Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 13, 2021 5:54:29 GMT
1883 accounts are up.
It's early so, haven't woken up properly
1883 the company owes approx 21.5m
The Group owes approx 23.5m
I am thinking (again it's early and I bunged up) that the difference probably relates to the training ground coming out of the books of Bristol Rovers (for Tax purposes as we have spoken off before)
Notes to the accounts say 18.1m of this was capitalised in September 2020
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Jul 13, 2021 9:21:51 GMT
Just to add to what Pop has said the transaction was a paper one so Wael didn’t actually roll up at the bank with 18 million in used notes and pay it into Rovers account.What he did was come to an arrangement with his brothers Hani and Samer to take over their portion of the debt which in my estimate amounted to about 10.4 million.He then capitalised that debt. Saying this is not an attempt by me to take away the credit from Wael, because what he did was of great value to the club, it is purely to set the record straight. IMO it serves no good purpose to send out signals to Gasheads implying that Wael has come up with 18 million of new money or that the club is permanently debt free when that is patently not true. It is much better to set out the facts in a straightforward way and let us make our own mind up. In this case the true picture is that Wael has capitalised 18 million of debt which is a very good thing but the debt keeps accruing at an alarming rate which is much greater than our competitors and that is a very bad thing. Sorry to disrupt your narrative but I read this and couldn't quite believe that it had just been universally accepted without question. BRFC were in debt to the Al Qadi family weren't they? Not a bank nor any other third party. So in the same way that if I owe money to Natwest Bank and some arrangement is made between me and Natwest Bank - for example they forgive that loan or agree to take a charge against my house instead say - they don't then "roll up at the bank with 18 million in used notes and pay it into [my] account". Why would they? I owe them money. Just as BRFC owed Wael money. Why would he be putting money into Rovers' account when forgiving a debt? If your friend owes you twenty quid and you say "Don't worry about it just buy me a couple of pints next time" you don't then go and put another £20 in their bank do you? Why would you? Your friend is in debt to you. Now you're about to say "Ahhh but Wael hasn't forgiven the debt he's converted it into shares". I'm sure you already know this but debt has an inherent value - if a company has debt of £1,000,000 then the person to whom it is owed (Wael let's call him) has a right to demand repayment of £1,000,000. If that debt is capitalised "Wael" would receive 1,000,000 shares with a par value of £1. Those one million shares won't necessarily be worth £1m they will only have whatever value is within the company - the value of it's net assets normally when it is a loss making company. There are personal tax reasons for capitalising debt rather than forgiving the loan which I can explain if you would like. But what's important is that the right for the lender to receive that £1m is gone. The lender won't get £1m back even if they can find a buyer for their shares and the company will never repay that £1m in any circumstances. Like I said I'm sure you know all of this so I'm not sure why you keep trying to obfuscate those facts by saying silly things like Wael hasn't put cash into Rovers account ... he has which is why that money was owed to him. He's now not asking for it back. Is the reason you live abroad that you can never come back to the UK because you are wanted for "financial irregularities"? I do worry since you claim to be a corporate finance expert but for some reason don't even understand the mechanics of a loan write off.
|
|
|
Post by holmesgas1 on Jul 13, 2021 9:51:51 GMT
We may still differ on our opinions on what we believe Weal can achieve in the long term, but thanks for a fair overview. Costs for sure need to continue to be reduced and revenue streams increased. Would be very interesting to understand Shrewsbury accounts in more detail. Are they just leaner and meaner? Yes, I think leaner and meaner sums it up well. A simple analysis of Shrewsbury's turnover to cost of sales ratio shows that for every £ 1.00 received they spent £ 1.02. But there is an anomaly in the way they treat administrative expenses compared to Rovers so in an effort to correct that and include the same administrative expenses as Rovers I came up with them spending £ 1.16 for every £ 1.00 received compared to Rovers spending £ 1.43 for every £ 1.00 received. Shrewsbury are also quite transparent in showing where their 2020 revenue came from. Ticket Sales £ 1,923,737 Football League Income £ 1,646,271 Contingent Fees Received £ 109,266 Sundry Income £ 1,003,602 TV and Internet Portal £ 248,205 Supporters Donations £ 39,704 Food & Beverage Sales £ 480,687 Total £ 5,451,472 (increase of £ 85,000 from 2019) Swiss appreciated. Manpower costs are normally the primary cost for a club and I do wonder whether we are getting value for money. I don't mean 1st team performance because we the know the answer to that after relegation. However we have increased manpower by ~40 positions and if majority are development squad personnel it's a punt on getting saleable assets. If a couple come off every two or 3 years, it will make profit, but with out that it adds quite makerkely to our out goings even at minimum wage...
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 13, 2021 15:51:52 GMT
Just to add to what Pop has said the transaction was a paper one so Wael didn’t actually roll up at the bank with 18 million in used notes and pay it into Rovers account.What he did was come to an arrangement with his brothers Hani and Samer to take over their portion of the debt which in my estimate amounted to about 10.4 million.He then capitalised that debt. Saying this is not an attempt by me to take away the credit from Wael, because what he did was of great value to the club, it is purely to set the record straight. IMO it serves no good purpose to send out signals to Gasheads implying that Wael has come up with 18 million of new money or that the club is permanently debt free when that is patently not true. It is much better to set out the facts in a straightforward way and let us make our own mind up. In this case the true picture is that Wael has capitalised 18 million of debt which is a very good thing but the debt keeps accruing at an alarming rate which is much greater than our competitors and that is a very bad thing. Sorry to disrupt your narrative but I read this and couldn't quite believe that it had just been universally accepted without question. BRFC were in debt to the Al Qadi family weren't they? Not a bank nor any other third party. So in the same way that if I owe money to Natwest Bank and some arrangement is made between me and Natwest Bank - for example they forgive that loan or agree to take a charge against my house instead say - they don't then "roll up at the bank with 18 million in used notes and pay it into [my] account". Why would they? I owe them money. Just as BRFC owed Wael money. Why would he be putting money into Rovers' account when forgiving a debt? If your friend owes you twenty quid and you say "Don't worry about it just buy me a couple of pints next time" you don't then go and put another £20 in their bank do you? Why would you? Your friend is in debt to you. Now you're about to say "Ahhh but Wael hasn't forgiven the debt he's converted it into shares". I'm sure you already know this but debt has an inherent value - if a company has debt of £1,000,000 then the person to whom it is owed (Wael let's call him) has a right to demand repayment of £1,000,000. If that debt is capitalised "Wael" would receive 1,000,000 shares with a par value of £1. Those one million shares won't necessarily be worth £1m they will only have whatever value is within the company - the value of it's net assets normally when it is a loss making company. There are personal tax reasons for capitalising debt rather than forgiving the loan which I can explain if you would like. But what's important is that the right for the lender to receive that £1m is gone. The lender won't get £1m back even if they can find a buyer for their shares and the company will never repay that £1m in any circumstances. Like I said I'm sure you know all of this so I'm not sure why you keep trying to obfuscate those facts by saying silly things like Wael hasn't put cash into Rovers account ... he has which is why that money was owed to him. He's now not asking for it back. Is the reason you live abroad that you can never come back to the UK because you are wanted for "financial irregularities"? I do worry since you claim to be a corporate finance expert but for some reason don't even understand the mechanics of a loan write off. Calm down dear. I'll stick with the paragraph you quoted above thanks.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 13, 2021 16:07:39 GMT
Yes, I think leaner and meaner sums it up well. A simple analysis of Shrewsbury's turnover to cost of sales ratio shows that for every £ 1.00 received they spent £ 1.02. But there is an anomaly in the way they treat administrative expenses compared to Rovers so in an effort to correct that and include the same administrative expenses as Rovers I came up with them spending £ 1.16 for every £ 1.00 received compared to Rovers spending £ 1.43 for every £ 1.00 received. Shrewsbury are also quite transparent in showing where their 2020 revenue came from. Ticket Sales £ 1,923,737 Football League Income £ 1,646,271 Contingent Fees Received £ 109,266 Sundry Income £ 1,003,602 TV and Internet Portal £ 248,205 Supporters Donations £ 39,704 Food & Beverage Sales £ 480,687 Total £ 5,451,472 (increase of £ 85,000 from 2019) Swiss appreciated. Manpower costs are normally the primary cost for a club and I do wonder whether we are getting value for money. I don't mean 1st team performance because we the know the answer to that after relegation. However we have increased manpower by ~40 positions and if majority are development squad personnel it's a punt on getting saleable assets. If a couple come off every two or 3 years, it will make profit, but with out that it adds quite makerkely to our out goings even at minimum wage... Shrewsbury's total staff costs were £ 4,279,638 And their numbers were. Players 46 Admin 35 Other 39 Stewards/Security 47 Total 167
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Jul 13, 2021 16:20:04 GMT
Sorry to disrupt your narrative but I read this and couldn't quite believe that it had just been universally accepted without question. BRFC were in debt to the Al Qadi family weren't they? Not a bank nor any other third party. So in the same way that if I owe money to Natwest Bank and some arrangement is made between me and Natwest Bank - for example they forgive that loan or agree to take a charge against my house instead say - they don't then "roll up at the bank with 18 million in used notes and pay it into [my] account". Why would they? I owe them money. Just as BRFC owed Wael money. Why would he be putting money into Rovers' account when forgiving a debt? If your friend owes you twenty quid and you say "Don't worry about it just buy me a couple of pints next time" you don't then go and put another £20 in their bank do you? Why would you? Your friend is in debt to you. Now you're about to say "Ahhh but Wael hasn't forgiven the debt he's converted it into shares". I'm sure you already know this but debt has an inherent value - if a company has debt of £1,000,000 then the person to whom it is owed (Wael let's call him) has a right to demand repayment of £1,000,000. If that debt is capitalised "Wael" would receive 1,000,000 shares with a par value of £1. Those one million shares won't necessarily be worth £1m they will only have whatever value is within the company - the value of it's net assets normally when it is a loss making company. There are personal tax reasons for capitalising debt rather than forgiving the loan which I can explain if you would like. But what's important is that the right for the lender to receive that £1m is gone. The lender won't get £1m back even if they can find a buyer for their shares and the company will never repay that £1m in any circumstances. Like I said I'm sure you know all of this so I'm not sure why you keep trying to obfuscate those facts by saying silly things like Wael hasn't put cash into Rovers account ... he has which is why that money was owed to him. He's now not asking for it back. Is the reason you live abroad that you can never come back to the UK because you are wanted for "financial irregularities"? I do worry since you claim to be a corporate finance expert but for some reason don't even understand the mechanics of a loan write off. Calm down dear. I'll stick with the paragraph you quoted above thanks. What is it you're sticking with exactly? You've said it's important for people to know that Wael hasn't put any new money into the club - why would he? He's forgiving a debt owed to him. Across both forums, Facebook and any other social media literally the only person I've seen make any mention of that is you. So, it seems the only person you need to make that clear to is yourself. Unless of course you're doing your usual thing of trying to pretend there's another layer to everything that other people haven't understood. You know like when you pretended that the club was in £24m debt, or when you pretended that capitalised debt wasn't a de facto writing off of that loan, or when you pretended the capitalisation was never done, or when you pretended you could search Companies House for details of a Jersey registered company. Now you're pretending that in order to write off a loan a creditor should deposit an amount equal to the debt into the debtor's bank. Bonkers.
|
|
|
Post by holmesgas1 on Jul 13, 2021 17:30:44 GMT
Swiss appreciated. Manpower costs are normally the primary cost for a club and I do wonder whether we are getting value for money. I don't mean 1st team performance because we the know the answer to that after relegation. However we have increased manpower by ~40 positions and if majority are development squad personnel it's a punt on getting saleable assets. If a couple come off every two or 3 years, it will make profit, but with out that it adds quite makerkely to our out goings even at minimum wage... Shrewsbury's total staff costs were £ 4,279,638 And their numbers were. Players 46 Admin 35 Other 39 Stewards/Security 47 Total 167 Interesting, according to BP we have 228 staff vs Shrewsbury 164. Not surprising then our costs are higher, though difficult to be sure we are comparing apples to apples as they may have already contracted out elements like Retail. Even so 64 staff is a big difference...
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 13, 2021 17:51:19 GMT
Calm down dear. I'll stick with the paragraph you quoted above thanks. What is it you're sticking with exactly? You've said it's important for people to know that Wael hasn't put any new money into the club - why would he? He's forgiving a debt owed to him. Across both forums, Facebook and any other social media literally the only person I've seen make any mention of that is you. So, it seems the only person you need to make that clear to is yourself. Unless of course you're doing your usual thing of trying to pretend there's another layer to everything that other people haven't understood. You know like when you pretended that the club was in £24m debt, or when you pretended that capitalised debt wasn't a de facto writing off of that loan, or when you pretended the capitalisation was never done, or when you pretended you could search Companies House for details of a Jersey registered company. Now you're pretending that in order to write off a loan a creditor should deposit an amount equal to the debt into the debtor's bank. Bonkers. The social media comments saying “if he hasn’t got any money how has he paid off the debts ?” strongly suggests to me that many Gasheads thought the capitalisation was a cash transaction so I pointed out that it was a paper transaction. I never said the club was £24 million in debt that was Bristol Live who have repeated the same mistake today I never said the capitalisation wasn’t a de facto writing off of the loan you are thinking of someone else I said the capitalisation of the loan had not been done when the club said it had been done and the form SH01 lodged at Companies House proves I was right. I never claimed you could search Companies House for details of a Jersey registered company. At the time we were debating whether or not the Dwane Sports loan capitalisation had actually taken place I recall you suggesting Dwane Sports were issuing capital to themselves, which would show in the Jersey Companies Registry, and you thought that was the reason why nothing was showing at Companies House. You are unhappy with Rovers choice of manager just as I am unhappy with the way Rovers run their business but in discussing these matters there is no need to lose self control.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Jul 13, 2021 19:50:39 GMT
What is it you're sticking with exactly? You've said it's important for people to know that Wael hasn't put any new money into the club - why would he? He's forgiving a debt owed to him. Across both forums, Facebook and any other social media literally the only person I've seen make any mention of that is you. So, it seems the only person you need to make that clear to is yourself. Unless of course you're doing your usual thing of trying to pretend there's another layer to everything that other people haven't understood. You know like when you pretended that the club was in £24m debt, or when you pretended that capitalised debt wasn't a de facto writing off of that loan, or when you pretended the capitalisation was never done, or when you pretended you could search Companies House for details of a Jersey registered company. Now you're pretending that in order to write off a loan a creditor should deposit an amount equal to the debt into the debtor's bank. Bonkers. The social media comments saying “if he hasn’t got any money how has he paid off the debts ?” strongly suggests to me that many Gasheads thought the capitalisation was a cash transaction so I pointed out that it was a paper transaction. I never said the club was £24 million in debt that was Bristol Live who have repeated the same mistake today I never said the capitalisation wasn’t a de facto writing off of the loan you are thinking of someone else I said the capitalisation of the loan had not been done when the club said it had been done and the form SH01 lodged at Companies House proves I was right. I never claimed you could search Companies House for details of a Jersey registered company. At the time we were debating whether or not the Dwane Sports loan capitalisation had actually taken place I recall you suggesting Dwane Sports were issuing capital to themselves, which would show in the Jersey Companies Registry, and you thought that was the reason why nothing was showing at Companies House. You are unhappy with Rovers choice of manager just as I am unhappy with the way Rovers run their business but in discussing these matters there is no need to lose self control. Not sure where this "calm down" and "lose self control" nonsense is coming from. There's nothing distressed or out of control about anything I've posted. Yet more paranoid delusions from you. You were the one claiming that Rovers had "lost" £24m because you'd added up the p&l reserve figures when posting about the "debt". You were the one talking about control of Dwayne and saying you'd checked Companies House. You were the one telling people Wael was siphoning club money to pay for a personally owned asset when the training ground was being paid for. You were the one telling people the debt wasn't capitalised when you knew perfectly well the constitution needed changing in order to issue the shares. And now you are the one trying to tell people that Wael needs to be putting cash into Rovers bank in order to forgive a debt. The difference between us is I don't have to lie to make Joey Barton look bad.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2021 20:06:33 GMT
Shrewsbury's total staff costs were £ 4,279,638 And their numbers were. Players 46 Admin 35 Other 39 Stewards/Security 47 Total 167 Interesting, according to BP we have 228 staff vs Shrewsbury 164. Not surprising then our costs are higher, though difficult to be sure we are comparing apples to apples as they may have already contracted out elements like Retail. Even so 64 staff is a big difference... I think this may relate to bar and catering staff and in particular matchday stewarding, as sometimes clubs have them on the payroll (and thus counted) and sometimes outsourced (and not counted) I recall a question re this at an AGM many years ago, the staff numbers had appeared to shoot up and it was explained they certain areas had been brought back in house. Long time ago though and dont know our position nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by holmesgas1 on Jul 13, 2021 21:46:57 GMT
Interesting, according to BP we have 228 staff vs Shrewsbury 164. Not surprising then our costs are higher, though difficult to be sure we are comparing apples to apples as they may have already contracted out elements like Retail. Even so 64 staff is a big difference... I think this may relate to bar and catering staff and in particular matchday stewarding, as sometimes clubs have them on the payroll (and thus counted) and sometimes outsourced (and not counted) I recall a question re this at an AGM many years ago, the staff numbers had appeared to shoot up and it was explained they certain areas had been brought back in house. Long time ago though and dont know our position nowadays.
Many thanks, that may help explain.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 14, 2021 1:07:41 GMT
The social media comments saying “if he hasn’t got any money how has he paid off the debts ?” strongly suggests to me that many Gasheads thought the capitalisation was a cash transaction so I pointed out that it was a paper transaction. I never said the club was £24 million in debt that was Bristol Live who have repeated the same mistake today I never said the capitalisation wasn’t a de facto writing off of the loan you are thinking of someone else I said the capitalisation of the loan had not been done when the club said it had been done and the form SH01 lodged at Companies House proves I was right. I never claimed you could search Companies House for details of a Jersey registered company. At the time we were debating whether or not the Dwane Sports loan capitalisation had actually taken place I recall you suggesting Dwane Sports were issuing capital to themselves, which would show in the Jersey Companies Registry, and you thought that was the reason why nothing was showing at Companies House. You are unhappy with Rovers choice of manager just as I am unhappy with the way Rovers run their business but in discussing these matters there is no need to lose self control. Not sure where this "calm down" and "lose self control" nonsense is coming from. There's nothing distressed or out of control about anything I've posted. Yet more paranoid delusions from you. Falsely describing someone as mentally unwell, a criminal and a liar doesn't suggest calmness and self control You were the one claiming that Rovers had "lost" £24m because you'd added up the p&l reserve figures when posting about the "debt". No I wasn'tYou were the one talking about control of Dwayne and saying you'd checked Companies House. No I wasn'tYou were the one telling people Wael was siphoning club money to pay for a personally owned asset when the training ground was being paid for. No I wasn'tYou were the one telling people the debt wasn't capitalised when you knew perfectly well the constitution needed changing in order to issue the shares. At the time the BRFC 1883 Ltd debt wasn't capitalised but the club wrongly announced that it was.And now you are the one trying to tell people that Wael needs to be putting cash into Rovers bank in order to forgive a debt. No I'm notThe difference between us is I don't have to lie to make Joey Barton look bad. Why would you want to make Rovers manager look bad ? Do you have a hidden agenda ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2021 9:18:25 GMT
The social media comments saying “if he hasn’t got any money how has he paid off the debts ?” strongly suggests to me that many Gasheads thought the capitalisation was a cash transaction so I pointed out that it was a paper transaction. I never said the club was £24 million in debt that was Bristol Live who have repeated the same mistake today I never said the capitalisation wasn’t a de facto writing off of the loan you are thinking of someone else I said the capitalisation of the loan had not been done when the club said it had been done and the form SH01 lodged at Companies House proves I was right. I never claimed you could search Companies House for details of a Jersey registered company. At the time we were debating whether or not the Dwane Sports loan capitalisation had actually taken place I recall you suggesting Dwane Sports were issuing capital to themselves, which would show in the Jersey Companies Registry, and you thought that was the reason why nothing was showing at Companies House. You are unhappy with Rovers choice of manager just as I am unhappy with the way Rovers run their business but in discussing these matters there is no need to lose self control. Not sure where this "calm down" and "lose self control" nonsense is coming from. There's nothing distressed or out of control about anything I've posted. Yet more paranoid delusions from you. You were the one claiming that Rovers had "lost" £24m because you'd added up the p&l reserve figures when posting about the "debt". You were the one talking about control of Dwayne and saying you'd checked Companies House. You were the one telling people Wael was siphoning club money to pay for a personally owned asset when the training ground was being paid for. You were the one telling people the debt wasn't capitalised when you knew perfectly well the constitution needed changing in order to issue the shares. And now you are the one trying to tell people that Wael needs to be putting cash into Rovers bank in order to forgive a debt. The difference between us is I don't have to lie to make Joey Barton look bad. Sorry to interrupt your little lovers' tiff. Am trying to follow it, and it's quite interesting, but it would be better if, rather than just accusing Swiss of having said things you could find his posts and quote them, that will back him right in to a corner. Thanks.
|
|
bondigas
Joined: December 2017
Posts: 393
|
Post by bondigas on Jul 14, 2021 10:23:29 GMT
Well having read both very,very abbreviated sets of accounts I see that Hani Al Qadi has certainly supported the club as a going concern until June 30th 2021. So the family have had some influence over the running of the club for the past year irrespective of what Wael claimed. Then I read that Kieran Maguire puts right his early lunge in the Bristol Post at interpreting the Bristol Rovers Ltd accounts by calling it a step in the right direction by changing his mind later in the day having read Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd accounts by telling us the club is losing £50,000 a week. However you want to cut the cake, there is a £23 million liability hanging over the club in what ever disguise you want to attach to it which already, we have been told, will increase by several million pounds year end June 2021 due to the pandemic. It looks as if a massive gamble is taking place and the club is the stake, I'll be very surprised if it comes off.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 14, 2021 14:41:21 GMT
Well having read both very,very abbreviated sets of accounts I see that Hani Al Qadi has certainly supported the club as a going concern until June 30th 2021. So the family have had some influence over the running of the club for the past year irrespective of what Wael claimed. Then I read that Kieran Maguire puts right his early lunge in the Bristol Post at interpreting the Bristol Rovers Ltd accounts by calling it a step in the right direction by changing his mind later in the day having read Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd accounts by telling us the club is losing £50,000 a week. However you want to cut the cake, there is a £23 million liability hanging over the club in what ever disguise you want to attach to it which already, we have been told, will increase by several million pounds year end June 2021 due to the pandemic. It looks as if a massive gamble is taking place and the club is the stake, I'll be very surprised if it comes off. There is a 23m liability in these set of accounts, but as the notes to the accounts say 18m was capitalised after the accounting period, so the liability will be significantly reduced. The next set of 'Covid' accounts will be more interesting given the Ben Garner recruitment and the obvious reduction in revenues
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Jul 14, 2021 16:41:06 GMT
Well having read both very,very abbreviated sets of accounts I see that Hani Al Qadi has certainly supported the club as a going concern until June 30th 2021. So the family have had some influence over the running of the club for the past year irrespective of what Wael claimed. Then I read that Kieran Maguire puts right his early lunge in the Bristol Post at interpreting the Bristol Rovers Ltd accounts by calling it a step in the right direction by changing his mind later in the day having read Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd accounts by telling us the club is losing £50,000 a week. However you want to cut the cake, there is a £23 million liability hanging over the club in what ever disguise you want to attach to it which already, we have been told, will increase by several million pounds year end June 2021 due to the pandemic. It looks as if a massive gamble is taking place and the club is the stake, I'll be very surprised if it comes off. There is a 23m liability in these set of accounts, but as the notes to the accounts say 18m was capitalised after the accounting period, so the liability will be significantly reduced. The next set of 'Covid' accounts will be more interesting given the Ben Garner recruitment and the obvious reduction in revenues I doubt they'll be anymore interesting as they'll just show we've lost £3m+, it seems Wael's content for the club to suffer such losses as otherwise he would have gone for a cheaper option than Barton.
|
|
|
Post by Bamber Gashead on Jul 14, 2021 20:57:12 GMT
There is a 23m liability in these set of accounts, but as the notes to the accounts say 18m was capitalised after the accounting period, so the liability will be significantly reduced. The next set of 'Covid' accounts will be more interesting given the Ben Garner recruitment and the obvious reduction in revenues I doubt they'll be anymore interesting as they'll just show we've lost £3m+, it seems Wael's content for the club to suffer such losses as otherwise he would have gone for a cheaper option than Barton. Hang on, are we actually paying Barton...?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2021 21:50:23 GMT
Well having read both very,very abbreviated sets of accounts I see that Hani Al Qadi has certainly supported the club as a going concern until June 30th 2021. So the family have had some influence over the running of the club for the past year irrespective of what Wael claimed. Then I read that Kieran Maguire puts right his early lunge in the Bristol Post at interpreting the Bristol Rovers Ltd accounts by calling it a step in the right direction by changing his mind later in the day having read Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd accounts by telling us the club is losing £50,000 a week. However you want to cut the cake, there is a £23 million liability hanging over the club in what ever disguise you want to attach to it which already, we have been told, will increase by several million pounds year end June 2021 due to the pandemic. It looks as if a massive gamble is taking place and the club is the stake, I'll be very surprised if it comes off. Reading this post, it seems that some people are in a form of denial regarding WAQ's capitalisation and believe we are £23m in debt.
Even if its in black & white as a note in the accounts as per Peter Parkers post.
Strange.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2021 23:19:58 GMT
Well having read both very,very abbreviated sets of accounts I see that Hani Al Qadi has certainly supported the club as a going concern until June 30th 2021. So the family have had some influence over the running of the club for the past year irrespective of what Wael claimed. Then I read that Kieran Maguire puts right his early lunge in the Bristol Post at interpreting the Bristol Rovers Ltd accounts by calling it a step in the right direction by changing his mind later in the day having read Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd accounts by telling us the club is losing £50,000 a week. However you want to cut the cake, there is a £23 million liability hanging over the club in what ever disguise you want to attach to it which already, we have been told, will increase by several million pounds year end June 2021 due to the pandemic. It looks as if a massive gamble is taking place and the club is the stake, I'll be very surprised if it comes off. Reading this post, it seems that some people are in a form of denial regarding WAQ's capitalisation and believe we are £23m in debt.
Even if its in black & white as a note in the accounts as per Peter Parkers post.
Strange.
Oh, that's fine then, we'll ignore that big icebergy thing, pop the deck chairs over here, get comfy and listen to that nice band.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,502
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 15, 2021 8:49:45 GMT
Reading this post, it seems that some people are in a form of denial regarding WAQ's capitalisation and believe we are £23m in debt.
Even if its in black & white as a note in the accounts as per Peter Parkers post.
Strange.
Oh, that's fine then, we'll ignore that big icebergy thing, pop the deck chairs over here, get comfy and listen to that nice band. I've said some mean things about Wael in the past. However I think he is a decent man who wants to do the best for our Club. I presume the size of the debt now outweighs the equity in the Memorial Stadium (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). If this is true then the Al-Qadi family (mostly Wael) must personally be losing £50,000 per week to keep the Club afloat. Sami and Hani must also be suffering smaller losses. Year on year accounts show that the weekly losses are slowly coming down. What credible plan is there for Wael to ever get this money back? What is the medium/long term strategy for the business to ever return a profit? There would not appear to be one. I just don't get it. Wael is throwing money into a big pit. On the one hand, if he didn't do this, we would be out of business. So I can understand people saying "well done Wael". On the other hand the annual losses Dwane Sports are racking up are a direct result of senior (mis) management. I don't see competence at the top level to get Wael Al-Qadi out of this financial nightmare. He needs better help and advice at Board level. I don't want to see him fail. He fails, Bristol Rovers ultimately fails. Hey ho. Not my problem. And the band played on.
|
|