Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 16:02:15 GMT
"the other could buy their share for 10.000 so didn't get it on the cheap" How can getting half the ground worth £5.2m for £10K not getting it on the cheap, am I missing something? Basically it seems we paid £2.7m to Bristol RFC for a ground worth £5.2m when we bought it and now worth £10m/15m. Topper. The two clubs paid £2.6m to buy it from the shareholders of the then Rugby Club. The clubs struggled to get it valued as a "Stadium" for much more than that for years after. Do not confuse the value of it as as stadium with the value of it as a development site. They are two separate entities when you are trying to raise capital from the assset.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 16:04:04 GMT
Unless my memory is a bit cloudy, and it frequently is nowadays.......but didn't Barclays 'call in' the mortgage loan, and didn't the Board have to find alternative finance from somewhere else? [b No that was a different loan.the mortgage was a certain figure for a set number of years and as long as payments were made on time couldn't be called in. I think this is where the confusion has arisen the investors put money up to cover the loan not the mortgage Wrong again Padstow. Barclays refused to extend the term of the mortgage which was the same mortgage used to purchase the stadium.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 16:15:12 GMT
[b No that was a different loan.the mortgage was a certain figure for a set number of years and as long as payments were made on time couldn't be called in. I think this is where the confusion has arisen the investors put money up to cover the loan not the mortgage Wrong again Padstow. Barclays refused to extend the term of the mortgage which was the same mortgage used to purchase the stadium. It was a 25 year mortgage and the investors were involved 10 years before the mortgage was due to finish.it is illegal to foreclose on a mortgage if payments are made regularly on time
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 16:21:51 GMT
Wrong again Padstow. Barclays refused to extend the term of the mortgage which was the same mortgage used to purchase the stadium. It was a 25 year mortgage and the investors were involved 10 years before the mortgage was due to finish.it is illegal to foreclose on a mortgage if payments are made regularly on time It was not a 25 year mortgage, and the club didn't keep to the repayments as per the agreement. For most of the term they paid interest only in agreement with Barclays.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 16:33:25 GMT
It was a 25 year mortgage and the investors were involved 10 years before the mortgage was due to finish.it is illegal to foreclose on a mortgage if payments are made regularly on time It was not a 25 year mortgage, and the club didn't keep to the repayments as per the agreement. For most of the term they paid interest only in agreement with Barclays. [ Not the story I been told but obviously you either work for Barclays are one of the investors or making it up. If it is the first youare breaking confidentiality laws regarding banking. My feeling is you still have an agenda against previous administrations at the club
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 16:47:14 GMT
It was not a 25 year mortgage, and the club didn't keep to the repayments as per the agreement. For most of the term they paid interest only in agreement with Barclays. [ Not the story I been told but obviously you either work for Barclays are one of the investors or making it up. If it is the first youare breaking confidentiality laws regarding banking. My feeling is you still have an agenda against previous administrations at the club Not at all, just trying to prevent you from quoting things which aren't quite true although with good intent. It's all history so no agendas here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 16:52:45 GMT
[ Not the story I been told but obviously you either work for Barclays are one of the investors or making it up. If it is the first youare breaking confidentiality laws regarding banking. My feeling is you still have an agenda against previous administrations at the club Not at all, just trying to prevent you from quoting things which aren't quite true although with good intent. It's all history so no agendas here. Better speak to ex chairman and tell him he is wrong
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 17:16:03 GMT
Not at all, just trying to prevent you from quoting things which aren't quite true although with good intent. It's all history so no agendas here. Better speak to ex chairman and tell him he is wrong More like you misunderstood. The figures are all in the accounts for all to see. I won't disturb the ex chairman you refer too I understand he's not too well.
|
|
|
Post by 1883kinhswoodgas on Aug 29, 2017 17:19:42 GMT
Not at all, just trying to prevent you from quoting things which aren't quite true although with good intent. It's all history so no agendas here. Better speak to ex chairman and tell him he is wrong Wouldn't be like the previous chairmen to be lying to us would it
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 29, 2017 17:21:21 GMT
"the other could buy their share for 10.000 so didn't get it on the cheap" How can getting half the ground worth £5.2m for £10K not getting it on the cheap, am I missing something? Basically it seems we paid £2.7m to Bristol RFC for a ground worth £5.2m when we bought it and now worth £10m/15m. Topper. The two clubs paid £2.6m to buy it from the shareholders of the then Rugby Club. The clubs struggled to get it valued as a "Stadium" for much more than that for years after. Do not confuse the value of it as as stadium with the value of it as a development site. They are two separate entities when you are trying to raise capital from the assset. Where's the two club's bit come from I thought to paid £2m to buy a 50% share and Bristol RFU kept their 50% share, then 6 months later they went bust meaning we got their 50% share for a bargain £10,000, so we got a ground worth £4m for £2.1m. Amtrak at one stage rumoured to be prepared to pay £1m for the 50% share. As far as the Barclays mortgage (or was it just a business loan with the Mem as security?)I agreed the bank called that in so NH had to revert to the MSP wonga loan, that's common knowledge so not sure why Padstow's going off on one about client confidentiality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 17:30:19 GMT
Topper. The two clubs paid £2.6m to buy it from the shareholders of the then Rugby Club. The clubs struggled to get it valued as a "Stadium" for much more than that for years after. Do not confuse the value of it as as stadium with the value of it as a development site. They are two separate entities when you are trying to raise capital from the assset. Where's the two club's bit come from I thought to paid £2m to buy a 50% share and Bristol RFU kept their 50% share, then 6 months later they went bust meaning we got their 50% share for a bargain £10,000, so we got a ground worth £4m for £2.1m. Amtrak at one stage rumoured to be prepared to pay £1m for the 50% share. As far as the Barclays mortgage (or was it just a business loan with the Mem as security?)I agreed the bank called that in so NH had to revert to the MSP wonga loan, that's common knowledge so not sure why Padstow's going off on one about client confidentiality. The owner Arthur Holmes wanted his money back and agreed a £2.6m price with Amtrak who wanted it for their pension fund. A very astute local busineman suggested that the club should buy it along with the new owners of the rugby club for £2.6m which Arthur Holmes received. A company was formed called the Memorial Company Limited who secured the loan from the bank and the preferential shareholders. The shares were split 50/50 between the two and the bank insisted on a clause that if one party went bust then the other party had to take on the debt of the stadium in its entirety and obviously ownership came with it. The fee for the exchange was £10k.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 17:33:03 GMT
Better speak to ex chairman and tell him he is wrong Wouldn't be like the previous chairmen to be lying to us would it No, he wasn't around when the ground was purchased.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 18:13:53 GMT
Where's the two club's bit come from I thought to paid £2m to buy a 50% share and Bristol RFU kept their 50% share, then 6 months later they went bust meaning we got their 50% share for a bargain £10,000, so we got a ground worth £4m for £2.1m. Amtrak at one stage rumoured to be prepared to pay £1m for the 50% share. As far as the Barclays mortgage (or was it just a business loan with the Mem as security?)I agreed the bank called that in so NH had to revert to the MSP wonga loan, that's common knowledge so not sure why Padstow's going off on one about client confidentiality. The owner Arthur Holmes wanted his money back and agreed a £2.6m price with Amtrak who wanted it for their pension fund. A very astute local busineman suggested that the club should buy it along with the new owners of the rugby club for £2.6m which Arthur Holmes received. A company was formed called the Memorial Company Limited who secured the loan from the bank and the preferential shareholders. The shares were split 50/50 between the two and the bank insisted on a clause that if one party went bust then the other party had to take on the debt of the stadium in its entirety and obviously ownership came with it. The fee for the exchange was £10k. No. This is completely wrong. Bristol rovers just stole it from the rugby club. I read it on OTIB and they is always rite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 18:24:53 GMT
Obviously it must be true and a previous chairman was lying Fine you are right but where is the 10 million debt hidden when it is never shown anywhere. This highest debt I have seen recorded I'd 6 million and the won gas loan was only taken out to help the case against sainsbury
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Aug 29, 2017 23:31:19 GMT
Obviously it must be true and a previous chairman was lying Fine you are right but where is the 10 million debt hidden when it is never shown anywhere. This highest debt I have seen recorded I'd 6 million and the won gas loan was only taken out to help the case against sainsbury TBF there's probably some truth on both sides here. I'm pretty sure the Barclays mortgage had reduced to around £900K by the time MSP became involved. All other debt was "internal". The club needed cash and, as times had changed in the banking world, Barclays weren't interested in lending more. MSP wanted a first charge over the Mem so the original mortgage had to be repaid from the new loan - at a much higher rate of interest. Not great business from the board of the time but I suspect the need was quite urgent and the options were limited.
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 18,734
|
Post by pirate on Sept 4, 2017 12:32:30 GMT
Do you actually know what a conspiracy theory is, as there isn't one here, as either Companies House records are out of date or DS don't own The Colony as we're led to believe. I think the Companies House records must be out of date, or at least I hope so, because according to the website our next 'confirmation statement' was due by 15 August 2017 and there is no record of that on there at the moment. And as the site says: "Your company must deliver a confirmation statement to us at least once a year, even if the company is dormant. If you don’t do this, there could be serious consequences. The registrar might assume your company isn’t carrying on business or in operation and take steps to strike it from the register. If the registrar strikes a company off the register, it ceases to exist and its assets become Crown property." Worryingly it now says in red with an exclamation mark 'Confirmation Statement Overdue', which wasn't there last time I looked. So perhaps Companies House records are updated after all. Hopefully there is a simple explanation... beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04501223
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Sept 4, 2017 12:58:12 GMT
I think the Companies House records must be out of date, or at least I hope so, because according to the website our next 'confirmation statement' was due by 15 August 2017 and there is no record of that on there at the moment. And as the site says: "Your company must deliver a confirmation statement to us at least once a year, even if the company is dormant. If you don’t do this, there could be serious consequences. The registrar might assume your company isn’t carrying on business or in operation and take steps to strike it from the register. If the registrar strikes a company off the register, it ceases to exist and its assets become Crown property." Worryingly it now says in red with an exclamation mark 'Confirmation Statement Overdue', which wasn't there last time I looked. So perhaps Companies House records are updated after all. Hopefully there is a simple explanation... beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04501223oh dear, fine heading our way
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 4, 2017 13:07:51 GMT
There's no fine applicable for filing a CS late, although this is the type of thing you'd expect from TW not the new owners CE, assuming Brookefield is still on the pay roll?
|
|
|
Post by gashead1949 on Sept 4, 2017 17:00:42 GMT
Where's the two club's bit come from I thought to paid £2m to buy a 50% share and Bristol RFU kept their 50% share, then 6 months later they went bust meaning we got their 50% share for a bargain £10,000, so we got a ground worth £4m for £2.1m. Amtrak at one stage rumoured to be prepared to pay £1m for the 50% share. As far as the Barclays mortgage (or was it just a business loan with the Mem as security?)I agreed the bank called that in so NH had to revert to the MSP wonga loan, that's common knowledge so not sure why Padstow's going off on one about client confidentiality. The owner Arthur Holmes wanted his money back and agreed a £2.6m price with Amtrak who wanted it for their pension fund. A very astute local busineman suggested that the club should buy it along with the new owners of the rugby club for £2.6m which Arthur Holmes received. A company was formed called the Memorial Company Limited who secured the loan from the bank and the preferential shareholders. The shares were split 50/50 between the two and the bank insisted on a clause that if one party went bust then the other party had to take on the debt of the stadium in its entirety and obviously ownership came with it. The fee for the exchange was £10k.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2017 11:53:12 GMT
I see that Huddersfield are shutting down their Academy. They reckon it's not worth the money, especially with the bigger clubs hoovering up all the young talent, and then loaning them out.
|
|