|
|
Post by fanatical on Feb 8, 2021 16:25:59 GMT
The Club's auditors will hopefully by now be preparing the Business Accounts for presentation to the shareholders at the AGM.
Whilst the accounts will be over 12 months old it will indicate what level of debt the Club was in that long ago, and one can only speculate what the total of debt the Club has accumulated by now.
The question will no doubt be raised if there is any chance that the Club can ever be brought back to a profitable position, and if so, HOW?
Currently, the football club, whilst it has a full compliment of players, it is without doubt lacking in attacking players, and in particular a striker. (do others agree?)
As a shareholder I, for one, am looking forward to seeing the financial position of the club (be it a year out of date). - are you? or it too scary to contemplate?
|
|
|
|
Post by RD on Feb 8, 2021 16:32:11 GMT
The Club's auditors will hopefully by now be preparing the Business Accounts for presentation to the shareholders at the AGM. Whilst the accounts will be over 12 months old it will indicate what level of debt the Club was in that long ago, and one can only speculate what the total of debt the Club has accumulated by now. The question will no doubt be raised if there is any chance that the Club can ever be brought back to a profitable position, and if so, HOW? Currently, the football club, whilst it has a full compliment of players, it is without doubt lacking in attacking players, and in particular a striker. (do others agree?) As a shareholder I, for one, am looking forward to seeing the financial position of the club (be it a year out of date). - are you? or it too scary to contemplate? Given the debt was wiped out, I'm not sure why you'd be that "scared". Rovers, like most clubs, loses money. If you've bought shares in Rovers to make money, I'd politely point out that was a rather daft move. If not, and it was to effectively invest in the club, then I don't really know what you're scared about; we're in a far, far healthier position than many at this point in time. Or was that too thought out a post for a response to something that was clearly intended to kick the hornets nest? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 16:50:46 GMT
Right now, based on the limited knowledge I have of the running of the club and the world in general, I'm delighted Wael has written off the debt and fully understand that the new debt will have grown at faster rate than anyone could have expected. I'd love the club to be profitable but the fact is it isn't and we continue to be reliant on Wael's support. If people want to hold him to account then that's fair enough, but if anyone wants to play games to force him out the door then I hope to god they have £50m plus in their pocket to keep servicing the debt in Wael's absence
|
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Feb 8, 2021 16:57:38 GMT
The Club's auditors will hopefully by now be preparing the Business Accounts for presentation to the shareholders at the AGM. Whilst the accounts will be over 12 months old it will indicate what level of debt the Club was in that long ago, and one can only speculate what the total of debt the Club has accumulated by now. The question will no doubt be raised if there is any chance that the Club can ever be brought back to a profitable position, and if so, HOW? Currently, the football club, whilst it has a full compliment of players, it is without doubt lacking in attacking players, and in particular a striker. (do others agree?) As a shareholder I, for one, am looking forward to seeing the financial position of the club (be it a year out of date). - are you? or it too scary to contemplate? I'm looking forward to Swissgas adding all the numbers together and Sam Frost reporting it as "debt". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 17:30:58 GMT
The Club's auditors will hopefully by now be preparing the Business Accounts for presentation to the shareholders at the AGM. Whilst the accounts will be over 12 months old it will indicate what level of debt the Club was in that long ago, and one can only speculate what the total of debt the Club has accumulated by now. The question will no doubt be raised if there is any chance that the Club can ever be brought back to a profitable position, and if so, HOW? Currently, the football club, whilst it has a full compliment of players, it is without doubt lacking in attacking players, and in particular a striker. (do others agree?) As a shareholder I, for one, am looking forward to seeing the financial position of the club (be it a year out of date). - are you? or it too scary to contemplate? 8 months since the last end of year trading but other points noted. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 17:35:29 GMT
The Club's auditors will hopefully by now be preparing the Business Accounts for presentation to the shareholders at the AGM. Whilst the accounts will be over 12 months old it will indicate what level of debt the Club was in that long ago, and one can only speculate what the total of debt the Club has accumulated by now. The question will no doubt be raised if there is any chance that the Club can ever be brought back to a profitable position, and if so, HOW? Currently, the football club, whilst it has a full compliment of players, it is without doubt lacking in attacking players, and in particular a striker. (do others agree?) As a shareholder I, for one, am looking forward to seeing the financial position of the club (be it a year out of date). - are you? or it too scary to contemplate? Given the debt was wiped out, I'm not sure why you'd be that "scared". Rovers, like most clubs, loses money. If you've bought shares in Rovers to make money, I'd politely point out that was a rather daft move. If not, and it was to effectively invest in the club, then I don't really know what you're scared about; we're in a far, far healthier position than many at this point in time. Or was that too thought out a post for a response to something that was clearly intended to kick the hornets nest? The debts weren't converted into shares until the current financial year which ends in June so it will not show in the next set of audited accounts. |
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on Feb 8, 2021 17:52:05 GMT
Surprised Roy that you dont know already 😂
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 8, 2021 18:11:13 GMT
The Club's auditors will hopefully by now be preparing the Business Accounts for presentation to the shareholders at the AGM. Whilst the accounts will be over 12 months old it will indicate what level of debt the Club was in that long ago, and one can only speculate what the total of debt the Club has accumulated by now. The question will no doubt be raised if there is any chance that the Club can ever be brought back to a profitable position, and if so, HOW? Currently, the football club, whilst it has a full compliment of players, it is without doubt lacking in attacking players, and in particular a striker. (do others agree?) As a shareholder I, for one, am looking forward to seeing the financial position of the club (be it a year out of date). - are you? or it too scary to contemplate? I'm looking forward to Swissgas adding all the numbers together and Sam Frost reporting it as "debt". SwissGas has already done that on the AF and come up with a £10m debt, I assume this is another two pronged attack by the two OAP's who clearly have a dislike for Wael. I'd be interested to know how many EFL club's will make a profit this year are you? or is it too scary to contemplate? |
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Feb 8, 2021 18:42:46 GMT
Here we go again.....
A member of the SC and PC comes on here to have a go at the ownership that wrote off 21m in debt £8m of which came from the previous regime that his holy father helped to create....given that you were such.a pivotal figure in the advice to the last board perhaps you should shoulder some of the responsibility for that...??
Perhaps you could also ask your chairman and executive committee why they are being dictotorial rather than democratic when it comes to nominating their fans directors? Apparently against their own consitution and the expressed wishes of those who were nominated and seconded? Or do those members not matter either?
To think that I was called a Nazi by one shareholders too......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 19:05:41 GMT
Here we go again..... A member of the SC and PC comes on here to have a go at the ownership that wrote off 21m in debt £8m of which came from the previous regime that his holy father helped to create....given that you were such.a pivotal figure in the advice to the last board perhaps you should shoulder some of the responsibility for that...?? Perhaps you could also ask your chairman and executive committee why they are being dictotorial rather than democratic when it comes to nominating their fans directors? Apparently against their own consitution and the expressed wishes of those who were nominated and seconded? Or do those members not matter either? To think that I was called a Nazi by one shareholders too...... Not sure if the £21m figure is accurate and I don't disbelieve you but that figure has not been written off, it has been converted into equity which is totally different. Good luck sorting out your other issues although I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Feb 8, 2021 21:03:06 GMT
Here we go again..... A member of the SC and PC comes on here to have a go at the ownership that wrote off 21m in debt £8m of which came from the previous regime that his holy father helped to create....given that you were such.a pivotal figure in the advice to the last board perhaps you should shoulder some of the responsibility for that...?? Perhaps you could also ask your chairman and executive committee why they are being dictotorial rather than democratic when it comes to nominating their fans directors? Apparently against their own consitution and the expressed wishes of those who were nominated and seconded? Or do those members not matter either? To think that I was called a Nazi by one shareholders too...... Not sure if the £21m figure is accurate and I don't disbelieve you but that figure has not been written off, it has been converted into equity which is totally different. Good luck sorting out your other issues although I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. That seems like a deliberately disingenuous misunderstanding of the type that Swissgas has tried to push. If debt is capitalised into equity it becomes shares - no longer debt. It is economically and legally distinct. When was the last time you heard that a business had gone bust because it had issued too many shares? What motivation do you have to pretend that the capitalised debt is still debt? If you're not pretending and genuinely believe that, do you really think you should be commenting on something you clearly know nothing about? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 21:20:40 GMT
Not sure if the £21m figure is accurate and I don't disbelieve you but that figure has not been written off, it has been converted into equity which is totally different. Good luck sorting out your other issues although I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. That seems like a deliberately disingenuous misunderstanding of the type that Swissgas has tried to push. If debt is capitalised into equity it becomes shares - no longer debt. It is economically and legally distinct. When was the last time you heard that a business had gone bust because it had issued too many shares? What motivation do you have to pretend that the capitalised debt is still debt? If you're not pretending and genuinely believe that, do you really think you should be commenting on something you clearly know nothing about? You have missed the point. What I said was the debt wasn't "written off" it was converted into shares/equity so the value is still there as long as it can be realised. It definitely will not show as debt but will now be shown in the shareholders account. We actually agree of where we are now unless you believe the debt was "written off." |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Feb 8, 2021 21:41:19 GMT
That seems like a deliberately disingenuous misunderstanding of the type that Swissgas has tried to push. If debt is capitalised into equity it becomes shares - no longer debt. It is economically and legally distinct. When was the last time you heard that a business had gone bust because it had issued too many shares? What motivation do you have to pretend that the capitalised debt is still debt? If you're not pretending and genuinely believe that, do you really think you should be commenting on something you clearly know nothing about? You have missed the point. What I said was the debt wasn't "written off" it was converted into shares/equity so the value is still there as long as it can be realised. It definitely will not show as debt but will now be shown in the shareholders account. We actually agree of where we are now unless you believe the debt was "written off." You truly are a disciple of Swissgas - it will show in the shareholders account because it is equity not debt. Debt is not equity no matter what Sam Frost writes in the Post. It is completely disingenuous to say that the debt has not been written off. To all intents and purposes it certainly has. Capitalisation is generally the preferred method of doing that rather than forgiving the loan - if the shareholder were to forgive the loan that would be an immediately chargeable transfer for Inheritance Tax purposes which at 20% on £20m odd is not insignificant (it's £4m odd). So why would you suggest Wael chuck away £4m he could use to fund the club later on instead? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 21:46:42 GMT
You have missed the point. What I said was the debt wasn't "written off" it was converted into shares/equity so the value is still there as long as it can be realised. It definitely will not show as debt but will now be shown in the shareholders account. We actually agree of where we are now unless you believe the debt was "written off." You truly are a disciple of Swissgas - it will show in the shareholders account because it is equity not debt. Debt is not equity no matter what Sam Frost writes in the Post. It is completely disingenuous to say that the debt has not been written off. To all intents and purposes it certainly has. Capitalisation is generally the preferred method of doing that rather than forgiving the loan - if the shareholder were to forgive the loan that would be an immediately chargeable transfer for Inheritance Tax purposes which at 20% on £20m odd is not insignificant (it's £4m odd). So why would you suggest Wael chuck away £4m he could use to fund the club later on instead? You are confusing yourself so let's leave it there. At least we did agree that the debt had been removed as a liability. |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Feb 8, 2021 22:08:25 GMT
You truly are a disciple of Swissgas - it will show in the shareholders account because it is equity not debt. Debt is not equity no matter what Sam Frost writes in the Post. It is completely disingenuous to say that the debt has not been written off. To all intents and purposes it certainly has. Capitalisation is generally the preferred method of doing that rather than forgiving the loan - if the shareholder were to forgive the loan that would be an immediately chargeable transfer for Inheritance Tax purposes which at 20% on £20m odd is not insignificant (it's £4m odd). So why would you suggest Wael chuck away £4m he could use to fund the club later on instead? You are confusing yourself so let's leave it there. At least we did agree that the debt had been removed as a liability. I'm not in the least confused so I'm happy not to leave it at all. You said the debt is not written off. It is. You're trying to pretend that capitalising the debt is not a method of writing it off. It is. I've explained the reason the debt would be capitalised instead of forgiven - because it would cost Wael £4m in tax. What part am I confused about? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 22:11:36 GMT
Embarrassing
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirt Dogg on Feb 8, 2021 22:48:46 GMT
Baffles me how people can be so anti-Wael for off the pitch matters. If it wasn’t for him we’d be starring down the barrel right now!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 22:58:32 GMT
Baffles me how people can be so anti-Wael for off the pitch matters. If it wasn’t for him we’d be starring down the barrel right now! Agreed, he has contributed more financially than any other shareholder both individually and collectively in the clubs history. |
|
|
|
Post by Congas on Feb 9, 2021 7:09:11 GMT
Right now, based on the limited knowledge I have of the running of the club and the world in general, I'm delighted Wael has written off the debt and fully understand that the new debt will have grown at faster rate than anyone could have expected. I'd love the club to be profitable but the fact is it isn't and we continue to be reliant on Wael's support. If people want to hold him to account then that's fair enough, but if anyone wants to play games to force him out the door then I hope to god they have £50m plus in their pocket to keep servicing the debt in Wael's absence And money to complete the training ground |
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Feb 9, 2021 7:40:19 GMT
That seems like a deliberately disingenuous misunderstanding of the type that Swissgas has tried to push. If debt is capitalised into equity it becomes shares - no longer debt. It is economically and legally distinct. When was the last time you heard that a business had gone bust because it had issued too many shares? What motivation do you have to pretend that the capitalised debt is still debt? If you're not pretending and genuinely believe that, do you really think you should be commenting on something you clearly know nothing about? You have missed the point. What I said was the debt wasn't "written off" it was converted into shares/equity so the value is still there as long as it can be realised. It definitely will not show as debt but will now be shown in the shareholders account. We actually agree of where we are now unless you believe the debt was "written off." In the event of liquidation what was debt is now equity, in which case it is far higher up in the order of liquidation and essentially has no value whatsoever. You can’t, with a straight face, say converting a ton of debt into equity isn’t writing it off. All it’s done on the negative side is diluted existing SH (who were already massively diluted and had no power whatsoever as their holding was already so low as to not influence anything at an AGM), and for goodness sake, if he’s paid that much to buy those shares then why shouldn’t Wael have a stronger hand in equity terms. Share capital is essentially worthless in a club which doesn’t make money and therefore doesn’t pay dividends. One day if we turn a profit, yes, Wael has a slightly higher percentage, isn’t that fair? I suppose it’s not technically “written off” but to any layman wanting you understand it, the massive debt we used to have to service with interest payments is now converted to a form where we don’t have any charges or interest payments. That’s written off in most people’s parlance. To help put this into context for those who might not be up on the corporate accounting side: Let’s say you win euro millions and have £20m to give to rovers to help with the new stadium. I’m sure you don’t really want a return of much on the money - it’s for the club, right? What you might want is a stadium bar named after you, but what you’d probably want is a small role in the club so you get a little bit of a say in what happens or at least be a part of it. So what would probably happen is you would give the £20m and have your club bar in your name, and then you’d get a small shareholding of maybe 10% with voting rights. You wouldn’t be in control, but you’d get to vote on plans and you’d also potentially get a small share in profits if we made a lot of money - which you could actually choose to put back into the club. That’s kind of what Wael has done with the debt. He’s given the money for free with a zero return in return for slightly higher percentage ownership. Ask yourself if that’s a predatory or a beneficial move for the club. What he’s done is in line with what most benefactors would do. “If I’m spending 20m on it, I want more of a say” If you ask me, you couldn’t pick a better man to have control. He’s shown consistently it’s the club he cares about, and will do this on his own, and we should be extremely grateful we have him. |
|
