|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 20, 2018 7:52:49 GMT
I don’t think the value of the loans currently exceed the value of the asset. So what, if they decide to bail out when the value of th assets exceeding the debt by £1.00, they'd get,er, £1.00. I reckon securing their debt against something they own is just some arcane tax beneficial move. Nothing more or less. It's not the sort of thing the average fan, operating on PAYE knows, or necssarily needs to know. Myself included. It's not some arcane tax beneficial move. It's a move to make them a secured creditor if the unfortunate outcome is administration thus putting them ahead of all the unsecured creditors when it comes to recovering debt. As Holmes says ignorance is bliss. As to humble pie I'd be very happy to eat it if its served in a shiny new or redeveloped ground generating revenue to the football club throughout the week.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Apr 20, 2018 8:21:44 GMT
So what, if they decide to bail out when the value of th assets exceeding the debt by £1.00, they'd get,er, £1.00. I reckon securing their debt against something they own is just some arcane tax beneficial move. Nothing more or less. It's not the sort of thing the average fan, operating on PAYE knows, or necssarily needs to know. Myself included. It's not some arcane tax beneficial move. It's a move to make them a secured creditor if the unfortunate outcome is administration thus putting them ahead of all the unsecured creditors when it comes to recovering debt. As Holmes says ignorance is bliss. As to humble pie I'd be very happy to eat it if its served in a shiny new or redeveloped ground generating revenue to the football club throughout the week. all very true, but as people are keen to tell us Hani is the big boss, doesn't like football, so no doubt he wouldn't care in just flogging The Mem for housing, and trousering the cash.
and he doesn't need a charge to do that does he.
also it doesn't mean if the Al-Qadi's leave they will call in all their money either as they could just do the above, but it does secures them the right to get a chunk of money if new owners sold us down the river
Ignorance may well be bliss, but ignorance of everything else is still ignorance
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2018 9:14:30 GMT
Thing is most if not all the championship clubs have good grounds with modern infrastructure but if you look club by club at their finances there losing money hand over fist and plenty of them are propped up by lansdown type owners. If we have a new ground etc we can generate more income but to compete at championship level would seemingly still require funds well above what the club will be able to bring in. Think of a championship club you think is a great model for sustainability then do some research on that club and discover the truth.
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Apr 20, 2018 9:22:42 GMT
It's great we have an u23 sides, obviously we were missing that. I don't know how many time it has to be said, but until a new stadium is delivered we are really just back to where to were 10 years ago with slightly wealthier owners. We must move into a better home, otherwise I fear we have hit the ceiling and will be nothing more than a mid table league 1 side at best. This is the cruxt of the matter, Singupgas has got it spot on. Without a new stadium that's all we'll ever be. So would you say Bristol City are not in a better stadium earning more money for them than they were two/three years ago? It can be done!
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Apr 20, 2018 10:18:13 GMT
This is the cruxt of the matter, Singupgas has got it spot on. Without a new stadium that's all we'll ever be. So would you say Bristol City are not in a better stadium earning more money for them than they were two/three years ago? It can be done! So who said that they were 99.9% confident that UWE would be built.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 20, 2018 10:22:43 GMT
It's not some arcane tax beneficial move. It's a move to make them a secured creditor if the unfortunate outcome is administration thus putting them ahead of all the unsecured creditors when it comes to recovering debt. As Holmes says ignorance is bliss. As to humble pie I'd be very happy to eat it if its served in a shiny new or redeveloped ground generating revenue to the football club throughout the week. all very true, but as people are keen to tell us Hani is the big boss, doesn't like football, so no doubt he wouldn't care in just flogging The Mem for housing, and trousering the cash.
and he doesn't need a charge to do that does he.
also it doesn't mean if the Al-Qadi's leave they will call in all their money either as they could just do the above, but it does secures them the right to get a chunk of money if new owners sold us down the river
Ignorance may well be bliss, but ignorance of everything else is still ignorance
What a load of hogwash. The charge will have nothing to do with any future owners (and I guess from that comment you don't believe the Al Qs are here for the long term) as new owners insist on the charge being removed, unless the club is sold separately to the ground. Ignorance of everything else is where we are all at as the current owners share very little with us and we only learn limited information from the annual accounts. And those annual accounts so us we have one secured credit or who happens to be the majority shareholder. If there are here for the long term with the financial wherewithal why do they need to make themselves a secured creditor? A question a number of us humble pie eaters keep asking that you lot in the happy clappy ignorance is bliss camp fail to answer everytime
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 20, 2018 10:30:13 GMT
all very true, but as people are keen to tell us Hani is the big boss, doesn't like football, so no doubt he wouldn't care in just flogging The Mem for housing, and trousering the cash.
and he doesn't need a charge to do that does he.
also it doesn't mean if the Al-Qadi's leave they will call in all their money either as they could just do the above, but it does secures them the right to get a chunk of money if new owners sold us down the river
Ignorance may well be bliss, but ignorance of everything else is still ignorance
What a load of hogwash. The charge will have nothing to do with any future owners (and I guess from that comment you don't believe the Al Qs are here for the long term) as new owners insist on the charge being removed, unless the club is sold separately to the ground. Ignorance of everything else is where we are all at as the current owners share very little with us and we only learn limited information from the annual accounts. And those annual accounts so us we have one secured credit or who happens to be the majority shareholder. If there are here for the long term with the financial wherewithal why do they need to make themselves a secured creditor? A question a number of us humble pie eaters keep asking that you lot in the happy clappy ignorance is bliss camp fail to answer everytime Because it's common business practice when lending money and it also stops another debtor getting a charge on the ground? If the ALQ's are just here for the short term why are they bothering to now employ a CEO as I doubt he will come cheap?
|
|
|
Post by dinsdale on Apr 20, 2018 10:48:37 GMT
How are we becomming more sustainable? Our losses are huge. Im pleased the owners are not our old owners but they have a long way to go yet By having an under 23 side and producing our own players. The family are shrewd they must know what is prudent, they have many advisors. Being sustainable means spending and income matching each other. Financially we have never been in a worse position. Hopefully the under 23’s will generate the £2m a year we need to break even however its far too early to tell. Really pleased we have the u23’s but the huge losses are a real worry for a club like ours
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 20, 2018 10:49:35 GMT
What a load of hogwash. The charge will have nothing to do with any future owners (and I guess from that comment you don't believe the Al Qs are here for the long term) as new owners insist on the charge being removed, unless the club is sold separately to the ground. Ignorance of everything else is where we are all at as the current owners share very little with us and we only learn limited information from the annual accounts. And those annual accounts so us we have one secured credit or who happens to be the majority shareholder. If there are here for the long term with the financial wherewithal why do they need to make themselves a secured creditor? A question a number of us humble pie eaters keep asking that you lot in the happy clappy ignorance is bliss camp fail to answer everytime Because it's common business practice when lending money and it also stops another debtor getting a charge on the ground? If the ALQ's are just here for the short term why are they bothering to now employ a CEO as I doubt he will come cheap? Oh god the thinking hats are on today. Other people could only get a charge over the ground if the owners agreed or if they went to court most likely for non payment of something. So the Al Qs have taken a charge over the ground in case they can't pay bills? Standard practice or sharp practice? Go put a charge on your own property and then try to use it as any form of security. It's good business practice to limit your financial exposure hence people setup limited companies instead of being a sole trader. I certainly hope its the likes of me that have to eat humble pie and not you happy clappers
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Apr 20, 2018 10:54:05 GMT
Do they need a charge to sell The Mem (that they own) and pocket the cash? No
So what’s the big deal/fuss with the charge. Nasty, evil football hating Hani will just sell up won’t he? And there won’t be anything we can do about it anyway.
If new owners came in and wanted the charge removed, I am sure 1883ltd would be repaying The Al-Qadi’s for a long time for all the money 1883ltd has spent.
I don’t know how they intend to be here or not, but currently they are the worst asset strippers I have ever seen, judging by how some seem to perceive them for protecting their loans
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Apr 20, 2018 11:51:53 GMT
There are a number of ways a proprietor can invest in a company, normally through shares or by loans/debentures.
The former is secured by the very nature of them while the loans are not, so in pure accounting terms they will make it secure by taking out a charge.
Also there has rarely been a time we have not had a charge on the Mem.
We are not alone in having a charge on our ground, the majority of L1 for example have or until recently have had a charge on their ground. A quck check of Companies House will show them.
There would be no reason to have the OP if people were willing to stop using derogatory terms like asset strippers, happy clappers, rose tinters, Wael has no money and indeed the others being labelled City fans just because they take a contrary view.
We all want us to do well and get our new stadium. Petty point scoring helps no-one.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 20, 2018 12:42:52 GMT
There are a number of ways a proprietor can invest in a company, normally through shares or by loans/debentures. The former is secured by the very nature of them while the loans are not, so in pure accounting terms they will make it secure by taking out a charge. Also there has rarely been a time we have not had a charge on the Mem. We are not alone in having a charge on our ground, the majority of L1 for example have or until recently have had a charge on their ground. A quck check of Companies House will show them. There would be no reason to have the OP if people were willing to stop using derogatory terms like asset strippers, happy clappers, rose tinters, Wael has no money and indeed the others being labelled City fans just because they take a contrary view. We all want us to do well and get our new stadium. Petty point scoring helps no-one. Agree with the last paragraph but it appears to me that it is only the happy clappers calling them asset strippers. Hey ho why worry about how your club is financed, what's the worse that can happen....
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Apr 20, 2018 12:48:12 GMT
Thing is most if not all the championship clubs have good grounds with modern infrastructure but if you look club by club at their finances there losing money hand over fist and plenty of them are propped up by lansdown type owners. If we have a new ground etc we can generate more income but to compete at championship level would seemingly still require funds well above what the club will be able to bring in. Think of a championship club you think is a great model for sustainability then do some research on that club and discover the truth. So true. The sad truth, particularly for owners of football clubs, is that success will never be sustained unless they have a virtually infinite amount of funds that they're willing to spend. Newcastle and Arsenal are crucified for lacking ambition, because they don't spend ridiculous money on transfers to compete with their overspending contemporaries. This madness will only ever continue to spread down the ladder, as it has already begun to in League One.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Apr 20, 2018 12:48:12 GMT
There are a number of ways a proprietor can invest in a company, normally through shares or by loans/debentures. The former is secured by the very nature of them while the loans are not, so in pure accounting terms they will make it secure by taking out a charge. Also there has rarely been a time we have not had a charge on the Mem. We are not alone in having a charge on our ground, the majority of L1 for example have or until recently have had a charge on their ground. A quck check of Companies House will show them. There would be no reason to have the OP if people were willing to stop using derogatory terms like asset strippers, happy clappers, rose tinters, Wael has no money and indeed the others being labelled City fans just because they take a contrary view. We all want us to do well and get our new stadium. Petty point scoring helps no-one. Agree with the last paragraph but it appears to me that it is only the happy clappers calling them asset strippers. Hey ho why worry about how your club is financed, what's the worse that can happen.... The club is financed the same way it has been for years with loans from the owners. The current owners at least look semi interested in generating more revenue than the last lot
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 20, 2018 12:53:12 GMT
Do they need a charge to sell The Mem (that they own) and pocket the cash? No So what’s the big deal/fuss with the charge. Nasty, evil football hating Hani will just sell up won’t he? And there won’t be anything we can do about it anyway. If new owners came in and wanted the charge removed, I am sure 1883ltd would be repaying The Al-Qadi’s for a long time for all the money 1883ltd has spent. I don’t know how they intend to be here or not, but currently they are the worst asset strippers I have ever seen, judging by how some seem to perceive them for protecting their loans Why do you keep calling them asset strippers? Asset strippers buy a company for less than the value of its parts, invest nothing, sell those parts at a premium/profit and then disappear. Not seen anyone on here apart from you suggesting a scenario where that will happen. The charge on the Mem just allows them to recover a large chunk of money they have committed to buying and underwriting the costs of the club. I see no way short of 2 promotions that the Al Qs could depart in profit. But I can see a way they could minimise their losses if they depart and that would effectively leave us homeless without a pot for the new CEO to water in. As to a charge as you point out they don't need it which doesn't answer the question of why they have it does it?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Apr 20, 2018 13:06:14 GMT
Do they need a charge to sell The Mem (that they own) and pocket the cash? No So what’s the big deal/fuss with the charge. Nasty, evil football hating Hani will just sell up won’t he? And there won’t be anything we can do about it anyway. If new owners came in and wanted the charge removed, I am sure 1883ltd would be repaying The Al-Qadi’s for a long time for all the money 1883ltd has spent. I don’t know how they intend to be here or not, but currently they are the worst asset strippers I have ever seen, judging by how some seem to perceive them for protecting their loans Why do you keep calling them asset strippers? Asset strippers buy a company for less than the value of its parts, invest nothing, sell those parts at a premium/profit and then disappear. Not seen anyone on here apart from you suggesting a scenario where that will happen. The charge on the Mem just allows them to recover a large chunk of money they have committed to buying and underwriting the costs of the club. I see no way short of 2 promotions that the Al Qs could depart in profit. But I can see a way they could minimise their losses if they depart and that would effectively leave us homeless without a pot for the new CEO to water in. As to a charge as you point out they don't need it which doesn't answer the question of why they have it does it? I understand people wondering or worrying about how the club is funded but there ain’t a lot any of us can do about that now. That ship sailed a long time okay well before The Al-Qadi’s ever rocked up. I only mention ‘asset stripping’ as I am at a loss as to what people are expecting of the Al-Qadi’s. If they were going to run away and recoup all/most of their money they are going a funny way about it as far as I can do as they seem to be spending an awful lot of money even if it isn’t on the shiny new stadium we would all love to see. We can keep coming back to the charge and whether they need it or not, and we know they don’t necessarily need it if they want to bail, so why do we even need to try and answer that question when it essentially makes no difference? It’s like trying to answer the meaning of life, even if we know the answer is 42
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 20, 2018 13:35:14 GMT
Why do you keep calling them asset strippers? Asset strippers buy a company for less than the value of its parts, invest nothing, sell those parts at a premium/profit and then disappear. Not seen anyone on here apart from you suggesting a scenario where that will happen. The charge on the Mem just allows them to recover a large chunk of money they have committed to buying and underwriting the costs of the club. I see no way short of 2 promotions that the Al Qs could depart in profit. But I can see a way they could minimise their losses if they depart and that would effectively leave us homeless without a pot for the new CEO to water in. As to a charge as you point out they don't need it which doesn't answer the question of why they have it does it? I understand people wondering or worrying about how the club is funded but there ain’t a lot any of us can do about that now. That ship sailed a long time okay well before The Al-Qadi’s ever rocked up. I only mention ‘asset stripping’ as I am at a loss as to what people are expecting of the Al-Qadi’s. If they were going to run away and recoup all/most of their money they are going a funny way about it as far as I can do as they seem to be spending an awful lot of money even if it isn’t on the shiny new stadium we would all love to see. We can keep coming back to the charge and whether they need it or not, and we know they don’t necessarily need it if they want to bail, so why do we even need to try and answer that question when it essentially makes no difference? It’s like trying to answer the meaning of life, even if we know the answer is 42 Well if your view is we can't do anything about it so don't discuss it then we may as well stop discussing DCs team selection or tactics as we have as much input into that as we do the financing of the club. Best just to be good obedient customers handing over our money on a Saturday and clapping politely when allowed.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Apr 20, 2018 13:56:09 GMT
There are a number of ways a proprietor can invest in a company, normally through shares or by loans/debentures. The former is secured by the very nature of them while the loans are not, so in pure accounting terms they will make it secure by taking out a charge. Also there has rarely been a time we have not had a charge on the Mem. We are not alone in having a charge on our ground, the majority of L1 for example have or until recently have had a charge on their ground. A quck check of Companies House will show them. There would be no reason to have the OP if people were willing to stop using derogatory terms like asset strippers, happy clappers, rose tinters, Wael has no money and indeed the others being labelled City fans just because they take a contrary view. We all want us to do well and get our new stadium. Petty point scoring helps no-one. Agree. There could be a number of reasons for formally securing the inter company debt. Good practice (they're bankers), a condition of any credit facility taken by DS itself (doubt the family are using their own personal savings), or perhaps, rumoured disputes with the old regime were true (unpaid bills). There could also be related tax benefits, its probably more efficient to invest through loans with repayments than equity with dividends. Anyway, I'm not sure why people are getting so stressed when everything happening points towards a long term commitment. Better that the parent company holds the charge than a bank or pay day lender surely?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Apr 20, 2018 13:59:50 GMT
I understand people wondering or worrying about how the club is funded but there ain’t a lot any of us can do about that now. That ship sailed a long time okay well before The Al-Qadi’s ever rocked up. I only mention ‘asset stripping’ as I am at a loss as to what people are expecting of the Al-Qadi’s. If they were going to run away and recoup all/most of their money they are going a funny way about it as far as I can do as they seem to be spending an awful lot of money even if it isn’t on the shiny new stadium we would all love to see. We can keep coming back to the charge and whether they need it or not, and we know they don’t necessarily need it if they want to bail, so why do we even need to try and answer that question when it essentially makes no difference? It’s like trying to answer the meaning of life, even if we know the answer is 42 Well if your view is we can't do anything about it so don't discuss it then we may as well stop discussing DCs team selection or tactics as we have as much input into that as we do the financing of the club. Best just to be good obedient customers handing over our money on a Saturday and clapping politely when allowed. You make us sound like shithead supporters
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Apr 20, 2018 14:02:25 GMT
I understand people wondering or worrying about how the club is funded but there ain’t a lot any of us can do about that now. That ship sailed a long time okay well before The Al-Qadi’s ever rocked up. I only mention ‘asset stripping’ as I am at a loss as to what people are expecting of the Al-Qadi’s. If they were going to run away and recoup all/most of their money they are going a funny way about it as far as I can do as they seem to be spending an awful lot of money even if it isn’t on the shiny new stadium we would all love to see. We can keep coming back to the charge and whether they need it or not, and we know they don’t necessarily need it if they want to bail, so why do we even need to try and answer that question when it essentially makes no difference? It’s like trying to answer the meaning of life, even if we know the answer is 42 Well if your view is we can't do anything about it so don't discuss it then we may as well stop discussing DCs team selection or tactics as we have as much input into that as we do the financing of the club. Best just to be good obedient customers handing over our money on a Saturday and clapping politely when allowed. Of course I am not saying we shouldn’t talk about how the club is run. Crikey I have spent years doing it. I just don’t get the question regarding the charge if a) we are agreed they don’t necessarily need it to get their money back, b) any new owners would want it gone because…, so c) the answer is probably trivial to make no difference
otherwise as I said earlier the club is funded as it has been in the past via loans from the owners, and the current owners seem to be spending to improve things on the face of it
|
|