|
Post by swissgas on Mar 4, 2015 20:37:55 GMT
Could it be the case if Sainsbury's lose they'll be forced to pay the loan interest as part of our claim but wouldn't after reimburse the Directors for the costs of any money they lent him. Regardless can we really expect the Directors to keep on loaning the club money, even their pockets can't be bottomless? Are they still loaning the club money ? I thought we were told the MSP Capital loan was taken out to repay Barclays, repay a directors loan and provide working capital for the next two years which would include legal costs ?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Mar 4, 2015 20:38:06 GMT
Could it be the case if Sainsbury's lose they'll be forced to pay the loan interest as part of our claim but wouldn't after reimburse the Directors for the costs of any money they lent him. Sounds pretty plausible. The big concern to me is that even if Sainsbury go on to lose the case are they able to draw it out with a further appeal and therefore really turn the screw on us financially? Not sure that question has been answered yet.
|
|
|
Post by Strange Gas on Mar 4, 2015 20:41:11 GMT
Agree with Ern, they are in effect gambling their own money (as well as the club) as if we lose then there is no way to repay what is already spent. Must be confident. Sadly a fool and his money are soon parted. So hope we have no fools on our board ;-/
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 4, 2015 20:42:33 GMT
Scary stuff but actually its really positive, the directors must be really sure of success if they are prepared to take this risk. After all they wouldn't risk the asset they ultimately own going through with a 50 / 50 shout. They are in receipt of the full facts while some make judgement on idle speculation without any facts to back it up. I think and believe Mr Higgs will pull the UWE Bristol Stadium rabbit out of the hat. Regards Rich utg Don't you think if they were that confident of success they would have loaned the money themselves at 7%, received a healthy 190 000 pa interest and still saved the club 190 000 pa ?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 4, 2015 21:18:14 GMT
Could it be the case if Sainsbury's lose they'll be forced to pay the loan interest as part of our claim but wouldn't after reimburse the Directors for the costs of any money they lent him. Regardless can we really expect the Directors to keep on loaning the club money, even their pockets can't be bottomless? Are they still loaning the club money ? I thought we were told the MSP Capital loan was taken out to repay Barclays, repay a directors loan and provide working capital for the next two years which would include legal costs ? GD's been repaid but there's still loans o/s to NH and any of the other directors who loaned the club money in the past?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 4, 2015 21:20:41 GMT
Scary stuff but actually its really positive, the directors must be really sure of success if they are prepared to take this risk. After all they wouldn't risk the asset they ultimately own going through with a 50 / 50 shout. They are in receipt of the full facts while some make judgement on idle speculation without any facts to back it up. I think and believe Mr Higgs will pull the UWE Bristol Stadium rabbit out of the hat. Regards Rich utg Don't you think if they were that confident of success they would have loaned the money themselves at 7%, received a healthy 190 000 pa interest and still saved the club 190 000 pa ? That's assuming they have a spare £2.5m gathering dust in their bank accounts? Sainsbury's could also probably challenge an individual lending at high interest rates but I doubt they can challenge a finance house?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 4, 2015 21:27:49 GMT
Could it be the case if Sainsbury's lose they'll be forced to pay the loan interest as part of our claim but wouldn't after reimburse the Directors for the costs of any money they lent him. Sounds pretty plausible. The big concern to me is that even if Sainsbury go on to lose the case are they able to draw it out with a further appeal and therefore really turn the screw on us financially? Not sure that question has been answered yet. The courts can't stop Sainsbury's appealing but they'd have to be confident of succeeding as if they lost the costs would be enormous, and how much bad publicity would it bring dragging out this case even longer if they then lost the appeal? Even if the UWE plans bit the dust in the meantime the club could still win upto £30m and also recover all their costs.
|
|
|
Post by tumshie on Mar 4, 2015 21:49:27 GMT
I'm struggling to see any positive comments from last night's meeting other than the team are doing well.
The loan could be painted different colours depending on how you look at it, i just hope they know what they're doing.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Mar 4, 2015 22:23:02 GMT
Scary stuff but actually its really positive, the directors must be really sure of success if they are prepared to take this risk. After all they wouldn't risk the asset they ultimately own going through with a 50 / 50 shout. They are in receipt of the full facts while some make judgement on idle speculation without any facts to back it up. I think and believe Mr Higgs will pull the UWE Bristol Stadium rabbit out of the hat. Regards Rich utg Don't you think if they were that confident of success they would have loaned the money themselves at 7%, received a healthy 190 000 pa interest and still saved the club 190 000 pa ? I think that must be one of the key issues here. If they pumped in £2M themselves, at less cost to club in interest payments, and we then lost the case, they would lose all their contribution. If it is a loan to a limited company (BRFC 1883, BRFC UWE or whoever), then Wonga will have to take their place in the queue to recover their loan if we go bust. And ahead of them might, possibly, be the Board, who have contributed more than the new lenders.
|
|
|
Post by lincsblue on Mar 4, 2015 22:57:47 GMT
If Sainsbury lose the case, they can not appeal just because they don't like the judgement. Their legal team has to submit genuine legal reasons as to why they believe the verdict was not legally correct.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 5, 2015 0:15:24 GMT
Don't you think if they were that confident of success they would have loaned the money themselves at 7%, received a healthy 190 000 pa interest and still saved the club 190 000 pa ? That's assuming they have a spare £2.5m gathering dust in their bank accounts? Sainsbury's could also probably challenge an individual lending at high interest rates but I doubt they can challenge a finance house? So Nick was being a little economical with the truth when he said today he had no other options. He did actually have other options but chose this clever ploy because the incredibly high interest paid to MSP Capital will all eventually be recovered from Sainsburys as part of a damages award.
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Mar 5, 2015 1:08:28 GMT
If Sainsbury lose the case, they can not appeal just because they don't like the judgement. Their legal team has to submit genuine legal reasons as to why they believe the verdict was not legally correct. TrasH managed to submit and then drag out a JR just because they didn't like a decision made by elected representatives, and they were a bunch of local lunatics...Sainsbury's do this all the time, and if the board can't see the legal delays going past March/April 2016 then they're deluded. Sainsbury's know each time they go past March in any given year the cost of the delay to the club increases by one season (and therefore millions of pounds)...this of course means any 'out-of-court' settlement will likely be much more likely to be agreed (as well as being much cheaper for them) if it's negotiated post March 2016 rather than pre March 2016...
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Mar 5, 2015 7:54:34 GMT
Scary stuff but actually its really positive, the directors must be really sure of success if they are prepared to take this risk. After all they wouldn't risk the asset they ultimately own going through with a 50 / 50 shout. They are in receipt of the full facts while some make judgement on idle speculation without any facts to back it up. I think and believe Mr Higgs will pull the UWE Bristol Stadium rabbit out of the hat. Regards Rich utg But why should they be risking our club? I assume they will pay back the loan if we lose the court case?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 5, 2015 8:23:20 GMT
So would you sooner NH threw in the towel than fight Sainsbury's for the UWE money? NH is gambling approx £1m in costs to try and recover £30m, that seems fair odds to me.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Mar 5, 2015 8:29:58 GMT
Could it be the case if Sainsbury's lose they'll be forced to pay the loan interest as part of our claim but wouldn't after reimburse the Directors for the costs of any money they lent him. Regardless can we really expect the Directors to keep on loaning the club money, even their pockets can't be bottomless? Yes, of course, because they incurred the debts under their stewardship. They decide the budget, they know how much shortfall they are going to get, and therefore they are obliged to cover it. As a limited company, no they are not
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Mar 5, 2015 8:34:07 GMT
Sounds pretty plausible. The big concern to me is that even if Sainsbury go on to lose the case are they able to draw it out with a further appeal and therefore really turn the screw on us financially? Not sure that question has been answered yet. The courts can't stop Sainsbury's appealing but they'd have to be confident of succeeding as if they lost the costs would be enormous, and how much bad publicity would it bring dragging out this case even longer if they then lost the appeal? Even if the UWE plans bit the dust in the meantime the club could still win upto £30m and also recover all their costs. The Judge can stop the right to appeal but Sainsbury can then appeal to the appeal court, but the appeal court judges always look favourably on the previous Judges judgement, if you get what i mean ! Also the cost of losing that appeal are enormous for the applicant....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 8:37:24 GMT
Yes, of course, because they incurred the debts under their stewardship. They decide the budget, they know how much shortfall they are going to get, and therefore they are obliged to cover it. As a limited company, no they are not Given the guarantees made to auditors in the going concern element of the last accounts, I am not so sure Henbury
|
|
|
Post by eastvilleern on Mar 5, 2015 8:54:40 GMT
Scary stuff but actually its really positive, the directors must be really sure of success if they are prepared to take this risk. After all they wouldn't risk the asset they ultimately own going through with a 50 / 50 shout. They are in receipt of the full facts while some make judgement on idle speculation without any facts to back it up. I think and believe Mr Higgs will pull the UWE Bristol Stadium rabbit out of the hat. Regards Rich utg But why should they be risking our club? I assume they will pay back the loan if we lose the court case? But what would they be realistically risking? As we presently stand we have a Non League standard Stadium, a training facility which DC says is a shambles with a muddy heap for a pitch and little else other than real potential. So if taking this to court gives us the chance to improve our infrastructure and help realise that potential I'm all for it. Promotions come and go and with us are followed fairly swiftly by relegation, as we stand we are a club which should be capable of sustaining League 2 football with occasional visits to League 1 or the Conference. The board we have know the construction game far better than the game we come together at the Mem to watch, so lets let them get on with the job of winning this case and giving us a chance to return to the club I first started following before the South Stand Fire, and that's a club capable of success. The UWE Bristol Stadium will be the catalyst we need to succeed, it'll attract a better calibre of player and manager. When players like Lund and Zola choose Rochdale and Burton over us it shows how we are seen by those not blinded by deluded views of what we are and how far we've fallen. So what if people want answers to questions that can't be given at this stage, bleating on wont solve the issues caused by boards prior to this one failing to move with the times and resting on our laurels. When others were building modern stadiums we erected a tent. Regards Rich Utg
|
|
|
Post by tumshie on Mar 5, 2015 9:02:52 GMT
With respect i think we all know we need UWE and what it will bring.
I think some people are just concerned that we seem to be entering a "Gambling" stage. We all know if we bet a grand on something we might win enough to buy a shiny new car, what some are frightened of is - whats the cost if we lose? Are we putting the club in peril?
These are the things we hope the directors have under control, but please appreciate some people are worried and in fairness have every right to be.
|
|
|
Post by eastvilleern on Mar 5, 2015 9:14:21 GMT
With respect i think we all know we need UWE and what it will bring. I think some people are just concerned that we seem to be entering a "Gambling" stage. We all know if we bet a grand on something we might win enough to buy a shiny new car, what some are frightened of is - whats the cost if we lose? Are we putting the club in peril? These are the things we hope the directors have under control, but please appreciate some people are worried and in fairness have every right to be. The people who have the full facts at their finger tips are prepared to turn down a 7 figure sum to drop the sale of the Mem, and take out a loan to fight this case. Now these are people who know the construction game intimately and have dealt with these issues through their professional life. So I don't believe they are gambling, they are taking the view that we can and will win this case. This is more important than anything that could ever happen to us on the field of play, without this succeeding what we are now is what we'll always be. I am prepared to support the Board and give them my full backing, they are Gasheads fighting to better our Club and that's all I need to know. Regards Rich Utg
|
|