Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 7:37:25 GMT
Now look what you've done I made a bullshit post. It was everyone else that went off on one. Here endeth the lesson. We know that, or at least those of us who are 'regulars' know that. You're a bloody Fisherman What was that post the other day about 'Muslim scroungers and tax cuts for the rich'...pah, you were just fishing again, but that time there wasn't any bites ! I reckon you dream these posts up while fiddling under yer blanket.
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Aug 16, 2018 8:20:36 GMT
I thought the whole story behind the rumours were that the potential news owners were going to build the UWE, if so, why would they want to still rent the Mem? As far as the Mem being a "valuable asset" surely the site is only valuable once the football club leaves it? I can't see any owners running the club "sustainable" at an undeveloped Mem, not one want looking to progress anyway, particularly if they had to pay a decent rent to the ALQ's. . Serious question: what is attractive about the club in the first place? Approx 12 million of debt that needs to be sorted out, a stadium redevelopment is an absolute must so that is going to cost 30 odd million on top of the debt. Oh and a training ground needs to be built so add on another 6 million on top of that. Who would be willing to stump all that up for a club that competes for fans with a team down the road that is already in a far more established position and has a seriously wealthy chairman? The buy-in costs are so high that you could maybe contemplate it for a team in a large catchment area but when it already has a better positioned competitor literally down the road it makes it look like a ridiculous gamble to pay what is needed to a) takeover and b) pay what is needed to bring us into line with our competitors never mind exceed them. When did we go from £7/8m debt to £12m?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 8:33:22 GMT
Serious question: what is attractive about the club in the first place? Approx 12 million of debt that needs to be sorted out, a stadium redevelopment is an absolute must so that is going to cost 30 odd million on top of the debt. Oh and a training ground needs to be built so add on another 6 million on top of that. Who would be willing to stump all that up for a club that competes for fans with a team down the road that is already in a far more established position and has a seriously wealthy chairman? The buy-in costs are so high that you could maybe contemplate it for a team in a large catchment area but when it already has a better positioned competitor literally down the road it makes it look like a ridiculous gamble to pay what is needed to a) takeover and b) pay what is needed to bring us into line with our competitors never mind exceed them. When did we go from £7/8m debt to £12m? I had it that we were up to around the value of the mem (10-12) in debt now with all the increased admin costs, consultants fees etc? Given that they spent about 6m to buy the club have they really only lost a further 2-3 million in the time since?
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Aug 16, 2018 8:48:58 GMT
Now look what you've done I made a bullshit post. It was everyone else that went off on one. Here endeth the lesson. Without doubt there will be people genuinely believing this when it's heard on the terraces on Tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by blueridge on Aug 16, 2018 8:52:05 GMT
Serious question: what is attractive about the club in the first place? Approx 12 million of debt that needs to be sorted out, a stadium redevelopment is an absolute must so that is going to cost 30 odd million on top of the debt. Oh and a training ground needs to be built so add on another 6 million on top of that. Who would be willing to stump all that up for a club that competes for fans with a team down the road that is already in a far more established position and has a seriously wealthy chairman? The buy-in costs are so high that you could maybe contemplate it for a team in a large catchment area but when it already has a better positioned competitor literally down the road it makes it look like a ridiculous gamble to pay what is needed to a) takeover and b) pay what is needed to bring us into line with our competitors never mind exceed them. When did we go from £7/8m debt to £12m? The accounts submitted in March 2018 were showing net liabilities of £10m an increase of £1.35m from the previous year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 9:00:22 GMT
When did we go from £7/8m debt to £12m? The accounts submitted in March 2018 were showing net liabilities of £10m an increase of £1.35m from the previous year. Glad I didn't imagine that. I wonder if there is any coincidence between debt vs value of mem and rumours that the Al Qadi's are looking to sell? If they don't sell quickly they will have to fund the club out of their pocket, unsecured...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 9:02:56 GMT
The accounts submitted in March 2018 were showing net liabilities of £10m an increase of £1.35m from the previous year. Glad I didn't imagine that. I wonder if there is any coincidence between debt vs value of mem and rumours that the Al Qadi's are looking to sell? If they don't sell quickly they will have to fund the club out of their pocket, unsecured... It's been pointed out many many times.......
|
|
|
Post by blueridge on Aug 16, 2018 9:08:19 GMT
The accounts submitted in March 2018 were showing net liabilities of £10m an increase of £1.35m from the previous year. Glad I didn't imagine that. I wonder if there is any coincidence between debt vs value of mem and rumours that the Al Qadi's are looking to sell? If they don't sell quickly they will have to fund the club out of their pocket, unsecured... Simplistically - £1.35m per year amortised over 52 weeks equates to losses of c £25k per week.
|
|
|
Post by geddongas on Aug 16, 2018 9:29:23 GMT
Glad I didn't imagine that. I wonder if there is any coincidence between debt vs value of mem and rumours that the Al Qadi's are looking to sell? If they don't sell quickly they will have to fund the club out of their pocket, unsecured... Simplistically - £1.35m per year amortised over 52 weeks equates to losses of c £25k per week. So what’s that, a few players and a whole lot of admin staff, a new office in london etc?
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Aug 16, 2018 9:48:38 GMT
Glad I didn't imagine that. I wonder if there is any coincidence between debt vs value of mem and rumours that the Al Qadi's are looking to sell? If they don't sell quickly they will have to fund the club out of their pocket, unsecured... Simplistically - £1.35m per year amortised over 52 weeks equates to losses of c £25k per week. What was the increase in revenue though in the last accounts? If we have the same percentage increase in revenue that we had between the last two sets of accounts then surely that £25k per week figure should be coming down? New sponsorship deals etc. Plus these supposedly self funding stands that should increase revenue.
|
|
|
Post by blueridge on Aug 16, 2018 9:57:12 GMT
Simplistically - £1.35m per year amortised over 52 weeks equates to losses of c £25k per week. What was the increase in revenue though in the last accounts? If we have the same percentage increase in revenue that we had between the last two sets of accounts then surely that £25k per week figure should be coming down? New sponsorship deals etc. Plus these supposedly self funding stands that should increase revenue. It will only increase revenue if the attendance figures are maintained or increased - if the performance on the pitch drops off, the likelihood is the attendances will drop. Last Saturday we were 1100 down on the corresponding match last year - probably equating to around £15k. Just goes to show how vital cup runs are and the performance on the pitch. One of many reason I guess that DC amongst others will come under increasing pressure if his team don't deliver.
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Aug 16, 2018 10:00:22 GMT
What was the increase in revenue though in the last accounts? If we have the same percentage increase in revenue that we had between the last two sets of accounts then surely that £25k per week figure should be coming down? New sponsorship deals etc. Plus these supposedly self funding stands that should increase revenue. It will only increase revenue if the attendance figures are maintained or increased - if the performance on the pitch drops off, the likelihood is the attendances will drop. Last Saturday we were 1100 down on the corresponding match last year - probably equating to around £15k. Just goes to show how vital cup runs are and the performance on the pitch. One of many reason I guess that DC Amongst others will come under increasing pressure if his team don't deliver. People are blowing last week's figures out of proportion. We played Peterborough who I imagine brought a lot more fans than Stanley did last week.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 16, 2018 10:11:00 GMT
Simplistically - £1.35m per year amortised over 52 weeks equates to losses of c £25k per week. What was the increase in revenue though in the last accounts? If we have the same percentage increase in revenue that we had between the last two sets of accounts then surely that £25k per week figure should be coming down? New sponsorship deals etc. Plus these supposedly self funding stands that should increase revenue. Problem is expenditure seems to be increasing just as fast as income, the new CEO + PA, the pitch cost £250K/350K?, the stands will probably have a cost in the short term, there's the office and staff in London, upgrades to the turnstiles, plus all the the extra costs incurred on Academy & Development Squad staff etc. the nightmare scenario for Wael is that crowds start dropping off!
|
|
|
Post by Midsomer Murderer on Aug 16, 2018 10:54:52 GMT
Now look what you've done I made a bullshit post. It was everyone else that went off on one. Here endeth the lesson. You know what some are like ~ would believe anything from such a trusted fella. You should put out more fake news for a larf
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 16, 2018 11:20:57 GMT
I made a bullshit post. It was everyone else that went off on one. Here endeth the lesson. You know what some are like ~ would believe anything from such a trusted fella. You should put out more fake news for a larf Everyone else does.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Aug 16, 2018 13:22:44 GMT
I made a bullshit post. It was everyone else that went off on one. Here endeth the lesson. You know what some are like ~ would believe anything from such a trusted fella. You should put out more fake news for a larf Nah, I normally play with a pretty straight bat, but some of the stuff I came back to on here when I got off my holidays was just bonkers!
|
|
|
Post by gaelgas on Aug 16, 2018 13:51:35 GMT
What was the increase in revenue though in the last accounts? If we have the same percentage increase in revenue that we had between the last two sets of accounts then surely that £25k per week figure should be coming down? New sponsorship deals etc. Plus these supposedly self funding stands that should increase revenue. Problem is expenditure seems to be increasing just as fast as income, the new CEO + PA, the pitch cost £250K/350K?, the stands will probably have a cost in the short term, there's the office and staff in London, upgrades to the turnstiles, plus all the the extra costs incurred on Academy & Development Squad staff etc. the nightmare scenario for Wael is that crowds start dropping off! All this and yet people are convinced that the owners want to sell the club, why do all this (particularly the increased staffing costs) if they want to sell the club, surely those increased costs are likely to put potential buyers off?
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on Aug 16, 2018 14:13:07 GMT
Problem is expenditure seems to be increasing just as fast as income, the new CEO + PA, the pitch cost £250K/350K?, the stands will probably have a cost in the short term, there's the office and staff in London, upgrades to the turnstiles, plus all the the extra costs incurred on Academy & Development Squad staff etc. the nightmare scenario for Wael is that crowds start dropping off! All this and yet people are convinced that the owners want to sell the club, why do all this (particularly the increased staffing costs) if they want to sell the club, surely those increased costs are likely to put potential buyers off? The people employed are here to help sell the club I would imagine, the tap has been turned off, they might have saved us from administration but all these people with information are sounding like something is going on. whether this will be beneficial to us in the future no one knows, but the family clearly did not realise the costs involved. If we had tied up the Sainsbury’s deal properly with no wriggle room, we would be there now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 15:48:08 GMT
Problem is expenditure seems to be increasing just as fast as income, the new CEO + PA, the pitch cost £250K/350K?, the stands will probably have a cost in the short term, there's the office and staff in London, upgrades to the turnstiles, plus all the the extra costs incurred on Academy & Development Squad staff etc. the nightmare scenario for Wael is that crowds start dropping off! All this and yet people are convinced that the owners want to sell the club, why do all this (particularly the increased staffing costs) if they want to sell the club, surely those increased costs are likely to put potential buyers off? You are making the schoolboy error of thinking we are dealing with a family of business materminds when, in reality, it very much seems like they have bought into something they either don't understand or totally under-estimated. Therefore spending more money to put a veneer of repectability on the product to make it more enticing to potential buyers may just make sense to them...
|
|
|
Post by gaelgas on Aug 16, 2018 15:49:17 GMT
All this and yet people are convinced that the owners want to sell the club, why do all this (particularly the increased staffing costs) if they want to sell the club, surely those increased costs are likely to put potential buyers off? The people employed are here to help sell the club I would imagine, the tap has been turned off, they might have saved us from administration but all these people with information are sounding like something is going on. whether this will be beneficial to us in the future no one knows, but the family clearly did not realise the costs involved. If we had tied up the Sainsbury’s deal properly with no wriggle room, we would be there now. I'm not convinced that an office full of staff and office in London, CEO and PA, development and academy staff, a relaid pitch, temporary stands and electronic turnstiles are all needed to sell the club. If anything it sounds like long term investment, again would a prospective buyer really be attracted by all the extra staff costs?
|
|