|
Post by downendout on Oct 31, 2019 17:10:30 GMT
Still swap places with them in a heart beat. They will eventually get into the promised land of the premier league and we risk losing future generations of supporters. The gulf between us has never been as big, good luck to them I say. If only we had owners like the duke of guernsey Lansdowne has pumped how many hundreds of millions into that lot? And they're still no where near the "promised land". You're wishing them good luck? Seriously? You can't say they are nowhere near, just checked and if they win on Friday night away to Barnsley they go joint top - until the Saturday games - albeit still very early in the season. I'd have to emigrate if they go up.
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Oct 31, 2019 18:19:15 GMT
Yet NH, however I and others viewed him, never did this. We now do not own the ground as the equity has been drawn from it if Daniel is correct. NH may have got many things wrong but he never jeopardised us by placing any charge on the ground and it has been widely reported that the club was passed on for the 7.5 million that covered the directors debts, in the belief that finance would not be an issue and that a new ground was on it wat Sorry mate but that's just not true, what do you think a mortgage is? Please explain as I’m genuinely confused
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Oct 31, 2019 19:03:13 GMT
Sorry mate but that's just not true, what do you think a mortgage is? Please explain as I’m genuinely confused What is being put forward as the reason for the mortgage charge against the Mem seems to me to be something like this. A man decides to indulge his fantasies so he buys a Yacht but of course it doesn't end there. He has to pay for the mooring at the Marina, pay people to help him learn to sail the thing, pay all the running costs like fuel, maintenance, insurance etc and pay for the lifestyle changes which go with joining the "Boating Set" so he can impress his friends. Luckily, due to the generosity of his father, the man has no mortgage or other debt but plenty of savings so he doesn't need a loan from a bank to finance all this he just takes the cash from his account. Then he goes to his solicitor to ask him to register a mortgage charge against his home. And when the solicitor asks why on earth he wants to do this the man says " so that someone I don't owe any money to can't go to court and obtain a charge themselves then sell my home to repay the money I don't owe them" Which is why the solicitor was not at all surprised when a few months later the Yacht sank with all hands on board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2019 19:11:39 GMT
When you read the "price of football" by kiaran maguire it becomes clear that almost all the clubs in the championship and below are reliant on their owners continuing to finance what is in many cases a heavy loss making concern. The figures in the championship are staggering but most clubs including rovers exist because their owners prop them up.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,321
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 31, 2019 19:27:26 GMT
Sorry mate but that's just not true, what do you think a mortgage is? Please explain as I’m genuinely confused A charge is a legal notice of financial interest in the event of that asset being sold. It can be superseded by a legal challenge or HMRC and there can also be charges from other parties running concurrently. Some companies are funded by loans rather than shares and the loan would be secured against the property. Maybe unuaual in practice but not in theory. There are many reasons to be disappointed in DS and concerned by our financial situation, but the charge isn't really one of them. As pointed out earlier, there was rarely a time the Mem didn't have one, even under GD while NH had one in favour of the loan company.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Oct 31, 2019 20:07:07 GMT
Please explain as I’m genuinely confused A charge is a legal notice of financial interest in the event of that asset being sold. It can be superseded by a legal challenge or HMRC and there can also be charges from other parties running concurrently. Some companies are funded by loans rather than shares and the loan would be secured against the property. Maybe unuaual in practice but not in theory. There are many reasons to be disappointed in DS and concerned by our financial situation, but the charge isn't really one of them. As pointed out earlier, there was rarely a time the Mem didn't have one, even under GD while NH had one in favour of the loan company. But all previous charge holders were companies like the bank, brewery or Geoff Dunford's Deltavon which had no control over the day to day running of BRFC 1883 Ltd. They registered their charges as a way of protecting their interests in the event that those who were in control of BRFC 1883 Ltd kept writing out cheques, or taking out secured loans, to the point where there would be nothing left to repay them what they were owed. Dwane Sports Ltd fully control BRFC 1883 Ltd and it is effectively they who write out the cheques so they have no need of a legal charge to secure their interest. I think it was eventually established that the charge was made as a pre-emptive measure because after the takeover Dwane Sports still owed two of the former shareholders a considerable amount of money. It may have been mooted that those shareholders could ask for, and would have been given, a charge to secure their debt and it was this threat which sent Dwane Sports into panic mode. This is one of the many examples of the owners floundering which they have done from day one. Remember the absurdity of them going to the trouble of setting up an offshore holding company with nominee shareholders, the only purpose of which is to hide the true identity of the company owners, and then holding a press conference to proudly announce they were the new owners. But the real issue here is the danger that this floundering will eventually bring the football club to a point where the cash runs dry and calls have to go out for the fans and the Council to launch the lifeboats.
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Nov 1, 2019 10:50:22 GMT
Please explain as I’m genuinely confused A charge is a legal notice of financial interest in the event of that asset being sold. It can be superseded by a legal challenge or HMRC and there can also be charges from other parties running concurrently. Some companies are funded by loans rather than shares and the loan would be secured against the property. Maybe unuaual in practice but not in theory. There are many reasons to be disappointed in DS and concerned by our financial situation, but the charge isn't really one of them. As pointed out earlier, there was rarely a time the Mem didn't have one, even under GD while NH had one in favour of the loan company. I was a bit slow yesterday. I know NH had the loan from Barclays and they called it in but it was never for the entire amount of the mem. If memory serves me well then it was for around 3 million. Once again, thank you for trying to explain as I do sometimes have blonde moments. Very much appreciated
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Nov 1, 2019 10:54:20 GMT
A charge is a legal notice of financial interest in the event of that asset being sold. It can be superseded by a legal challenge or HMRC and there can also be charges from other parties running concurrently. Some companies are funded by loans rather than shares and the loan would be secured against the property. Maybe unuaual in practice but not in theory. There are many reasons to be disappointed in DS and concerned by our financial situation, but the charge isn't really one of them. As pointed out earlier, there was rarely a time the Mem didn't have one, even under GD while NH had one in favour of the loan company. But all previous charge holders were companies like the bank, brewery or Geoff Dunford's Deltavon which had no control over the day to day running of BRFC 1883 Ltd. They registered their charges as a way of protecting their interests in the event that those who were in control of BRFC 1883 Ltd kept writing out cheques, or taking out secured loans, to the point where there would be nothing left to repay them what they were owed. Dwane Sports Ltd fully control BRFC 1883 Ltd and it is effectively they who write out the cheques so they have no need of a legal charge to secure their interest. I think it was eventually established that the charge was made as a pre-emptive measure because after the takeover Dwane Sports still owed two of the former shareholders a considerable amount of money. It may have been mooted that those shareholders could ask for, and would have been given, a charge to secure their debt and it was this threat which sent Dwane Sports into panic mode. This is one of the many examples of the owners floundering which they have done from day one. Remember the absurdity of them going to the trouble of setting up an offshore holding company with nominee shareholders, the only purpose of which is to hide the true identity of the company owners, and then holding a press conference to proudly announce they were the new owners. But the real issue here is the danger that this floundering will eventually bring the football club to a point where the cash runs dry and calls have to go out for the fans and the Council to launch the lifeboats. Nice one swissgas . This is what I wanted to say but could not articulate and give the detail you do as I am not au fait with the running of a football club; as you are. Thank you. BTW floundering is being very restrained and even polite.
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Nov 1, 2019 11:19:02 GMT
A charge is a legal notice of financial interest in the event of that asset being sold. It can be superseded by a legal challenge or HMRC and there can also be charges from other parties running concurrently. Some companies are funded by loans rather than shares and the loan would be secured against the property. Maybe unuaual in practice but not in theory. There are many reasons to be disappointed in DS and concerned by our financial situation, but the charge isn't really one of them. As pointed out earlier, there was rarely a time the Mem didn't have one, even under GD while NH had one in favour of the loan company. But all previous charge holders were companies like the bank, brewery or Geoff Dunford's Deltavon which had no control over the day to day running of BRFC 1883 Ltd. They registered their charges as a way of protecting their interests in the event that those who were in control of BRFC 1883 Ltd kept writing out cheques, or taking out secured loans, to the point where there would be nothing left to repay them what they were owed. Dwane Sports Ltd fully control BRFC 1883 Ltd and it is effectively they who write out the cheques so they have no need of a legal charge to secure their interest. I think it was eventually established that the charge was made as a pre-emptive measure because after the takeover Dwane Sports still owed two of the former shareholders a considerable amount of money. It may have been mooted that those shareholders could ask for, and would have been given, a charge to secure their debt and it was this threat which sent Dwane Sports into panic mode. This is one of the many examples of the owners floundering which they have done from day one. Remember the absurdity of them going to the trouble of setting up an offshore holding company with nominee shareholders, the only purpose of which is to hide the true identity of the company owners, and then holding a press conference to proudly announce they were the new owners. But the real issue here is the danger that this floundering will eventually bring the football club to a point where the cash runs dry and calls have to go out for the fans and the Council to launch the lifeboats. As usual for Swiss this is an excellent summary. When the charge was registered I did point out that it was probably to defend against a hostile attack. What Swiss describes as 'the real issue' is in fact the 'danger' and is a very real disaster waiting to happen because the Al-Qadi family do not have the money and/or inclination to continue to cover what will soon be unsecured liabilities.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 1, 2019 11:24:43 GMT
But all previous charge holders were companies like the bank, brewery or Geoff Dunford's Deltavon which had no control over the day to day running of BRFC 1883 Ltd. They registered their charges as a way of protecting their interests in the event that those who were in control of BRFC 1883 Ltd kept writing out cheques, or taking out secured loans, to the point where there would be nothing left to repay them what they were owed. Dwane Sports Ltd fully control BRFC 1883 Ltd and it is effectively they who write out the cheques so they have no need of a legal charge to secure their interest. I think it was eventually established that the charge was made as a pre-emptive measure because after the takeover Dwane Sports still owed two of the former shareholders a considerable amount of money. It may have been mooted that those shareholders could ask for, and would have been given, a charge to secure their debt and it was this threat which sent Dwane Sports into panic mode. This is one of the many examples of the owners floundering which they have done from day one. Remember the absurdity of them going to the trouble of setting up an offshore holding company with nominee shareholders, the only purpose of which is to hide the true identity of the company owners, and then holding a press conference to proudly announce they were the new owners. But the real issue here is the danger that this floundering will eventually bring the football club to a point where the cash runs dry and calls have to go out for the fans and the Council to launch the lifeboats. As usual for Swiss this is an excellent summary. When the charge was registered I did point out that it was probably to defend against a hostile attack. What Swiss describes as 'the real issue' is in fact the 'danger' and is a very real disaster waiting to happen because the Al-Qadi family do not have the money and/or inclination to continue to cover what will soon be unsecured liabilities. No one actually knows that though do they?
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Nov 1, 2019 11:39:14 GMT
Please explain as I’m genuinely confused What is being put forward as the reason for the mortgage charge against the Mem seems to me to be something like this. A man decides to indulge his fantasies so he buys a Yacht but of course it doesn't end there. He has to pay for the mooring at the Marina, pay people to help him learn to sail the thing, pay all the running costs like fuel, maintenance, insurance etc and pay for the lifestyle changes which go with joining the "Boating Set" so he can impress his friends. Luckily, due to the generosity of his father, the man has no mortgage or other debt but plenty of savings so he doesn't need a loan from a bank to finance all this he just takes the cash from his account. Then he goes to his solicitor to ask him to register a mortgage charge against his home. And when the solicitor asks why on earth he wants to do this the man says " so that someone I don't owe any money to can't go to court and obtain a charge themselves then sell my home to repay the money I don't owe them" Which is why the solicitor was not at all surprised when a few months later the Yacht sank with all hands on board. Absolutely brilliant my friend. I have to be careful laughing right now, can’t trust a fart when on strong antibiotics but that is just class and had me belly laugh, for once I didn’t have any drink around me or it would have ended up over the screen Top notch stuff swissgas.
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Nov 1, 2019 11:41:52 GMT
But all previous charge holders were companies like the bank, brewery or Geoff Dunford's Deltavon which had no control over the day to day running of BRFC 1883 Ltd. They registered their charges as a way of protecting their interests in the event that those who were in control of BRFC 1883 Ltd kept writing out cheques, or taking out secured loans, to the point where there would be nothing left to repay them what they were owed. Dwane Sports Ltd fully control BRFC 1883 Ltd and it is effectively they who write out the cheques so they have no need of a legal charge to secure their interest. I think it was eventually established that the charge was made as a pre-emptive measure because after the takeover Dwane Sports still owed two of the former shareholders a considerable amount of money. It may have been mooted that those shareholders could ask for, and would have been given, a charge to secure their debt and it was this threat which sent Dwane Sports into panic mode. This is one of the many examples of the owners floundering which they have done from day one. Remember the absurdity of them going to the trouble of setting up an offshore holding company with nominee shareholders, the only purpose of which is to hide the true identity of the company owners, and then holding a press conference to proudly announce they were the new owners. But the real issue here is the danger that this floundering will eventually bring the football club to a point where the cash runs dry and calls have to go out for the fans and the Council to launch the lifeboats. As usual for Swiss this is an excellent summary. When the charge was registered I did point out that it was probably to defend against a hostile attack. What Swiss describes as 'the real issue' is in fact the 'danger' and is a very real disaster waiting to happen because the Al-Qadi family do not have the money and/or inclination to continue to cover what will soon be unsecured liabilities. I have been following, with interest, the AJIB finances and performance figures. Not doing so well eh
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 1, 2019 11:42:36 GMT
As usual for Swiss this is an excellent summary. When the charge was registered I did point out that it was probably to defend against a hostile attack. What Swiss describes as 'the real issue' is in fact the 'danger' and is a very real disaster waiting to happen because the Al-Qadi family do not have the money and/or inclination to continue to cover what will soon be unsecured liabilities. No one actually knows that though do they? But Knowall believe if he keeps saying that on here then it will become fact?
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Nov 1, 2019 11:46:19 GMT
As usual for Swiss this is an excellent summary. When the charge was registered I did point out that it was probably to defend against a hostile attack. What Swiss describes as 'the real issue' is in fact the 'danger' and is a very real disaster waiting to happen because the Al-Qadi family do not have the money and/or inclination to continue to cover what will soon be unsecured liabilities. No one actually knows that though do they? yes
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 1, 2019 12:07:50 GMT
No one actually knows that though do they? yes You know how much they're worth, how much they can afford and for how long?
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 2, 2019 15:29:57 GMT
Sorry mate but that's just not true, what do you think a mortgage is? Please explain as I’m genuinely confused when you mortgage a property, the lender places a charge against it. This means that if it is sold, they get repaid first. We bought the Mem with a mortgage. It therefore had a charge against it.
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Nov 2, 2019 17:55:16 GMT
Please explain as I’m genuinely confused when you mortgage a property, the lender places a charge against it. This means that if it is sold, they get repaid first. We bought the Mem with a mortgage. It therefore had a charge against it. Not for its full value though. I believe it was with Barclays before being called in and for around 3 million
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 2, 2019 19:29:48 GMT
when you mortgage a property, the lender places a charge against it. This means that if it is sold, they get repaid first. We bought the Mem with a mortgage. It therefore had a charge against it. Not for its full value though. I believe it was with Barclays before being called in and for around 3 million Why wouldn't the ALQ's put a charge for the full value when they own the whole stadium, as with a lender it protects their asset.
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Nov 3, 2019 15:17:40 GMT
Not for its full value though. I believe it was with Barclays before being called in and for around 3 million Why wouldn't the ALQ's put a charge for the full value when they own the whole stadium, as with a lender it protects their asset. I guess we will find out soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by toddy1953 on Nov 3, 2019 17:33:56 GMT
Why wouldn't the ALQ's put a charge for the full value when they own the whole stadium, as with a lender it protects their asset. I guess we will find out soon enough. Trying to get my head around this, not sure I should bother really, but with the Bury, situation fresh in everyone’s mind & I wouldn’t mind betting that the same fate awaits several other clubs over the next few years, I thought I would attempt 😁 Now, there has often been some on here who say the owners have not spent their own money, whilst others will argue, who pays the bills then? By holding a charge against the Stadium it just means they are protecting the money they put into the club - much as the bank does if it gives you a loan against your home & there is interest applied to that loan. As the amount now owed has either reached or is near to the perceived value of the Stadium, I suppose the immediate future depends on whether or how much the owners are willing to risk their own money to keep the club going in the short term. Personally, I cannot see the present owners spending any of their money on a unsecured basis, they are bankers first & foremost, but I also can’t see how someone would buy the club, by taking over the mortgage(£20m?) plus finding the £50m or so to build a new stadium, plus keeping the club going in this league for at least the next 5 years before any new stadium can be built. (Probably looking at £90m +?) If there is any mileage in a new Stadium either at the FM or elsewhere, within the next 5 years, could there be a situation where a takeover happens, but we lease the Mem back from the current owners in the interim, until we can move to a new home? Might be a cheaper option. Unless the AlQadi’s walk away & take a substantial hit financially or some third party out there is going to gift us a stadium, I cannot see a long term future for this club.
|
|