can't think that he was mistaken on this.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Aug 22, 2020 10:14:21 GMT
No, the £ 16.4 million loan between BRFC 1883 Ltd and BRFC Ltd has been capitalized and that is shown at Companies House. But the £ 18.4 million loan between Dwane Sports Ltd and BRFC 1883 Ltd has not been capitalized according to Companies House. So if that loan is still outstanding it would explain why the charge over the Mem remains in place. I'm hoping/ wondering whether the delay in registering this capitalization is to do with Dwane Sports being registered in the Channel Islands? Would there be a need to align filings in both jurisdictions?
Certainly Wael said that the Dwane loan to 1883 had been cleared. I can't think that he was mistaken on this. yes. I'm massively enthusiastic about things at the moment, but agree with swiss that this does seem a little anomalous
|
|