|
Post by Captain Jayho on Feb 5, 2019 20:33:17 GMT
So essentially any new owner will need to pay the value of the club plus the existing debt to gain control. Seems good in theory and plausible when it's just a couple of million. Less so when the debt is heading beyond ten million I'd have thought. The debt would obviously be considered in regard to the price of the club, just like when Dwane bought the club from Higgs, etc. Yeah, that works fine when the debt is less than the perceived value of the club. But...
|
|
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Feb 5, 2019 20:34:53 GMT
So essentially any new owner will need to pay the value of the club plus the existing debt to gain control. Seems good in theory and plausible when it's just a couple of million. Less so when the debt is heading beyond ten million I'd have thought. Depends on what the seller is prepared to accept Yes, very much so. Do we think the Al Qadis would want all of their money back when they sell? Because if not they might as well just pay off the debt now and be done with it, no?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Feb 5, 2019 20:46:56 GMT
The debt would obviously be considered in regard to the price of the club, just like when Dwane bought the club from Higgs, etc. Yeah, that works fine when the debt is less than the perceived value of the club. But... We tend to go around in circles when discussing this but the point you make is a good one. In February 2016 Dwane Sports acquired the club for nothing and Nick Higgs & Co transferred their shares for free because Dwane Sports agreed to loan Rovers an initial 6.2 million to pay back most of the loans owed to the former shareholders plus the MSP Capital loan and agreed to pay the remainder of the former shareholders loans, amounting to 900K, once certain conditions were met. So in February 2016 the amount required to acquire 92% of BRFC 1883 Ltd was about 7.1 million. By my reckoning the Dwane Sports loan will now stand at between 11 and 12 million which, following the logic of previous posts, any new owner would be required to pay to acquire the club. The Dwane Sports offer of 7.1 million was obviously the best available in February 2016 so how can it be that the value of the club has increased by 4 or 5 million in the last three years ?
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Feb 5, 2019 20:52:27 GMT
Yeah, that works fine when the debt is less than the perceived value of the club. But... We tend to go around in circles when discussing this but the point you make is a good one. In February 2016 Dwane Sports acquired the club for nothing and Nick Higgs & Co transferred their shares for free because Dwane Sports agreed to loan Rovers an initial 6.2 million to pay back most of the loans owed to the former shareholders plus the MSP Capital loan and agreed to pay the remainder of the former shareholders loans, amounting to 900K, once certain conditions were met. So in February 2016 the amount required to acquire 92% of BRFC 1883 Ltd was about 7.1 million. By my reckoning the Dwane Sports loan will now stand at between 11 and 12 million which, following the logic of previous posts, any new owner would be required to pay to acquire the club. The Dwane Sports offer of 7.1 million was obviously the best available in February 2016 so how can it be that the value of the club has increased by 4 or 5 million in the last three years ? Blimey, an almost spot on summation of the situation in February 2016. As regards the current situation, who knows. The accounts will no doubt be published in the next few weeks, up to 30th June 2018
|
|
|
Post by Goose on Feb 5, 2019 21:00:05 GMT
Just reading on a construction website (due to my background) have found the following on CNPlus...
Despite Mr Underwoodβs feelings about the general perception of contractors, his firm have been involved in several stadium projects for many years. In particular, they are still involved with plans to build a new home for Bristol Rovers, more than 13 years after first getting involved, and have been talking to Brentford about their new-build stadium for more than four years β a remarkably long gestation period
Not sure what this means lol
|
|
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Feb 5, 2019 21:00:37 GMT
Yeah, that works fine when the debt is less than the perceived value of the club. But... We tend to go around in circles when discussing this but the point you make is a good one. In February 2016 Dwane Sports acquired the club for nothing and Nick Higgs & Co transferred their shares for free because Dwane Sports agreed to loan Rovers an initial 6.2 million to pay back most of the loans owed to the former shareholders plus the MSP Capital loan and agreed to pay the remainder of the former shareholders loans, amounting to 900K, once certain conditions were met. So in February 2016 the amount required to acquire 92% of BRFC 1883 Ltd was about 7.1 million. By my reckoning the Dwane Sports loan will now stand at between 11 and 12 million which, following the logic of previous posts, any new owner would be required to pay to acquire the club. The Dwane Sports offer of 7.1 million was obviously the best available in February 2016 so how can it be that the value of the club has increased by 4 or 5 million in the last three years ? Thanks Swiss, that adds some flesh to the bones of the argument. I mean I'm sure there are plenty of examples where new owners have come in and overpaid for a club (simply because they want to buy that club). And there would be many examples of clubs where the current owners took a haircut in order to offload the club. So there is certainly scope for a club still to be sold when debt exceeds club value. But my thinking is that as the mismatch between club value and club debt continues, the less likely it is that someone is going to come in and buy the club. I worry about where this ends. Which does make me wonder wtf the Al Qadis gameplan is because I'm sure Hani will want his money back at some point!
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 5, 2019 21:03:12 GMT
The debt would obviously be considered in regard to the price of the club, just like when Dwane bought the club from Higgs, etc. Yeah, that works fine when the debt is less than the perceived value of the club. But... You can say that about any owner. The specific finances are essentially irrelevant (within reason). What it's really about is whether you trust the owner to pay any debts they need to to keep the club running, or whether you think they won't.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Feb 5, 2019 21:11:47 GMT
Yeah, that works fine when the debt is less than the perceived value of the club. But... You can say that about any owner. The specific finances are essentially irrelevant (within reason). What it's really about is whether you trust the owner to pay any debts they need to to keep the club running, or whether you think they won't. I see what you are saying, but if I understand it correctly that seems like somewhat of a short-term day to day view! We can't just keep on accumulating debt ad-infinitum, at least I don't think we can. Doesn't that simply lead to a point where the specific finances aren't within reason? I guess if it's an internal debt with no interest being charged by the owner then theoretically we could as long as the owner's good will remains. But then if the owners ever want out then we're well and truly ****ed.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 5, 2019 21:15:52 GMT
You can say that about any owner. The specific finances are essentially irrelevant (within reason). What it's really about is whether you trust the owner to pay any debts they need to to keep the club running, or whether you think they won't. I see what you are saying, but if I understand it correctly that seems like somewhat of a short-term day to day view! We can't just keep on accumulating debt ad-infinitum, at least I don't think we can. Doesn't that simply lead to a point where the specific finances aren't within reason? I guess if it's an internal debt with no interest being charged by the owner then theoretically we could as long as the owner's good will remains. But then if the owners ever want out then we're well and truly ****ed. If you own something worth 15M, which has 10M worth of debts, you can sell it for 5M. It's as simple as that. If you paid 10M for it, then you've just lost 5M. The thing about football clubs at this level is they're not actually worth anything except what someone wants to pay for them. As a going concern they're virtually worthless.
|
|
|
Post by paulpirate on Feb 5, 2019 21:25:13 GMT
I see what you are saying, but if I understand it correctly that seems like somewhat of a short-term day to day view! We can't just keep on accumulating debt ad-infinitum, at least I don't think we can. Doesn't that simply lead to a point where the specific finances aren't within reason? I guess if it's an internal debt with no interest being charged by the owner then theoretically we could as long as the owner's good will remains. But then if the owners ever want out then we're well and truly ****ed. If you own something worth 15M, which has 10M worth of debts, you can sell it for 5M. It's as simple as that. If you paid 10M for it, then you've just lost 5M. The thing about football clubs at this level is they're not actually worth anything except what someone wants to pay for them. As a going concern they're virtually worthless. totally worthless if your not willing to speculate to accumulate
|
|
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Feb 5, 2019 21:28:32 GMT
I see what you are saying, but if I understand it correctly that seems like somewhat of a short-term day to day view! We can't just keep on accumulating debt ad-infinitum, at least I don't think we can. Doesn't that simply lead to a point where the specific finances aren't within reason? I guess if it's an internal debt with no interest being charged by the owner then theoretically we could as long as the owner's good will remains. But then if the owners ever want out then we're well and truly ****ed. If you own something worth 15M, which has 10M worth of debts, you can sell it for 5M. It's as simple as that. If you paid 10M for it, then you've just lost 5M. The thing about football clubs at this level is they're not actually worth anything except what someone wants to pay for them. As a going concern they're virtually worthless. I personally just can't get my head around that line of reasoning. In the example you give the club worth is greater than the accumulated debt - but surely we are actually in the opposite situation? But other clubs seem to manage with this situation so I guess it's just the way football clubs are run. Therefore I shall continue to just sit quietly in the corner worrying about it and let the club get on with playing football!
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 5, 2019 21:30:18 GMT
If you own something worth 15M, which has 10M worth of debts, you can sell it for 5M. It's as simple as that. If you paid 10M for it, then you've just lost 5M. The thing about football clubs at this level is they're not actually worth anything except what someone wants to pay for them. As a going concern they're virtually worthless. I personally just can't get my head around that line of reasoning. In the example you give the club worth is greater than the accumulated debt - but surely we are actually in the opposite situation? But other clubs seem to manage with this situation so I guess it's just the way football clubs are run. Therefore I shall continue to just sit quietly in the corner worrying about it and let the club get on with playing football! Well, the example was just round numbers plucked out of the air. I wasn't suggesting they were the numbers. If the club is 15M in debt and someone offers to buy it for 10M, then the owner just has to write off 5M or they won't sell it. City owed Lansdown something like 60M iirc, and he wrote most of it off, but only coz the FFP rules made him. He would have been just as happy with the club owing him 100M. I doubt he was ever expecting to get it back.
|
|
|
Post by gasforeverman on Feb 5, 2019 21:46:26 GMT
So if any of our more enlightened fans who are good with figures/business accounts would like to put some figures together so our fanbase could digest the clubs financial position and have some real clarity . We could then ask the owners what their aims are?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2019 22:02:36 GMT
You saw Wael! Wow. I've heard that sightings of him have become so rare that the WWF were considering putting him on the Endangered List ! Funny you should say that did see Michaela Strachan trying to put a tag on his foot ππ tap that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 22:18:04 GMT
Funny you should say that did see Michaela Strachan trying to put a tag on his foot ππ tap that I don't know whether I want to shag her or batter her face with a frying pan. No crude jokes about battering faces please. Many thanks B x
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Feb 6, 2019 23:54:46 GMT
There has been no explanation as to why a banking family would want to take a loss making business, then for several years cover those losses and then, when the debts are equall to or even exceed the assets of the business, either attempt to sell or liquidate the business.
I just don't see what the point of all that s hit would be.
Can anyone enlighten me, please?
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Feb 7, 2019 2:00:00 GMT
There has been no explanation as to why a banking family would want to take a loss making business, then for several years cover those losses and then, when the debts are equall to or even exceed the assets of the business, either attempt to sell or liquidate the business. I just don't see what the point of all that s hit would be. Can anyone enlighten me, please? It's very simple. The current custodians did not do a proper due diligence before taking over the club. Our Chairman admitted at his first AGM that "certain matters had come to light they were not aware of....." Then they brought The Colony without proper investigation on how much it was going to cost to get it up and running. I can only hope that any new custodians are more savvy.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Feb 7, 2019 6:02:10 GMT
There has been no explanation as to why a banking family would want to take a loss making business, then for several years cover those losses and then, when the debts are equall to or even exceed the assets of the business, either attempt to sell or liquidate the business. I just don't see what the point of all that s hit would be. Can anyone enlighten me, please? This is an excellent question. My assumption - complete guesswork mind - is that it's a vanity project gone wrong.
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Feb 7, 2019 8:23:29 GMT
There has been no explanation as to why a banking family would want to take a loss making business, then for several years cover those losses and then, when the debts are equall to or even exceed the assets of the business, either attempt to sell or liquidate the business. I just don't see what the point of all that s hit would be. Can anyone enlighten me, please? It's very simple. The current custodians did not do a proper due diligence before taking over the club. Our Chairman admitted at his first AGM that "certain matters had come to light they were not aware of....." Then they brought The Colony without proper investigation on how much it was going to cost to get it up and running. I can only hope that any new custodians are more savvy. What I also struggle to understand is the concept that a banking institution would fail to carry out due diligence. I mean, it flies in the face of everything these banking institutions stand for, it's against their very DNA. Oh well, I suppose you could speculate and discuss to the end of time. The AQ's are not likely to tell us. Hamer might, but he would probably wrap it all up in a riddle then make a bolt for he stairs. Oh for the open communication of Nick Higgs!
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 7, 2019 8:50:07 GMT
There has been no explanation as to why a banking family would want to take a loss making business, then for several years cover those losses and then, when the debts are equall to or even exceed the assets of the business, either attempt to sell or liquidate the business. I just don't see what the point of all that s hit would be. Can anyone enlighten me, please? It's very simple. The current custodians did not do a proper due diligence before taking over the club. Our Chairman admitted at his first AGM that "certain matters had come to light they were not aware of....." Then they brought The Colony without proper investigation on how much it was going to cost to get it up and running. I can only hope that any new custodians are more savvy. Pretty sure SH also suggested it cost a lot more to run a football league club than the family realised.
|
|