|
Post by LJG on Apr 27, 2020 15:19:27 GMT
what do you mean exchange hands? I assume you mean Dwane didn't give us the cash?If that is what you mean, then think about it. It is part of the operating loss covered by.... Nope try again. Regardless if you feel it's OK for Rovers OK's to show a £70K loss against a piece of ground we don't even own/use it's pointless arguing with you. Ahhh close. Nevermind. One day.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Apr 27, 2020 15:34:52 GMT
what do you mean exchange hands? I assume you mean Dwane didn't give us the cash?If that is what you mean, then think about it. It is part of the operating loss covered by.... Nope try again. Regardless if you feel it's OK for Rovers OK's to show a £70K loss against a piece of ground we don't even own/use it's pointless arguing with you. What did you mean then? I could draw you a diagram Topper and it would be called Group Accounts
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 27, 2020 17:51:11 GMT
Nope try again. Regardless if you feel it's OK for Rovers OK's to show a £70K loss against a piece of ground we don't even own/use it's pointless arguing with you. What did you mean then? I could draw you a diagram Topper and it would be called Group Accounts All tee'd it up for the rebound! Can he get it this time?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Apr 27, 2020 21:04:54 GMT
Nope try again. Regardless if you feel it's OK for Rovers OK's to show a £70K loss against a piece of ground we don't even own/use it's pointless arguing with you. What did you mean then? I could draw you a diagram Topper and it would be called Group Accounts Do you think Rovers are charging interest on the money Dwane Colony Ltd owe us ? Other "group" debt attracts interest so it would only be right wouldn't it ?
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Apr 27, 2020 21:58:52 GMT
We have signed 52 players since Wael took over. Mostly down to DC Well he was manager when Wael took over, oh and got us promoted twice. GC signed a few in his short spell and BG has signed some, I’m sure DCs signings are totally to blame though for the debt. you mean Bennett!
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 27, 2020 22:28:21 GMT
What did you mean then? I could draw you a diagram Topper and it would be called Group Accounts Do you think Rovers are charging interest on the money Dwane Colony Ltd owe us ? Other "group" debt attracts interest so it would only be right wouldn't it ? Yet more disingenuous Sun headlines from the bloke who pretends to be an accountant. Added anything up lately?
|
|
|
Post by Somersetgas on Apr 27, 2020 23:46:32 GMT
Well he was manager when Wael took over, oh and got us promoted twice. GC signed a few in his short spell and BG has signed some, I’m sure DCs signings are totally to blame though for the debt. you mean Bennett! Nope I don’t mean Bennett. If the manager was given money to spend that is his decision as to whom he spends it on, some signings will be good and some bad, some don’t fit in at clubs and others do. The powers that be from above allow the manager at the time to spend or not spend as the case may be, and these are to blame for the increasing debt.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Apr 28, 2020 1:05:24 GMT
Do you think Rovers are charging interest on the money Dwane Colony Ltd owe us ? Other "group" debt attracts interest so it would only be right wouldn't it ? Yet more disingenuous Sun headlines from the bloke who pretends to be an accountant. Added anything up lately? Attack the Post Not the Sun
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Apr 28, 2020 6:10:54 GMT
What did you mean then? I could draw you a diagram Topper and it would be called Group Accounts Do you think Rovers are charging interest on the money Dwane Colony Ltd owe us ? Other "group" debt attracts interest so it would only be right wouldn't it ? Perhaps, but not part of the point I am trying to educate Topper on All the money, regardless of interest comes from the same place doesnt it as everyone keep bleating about how much we lose/owe Dwane . Topper moaned that 70k could pay a L1 players wages. Well maybe it could but again irrelevant if we are at 60% of revenue as per the rules
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Apr 28, 2020 6:38:04 GMT
Do you think Rovers are charging interest on the money Dwane Colony Ltd owe us ? Other "group" debt attracts interest so it would only be right wouldn't it ? Perhaps, but not part of the point I am trying to educate Topper on All the money, regardless of interest comes from the same place doesnt it as everyone keep bleating about how much we lose/owe Dwane . Topper moaned that 70k could pay a L1 players wages. Well maybe it could but again irrelevant if we are at 60% of revenue as per the rules Actually I dont think it all does come from the same place. Here is how I understand it but I'm happy to be corrected. If I split my house finance in the same way then I think we are set up something like this ... My wife and I own a house together. I buy a car. The cost of which should really come from my own money, not the joint account since its nothing to do with my wife. Instead I off set all charges related to that car, as well as the running costs and I have to then take out an increased mortgage to cover the costs. All ok so far because we still own the house and I still own the car, and it's all just my wife and my money. But let's now say that I decide to get a divorce. I get to keep the car because it's in my name. However all the money and running costs for that car were added to the mortgage that me and my wife shared so now she is liable for half that money and has nothing to show for it since our house is now valued at the same amount as we owe. All the equity is gone, my wife has more debt than she started with, no car and no house. And no one sees an issue with that?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Apr 28, 2020 6:51:41 GMT
Perhaps, but not part of the point I am trying to educate Topper on All the money, regardless of interest comes from the same place doesnt it as everyone keep bleating about how much we lose/owe Dwane . Topper moaned that 70k could pay a L1 players wages. Well maybe it could but again irrelevant if we are at 60% of revenue as per the rules Actually I dont think it all does come from the same place. Here is how I understand it but I'm happy to be corrected. If I split my house finance in the same way then I think we are set up something like this ... My wife and I own a house together. I buy a car. The cost of which should really come from my own money, not the joint account since its nothing to do with my wife. Instead I off set all charges related to that car, as well as the running costs and I have to then take out an increased mortgage to cover the costs. All ok so far because we still own the house and I still own the car, and it's all just my wife and my money. But let's now say that I decide to get a divorce. I get to keep the car because it's in my name. However all the money and running costs for that car were added to the mortgage that me and my wife shared so now she is liable for half that money and has nothing to show for it since our house is now valued at the same amount as we owe. All the equity is gone, my wife has more debt than she started with, no car and no house. And no one sees an issue with that? If Dwane Sports sell 1883ltd any Dwane Colony costs in 1883 should be offset against the total debt to Dwane Sports If you look at it a slightly different way. 1883ltd is a group in its own right and own The FC and The Mem. The football club could be sold as a seprate entity in its own right and wouldnt have a house unless an agreement was made to pay rent to 1883ltd play there Dwane is just another layer on top It depends on how much you trust the owners, but that is a different question For the purpose of a business transaction it makes sense
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Apr 28, 2020 7:02:12 GMT
Perhaps, but not part of the point I am trying to educate Topper on All the money, regardless of interest comes from the same place doesnt it as everyone keep bleating about how much we lose/owe Dwane . Topper moaned that 70k could pay a L1 players wages. Well maybe it could but again irrelevant if we are at 60% of revenue as per the rules Actually I dont think it all does come from the same place. Here is how I understand it but I'm happy to be corrected. If I split my house finance in the same way then I think we are set up something like this ... My wife and I own a house together. I buy a car. The cost of which should really come from my own money, not the joint account since its nothing to do with my wife. Instead I off set all charges related to that car, as well as the running costs and I have to then take out an increased mortgage to cover the costs. All ok so far because we still own the house and I still own the car, and it's all just my wife and my money. But let's now say that I decide to get a divorce. I get to keep the car because it's in my name. However all the money and running costs for that car were added to the mortgage that me and my wife shared so now she is liable for half that money and has nothing to show for it since our house is now valued at the same amount as we owe. All the equity is gone, my wife has more debt than she started with, no car and no house. And no one sees an issue with that? She was a bitch, anyway. There's plenty more fish in the sea.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Apr 28, 2020 7:33:21 GMT
Actually I dont think it all does come from the same place. Here is how I understand it but I'm happy to be corrected. If I split my house finance in the same way then I think we are set up something like this ... My wife and I own a house together. I buy a car. The cost of which should really come from my own money, not the joint account since its nothing to do with my wife. Instead I off set all charges related to that car, as well as the running costs and I have to then take out an increased mortgage to cover the costs. All ok so far because we still own the house and I still own the car, and it's all just my wife and my money. But let's now say that I decide to get a divorce. I get to keep the car because it's in my name. However all the money and running costs for that car were added to the mortgage that me and my wife shared so now she is liable for half that money and has nothing to show for it since our house is now valued at the same amount as we owe. All the equity is gone, my wife has more debt than she started with, no car and no house. And no one sees an issue with that? If Dwane Sports sell 1883ltd any Dwane Colony costs in 1883 should be offset against the total debt to Dwane Sports If you look at it a slightly different way. 1883ltd is a group in its own right and own The FC and The Mem. The football club could be sold as a seprate entity in its own right and wouldnt have a house unless an agreement was made to pay rent to 1883ltd play there Dwane is just another layer on top It depends on how much you trust the owners, but that is a different question For the purpose of a business transaction it makes sense Yes, it makes business sense but it's the football club that will end up getting f**ked over.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Apr 28, 2020 8:05:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Apr 28, 2020 8:13:39 GMT
If Dwane Sports sell 1883ltd any Dwane Colony costs in 1883 should be offset against the total debt to Dwane Sports If you look at it a slightly different way. 1883ltd is a group in its own right and own The FC and The Mem. The football club could be sold as a seprate entity in its own right and wouldnt have a house unless an agreement was made to pay rent to 1883ltd play there Dwane is just another layer on top It depends on how much you trust the owners, but that is a different question For the purpose of a business transaction it makes sense Yes, it makes business sense but it's the football club that will end up getting f**ked over. and that could happen whomever the owner, whomever they support or don't
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 28, 2020 10:35:03 GMT
Yet more disingenuous Sun headlines from the bloke who pretends to be an accountant. Added anything up lately? Attack the Post Not the Sun Well your post either displays that: a) You don't know anything about group company accounting; or b) You do, but have deliberately misrepresented that understanding in a fundamental way to catch the eye of those less well informed. Just like the headlines in The Sun. In fact nearly all of your posts display the same thing. So which is it? You don't know what you're taking about? Or you do but you post in a deliberately disingenuous way such as to generate ill feeling towards the clubs owners?
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Apr 28, 2020 11:13:39 GMT
Perhaps, but not part of the point I am trying to educate Topper on All the money, regardless of interest comes from the same place doesnt it as everyone keep bleating about how much we lose/owe Dwane . Topper moaned that 70k could pay a L1 players wages. Well maybe it could but again irrelevant if we are at 60% of revenue as per the rules Actually I dont think it all does come from the same place. Here is how I understand it but I'm happy to be corrected. If I split my house finance in the same way then I think we are set up something like this ... My wife and I own a house together. I buy a car. The cost of which should really come from my own money, not the joint account since its nothing to do with my wife. Instead I off set all charges related to that car, as well as the running costs and I have to then take out an increased mortgage to cover the costs. All ok so far because we still own the house and I still own the car, and it's all just my wife and my money. But let's now say that I decide to get a divorce. I get to keep the car because it's in my name. However all the money and running costs for that car were added to the mortgage that me and my wife shared so now she is liable for half that money and has nothing to show for it since our house is now valued at the same amount as we owe. All the equity is gone, my wife has more debt than she started with, no car and no house. And no one sees an issue with that? In a divorce all the assets and liabilities are brought to the table and negotiated as part of the divorce settlement. Your wife would get a larger slice of another asset in lieu of the car or gets the car. She would need to agree to remortgaging so would be equally at fault. Same with 1883, any buyer would negotiate a price based of debts and assets. For example, DS keep the Colony but accepts a different price or includes the Colony at another price. If there is no buyer then as in your analogy, then the current agreement continues.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Apr 28, 2020 15:07:57 GMT
Attack the Post Not the Sun Well your post either displays that: a) You don't know anything about group company accounting; or b) You do, but have deliberately misrepresented that understanding in a fundamental way to catch the eye of those less well informed. Just like the headlines in The Sun. In fact nearly all of your posts display the same thing. So which is it? You don't know what you're taking about? Or you do but you post in a deliberately disingenuous way such as to generate ill feeling towards the clubs owners? Dwane Colony Ltd, which owns the land at Almondsbury, is a completely separate company from Dwane Sports Ltd. If Dwane Colony Ltd was classed as part of the group which comprises Bristol Rovers Football Club Ltd and Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd it would be included in the group consolidated accounts but it is only mentioned in the section for transactions with related parties. You must decide whether, in terms of loyalty, your priority is with Bristol Rovers Football Club and Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd, Dwane Sports Ltd, Dwane Colony Ltd or Wael Al-Qadi. I just think that at a difficult time, when supporters are being asked to help the club by buying season tickets in advance, it does not seem right that Dwane Colony Ltd have apparently owed Bristol Rovers a substantial sum of money for a very long time. And because that money has not been paid over to them Bristol Rovers are having to borrow more money from Dwane Sports Ltd who are charging interest on it. Perhaps Wael could reassure Gasheads by announcing that all monies owed to Bristol Rovers by Dwane Colony Ltd have now been paid.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Apr 28, 2020 15:11:32 GMT
Well your post either displays that: a) You don't know anything about group company accounting; or b) You do, but have deliberately misrepresented that understanding in a fundamental way to catch the eye of those less well informed. Just like the headlines in The Sun. In fact nearly all of your posts display the same thing. So which is it? You don't know what you're taking about? Or you do but you post in a deliberately disingenuous way such as to generate ill feeling towards the clubs owners? Dwane Colony Ltd, which owns the land at Almondsbury, is a completely separate company from Dwane Sports Ltd. If Dwane Colony Ltd was classed as part of the group which comprises Bristol Rovers Football Club Ltd and Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd it would be included in the group consolidated accounts but it is only mentioned in the section for transactions with related parties. You must decide whether, in terms of loyalty, your priority is with Bristol Rovers Football Club and Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd, Dwane Sports Ltd, Dwane Colony Ltd or Wael Al-Qadi. I just think that at a difficult time, when supporters are being asked to help the club by buying season tickets in advance, it does not seem right that Dwane Colony Ltd have apparently owed Bristol Rovers a substantial sum of money for a very long time. And because that money has not been paid over to them Bristol Rovers are having to borrow more money from Dwane Sports Ltd who are charging interest on it. Perhaps Wael could reassure Gasheads by announcing that all monies owed to Bristol Rovers by Dwane Colony Ltd have now been paid. but we are back to the basic point. Without Dwane's money we are nothing anyway Don't mistake that for me thinking they are doing a sterling job Dwane Sports | 1883 Ltd --------------------------------------------------------------------Dwane Colony | |--------------| | Bristol Rovers F.C (Memorial Ground - Asset of 1883 Ltd) (Colony Land)
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 28, 2020 16:43:51 GMT
Well your post either displays that: a) You don't know anything about group company accounting; or b) You do, but have deliberately misrepresented that understanding in a fundamental way to catch the eye of those less well informed. Just like the headlines in The Sun. In fact nearly all of your posts display the same thing. So which is it? You don't know what you're taking about? Or you do but you post in a deliberately disingenuous way such as to generate ill feeling towards the clubs owners? Dwane Colony Ltd, which owns the land at Almondsbury, is a completely separate company from Dwane Sports Ltd. If Dwane Colony Ltd was classed as part of the group which comprises Bristol Rovers Football Club Ltd and Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd it would be included in the group consolidated accounts but it is only mentioned in the section for transactions with related parties. You must decide whether, in terms of loyalty, your priority is with Bristol Rovers Football Club and Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd, Dwane Sports Ltd, Dwane Colony Ltd or Wael Al-Qadi. I just think that at a difficult time, when supporters are being asked to help the club by buying season tickets in advance, it does not seem right that Dwane Colony Ltd have apparently owed Bristol Rovers a substantial sum of money for a very long time. And because that money has not been paid over to them Bristol Rovers are having to borrow more money from Dwane Sports Ltd who are charging interest on it. Perhaps Wael could reassure Gasheads by announcing that all monies owed to Bristol Rovers by Dwane Colony Ltd have now been paid. Again with deliberate obfuscation to try to muddy the point and repeat your headlines. The point made wasn't that they de facto form part of the same group was it? As well you know. The point made was about common ownership. As well you know. The point made was that the payments made were mutually beneficial to those commonly owned entities by dint of that common ownership. As well you know. You did your LBC presenter, Nick Ferrari bit and shouted about interest being charged by what is effectively, whether or not it in fact is, subsidiary to it's parent. Like I said; either you're lying about being an accountant or you're posting in bad faith. Maybe both, who knows. I don't have to decide about any loyalties at all. That's a clear fallacy. The football club has owners that service it's debt, like 90% of all other football clubs. That doesn't create some imaginary turf war just because you and your mates have fantasised that it does.
|
|