|
Post by pucklegas on Aug 5, 2017 20:40:40 GMT
Saw him in directors box, anyone speak to him?
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Aug 6, 2017 7:10:26 GMT
I think 1883 Ltd own the stadium, and DS own 1883 Ltd. Anyway, that's not the point... Point is, why not inject cash into the club rather than loan it? They are not showing any willingness to risk their money. It seems anything they've put in is secured. They can walk away without losing at any point. The club needs proper investement, not just pushing what we have to the limit. From a finance perspective, if they lend the money, they can both charge interest on it and when cashflow allows remove it. If they invest it, they have to take dividends on which tax is possibly payable. The concern would come when they couldn't / wouldn't fund the interest or capital payments on the borrowings. I'd hope that we would be borrowing at reasonable interest rates.... certainly not the Wonga type rates being quoted shortly before the club was sold. We also don't know if they've given additional guarantees in case the memorial ground wouldn't cover the debt I'm not sure I fully understand your explanation, but why do they need to secure the by placing a charge on the mem?
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Aug 6, 2017 7:30:07 GMT
From a finance perspective, if they lend the money, they can both charge interest on it and when cashflow allows remove it. If they invest it, they have to take dividends on which tax is possibly payable. The concern would come when they couldn't / wouldn't fund the interest or capital payments on the borrowings. I'd hope that we would be borrowing at reasonable interest rates.... certainly not the Wonga type rates being quoted shortly before the club was sold. We also don't know if they've given additional guarantees in case the memorial ground wouldn't cover the debt I'm not sure I fully understand your explanation, but why do they need to secure the by placing a charge on the mem? there is a good reason for placing a charge on the asset which any lender would recognise and is more than just about securing their money and I guess recent history under the previous directors could have guided DS thinking.
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Aug 6, 2017 7:58:09 GMT
I'm not sure I fully understand your explanation, but why do they need to secure the by placing a charge on the mem? there is a good reason for placing a charge on the asset which any lender would recognise and is more than just about securing their money and I guess recent history under the previous directors could have guided DS thinking. When I first heard about the charge, I assumed it was somehow raising money to start the UWE build. As soon as the news that UWE wasn't happening broke, I was angry. Not really because the stadium dream was over, but because I could no longer see why this charge was placed. It is my opinion that the AQs have not put any money into the club that they haven't secured. I appreciate you and others trying to give legitimate reasons for the charge, but I just don't get it. Until I see some real, tangible investement - I guess I'm talking about the training ground now - I am taking an extremely scepitcal view of our owners.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2017 8:08:48 GMT
there is a good reason for placing a charge on the asset which any lender would recognise and is more than just about securing their money and I guess recent history under the previous directors could have guided DS thinking. When I first heard about the charge, I assumed it was somehow raising money to start the UWE build. As soon as the news that UWE wasn't happening broke, I was angry. Not really because the stadium dream was over, but because I could no longer see why this charge was placed. It is my opinion that the AQs have not put any money into the club that they haven't secured. I appreciate you and others trying to give legitimate reasons for the charge, but I just don't get it. Until I see some real, tangible investement - I guess I'm talking about the training ground now - I am taking an extremely scepitcal view of our owners. Can see exactly where you are coming from. Good post in my opinion. I too await tangible evidence. ie. Training ground build commenced and a plan B for our promised new stadium which our owners have said we definately need.
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Aug 6, 2017 8:11:08 GMT
there is a good reason for placing a charge on the asset which any lender would recognise and is more than just about securing their money and I guess recent history under the previous directors could have guided DS thinking. When I first heard about the charge, I assumed it was somehow raising money to start the UWE build. As soon as the news that UWE wasn't happening broke, I was angry. Not really because the stadium dream was over, but because I could no longer see why this charge was placed. It is my opinion that the AQs have not put any money into the club that they haven't secured. I appreciate you and others trying to give legitimate reasons for the charge, but I just don't get it. Until I see some real, tangible investement - I guess I'm talking about the training ground now - I am taking an extremely scepitcal view of our owners. It is all about being in control of the situation - which the old Board were not when they wanted to sell the Club! A third party held the cards
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 6, 2017 8:54:25 GMT
So are you suggesting the rumors about the ALQ's looking to sell are true? TBH that might not be a bad thing as apart from stability we now seem to be going nowhere.
I guess the prospectus looks good, mid table Div 1 side with a good fan base, young manager tied down to a long term contract, full Academy squad set up, training ground to develop. Stadium plans in place but HoT still to be agreed
Just need a gullible foreign investor with £50/100m to spend now.
|
|