|
Post by Henbury Gas on Apr 11, 2017 8:45:48 GMT
No surprise in these accounts for one or two of us on here losses continue & club still has large debts. For most posters on here who have vehemently been telling us the club is debt free it must come as a large shock (or they may just be in denial about saying there were no debts). Slightly surprised that the auditors have allowed SH to say that the club now owns it's own training facilities which is completely contradicted in the same statement. So we have the same amount of debt, yet before the takeover we were in danger of administration. In the accounts made up to June 2015, Grant Thornton acting as the independent auditor wrote a report that said there was: Source hereYet in the accounts to June 2016 there seems to be no such concern. Why do you think that is? i would guess that the debt used to be external to the club and the current debt is not
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Apr 11, 2017 8:59:05 GMT
So we have the same amount of debt, yet before the takeover we were in danger of administration. In the accounts made up to June 2015, Grant Thornton acting as the independent auditor wrote a report that said there was: Source hereYet in the accounts to June 2016 there seems to be no such concern. Why do you think that is? i would guess that the debt used to be external to the club and the current debt is not So the key difference is... MSP could have and would have closed us down to get their money back. Dwane Sports will not.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Apr 11, 2017 9:37:28 GMT
i would guess that the debt used to be external to the club and the current debt is not So the key difference is... MSP could have and would have closed us down to get their money back. Dwane Sports will not. That's my reading of it too. We are better off because our new lenders are looking to make more money off us as opposed to just getting the debt (plus interest) paid off.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 11, 2017 10:52:16 GMT
i would guess that the debt used to be external to the club and the current debt is not So the key difference is... MSP could have and would have closed us down to get their money back. Dwane Sports will not. The crux of the matter is the debt's still there but DS are prepared, and able, to control it, whilst they are on scene it's not a real concern, which will also be the case when they borrow the £40/50m for the new stadium.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 11, 2017 11:14:41 GMT
No surprise in these accounts for one or two of us on here losses continue & club still has large debts. For most posters on here who have vehemently been telling us the club is debt free it must come as a large shock (or they may just be in denial about saying there were no debts). Slightly surprised that the auditors have allowed SH to say that the club now owns it's own training facilities which is completely contradicted in the same statement. So we have the same amount of debt, yet before the takeover we were in danger of administration. In the accounts made up to June 2015, Grant Thornton acting as the independent auditor wrote a report that said there was: Source hereYet in the accounts to June 2016 there seems to be no such concern. Why do you think that is? Source here, page 10Happy to help, lot of words & numbers you may have lost interest by page 10. Any comments on the debts that you have been telling us don't exist? Source here
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Apr 11, 2017 13:10:24 GMT
Source here, page 10Happy to help, lot of words & numbers you may have lost interest by page 10. Any comments on the debts that you have been telling us don't exist? Source here So I was wrong to assume that clearing the debt was part of the purchase cost, I'm not sure where I'd heard that but I thought it was the case. Apologies if I have mislead anyone, but I don't think I stated it as a hard fact. Also, I'm going to practise my reading, and when it's up to a level at which I can manage 10 pages maybe my writing style will improve too. BTW - your link to the accounts doesn't work so I've fixed it for you in the quote shown this post (happy to help).
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 11, 2017 13:15:52 GMT
Source here, page 10Happy to help, lot of words & numbers you may have lost interest by page 10. Any comments on the debts that you have been telling us don't exist? Source here So I was wrong to assume that clearing the debt was part of the purchase cost, I'm not sure where I'd heard that but I thought it was the case. Apologies if I have mislead anyone, but I don't think I stated it as a hard fact. Also, I'm going to practise my reading, and when it's up to a level at which I can manage 10 pages maybe my writing style will improve too. BTW - your link to the accounts doesn't work so I've fixed it for you in the quote shown this post (happy to help). Link is working fine, perhaps you need a bit of practice using them as well as reading! In fairness respect that you can admit you were wrong over the debt, you were one of many who said the club was debt free but the only one big enough to admit it.
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Apr 11, 2017 13:54:29 GMT
So I was wrong to assume that clearing the debt was part of the purchase cost, I'm not sure where I'd heard that but I thought it was the case. Apologies if I have mislead anyone, but I don't think I stated it as a hard fact. Also, I'm going to practise my reading, and when it's up to a level at which I can manage 10 pages maybe my writing style will improve too. BTW - your link to the accounts doesn't work so I've fixed it for you in the quote shown this post (happy to help). Link is working fine, perhaps you need a bit of practice using them as well as reading! In fairness respect that you can admit you were wrong over the debt, you were one of many who said the club was debt free but the only one big enough to admit it. Okay, so I'm going to ask you a couple of questions because I want to understand your viewpoint, so I can decide if I should take a similar stance. I am worried that the questions will seem naive, so I'd appreciate it if you could answer honestly without being condescending or anything. - Do we need to be worrying about the debt?
- If so, what is it that you think may happen and what can we as fans do about it?
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 11, 2017 14:43:48 GMT
Link is working fine, perhaps you need a bit of practice using them as well as reading! In fairness respect that you can admit you were wrong over the debt, you were one of many who said the club was debt free but the only one big enough to admit it. Okay, so I'm going to ask you a couple of questions because I want to understand your viewpoint, so I can decide if I should take a similar stance. I am worried that the questions will seem naive, so I'd appreciate it if you could answer honestly without being condescending or anything. - Do we need to be worrying about the debt?
- If so, what is it that you think may happen and what can we as fans do about it?
1. Quite clearly any debt is worse than no debt. The Club's debt is still rising and we only have one asset (the ground) and the accounts quite clearly state that Mr H Al Qadi is guaranteeing a line of credit for 12 months. If there is no progress on UWE after 12 months & the likelihood that those debts will have continued rising what happens if that line of credit disappears? Essentially the Club will have to sell or mortgage the ground to repay the credit facility, leaving the club with effectively no assets. Admittedly that is a worse case scenario but not necessairily unthinkable as the Al Qadi's (I'm sure) will be protecting their investment even if that means the Club folds. 2. Sorry answered first part of the next question above as it was relevant I think to question 1. As to the second part probably not a lot but we can arm ourselves with FACTS (as per the accounts) rather than burying our heads in the sand pretending there is some mythical Jordanian money tree paying for everything & believing rumour and half truths (SH has peddled one of those in his statement to the accounts).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 14:50:00 GMT
A Tenuous Analogy to the previous:
If you personally owed your very wealthy father in law a couple of million quid and everything was hunky dory within the family you would probably feel reasonably ok (Internal Debt). If your wife decides she wants a divorce for whatever reason you might just become a bit twitchy about your debt - but more importantly so might your father in law. (External Debt).
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Apr 11, 2017 14:52:52 GMT
Okay, so I'm going to ask you a couple of questions because I want to understand your viewpoint, so I can decide if I should take a similar stance. I am worried that the questions will seem naive, so I'd appreciate it if you could answer honestly without being condescending or anything. - Do we need to be worrying about the debt?
- If so, what is it that you think may happen and what can we as fans do about it?
1. Quite clearly any debt is worse than no debt. The Club's debt is still rising and we only have one asset (the ground) and the accounts quite clearly state that Mr H Al Qadi is guaranteeing a line of credit for 12 months. If there is no progress on UWE after 12 months & the likelihood that those debts will have continued rising what happens if that line of credit disappears? Essentially the Club will have to sell or mortgage the ground to repay the credit facility, leaving the club with effectively no assets. Admittedly that is a worse case scenario but not necessairily unthinkable as the Al Qadi's (I'm sure) will be protecting their investment even if that means the Club folds. 2. Sorry answered first part of the next question above as it was relevant I think to question 1. As to the second part probably not a lot but we can arm ourselves with FACTS (as per the accounts) rather than burying our heads in the sand pretending there is some mythical Jordanian money tree paying for everything & believing rumour and half truths (SH has peddled one of those in his statement to the accounts). Thanks for your response.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Apr 11, 2017 15:22:21 GMT
So does anyone know how the £8m debt is broken down?
I assume the major components are the mortgage on the Mem, the MSP loan now sitting as an amount owed to Dwane Sports, and the money owed to Nick Higgs and co.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Apr 11, 2017 16:02:37 GMT
So does anyone know how the £8m debt is broken down? I assume the major components are the mortgage on the Mem, the MSP loan now sitting as an amount owed to Dwane Sports, and the money owed to Nick Higgs and co. Page 24, Note 19, Creditor breakdown of amounts due within one year. As we are now heading towards the June 2017 cut off I would guess either these are paid, to be paid or deferred further. Still doesn't state to whom they are payable, perhaps a question for the meeting by those eligible to go. The two biggest are 'payments received in advance' and 'amounts due to group undertaking' at £1.4m and £7.3m respectively.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 11, 2017 16:14:02 GMT
So does anyone know how the £8m debt is broken down? I assume the major components are the mortgage on the Mem, the MSP loan now sitting as an amount owed to Dwane Sports, and the money owed to Nick Higgs and co. I'm guessing the major components are the money Dwane provided to pay off MSP and loans due to previous directors. Don't believe there is a mortgage as Barclays requested this to be repaid when the MSP loan was taken, I'm presuming though that Dwane Sports have a charge against the ground. 'Payments in advance' I'd guess would be from the Football League and/or TV money so literally just a timing issue which shouldn't cause an issue as I'm presuming we won't go bust before they are no longer 'in advance'.
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Apr 11, 2017 17:23:47 GMT
I suppose it is safe to assume the Al-Quadi family carried out due diligence before they bought the club. The available accounts would have shown the financial state of the club, so they would have known EXACTLY what it they we're getting into. Watola & co would not have been able to hide anything from them, they're too shrewd for that. They obviously realised what a shambles the club was in, despite the level of support through the turnstiles, and how amateurish an operation it all was. Hence, from day one there was a complete clear-out at director level, and Watola followed soon after.
The new owners/BOD have moved swiftly to develop the club, and run it as a professional business. They have moved swiftly to secure the services of key players, have developed beyond all recognition the behind-the-scenes support mechanisms, and crucially, secured for at least 3 more years the services of the head coach/Manager.
They are now in the process of designing and delivering a first class Training ground and centre of excellence, and are in negotiation to bile a new stadium.
Yeah, I reckon they might up-sticks and p1ss off in the next couple of months.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Apr 11, 2017 18:02:33 GMT
It has been suggested that this article may assist with the recently published accounts:-
Help
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 11, 2017 19:09:07 GMT
It has been suggested that this article may assist with the recently published accounts:-
Help The figures quoted in that article seem completely at odds with what is shown in the accounts? What I don't understand is why the ALQ's seem content to just let the debts increase, don't they intend putting any of their own money into the club to pay off any of the debt before they eventually sell the Mem? I also can't get my head around what investors are going to be daft enough to invest £50m in building the UWE, as regardless to what any feasibility study says getting a decent return on that investment is going to be some achievement, as interest payments alone could be £2.5m p.a at 5% which is around 50% of our present turnover.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Apr 11, 2017 22:42:15 GMT
It has been suggested that this article may assist with the recently published accounts:-
Help The figures quoted in that article seem completely at odds with what is shown in the accounts? What I don't understand is why the ALQ's seem content to just let the debts increase, don't they intend putting any of their own money into the club to pay off any of the debt before they eventually sell the Mem? I also can't get my head around what investors are going to be daft enough to invest £50m in building the UWE, as regardless to what any feasibility study says getting a decent return on that investment is going to be some achievement, as interest payments alone could be £2.5m p.a at 5% which is around 50% of our present turnover. I understand your concerns, however I don't share them (at least not yet, anyway). I'm not ITK or have any contacts so can only base my opinion on whet has been said and done in open sources. Nothing has happened yet to make me think that the AlQadi family is looking at anything but a long term view, rather than any form of Venture Capitalist or asset stripper. As such, they will need to ensure that things don't get out of hand financially, after all, it is in their interests for us to be solvent. Severncider's link states that they have written off over £2m (mostly the loan if the article is correct, but not solely). This suggests that they are putting in their 'own' money, but until they have to, I suspect they will continue to keep a 'safe' level of debt. Most of the debt is payable within 12 months of the accounts date (that is before June 2017) so depending on who is the creditor, will depend if more capital needs to be injected to settle the debts. They have also made modest improvements to the Mem including an increase in capacity, bought the training ground, kept DC on what I presume to be a really decent contract, brought in extra staff, funded a larger playing squad, commissioned the feasibility study. They have even appointed more expensive auditors. None of which indicates to me people who are not committed to the long haul. With regards the UWE, if you look at the accounts then you will see we already make c£2m from non football activities. It doesn't breakdown into how this is accounted for but if the UWE generates double this it covers what you predict as a return. The feasibility study was supposed to reassure whomever that it is a viable proposition so if the UWE is happening then loans will be serviced appropriately and timely. If you have sources which are making you genuinely concerned then I am happy to be corrected.
|
|
|
Post by STRONG,SECURE, STABLE on Apr 11, 2017 23:45:36 GMT
It's been said on here before, we need to differentiate between 'External' debt and 'internal' debt. We are 'External' debt free as we have paid back the 'Wonga' loan as reported. However the new owners will want to be reimbursed for that at some point, so 'internal' debt is still high. Same as red nose and the other lot, the football club owes a lot of money to the owner. We have been guaranteed a year from the date of the accounts, hopefully it will be a formality to guarantee future years..... You're absolutely right - but it's still a debt and not written off. Wael is the enthusiastic figure head of this particular venture of a hard nosed business organisation which have made their millions through shrewd investments. If this falls through I'm not convinced they will want to stay around and look at alternatives which could take years to come to fruition. It would mean that they would be ploughing literally millions every season (we need 15k break even remember) which we won't get anywhere near at the Ramshackle. That's why I said this Stadium project is effectively "sh$t or bust". It's happened so many times at other clubs - just a tad nervous at mo - but keep the faith - we are going to need it!! Why would they up and leave? They said they are here for the long run and there is no reason to not trust them. The 15k comment hasnt been verified as far as im aware
|
|
|
Post by STRONG,SECURE, STABLE on Apr 11, 2017 23:48:02 GMT
Contracted list seems to have been glossed over on here from the Chairman's summary. Chris Lines Ollie Clarke Stuart Sinclair Dan Leadbitter Lee Brown Tom Lockyer Peter Hartley Byron Moore Billy Bodin Joe Partington Johnny Burn So basically we have no-one in goal, no-one in attack. That should fill us all with a lot of optimism then. More Hamer spin I'm afraid - just 11 players contracted at the moment - and 2/3 of those unconvincing at the moment. Some of us were being slated only a couple of weeks ago as being "ridiculous" for saying we needed up to an additional 12 players. Perhaps these same people would like to add their 'Rose Tinted' comments now or rather just face the facts. whilst i disagree with your off the pitch concerns i agree there is a large rebuild coming, i expect 5 or so more players will stay on (inc youngsters) adn then a dozen or more new faces could be needed
|
|