|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 19, 2016 11:12:51 GMT
I wasn't challenging Gasincider merely using it for reference and think either i have not made my point clearly or you are missing it . Wael said that the interest rates were unsustainable so i can't imagine he would transfer it anywhere else as it would still have to be serviced and as it is no longer secured against the mem my conclusion based on just how little we know is that it was cleared and MSP are no longer an entity as far as the club or Wael are concerned. I guess though that the amount to secure could be on Dwane sports books as an unsecured loan ? That's the $6m question nobody can answer, Wael could have simply paid off the loan by borrowing more money at a better interest rate (that couldn't be hard!) meaning the loan is still on the books somewhere, or just paid it off from his own personal money. We could be £m's on debt or debt free, nobody will know unless Dwane Sports ever produce accounts in Jersey or BRFC1883's accounts give some clues away when they are made public.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Dec 19, 2016 11:19:01 GMT
With regards to the MSP loan as far as i am aware it was a secured loan, if it has been moved some other form of acceptable security would have to be agreed and the loan would have to be serviced from somewhere ? I'm pretty sure i remember; 1. someone doing a land registry/credit check type search which revealed it was no longer secured against the Mem. 2. Wael said shortly after taking over the loan was cleared as the ridiculously high interest rates weren't sustainable. does anyone else recall this ? If this is correct then someone somehow has cleared the debt. Gasincider already answered that point earlier with "I don't know the position with regard to the MSP loan other than it is no longer within the club accounts. In other words, it's either a liability against Dwayne Sports or against Waels own personal balance sheet." If Wael is running the club as a business rather than a hobby then the loan payment must be somewhere, probably still incurring interest of some kind, as why would any business just write off a loan when they can offset the interest charges against any future profits? Why would it be in Wael's interests to retain a loan repayment obligation just to avoid a little extra Corporation Tax? In my view by paying off the loan in full by loaning us the money interest free or low interest rates would be better as then it would sit as a long term liability and indeed offset profit without having to pay an unconnected creditor. My understanding is that there are better, more efficient, ways of doing what you have suggested.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Dec 19, 2016 11:19:52 GMT
My interpretation of what was said at the time, was the Wonga loan was cleared and removed. (I don’t think WAQ and the brothers probably wanted that hanging around anywhere. After all it was supposed to be a short term bridging loan)
What was said was the other debts would be cleared over time. I guess that is directors loans etc. Possibly repaid in instalments and/or when certain things happen e.g the stadium project happens, any profits etc
|
|
|
Post by Langford Gas on Dec 19, 2016 11:35:43 GMT
My interpretation of what was said at the time, was the Wonga loan was cleared and removed. (I don’t think WAQ and the brothers probably wanted that hanging around anywhere. After all it was supposed to be a short term bridging loan) What was said was the other debts would be cleared over time. I guess that is directors loans etc. Possibly repaid in instalments and/or when certain things happen e.g the stadium project happens, any profits etcWhich make me wonder whether we should applaud these ex directors for being patient waiting for their money to be repaid or hold our heads in horror at how desperate the situation must have been for them to agree to wait !
|
|
|
Post by pirate49 on Dec 19, 2016 11:44:01 GMT
It all reminds me of Manuel:
'We know nothing!'
So much is now based on blind faith,hope and trust!
|
|
|
Post by grayraydon on Dec 19, 2016 12:54:36 GMT
When DC said that we've currently got a bottom 8 budget, where did he say that was all he was given by the owner to spend in the summer? did I miss that? how do you know this to be the case and that this is undermining his position, or is this just more mindless speculation?
The gaffer has always said that he's been totally backed by El Presidente and the board so why would you doubt him and basically say he's lying?
|
|
|
Post by sfdgas on Dec 19, 2016 13:10:54 GMT
When DC said that we've currently got a bottom 8 budget, where did he say that was all he was given by the owner to spend in the summer? did I miss that? how do you know this to be the case and that this is undermining his position, or is this just more mindless speculation? The gaffer has always said that he's been totally backed by El Presidente and the board so why would you doubt him and basically say he's lying? Agree with this, the "bottom 8 budget" comment was a way of saying how well we're doing considering the amount we've spent. I don't think DC was complaining that he hasn't been allowed to spend more, the money is there, just making it clear that he hasn't spent it yet. Probably because of our enormous squad, promise of contracts last year... He has always said that WAQ has backed him with whatever he needs - I think (hope) the money is there to be spent - but DC has chosen not to spend it so far. That opens another debate as to whether he should have, still we've made it to Christmas in the top half and I would have taken that at the start of the season. Form over the last 8 games is worrying, but we've got to trust that DC will strengthen in Jan, and WAQ will give him the funds to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 13:24:24 GMT
When DC said that we've currently got a bottom 8 budget, where did he say that was all he was given by the owner to spend in the summer? did I miss that? how do you know this to be the case and that this is undermining his position, or is this just more mindless speculation? The gaffer has always said that he's been totally backed by El Presidente and the board so why would you doubt him and basically say he's lying? more money means better players,every manager wants better players,would dc say "dont worry i will sign colkett,salter,boateng,roos and roberts it dosnt matter that they have only played 50 league games between them"? its very obvious were missing a couple of players that would cost us more than we have payed out,meaning salary more than transfer fee. we also signed luke james who scored 2 goals in 52 games before we signed him?
|
|
|
Post by grayraydon on Dec 19, 2016 13:27:42 GMT
When DC said that we've currently got a bottom 8 budget, where did he say that was all he was given by the owner to spend in the summer? did I miss that? how do you know this to be the case and that this is undermining his position, or is this just more mindless speculation? The gaffer has always said that he's been totally backed by El Presidente and the board so why would you doubt him and basically say he's lying? more money means better players,every manager wants better players,would dc say "dont worry i will sign colkett,salter,boateng,roos and roberts it dosnt matter that they have only played 50 league games between them"? its very obvious were missing a couple of players that would cost us more than we have payed out,meaning salary more than transfer fee. we also signed luke james who scored 2 goals in 52 games before we signed him? How does more money mean better players, can you not remember the large wages we used to pay for absolute sh**e before, and players openly saying they came here because we were good payers? And you never answered my question, where did he say that was all he was given, all you did was repeat your belief that was all he had to spend. As for James scoring 2 in 52 before we got him in, how many did Matty Taylor score before we signed him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 13:36:49 GMT
more money means better players,every manager wants better players,would dc say "dont worry i will sign colkett,salter,boateng,roos and roberts it dosnt matter that they have only played 50 league games between them"? its very obvious were missing a couple of players that would cost us more than we have payed out,meaning salary more than transfer fee. we also signed luke james who scored 2 goals in 52 games before we signed him? How does more money mean better players, can you not remember the large wages we used to pay for absolute sh**e before, and players openly saying they came here because we were good payers? As for James scoring 2 in 52 before we got him in, how many did Matty Taylor score before we signed him? Of course its true you can sign rubbish even with a better budget[like city have],but our recruitment policy was badly thought out and unbalanced imo,too many youngsters and only 1 player that has ever done well at this level. an example of the lack of balance is the signing of colkett and boateng 2 skillful players who arnt as good at the defensive/tackling stuff just like chris lines??
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 19, 2016 13:45:44 GMT
So DC's recruitment policy during the summer wasn't brilliant, how' s that Wael's fault?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Dec 19, 2016 13:50:07 GMT
I would be interested to know how NH and the other directors and major shareholders were paid off if Wael had not found the cash from a company which he owns and is therefore was his money. Easy one that. Higgs and his fellow directors have not yet been paid off, just ask them. They will be paid once the new stadium is built and the Mem sold. As for investment : truth is we haven't paid out for a training ground yet, nor indeed the UWE. What has cost money is the new staffing, together with costs for ongoing issues regarding both grounds. Its now that we shall see what is meant by investment in the team. As for me, I would buy no one, but loan the sort of players we need like a centre forward, a commanding centre back, AND A NEW GOALKEEPER. We won't get value for money in January. Then in the summer start the serious recruitment. What would be interesting if we sold Matty Taylor for a few pounds and if that "Extra" money is spent on players above his planned budget... Or is his budget the money we get for Matty.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 14:39:12 GMT
Too much emotional energy is being expended on here regarding budgets. If the size of the budget wins you things, can someone explain David Moyes, LvG and now Mourihno at Man Utd? I reckon Arsenal must have a pretty big budget in the Premier League, so why haven't they won feck all for so long?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 19, 2016 16:30:55 GMT
Too much emotional energy is being expended on here regarding budgets. If the size of the budget wins you things, can someone explain David Moyes, LvG and now Mourihno at Man Utd? I reckon Arsenal must have a pretty big budget in the Premier League, so why haven't they won feck all for so long? Usually in football money = success bar the odd Leicester quirk. I doubt we had a "small" budget when we won our last two promotions?
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Dec 19, 2016 18:00:02 GMT
You are quite wrong - they all reached a settlement - whoever you have listened to is lying. Sorry. If the former directors themselves are lying, so be it. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PAID OFF. Not sure how much Wael would have really had to pay any of the directors, the club's was effectively busy with huge a debt, the owner and fellow directors weren't able to pay it off. Wael has done them all a favour and should walk away respectfully know he club has been saved and their names wouldn't go down in the books for finishing Bristol Rovers 1883.
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Dec 19, 2016 18:05:37 GMT
As for the op. we are mid table in league 1 half way through the season. Sit tight for January, DC has now set an expectation that we can sign players.
we need to be ruthless and spend money on 4 or 5 players for me to really build a team of quality. We either want to build and progress or don't. January and the summer will be telling.
There are few which I would try to offload on frees. let's be honest. half the team wouldn't fetch much money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 18:17:18 GMT
So DC's recruitment policy during the summer wasn't brilliant, how' s that Wael's fault? we brought in players on the cheap relatively compared some of our league 1 rivals,i dont think wael gave the manager a decent playing budget so we signed very inexperienced players along with hartley and moore. we signed james who wasnt wanted by peterborough and whose career has been floundering. i accept some of that is offset by giving everyone a contract but still feel we were underfunded. i know ive broke the taboo and have been critical of our beloved owner but my op is how i see things this season.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 19, 2016 18:36:13 GMT
"i dont think wael gave the manager a decent playing budget" isn't not thinking one of your problems? Basically you've no idea what budget Wael gave DC, do you feel DC is lying when he says Wael's always backed him when it comes to signing players? Would DC have even remained at Rovers if Wael was only giving him a poor budget to spend?
Perhaps DC himself decided he didn't want to rock the boat by paying high wages to a couple of new players but not the existing players, so kept all the wages low as he wanted to give them a chance of proving themselves at an higher level. DC's not suggested anywhere he won't have sufficient money to spend in January, in fact he's suggesting the opposite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 18:47:43 GMT
"i dont think wael gave the manager a decent playing budget" isn't not thinking one of your problems? Basically you've no idea what budget Wael gave DC, do you feel DC is lying when he says Wael's always backed him when it comes to signing players? Would DC have even remained at Rovers if Wael was only giving him a poor budget to spend? Perhaps DC himself decided he didn't want to rock the boat by paying high wages to a couple of new players but not the existing players, so kept all the wages low as he wanted to give them a chance of proving themselves at an higher level. DC's not suggested anywhere he won't have sufficient money to spend in January, in fact he's suggesting the opposite. january isnt a great time to patch up a team but lets see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Dec 20, 2016 10:57:20 GMT
"i dont think wael gave the manager a decent playing budget" isn't not thinking one of your problems? Basically you've no idea what budget Wael gave DC, do you feel DC is lying when he says Wael's always backed him when it comes to signing players? Would DC have even remained at Rovers if Wael was only giving him a poor budget to spend? Perhaps DC himself decided he didn't want to rock the boat by paying high wages to a couple of new players but not the existing players, so kept all the wages low as he wanted to give them a chance of proving themselves at an higher level. DC's not suggested anywhere he won't have sufficient money to spend in January, in fact he's suggesting the opposite. january isnt a great time to patch up a team but lets see what happens. You just can't answer the question can you? DC is on record as saying the absolute opposite of the bollocks you are peddling but you still keep digging your hole searching for your credibility.
|
|