|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 24, 2019 20:39:05 GMT
Another advantage of putting a charge on a property is that it stops anybody else getting in before DS and getting their own charge on the property, they really are just following normal banking rules, it could be where ever the money is coming from have insisted it's protected by a charge. I guess the looming issue is that will anybody lend us effectively unsecured money if the loan ever exceeds the equity in the Mem. Whilst there's concerns about DS evicting us and selling the land for property development I wonder just how easy it would be to get BCC to grant pp for the Mem if they hadn't already found a new home for the club? I can't recall many league club being made homeless in recent times after their own ground was sold for development. I was not debating the merits of taking out a charge, but asking for clarification on the situation as it stands. Your point about the looming question of whether anyone would lend us unsecured money again I don't understand. Say if we were planning to imminently start building work on a proposed £40M stadium, either it would be funded by the ALQ'S with some help from sale of the asset (I.e. the Mem) or we'd have to be loaned money from various lenders/investment stakeholders. If the latter then we'd have the same issue of needing to borrow more than our assets were worth anyway? Although perhaps then the debt would be secured against the future value of the new stadium? That's like buying a new build home on a bigger scale, the investors will want to see evidence the stadium will be built before they hand over the money, or the ALQ's could pay for the entire build then collect the money when it's finished, although until the ALQ's submit plans for a stadium I doubt we need to worry about how it's funded.
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Jun 24, 2019 20:39:56 GMT
So in that case does that mean that DS have taken a charge out against the Mem, which is an asset owned by BRFC? And if that's so, then BRFC could lose their home to DS at any time DS decide to call in the debt? Otherwise if DS own the Mem as part of the club already, isn't that robbing Peter to pay Paul? Another advantage of putting a charge on a property is that it stops anybody else getting in before DS and getting their own charge on the property, they really are just following normal banking rules, it could be where ever the money is coming from have insisted it's protected by a charge. I guess the looming issue is that will anybody lend us effectively unsecured money if the loan ever exceeds the equity in the Mem. Whilst there's concerns about DS evicting us and selling the land for property development I wonder just how easy it would be to get BCC to grant pp for the Mem if they hadn't already found a new home for the club? I can't recall many league club being made homeless in recent times after their own ground was sold for development. There are a couple of preference shareholders who rank before the AL-Qadi family (DS) but for only comparatively small amounts so the continuing of BRFC is with the family (as per the latest published accounts). Currently, if they (Hani) decides not to continue to guarantee to cover further losses, and without another buyer or investor, BRFC cannot continue.
|
|
nsgas
Reserve Team
Posts: 209
|
Post by nsgas on Jun 24, 2019 20:47:13 GMT
So in that case does that mean that DS have taken a charge out against the Mem, which is an asset owned by BRFC? And if that's so, then BRFC could lose their home to DS at any time DS decide to call in the debt? Otherwise if DS own the Mem as part of the club already, isn't that robbing Peter to pay Paul? Another advantage of putting a charge on a property is that it stops anybody else getting in before DS and getting their own charge on the property, they really are just following normal banking rules, it could be where ever the money is coming from have insisted it's protected by a charge. I guess the looming issue is that will anybody lend us effectively unsecured money if the loan ever exceeds the equity in the Mem. Whilst there's concerns about DS evicting us and selling the land for property development I wonder just how easy it would be to get BCC to grant pp for the Mem if they hadn't already found a new home for the club? I can't recall many league club being made homeless in recent times after their own ground was sold for development.Depends what you mean by recent times but Brighton's Goldstone Ground was sold to property developers to pay off debts at the end of the 1996/97 season. Brighton spent 2 years playing at Gillingham and twelve years playing at an athletics stadium thereafter.
|
|
|
Post by wertongas on Jun 24, 2019 21:32:16 GMT
Back in 2012 Portsmouth had debts of 61 million they had been in administration , a football trust was set up to take over the club, and buy the stadium which had a charge put on it by the clubs then Indian owner. The owner was owed 12 million and refused to transfer the stadium over to the trust. The case went to court it was adjourned to start with but the trust one the day and the stadium was transferred to Portsmouth trust. So even though AQ'S have a 10 million charge on the Mem it doesn't mean that they have the right to sell it or get their money back a president has now been set, if we got into financial difficulty and an attempt was made by the owners to sell the clubs ground it could be stopped by supporters.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 24, 2019 21:50:45 GMT
Back in 2012 Portsmouth had debts of 61 million they had been in administration , a football trust was set up to take over the club, and buy the stadium which had a charge put on it by the clubs then Indian owner. The owner was owed 12 million and refused to transfer the stadium over to the trust. The case went to court it was adjourned to start with but the trust one the day and the stadium was transferred to Portsmouth trust. So even though AQ'S have a 10 million charge on the Mem it doesn't mean that they have the right to sell it or get their money back a president has now been set, if we got into financial difficulty and an attempt was made by the owners to sell the clubs ground it could be stopped by supporters. Suggest you look at the case in a bit more details as I did yesterday when you mentioned it, (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/20338754) I'm not sure what went on at Pompey but somehow the Indian owner of the ground didn't also own the club, I bit like the Oxford Utd's present set up, our case is completely different as the ALQ's own the club and the ground so effectively can do what they want with us. If the ALQ's announced tomorrow this was our last season at the Mem and we were ground sharing with, say, Bath City or Swindon, I don't think there's anything we could do about it look at what's happened to Coventry City. Although there are no signs the ALQ's aren't prepared to continue supporting us financially and by the looks of GC's new backroom staff they are still spending money like it's going out of fashion.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 24, 2019 21:58:54 GMT
1883 Ltd still own the Mem, the charge doesn't transfer ownership, it registers a legal financial interest in the property.
That legal interest will only come into force in the event of the Mem being sold, the point of it being that it places the "chargee" as the priority recipient of the proceeds of the sale over those creditors with unsecured debts (save for some reserved circumstances).
It does not guarantee receipt though as HMRC still takes precedence and it can also face legal challenges.
The reason for placing a charge is to add security, such a that of a debenture loan.
|
|
|
Post by wertongas on Jun 24, 2019 22:06:47 GMT
That is right Topper the club was in administration, a trust was set up to take over the club which it did, but the former owner wouldn't sell the ground as he claimed he was owned 12 million so trust took him to court and won. What I am saying is if our owners put the club into administration, they may not be able to sell the stadium and the AQ' s take the proceeds even if it has a charge on it, if it was challenged in court. But hopefully it will never come to that.
|
|
|
Post by wertongas on Jun 24, 2019 22:27:49 GMT
1883 Ltd still own the Mem, the charge doesn't transfer ownership, it registers a legal financial interest in the property. That legal interest will only come into force in the event of the Mem being sold, the point of it being that it places the "chargee" as the priority recipient of the proceeds of the sale over those creditors with unsecured debts (save for some reserved circumstances). It does not guarantee receipt though as HMRC still takes precedence and it can also face legal challenges. The reason for placing a charge is to add security, such a that of a debenture loan. I think you are right, the stadium company is separate to the club ownership, I think going by what happened at Portsmouth a supporters trust could challenge in court any charge on the stadium.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jun 25, 2019 5:15:20 GMT
we are into the fine detail in the 'differences'. Not being a banker or anything I can't say this as gospel, but it is more to do with risk and fair value of said asset
A bank would likely only let you borrow x% of the value of the asset. Somebody else may risk a greater amount of their capital and secure it against the asset
we are not borrowing from a bank against our asset, we are borrowing from our owners secured against our asset
for as long as they are prepared or able to do so. Secured or not, surely that is the same for any owner.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jun 25, 2019 5:24:40 GMT
Back in 2012 Portsmouth had debts of 61 million they had been in administration , a football trust was set up to take over the club, and buy the stadium which had a charge put on it by the clubs then Indian owner. The owner was owed 12 million and refused to transfer the stadium over to the trust. The case went to court it was adjourned to start with but the trust one the day and the stadium was transferred to Portsmouth trust. So even though AQ'S have a 10 million charge on the Mem it doesn't mean that they have the right to sell it or get their money back a president has now been set, if we got into financial difficulty and an attempt was made by the owners to sell the clubs ground it could be stopped by supporters. I'm sure Topper will correct me if i'm wrong but i'm pretty sure Bristol City Council said that Rovers cannot be made homeless from the Mem if the Stadium is sold... ie a new location for the club will have to be in place for any planning to be approved for the mem
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jun 25, 2019 7:55:46 GMT
Back in 2012 Portsmouth had debts of 61 million they had been in administration , a football trust was set up to take over the club, and buy the stadium which had a charge put on it by the clubs then Indian owner. The owner was owed 12 million and refused to transfer the stadium over to the trust. The case went to court it was adjourned to start with but the trust one the day and the stadium was transferred to Portsmouth trust. So even though AQ'S have a 10 million charge on the Mem it doesn't mean that they have the right to sell it or get their money back a president has now been set, if we got into financial difficulty and an attempt was made by the owners to sell the clubs ground it could be stopped by supporters. I'm sure Topper will correct me if i'm wrong but i'm pretty sure Bristol City Council said that Rovers cannot be made homeless from the Mem if the Stadium is sold... ie a new location for the club will have to be in place for any planning to be approved for the mem Not sure that's the council (not sure it's any of their business) but iirc that was a condition of Rovers' deal with Sainsbury's.
|
|
|
Post by tomylil on Jun 25, 2019 7:59:14 GMT
Back in 2012 Portsmouth had debts of 61 million they had been in administration , a football trust was set up to take over the club, and buy the stadium which had a charge put on it by the clubs then Indian owner. The owner was owed 12 million and refused to transfer the stadium over to the trust. The case went to court it was adjourned to start with but the trust one the day and the stadium was transferred to Portsmouth trust. So even though AQ'S have a 10 million charge on the Mem it doesn't mean that they have the right to sell it or get their money back a president has now been set, if we got into financial difficulty and an attempt was made by the owners to sell the clubs ground it could be stopped by supporters. I'm sure Topper will correct me if i'm wrong but i'm pretty sure Bristol City Council said that Rovers cannot be made homeless from the Mem if the Stadium is sold... ie a new location for the club will have to be in place for any planning to be approved for the mem Is that a legal ground for refusing planning consent ?? City council approved Sainsbury's and there wasn't anything "in place|" elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 25, 2019 8:20:08 GMT
Back in 2012 Portsmouth had debts of 61 million they had been in administration , a football trust was set up to take over the club, and buy the stadium which had a charge put on it by the clubs then Indian owner. The owner was owed 12 million and refused to transfer the stadium over to the trust. The case went to court it was adjourned to start with but the trust one the day and the stadium was transferred to Portsmouth trust. So even though AQ'S have a 10 million charge on the Mem it doesn't mean that they have the right to sell it or get their money back a president has now been set, if we got into financial difficulty and an attempt was made by the owners to sell the clubs ground it could be stopped by supporters. I'm sure Topper will correct me if i'm wrong but i'm pretty sure Bristol City Council said that Rovers cannot be made homeless from the Mem if the Stadium is sold... ie a new location for the club will have to be in place for any planning to be approved for the mem Never seen that been stated as I can't recall there ever being any concerns that we could lose our ground since we moved back to Bristol, although the ALQ's could simply agree a deal again with Bath City etc to get around that issue. I still believe the Pompey case Wertongas mentioned is different to ours as the ground and the club were owned by different parties.
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Jun 25, 2019 9:15:46 GMT
Back in 2012 Portsmouth had debts of 61 million they had been in administration , a football trust was set up to take over the club, and buy the stadium which had a charge put on it by the clubs then Indian owner. The owner was owed 12 million and refused to transfer the stadium over to the trust. The case went to court it was adjourned to start with but the trust one the day and the stadium was transferred to Portsmouth trust. So even though AQ'S have a 10 million charge on the Mem it doesn't mean that they have the right to sell it or get their money back a president has now been set, if we got into financial difficulty and an attempt was made by the owners to sell the clubs ground it could be stopped by supporters. I'm sure Topper will correct me if i'm wrong but i'm pretty sure Bristol City Council said that Rovers cannot be made homeless from the Mem if the Stadium is sold... ie a new location for the club will have to be in place for any planning to be approved for the mem Even if that's correct Henbury (please post a link) - what's to say it has to be a permanent home for the sole use of Bristol Rovers? Anyone else looking forward to going back to Twerton? There are plans to redevelop it at the moment. Maybe they've hired 'our' Stadium experts who have "built not 3 or 4 , but 10 world class Stadiums".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 15:05:35 GMT
Another advantage of putting a charge on a property is that it stops anybody else getting in before DS and getting their own charge on the property, they really are just following normal banking rules, it could be where ever the money is coming from have insisted it's protected by a charge. I guess the looming issue is that will anybody lend us effectively unsecured money if the loan ever exceeds the equity in the Mem. Whilst there's concerns about DS evicting us and selling the land for property development I wonder just how easy it would be to get BCC to grant pp for the Mem if they hadn't already found a new home for the club? I can't recall many league club being made homeless in recent times after their own ground was sold for development.Depends what you mean by recent times but Brighton's Goldstone Ground was sold to property developers to pay off debts at the end of the 1996/97 season. Brighton spent 2 years playing at Gillingham and twelve years playing at an athletics stadium thereafter. Brighton’s then owner sold the stadium to his own company and then sold it again to a third party and pocketed the profit. The demonstrations stretched to, and included his family home in Lancashire.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jun 25, 2019 16:26:55 GMT
1883 Ltd still own the Mem, the charge doesn't transfer ownership, it registers a legal financial interest in the property. That legal interest will only come into force in the event of the Mem being sold, the point of it being that it places the "chargee" as the priority recipient of the proceeds of the sale over those creditors with unsecured debts (save for some reserved circumstances). It does not guarantee receipt though as HMRC still takes precedence and it can also face legal challenges. The reason for placing a charge is to add security, such a that of a debenture loan. There's no way baggins is going to understand all that. Can you do a version with pictures?
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jun 25, 2019 18:23:22 GMT
1883 Ltd still own the Mem, the charge doesn't transfer ownership, it registers a legal financial interest in the property. That legal interest will only come into force in the event of the Mem being sold, the point of it being that it places the "chargee" as the priority recipient of the proceeds of the sale over those creditors with unsecured debts (save for some reserved circumstances). It does not guarantee receipt though as HMRC still takes precedence and it can also face legal challenges. The reason for placing a charge is to add security, such a that of a debenture loan. There's no way baggins is going to understand all that. Can you do a version with pictures? Preferably in crayon.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 25, 2019 19:00:52 GMT
1883 Ltd still own the Mem, the charge doesn't transfer ownership, it registers a legal financial interest in the property. That legal interest will only come into force in the event of the Mem being sold, the point of it being that it places the "chargee" as the priority recipient of the proceeds of the sale over those creditors with unsecured debts (save for some reserved circumstances). It does not guarantee receipt though as HMRC still takes precedence and it can also face legal challenges. The reason for placing a charge is to add security, such a that of a debenture loan. There's no way baggins is going to understand all that. Can you do a version with pictures? The Janet and John bit? Baggins borrows a tenner from Bolders knowing that if he can't pay him back then he can always......well, you get my drift 😶
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 19:08:19 GMT
There's no way baggins is going to understand all that. Can you do a version with pictures? The Janet and John bit? Baggins borrows a tenner from Bolders knowing that if he can't pay him back then he can always......well, you get my drift 😶 Suck him off?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 19:09:32 GMT
Sorry I have lowered the tone somewhat. Apologies all, mods please issue relevant punishment.
|
|