|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Nov 5, 2017 14:25:19 GMT
The logic that "the Al Qadis have placed a charge against the mem therefore there is no investment risk to them" is fundamentally flawed. If I buy a house for £200,000. Then later raise a mortgage against it of 200,000 to pay for other stuff and then go bust and have to sell the property to repay the mortgage of £200,000 I'm still two hundred grand down because I forked out for the place in the firt place. That also ignores any interest payments to service that loan. I reread that load of old guff and try to make a more reasoned argument. £200k of cash has disappeared from your argument |
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Nov 5, 2017 14:27:00 GMT
One fact is that the board were quoted on numerous occasions stating that staying at the mem was no feesable for the clubs future- now it's the preferred/only option?! That doesn't stack up to me... I said it before, things change. If I said I will travel to work by bus and then the bus didn't turn up so I walked to work instead, would that stack up to you? Of course it would. Likewise, club statements saying.... "Staying at the Mem is not feesable" (I am getting the bus to work) Then the UWE deal broke down (bus didn't turn up) "Stay at the Mem is now the only option" (so I walked to work instead) Things change meaning decisions then have to change. Its not that difficult to understand. I'd buy a car because this bus never seems to turn up |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 5, 2017 14:28:21 GMT
One fact is that the board were quoted on numerous occasions stating that staying at the mem was no feesable for the clubs future- now it's the preferred/only option?! That doesn't stack up to me... I said it before, things change. If I said I will travel to work by bus and then the bus didn't turn up so I walked to work instead, would that stack up to you? Of course it would. Likewise, club statements saying.... "Staying at the Mem is not feesable" (I am getting the bus to work) Then the UWE deal broke down (bus didn't turn up) "Stay at the Mem is now the only option" (so I walked to work instead) Things change meaning decisions then have to change. Its not that difficult to understand. This bus thing. What? |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Nov 5, 2017 14:30:03 GMT
The logic that "the Al Qadis have placed a charge against the mem therefore there is no investment risk to them" is fundamentally flawed. If I buy a house for £200,000. Then later raise a mortgage against it of 200,000 to pay for other stuff and then go bust and have to sell the property to repay the mortgage of £200,000 I'm still two hundred grand down because I forked out for the place in the firt place. That also ignores any interest payments to service that loan. I reread that load of old guff and try to make a more reasoned argument. £200k of cash has disappeared from your argument It hasn't. Buy asset 200k (leaves you -200) Borrow 200k (leaves you -400) Waste 200k Go bust sell asset +200k (leaves you -200) Still 200k out of pocket. |
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Nov 5, 2017 14:31:32 GMT
Yes and I'm not trying to be pedantic just point out that you are being 'led to believe' UWE is not viable by the very people who want you to believe it's not viable rather than they can't or don't want to invest the necessary capital. I don't understand why so many fans think that because the ALQs say something it must be true and not be questioned. Such a situation has never happened with any previous owners! The very people who make money out of investments, want you to believe that they didn't make an investment because it wasn't a good investment? Blimey. The mind boggles. Are you genuinely trying to say that they bought the club in order to throw away about a million quid a year on it, while making excuses why they're not investing money in it, to hide the fact they're actually content to lose a million quid a year, coz they don't want to invest in anything that might actually make money in the future? Why would they do that? I don't think it's true because they say it is. I think it's true coz the alternative would make them idiots. No. They bought the club because the full UWE development would have been worth millions to investors. But they didn't check out the UWE first. Remember only a couple of days before the takeover was announced it was supposed to be an investment exercise only. Once the potential viability of the UWE site became obvious they decided on a takeover. Remember the taught face on Nick Higgs when he was forced to announce the takeover. He still wanted control, but was over a barrel. Time had run out on the loan, and he couldn't repay it. He had no choice but to agree it. Then came the problem at the UWE. The rest as they say is history. Hopefully our current owners will be soon, as they offer no hope at all. Only Wael has remained true to his word. Sadly he has no clout. |
|
|
|
Post by paulpirate on Nov 5, 2017 14:44:33 GMT
Haven’t got a pot to water in then
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 14:44:55 GMT
Not saying it's the case but what if it's their own bank providing the investment? They can control it all then including the rate of return etc They don't own the Dam but bank, how many times is this 'fact' peddled by idiots? They own a minority stake (30%?) and the others that own the 70% aren't going to allow them to use it as their personal piggy bank. Learn to read and refrain from calling me an idiot as I didn't say they owned it outright! The have a significant stake in the bank they founded and so are part owners! Investors put savings into the bank and as the family run the bank and is the chief executive who has outright accountability to approve commercial loans they don't have to go to the rest of the shareholders to approve the loan! Do you think the public is consulted on anything RBS etc did when we (the government using tax payers money bailed them out? Does Nationwide consult it's millions of members for approval on every loan, mortgage or commercial loan it makes (it's a mutual so the entire membership owns it!).... No!! It's called delegated decision making authority from the board! I know more about hedge funds and retail banking and financial services than you seem to think and just cos I don't agree with your viewpoint does not make me an idiot or fool! Think you need to take a hard look in the mirror my friend |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 5, 2017 14:45:37 GMT
The very people who make money out of investments, want you to believe that they didn't make an investment because it wasn't a good investment? Blimey. The mind boggles. Are you genuinely trying to say that they bought the club in order to throw away about a million quid a year on it, while making excuses why they're not investing money in it, to hide the fact they're actually content to lose a million quid a year, coz they don't want to invest in anything that might actually make money in the future? Why would they do that? I don't think it's true because they say it is. I think it's true coz the alternative would make them idiots. No. They bought the club because the full UWE development would have been worth millions to investors. But they didn't check out the UWE first. Remember only a couple of days before the takeover was announced it was supposed to be an investment exercise only. Once the potential viability of the UWE site became obvious they decided on a takeover. Remember the taught face on Nick Higgs when he was forced to announce the takeover. He still wanted control, but was over a barrel. Time had run out on the loan, and he couldn't repay it. He had no choice but to agree it. Then came the problem at the UWE. The rest as they say is history. Hopefully our current owners will be soon, as they offer no hope at all. Only Wael has remained true to his word. Sadly he has no clout. So why did they look at buying Gillingham? |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 5, 2017 14:46:33 GMT
Haven’t got a pot to water in then Poor buggers, only managed to raise enough to buy us. Meh. |
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Nov 5, 2017 14:47:43 GMT
I reread that load of old guff and try to make a more reasoned argument. £200k of cash has disappeared from your argument It hasn't. Buy asset 200k (leaves you -200) Borrow 200k (leaves you -400) Waste 200k Go bust sell asset +200k (leaves you -200) Still 200k out of pocket. Come on Hugo, I've stopped laughing now. Who would lend £200,000 on a £200,000 house with a mortgage of (you guessed it) £200,000 outstanding on it ? An investment banker maybe from the Middle East? |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Nov 5, 2017 14:49:45 GMT
The logic that "the Al Qadis have placed a charge against the mem therefore there is no investment risk to them" is fundamentally flawed. If I buy a house for £200,000. Then later raise a mortgage against it of 200,000 to pay for other stuff and then go bust and have to sell the property to repay the mortgage of £200,000 I'm still two hundred grand down because I forked out for the place in the firt place. That also ignores any interest payments to service that loan. I reread that load of old guff and try to make a more reasoned argument. £200k of cash has disappeared from your argument How so? If you spend the money you borrow on ... hmmm ... let's say running a football club, you don't have that cash anymore - it's gone into the pocket of your players and backroom staff for them to spend on X-Box and trainers. You don't magic up money by borrowing. Cash of 200 less purchase price equals cash of zero and asset equity of 200. Debt of 200 equals cash of 200 and asset equity of zero. Cash of 200 spent on football club fun equals cash of zero and equity of zero. What's missing? |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 5, 2017 14:51:20 GMT
I reread that load of old guff and try to make a more reasoned argument. £200k of cash has disappeared from your argument How so? If you spend the money you borrow on ... hmmm ... let's say running a football club, you don't have that cash anymore - it's gone into the pocket of your players and backroom staff for them to spend on X-Box and trainers. You don't magic up money by borrowing. Cash of 200 less purchase price equals cash of zero and asset equity of 200. Debt of 200 equals cash of 200 and asset equity of zero. Cash of 200 spent on football club fun equals cash of zero and equity of zero. What's missing? What's missing? That's very kind of you, pint, packet of crisps and a pickled egg. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Nov 5, 2017 14:52:01 GMT
The only possible reason for buying Gillingham would be to put houses on it. It is surrounded by housing, so nowt else would probably fit on it to enhance the club.
Does that now make you wonder why they bought us? Our site is bigger.
|
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Nov 5, 2017 14:52:10 GMT
They don't own the f**king but bank, how many times is this 'fact' peddled by idiots? They own a minority stake (30%?) and the others that own the 70% aren't going to allow them to use it as their personal piggy bank. Learn to read and refrain from calling me an idiot as I didn't say they owned it outright! The have a significant stake in the bank they founded and so are part owners! Investors put savings into the bank and as the family run the bank and is the chief executive who has outright accountability to approve commercial loans they don't have to go to the rest of the shareholders to approve the loan! Do you think the public is consulted on anything RBS etc did when we (the government using tax payers money bailed them out? Does Nationwide consult it's millions of members for approval on every loan, mortgage or commercial loan it makes (it's a mutual so the entire membership owns it!).... No!! It's called delegated decision making authority from the board! I know more about hedge funds and retail banking and financial services than you seem to think and just cos I don't agree with your viewpoint does not make me an idiot or fool! Think you need to take a hard look in the mirror my friend I did read and you clearly said 'their own bank' idiot |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Nov 5, 2017 14:55:41 GMT
It hasn't. Buy asset 200k (leaves you -200) Borrow 200k (leaves you -400) Waste 200k Go bust sell asset +200k (leaves you -200) Still 200k out of pocket. Come on Hugo, I've stopped laughing now. Who would lend £200,000 on a £200,000 house with a mortgage of (you guessed it) £200,000 outstanding on it ? An investment banker maybe from the Middle East? Think about what you've written here and explain how there's no investment risk in it. You've pretty succinctly described in this post why your assertion is plainly wrong even to the mathematically challenged. |
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Nov 5, 2017 14:56:57 GMT
How so? If you spend the money you borrow on ... hmmm ... let's say running a football club, you don't have that cash anymore - it's gone into the pocket of your players and backroom staff for them to spend on X-Box and trainers. You don't magic up money by borrowing. Cash of 200 less purchase price equals cash of zero and asset equity of 200. Debt of 200 equals cash of 200 and asset equity of zero. Cash of 200 spent on football club fun equals cash of zero and equity of zero. What's missing? The fact that the asset (in our case) securing the spending still greatly outweighs our total debt. |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Nov 5, 2017 15:00:07 GMT
The only possible reason for buying Gillingham would be to put houses on it. It is surrounded by housing, so nowt else would probably fit on it to enhance the club. Does that now make you wonder why they bought us? Our site is bigger. Your claims just get more and more bizarre. You're saying their business model is "buy football clubs and turn their grounds into development plots"? Again, surely you must see that that is a ridiculous claim. Why would anyone take on the massive time cost and equity outlay of buying a football club, running it for a bit (at a loss) and winding it up just for the tiny landstock of 1 x football field that it contains. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 5, 2017 15:00:24 GMT
The only possible reason for buying Gillingham would be to put houses on it. It is surrounded by housing, so nowt else would probably fit on it to enhance the club. Does that now make you wonder why they bought us? Our site is bigger. So they bought us purely to sell our land and put houses on it for a profit and then bugger off back to Jordan? |
|
|
|
Post by You can call me Al. on Nov 5, 2017 15:00:56 GMT
Just catching up on some of this...........
.....and this ladies and gentlemen is the reason why supporters should never be let anywhere near the boardroom!
|
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Nov 5, 2017 15:02:07 GMT
Come on Hugo, I've stopped laughing now. Who would lend £200,000 on a £200,000 house with a mortgage of (you guessed it) £200,000 outstanding on it ? An investment banker maybe from the Middle East? Think about what you've written here and explain how there's no investment risk in it. You've pretty succinctly described in this post why your assertion is plainly wrong even to the mathematically challenged. As I'm fick, can you state why my explanation is wrong? The statement says that two loans (mortgage and loan each of £200k) is secured on a property valued at £ 200k. I think there is a slight risk there don't you? So I repeat, who would lend in that scenario? With us the assets still still far outweigh the liabilities, so no risk. |
|
