|
Post by LJG on Nov 5, 2017 15:02:44 GMT
How so? If you spend the money you borrow on ... hmmm ... let's say running a football club, you don't have that cash anymore - it's gone into the pocket of your players and backroom staff for them to spend on X-Box and trainers. You don't magic up money by borrowing. Cash of 200 less purchase price equals cash of zero and asset equity of 200. Debt of 200 equals cash of 200 and asset equity of zero. Cash of 200 spent on football club fun equals cash of zero and equity of zero. What's missing? The fact that the asset (in our case) securing the spending still greatly outweighs our total debt. Again - that still hasn't taken account of the purchase price of the asset which is exactly my point. No wait ... don't tell me ... they didn't pay a purchase price. Right? Something like that? It's all an elaborate trick? The MSP loan was never repaid and Hani keeps it in a jar on his desk along with all the red letters that MSP send him every month. Right?
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 5, 2017 15:03:00 GMT
Just catching up on some of this........... .....and this ladies and gentlemen is the reason why supporters should never be let anywhere near the boardroom! But I pay my money every other week and I demand answers.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Nov 5, 2017 15:05:35 GMT
Think about what you've written here and explain how there's no investment risk in it. You've pretty succinctly described in this post why your assertion is plainly wrong even to the mathematically challenged. As I'm fick, can you state why my explanation is wrong? The statement says that two loans (mortgage and loan each of £200k) is secured on a property valued at £ 200k. I think there is a slight risk there don't you? So I repeat, who would lend in that scenario? With us the assets still still far outweigh the liabilities, so no risk. 1. No lender will lend more than the equity value of the asset. 2. If you agree there is a risk then why do you keep claiming there isn't? 3. You keep talking about the equity value currently outweighing the debt. So what? They still had to pay to own the asset to raise the debt against it in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Nov 5, 2017 15:09:11 GMT
The only possible reason for buying Gillingham would be to put houses on it. It is surrounded by housing, so nowt else would probably fit on it to enhance the club. Does that now make you wonder why they bought us? Our site is bigger. Your claims just get more and more bizarre. You're saying their business model is "buy football clubs and turn their grounds into development plots"? Again, surely you must see that that is a ridiculous claim. Why would anyone take on the massive time cost and equity outlay of buying a football club, running it for a bit (at a loss) and winding it up just for the tiny landstock of 1 x football field that it contains. I never said they would put the club to the sword. I just said the only thing you could do with Gillingham would be to put houses on it. Have you ever been there? I don't know what their position is with regard to another site, But for it to be worth taking over, they would only make a profit if they could move them to an out of town site. Not that Scally would have let them. With us, the possibilities stared them in the face. A ground worth far more than they had to pay to get it, and a site with planning already granted down the road. Im not an investment banker, but even I can see why we were a good risk to take over.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Nov 5, 2017 15:12:45 GMT
Your claims just get more and more bizarre. You're saying their business model is "buy football clubs and turn their grounds into development plots"? Again, surely you must see that that is a ridiculous claim. Why would anyone take on the massive time cost and equity outlay of buying a football club, running it for a bit (at a loss) and winding it up just for the tiny landstock of 1 x football field that it contains. I never said they would put the club to the sword. I just said the only thing you could do with Gillingham would be to put houses on it. Have you ever been there? I don't know what their position is with regard to another site, But for it to be worth taking over, they would only make a profit if they could move them to an out of town site. Not that Scally would have let them. With us, the possibilities stared them in the face. A ground worth far more than they had to pay to get it, and a site with planning already granted down the road. Im not an investment banker, but even I can see why we were a good risk to take over. But whether or not you believe they would have wound Gillingham up your basic assertion is still "buy football clubs for land". That's still idiotic.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Nov 5, 2017 15:14:17 GMT
As I'm fick, can you state why my explanation is wrong? The statement says that two loans (mortgage and loan each of £200k) is secured on a property valued at £ 200k. I think there is a slight risk there don't you? So I repeat, who would lend in that scenario? With us the assets still still far outweigh the liabilities, so no risk. 1. No lender will lend more than the equity value of the asset. 2. If you agree there is a risk then why do you keep claiming there isn't? 3. You keep talking about the equity value currently outweighing the debt. So what? They still had to pay to own the asset to raise the debt against it in the first place. Are you feeling ok? You are now stating what I said at the outset. Nobody will lend against an asset with no equity in it. With us, there is still a large element of equity in it so we are a good risk CURRENTLY. You seem to be mixing the scenario about the £200k house and us. The house is not viable WE ARE for the time being.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 15:20:24 GMT
Learn to read and refrain from calling me an idiot as I didn't say they owned it outright! The have a significant stake in the bank they founded and so are part owners! Investors put savings into the bank and as the family run the bank and is the chief executive who has outright accountability to approve commercial loans they don't have to go to the rest of the shareholders to approve the loan! Do you think the public is consulted on anything RBS etc did when we (the government using tax payers money bailed them out? Does Nationwide consult it's millions of members for approval on every loan, mortgage or commercial loan it makes (it's a mutual so the entire membership owns it!).... No!! It's called delegated decision making authority from the board! I know more about hedge funds and retail banking and financial services than you seem to think and just cos I don't agree with your viewpoint does not make me an idiot or fool! Think you need to take a hard look in the mirror my friend I did read and you clearly said 'their own bank' idiot What mental age are you? Of course they are owners as they own a 30% stake! They are not sole owners but have the decision making roles within the bank and in the English language it is still their bank as the own a part of it! So again they can control the decisions as they make them and have the influence. Care to come out from behind the keyboard and call me an idiot to my face? And the term own can mean either something you possess or in figurative of speech something you have use of. I don't own my car (my company does as it's a company asset) but I use my own car (the one owned by the company ) to travel - when people say how are you getting to the game I say I'll use my own car. I don't say I'll use the car owned by company
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Nov 5, 2017 15:22:18 GMT
I never said they would put the club to the sword. I just said the only thing you could do with Gillingham would be to put houses on it. Have you ever been there? I don't know what their position is with regard to another site, But for it to be worth taking over, they would only make a profit if they could move them to an out of town site. Not that Scally would have let them. With us, the possibilities stared them in the face. A ground worth far more than they had to pay to get it, and a site with planning already granted down the road. Im not an investment banker, but even I can see why we were a good risk to take over. But whether or not you believe they would have wound Gillingham up your basic assertion is still "buy football clubs for land". That's still idiotic. No I didn't. I just said I didn't know if there was an alternative site for the Gillingham club. I said nothing about buying them to just put houses on them. I stated clearly that you couldn't do anything else at Gillingham to make it a viable risk other than put housing on it assuming there was somewhere to move the club. As I don't know if that is a possibility as I know nowt about Gillingham, or care for that matter, I assume the AQs realised it was a poor prospect and looked at us. They said at the the outset that the Mem was a no goer, but it didn't matter as we were going to the UWE. As the situation is now, they would never have got involved from a football point of view. But we would still be a good bet to redevelop the site for housing. That's what worries me, and if our debts keep mounting as they are, there is only one way for them to get their money back. And don't think it doesn't happen. Remember Brighton?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Nov 5, 2017 15:35:27 GMT
1. No lender will lend more than the equity value of the asset. 2. If you agree there is a risk then why do you keep claiming there isn't? 3. You keep talking about the equity value currently outweighing the debt. So what? They still had to pay to own the asset to raise the debt against it in the first place. Are you feeling ok? You are now stating what I said at the outset. Nobody will lend against an asset with no equity in it. With us, there is still a large element of equity in it so we are a good risk CURRENTLY. You seem to be mixing the scenario about the £200k house and us. The house is not viable WE ARE for the time being. I'm feeling fine. You said: Come on Hugo, I've stopped laughing now. Who would lend £200,000 on a £200,000 house with a mortgage of (you guessed it) £200,000 outstanding on it ? An investment banker maybe from the Middle East? You also said: Believe me I'm worried about the charge against the Mem and I'm worried that the Mem was touted as unsustainable but now suddenly is OK for us to stay and re-develop. However I'm not going to get all hysterical until I see what happens with the training ground and Mem plans. As far as I can tell (albeit with poor communication from the club) is: - The training ground is going through the planning stage - The community is being consulted about the Mem plans and that they are (so far) largely happy Why would the ALQs go through this and all the backroom appointments if they are looking to get out? Because it doesn't cost anything. You seem so intent on saying anything to push your poisonous narrative that you're quite clearly confusing yourself. Even if there is £1 of debt that is £1 more spent above the price paid for the club. So Because it doesn't cost anything. is clearly wrong. As for the Gillingham stuff all you're doing is saying over and over and over that their intentions in buying a football club is not to own a football club - you haven't offered any evidence or even any reasoning why that would be the case.
|
|
|
Post by You can call me Al. on Nov 5, 2017 15:36:08 GMT
On the face of it this boils down to who you believe/have the utmost faith in, and to be fair as such no-one is right or wrong in this.
There is so much we don't know and will never know to do with a club/organisation we all support and care about.
As for foreign businessmen investing in football clubs, in fairness there haven't been many who have deliberately asset stripped for a quick buck. However, i must say in my opinion quite a few have bought clubs and have quickly found out they haven't got a clue how to take a club forward or found it an impossible task even if their original intentions were bona fide. Many of which have ended in bad feeling with supporters and the clubs being worse off.
No supporter is wrong in their opinion it just depends on the individuals gut feeling.
Enjoy your Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Nov 5, 2017 15:51:24 GMT
But whether or not you believe they would have wound Gillingham up your basic assertion is still "buy football clubs for land". That's still idiotic. Why do you continue to say what my basic assertion is? I stated quite clearly that the only thing you could do with Gillingham would be to put houses on it. Its not a big enough site to do anything else with. I'm suggesting the AQs probably realised they could not develop the club so looked elsewhere. With us, it was all in place. A new site and sell off the Mem for housing. That was my assertion, not one you are creating for whatever reason.
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on Nov 5, 2017 15:57:41 GMT
If there was as much fight to defend corners as the in fighting on here, then we would keep clean sheets every week! Right who wants to be the defensive coach?
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Nov 5, 2017 16:06:57 GMT
As for my comment about it costing nothing LJG, you are being pedantic, or genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. We both know there is a cost to just about everything. There is consent in place to begin the training ground, but nothing is happening. Reason? Cost. But the preplanning that is currently supposed to be under way costs very little. As for consultation with the locals re the Mem, again very little.
As usual, the evidence is there. All we get are platitudes about things that cost very little. But early stages of the training ground would cost, and yet nothing is happening. As I said before, the club makes mention of a food tasting and the forum forgets we've just had our best ever chance of a new stadium taken away.
You really couldn't make it up. As it stands we are being shafted not so much by dodgy dealing, but by nothing happening whilst being told that wonderful things are in the pipeline. They are keeping many of you on here happy whilst delivering nothing. Where have you all been for the last fifty years? How long before you wake up and realise that without a drastic change, this club will cease to exist. H &E have already warned about cuts in capacity over exit issues. How long before the general infrastructure of the stadium depreciates to a stage where we can no longer have more than 5 or 6000 in? But at least we will have good pies and hotdogs.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Nov 5, 2017 16:12:24 GMT
But whether or not you believe they would have wound Gillingham up your basic assertion is still "buy football clubs for land". That's still idiotic. Why do you continue to say what my basic assertion is? I stated quite clearly that the only thing you could do with Gillingham would be to put houses on it. Its not a big enough site to do anything else with. I'm suggesting the AQs probably realised they could not develop the club so looked elsewhere. With us, it was all in place. A new site and sell off the Mem for housing. That was my assertion, not one you are creating for whatever reason. Probably because I'm continually trying to wade through your reams of half thought out lies to understand it. They didn't buy Gillingham because all you could do with the land there is build houses on it so instead they bought us because they can use the Mem to ... errr ... build houses on. Right. Have you figured out how taking on debt doesn't cost anything yet?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 16:14:30 GMT
Good to see this being debated and here are a couple of things to ponder. It's fine to look on the bright side of life but our experience with Rovers under Nick Higgs should tell us that to do so blindly, and not accept what our instincts tell us, will result in a negative outcome. It's a fallacy to believe that rich and successful people don't make mistakes. They do make mistakes but the difference is they usually make sure someone else pays for them. Simply brilliant. 👏👏
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Nov 5, 2017 16:18:50 GMT
The simple answer is that investment bankers don't invest their own money, they invest other people's. That is why they call them investment bankers. Its obvious that they did due due diligence on the club but just accepted that UWE was a done deal. Then they found out that it wasn't, but by then had bought into the deal. To keep it simple, they have initial planning approval for the training ground, so could begin the work up there. Has it happened? No. Why? They don't have the funding for it. Hani and Co have pulled the plug. In your opinion of course In my opinion you are so wrong
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Nov 5, 2017 16:26:05 GMT
The very people who make money out of investments, want you to believe that they didn't make an investment because it wasn't a good investment? Blimey. The mind boggles. Are you genuinely trying to say that they bought the club in order to throw away about a million quid a year on it, while making excuses why they're not investing money in it, to hide the fact they're actually content to lose a million quid a year, coz they don't want to invest in anything that might actually make money in the future? Why would they do that? I don't think it's true because they say it is. I think it's true coz the alternative would make them idiots. No. They bought the club because the full UWE development would have been worth millions to investors. But they didn't check out the UWE first. Remember only a couple of days before the takeover was announced it was supposed to be an investment exercise only. Once the potential viability of the UWE site became obvious they decided on a takeover. Remember the taught face on Nick Higgs when he was forced to announce the takeover. He still wanted control, but was over a barrel. Time had run out on the loan, and he couldn't repay it. He had no choice but to agree it. Then came the problem at the UWE. The rest as they say is history. Hopefully our current owners will be soon, as they offer no hope at all. Only Wael has remained true to his word. Sadly he has no clout. Guess work again ?
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Nov 5, 2017 17:55:07 GMT
I did read and you clearly said 'their own bank' idiot What mental age are you? Of course they are owners as they own a 30% stake! They are not sole owners but have the decision making roles within the bank and in the English language it is still their bank as the own a part of it! So again they can control the decisions as they make them and have the influence. Care to come out from behind the keyboard and call me an idiot to my face? And the term own can mean either something you possess or in figurative of speech something you have use of. I don't own my car (my company does as it's a company asset) but I use my own car (the one owned by the company ) to travel - when people say how are you getting to the game I say I'll use my own car. I don't say I'll use the car owned by company Having read your well thought out analogy I can happily reveal that I'm the owner of 2 of the largest banks in the UK and will be arranging the finance for a new ground first thing Monday morning. The one fact we know about the Al Qs is that they don't own a bank in anyway or form. If one of them happens to be CEO or whatever that will not give him the right to right loans to himself at less than commercial rates. If you believe otherwise you may as well believe he has a money tree growing in his garden. No idea what you're company car has to do with the financing of a new ground or redevelopment. Other than you're embarrassed to admit it's not your car.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Nov 5, 2017 17:57:50 GMT
This £200K house.
I've looked on Rightmove and I can't find it anywhere, so Wael is definitely lying about something.
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Nov 5, 2017 18:04:47 GMT
This £200K house. I've looked on Rightmove and I can't find it anywhere, so Wael is definitely lying about something. 200k doesn’t get you a lot these days maybe only a two bed in a location with poor transport links and perhaps only on a leasehold. Show some ambition Wael!
|
|