Marshy
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,129
|
Post by Marshy on May 5, 2017 12:41:08 GMT
A bloke goes to the doctor and says - Doctor, doctor I've got 42 pricks. Doctor says - What a load bollocks. GET OUT ! I'M GONE!
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on May 5, 2017 18:27:05 GMT
Previous years accounts were quite transparent about the interest rates charged on directors loans and bonds with the loans being at 2.5% - 4.0% and the 3 year bonds at 3.5% over base rate. The directors and shareholders did not charge any interest in 2015 and at the time of the takeover wrote off the accumulated interest from previous years to which they were entitled and which amounted to £ 607 000. Interest on the MSP Capital loan was charged at 1.2% per month and the amount outstanding remained at £2 730 000 from 1/7/15 to the date of the takeover. Therefore the amount of interest payable on the MSP Capital loan during this period can be estimated at about £ 260 000. Interest of about £ 30 000 was also due to preference shareholders during the 2016 financial year so taken together about £ 290 000 was payable. Interest was waived on the previous shareholders loans and bonds so it appears that nothing else was payable. The accounts show a total of £ 435 000 charged during the full year so it would appear that Dwane Sports Ltd charged £ 145 000 for the period from 18/2/16 to 30/6/16. The initial amount injected was £ 6 211 000 and the amount owed at the year end was £ 7 200 000 so, if my figures are correct, the interest rate charged by Dwane Sports Ltd would be between 5.5% and 6.5%. I stand to be corrected if my interpretation of the 2016 accounts is wrong and I am making no judgement on whether or not Dwane Sports Ltd should be charging interest or at what rate. But if we accept the principle that this is a commercial transaction between two companies, and that on a credit line of £ 10 million Rovers could be charged up to £ 650 000 interest per year, I wonder how sustainable it is since we have been told we will continue to make trading losses until a new stadium is operational ? People aren't interested Swiss, the concensus is that Dwane Sports is Bristol Rovers just ignore the fact that they recognise that they only own 92.6% of Bristol Rovers. I'm sure that they are charging interest if only to convert it to equity at a later stage thus diluting the independent shareholders 7.4% further. People on here don't even blink at the contradictory Chairman's statement where he quite clearly says Dwane Sports have purchased new training facilities (so expect them to charge the Club rent to use those facilities) and then says the Club now own it's own training facilities. People would rather believe in some Jordanian money tree paying for everything. PS despite all of the above I do have more faith in current owners delivering progress on and off the pitch than previous owners, however if it all goes tits up we'll be in as bad if not worse position under them I understand what you are saying but people are interested in finding out why Rovers have a top 7 attendance figure but a bottom 8 budget. Should my hypothesis be correct we are using the revenue produced from about 2000 fans at every home game just to pay interest on the Dwane Sports loan. If they are planning to convert it to equity at a later stage why not do it now so that instead of paying interest the cash could be put towards the playing budget ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 18:45:37 GMT
People aren't interested Swiss, the concensus is that Dwane Sports is Bristol Rovers just ignore the fact that they recognise that they only own 92.6% of Bristol Rovers. I'm sure that they are charging interest if only to convert it to equity at a later stage thus diluting the independent shareholders 7.4% further. People on here don't even blink at the contradictory Chairman's statement where he quite clearly says Dwane Sports have purchased new training facilities (so expect them to charge the Club rent to use those facilities) and then says the Club now own it's own training facilities. People would rather believe in some Jordanian money tree paying for everything. PS despite all of the above I do have more faith in current owners delivering progress on and off the pitch than previous owners, however if it all goes tits up we'll be in as bad if not worse position under them I understand what you are saying but people are interested in finding out why Rovers have a top 7 attendance figure but a bottom 8 budget. Should my hypothesis be correct we are using the revenue produced from about 2000 fans at every home game just to pay interest on the Dwane Sports loan. If they are planning to convert it to equity at a later stage why not do it now so that instead of paying interest the cash could be put towards the playing budget ? £435 k interest charged to club in 2016 so it's only part of the story because some kind individual waived £550 k of interest due that had built-up on loans and bonds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 19:09:33 GMT
People aren't interested Swiss, the concensus is that Dwane Sports is Bristol Rovers just ignore the fact that they recognise that they only own 92.6% of Bristol Rovers. I'm sure that they are charging interest if only to convert it to equity at a later stage thus diluting the independent shareholders 7.4% further. People on here don't even blink at the contradictory Chairman's statement where he quite clearly says Dwane Sports have purchased new training facilities (so expect them to charge the Club rent to use those facilities) and then says the Club now own it's own training facilities. People would rather believe in some Jordanian money tree paying for everything. PS despite all of the above I do have more faith in current owners delivering progress on and off the pitch than previous owners, however if it all goes tits up we'll be in as bad if not worse position under them I understand what you are saying but people are interested in finding out why Rovers have a top 7 attendance figure but a bottom 8 budget. Should my hypothesis be correct we are using the revenue produced from about 2000 fans at every home game just to pay interest on the Dwane Sports loan. If they are planning to convert it to equity at a later stage why not do it now so that instead of paying interest the cash could be put towards the playing budget ? Swiss, isn't it the case that interest must be charged but the real concern is if it is taken or written off?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on May 5, 2017 20:46:55 GMT
I understand what you are saying but people are interested in finding out why Rovers have a top 7 attendance figure but a bottom 8 budget. Should my hypothesis be correct we are using the revenue produced from about 2000 fans at every home game just to pay interest on the Dwane Sports loan. If they are planning to convert it to equity at a later stage why not do it now so that instead of paying interest the cash could be put towards the playing budget ? Swiss, isn't it the case that interest must be charged but the real concern is if it is taken or written off? I can’t see why the loan should not be interest free if it is coming, albeit indirectly, from the Al-Qadi family cash resources. But if the interest charge is purely theoretical and the cash is actually remaining in Rovers bank account then there must be another reason for such high break even attendances and tight budgets.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on May 6, 2017 6:10:51 GMT
People aren't interested Swiss, the concensus is that Dwane Sports is Bristol Rovers just ignore the fact that they recognise that they only own 92.6% of Bristol Rovers. I'm sure that they are charging interest if only to convert it to equity at a later stage thus diluting the independent shareholders 7.4% further. People on here don't even blink at the contradictory Chairman's statement where he quite clearly says Dwane Sports have purchased new training facilities (so expect them to charge the Club rent to use those facilities) and then says the Club now own it's own training facilities. People would rather believe in some Jordanian money tree paying for everything. PS despite all of the above I do have more faith in current owners delivering progress on and off the pitch than previous owners, however if it all goes tits up we'll be in as bad if not worse position under them I understand what you are saying but people are interested in finding out why Rovers have a top 7 attendance figure but a bottom 8 budget.Should my hypothesis be correct we are using the revenue produced from about 2000 fans at every home game just to pay interest on the Dwane Sports loan. If they are planning to convert it to equity at a later stage why not do it now so that instead of paying interest the cash could be put towards the playing budget ? It is simply not true we had a bottom 8 budget by the end of the season, as explained by Steve Brookfield at the recent AGM.
At the beginning of last season we may have been close to a bottom eight budget but from the December transfer window to the end of the season it is believed we had a budget about 12th in the division. It was estimated that Bolton were first followed by Charlton.
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on May 6, 2017 6:14:54 GMT
I understand what you are saying but people are interested in finding out why Rovers have a top 7 attendance figure but a bottom 8 budget.Should my hypothesis be correct we are using the revenue produced from about 2000 fans at every home game just to pay interest on the Dwane Sports loan. If they are planning to convert it to equity at a later stage why not do it now so that instead of paying interest the cash could be put towards the playing budget ? It is simply not true we had a bottom 8 budget by the end of the season, as explained by Steve Brookfield at the recent AGM.
At the beginning of last season we may have been close to a bottom eight budget but from the December transfer window to the end of the season it is believed we had a budget about 12th in the division. It was estimated that Bolton were first followed by Charlton.
there was a thread on here saying that Sheffield utd had a 6m pa budget, and that was the highest.... I dont suppose you know the figures of the top end spenders?
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on May 6, 2017 6:50:30 GMT
I understand what you are saying but people are interested in finding out why Rovers have a top 7 attendance figure but a bottom 8 budget. Should my hypothesis be correct we are using the revenue produced from about 2000 fans at every home game just to pay interest on the Dwane Sports loan. If they are planning to convert it to equity at a later stage why not do it now so that instead of paying interest the cash could be put towards the playing budget ? £435 k interest charged to club in 2016 so it's only part of the story because some kind individual waived £550 k of interest due that had built-up on loans and bonds. Funny, I remember being shouted down on more than one occasion on here when I'd suggested that previous directors had not generously poured their own money into Rovers, but had instead loaned the club money at interest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 7:14:04 GMT
I understand what you are saying but people are interested in finding out why Rovers have a top 7 attendance figure but a bottom 8 budget.Should my hypothesis be correct we are using the revenue produced from about 2000 fans at every home game just to pay interest on the Dwane Sports loan. If they are planning to convert it to equity at a later stage why not do it now so that instead of paying interest the cash could be put towards the playing budget ? It is simply not true we had a bottom 8 budget by the end of the season, as explained by Steve Brookfield at the recent AGM.
At the beginning of last season we may have been close to a bottom eight budget but from the December transfer window to the end of the season it is believed we had a budget about 12th in the division. It was estimated that Bolton were first followed by Charlton.
Ok not bottom eight but about bottom 10 so it could well be around the bottom 8-10 budget which DC stated. I still dont understand the SH statement earlier that we need a 15k attendance figure to break even or has that reasoning been explained somewhere. On that basis alone if the BoD increase the playing budget presumably the break even attendance will also have to rise accordingly - to 17k or more?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 7:35:55 GMT
Guys when it comes to break even it is not only the attendance that counts - it's a whole host of things that includes broader revenue streams (which for us is very limited at the Mem) .... Also expenditure comes into it from playing staff, non playing staff, tax, vat, interest on liabilities, policing and stewarding, costs for improvements or maintenance, other external costs, utilities etc....
If you look at what has gone on over the course of the last year with a large increase in support staff (medical, youth coaches, coaches etc), the improvements to the Mem either through necessity or as good will to give something to us long standing supporters, the moving of stuff to put the new stand in, the increased council and police costs, the fact the Mem has very limited revenue opportunities, the fact Bristol is one of the most expensive cities to live and operate in, the fact the Mem is so old so needs regular and more frequent maintenance, the more professional away process for players (overnight stays, food after training etc) and also the new stadium feasibility and training ground and new directors and experts......
Then remember that the season ticket prices have only been nominally increased for next season and expect match day prices to stay in a similar range then it doesn't surprise me that the break even attendance numbers have risen a lot. Our expenditure is a lot higher yet our revenue streams are limited or fixed with no ability to increase them (apart from raise ticket prices extortionately which would alienate the fan base).... We don't have the loopholes like other clubs do (Fleetwood etc) in being able to put your owners business in the stadium and then charge rent to that business ......
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on May 6, 2017 7:38:10 GMT
It is simply not true we had a bottom 8 budget by the end of the season, as explained by Steve Brookfield at the recent AGM.
At the beginning of last season we may have been close to a bottom eight budget but from the December transfer window to the end of the season it is believed we had a budget about 12th in the division. It was estimated that Bolton were first followed by Charlton.
Ok not bottom eight but about bottom 10 so it could well be around the bottom 8-10 budget which DC stated. I still dont understand the SH statement earlier that we need a 15k attendance figure to break even or has that reasoning been explained somewhere. On that basis alone if the BoD increase the playing budget presumably the break even attendance will also have to rise accordingly - to 17k or more? Steve Brookfield also confirmed that to break even, we need an attendance figure greater than the ground capacity.
I think Steve Hamer and Steve Brookfield are in a better position to KNOW what the breakeven figure is.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on May 6, 2017 7:54:42 GMT
It is simply not true we had a bottom 8 budget by the end of the season, as explained by Steve Brookfield at the recent AGM.
At the beginning of last season we may have been close to a bottom eight budget but from the December transfer window to the end of the season it is believed we had a budget about 12th in the division. It was estimated that Bolton were first followed by Charlton.
there was a thread on here saying that Sheffield utd had a 6m pa budget, and that was the highest.... I dont suppose you know the figures of the top end spenders? Herewith Oxford United's recent published accounts, for comparison.
Oxford Unites accounts
I do not have the time or willingness to provide all the divisions accounts but there are one or two on here who appear to have plenty of time, perhaps they can tabulate the info you require.
Turnover - BRFC £4.74m - Oxford United £5.15m Loss - BRFC £831,158 - Oxford United £1,814,396
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 7:55:10 GMT
Ok not bottom eight but about bottom 10 so it could well be around the bottom 8-10 budget which DC stated. I still dont understand the SH statement earlier that we need a 15k attendance figure to break even or has that reasoning been explained somewhere. On that basis alone if the BoD increase the playing budget presumably the break even attendance will also have to rise accordingly - to 17k or more? Steve Brookfield also confirmed that to break even, we need an attendance figure greater than the ground capacity.
I think Steve Hamer and Steve Brookfield are in a better position to KNOW what the breakeven figure is.
Exactly and that's the point I'm making - SH went on record and said (repeating myself) we need a break even attendance figure of 15k. If the playing budget rises presumably the attendance break even figure will also increase - remember the cost of season tickets for next season have hardly increased to accommodate a higher playing budget. I'm not sure you read everything I said. I cannot see where any additional external revenue is coming from apart from maybe transfer fees.
|
|
|
Post by Gasshole on May 6, 2017 7:59:53 GMT
A man with 42 pricks walked into the 3 Lions in Bedminster. The
Barman says " evening lads, did you enjoy the game"
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on May 6, 2017 8:09:33 GMT
Steve Brookfield also confirmed that to break even, we need an attendance figure greater than the ground capacity.
I think Steve Hamer and Steve Brookfield are in a better position to KNOW what the breakeven figure is.
Exactly and that's the point I'm making - SH went on record and said (repeating myself) we need a break even attendance figure of 15k. If the playing budget rises presumably the attendance break even figure will also increase - remember the cost of season tickets for next season have hardly increased to accommodate a higher playing budget. I'm not sure you read everything I said. I cannot see where any additional external revenue is coming from apart from maybe transfer fees. Yes, we cannot break even without increasing revenue, even if we had 12,250 attending every game.
The only answers are, a ground with a greater capacity, reduce our overheads or accept we are going to make a loss of getting on for £1m every season.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 6, 2017 9:39:04 GMT
I understand what you are saying but people are interested in finding out why Rovers have a top 7 attendance figure but a bottom 8 budget. Should my hypothesis be correct we are using the revenue produced from about 2000 fans at every home game just to pay interest on the Dwane Sports loan. If they are planning to convert it to equity at a later stage why not do it now so that instead of paying interest the cash could be put towards the playing budget ? Swiss, isn't it the case that interest must be charged but the real concern is if it is taken or written off? As I understand it, the accounting rules (FRS102) states that any intra-company loans must be recorded at commercial rates in order to give a "fair value". Whether these interest rates are realised is a different matter, those concerns already mentioned still hold true until they are confirmed or not. I would guess we wouldn't know Dwane Sports' intentions unless (a) we ask them or (b) next years' accounts are public and give us a full 12 months worth of information. Does anyone know if these questions were raised at the recent AGM?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 6, 2017 10:50:53 GMT
Steve Brookfield also confirmed that to break even, we need an attendance figure greater than the ground capacity.
I think Steve Hamer and Steve Brookfield are in a better position to KNOW what the breakeven figure is.
Exactly and that's the point I'm making - SH went on record and said (repeating myself) we need a break even attendance figure of 15k. If the playing budget rises presumably the attendance break even figure will also increase - remember the cost of season tickets for next season have hardly increased to accommodate a higher playing budget. I'm not sure you read everything I said. I cannot see where any additional external revenue is coming from apart from maybe transfer fees. NH/TW were ridiculed for saying they set the playing budget on a 9,000(?) average attendance, if it's now 15,000 that's an hell of an increase in expenditure even on that figure as 6,000 x £15 is an extra £90K per match/£180K per month/£2m per annum! As far as the wage budget post January being mid table, as does that work out as we lost high earner Taylor plus Roberts, Roos, Boateng & Colkett but only gained Lumley, Sweeney, Partington & Burn. If the latter two are big wage earners then why the hell weren't they playing regularly. Do we now have a problem that Gaffney & Harrison want similar deals?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 11:14:48 GMT
Can't fault anyone for their thirst for knowledge regarding the BRFC debt,BUT do you know the intricate business dealings of even your own bank? ffs we are owned by the Al-Qadi's not the Dam Trotters,and if the break even figures are correct then the owners must be happy to service extra debt that they have/will have brought upon the club themselves.Simply confirms that a new stadium will happen and must happen asap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 11:26:01 GMT
Exactly and that's the point I'm making - SH went on record and said (repeating myself) we need a break even attendance figure of 15k. If the playing budget rises presumably the attendance break even figure will also increase - remember the cost of season tickets for next season have hardly increased to accommodate a higher playing budget. I'm not sure you read everything I said. I cannot see where any additional external revenue is coming from apart from maybe transfer fees. NH/TW were ridiculed for saying they set the playing budget on a 9,000(?) average attendance, if it's now 15,000 that's an hell of an increase in expenditure even on that figure as 6,000 x £15 is an extra £90K per match/£180K per month/£2m per annum! As far as the wage budget post January being mid table, as does that work out as we lost high earner Taylor plus Roberts, Roos, Boateng & Colkett but only gained Lumley, Sweeney, Partington & Burn. If the latter two are big wage earners then why the hell weren't they playing regularly. Do we now have a problem that Gaffney & Harrison want similar deals? Unfortunately for Gaffney & Harrison their 'stock value' has probably dropped after last season - their bargaining position is now probably fairly weak with regard to an improved contract offer. Conversely as an example, Billy Bob & DC's stock has probably risen since signing their existing contracts and adjustments to their wages may be re-negotiated through their agents. Personally I think Gaffney & Harrison were fortunate to be offered anything.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on May 6, 2017 11:29:44 GMT
A man with 42 pricks walked into the 3 Lions in Bedminster. The Barman says " evening lads, did you enjoy the game" That makes more sense to me than any other post in this thread ! Lol
|
|