|
|
Post by Strange Gas on Dec 20, 2015 11:14:40 GMT
Probably tells us directors not willing to put more of their own money at risk in pursuit of new stadium glory. But we knew that with MSP didn't we? There better be a good plan b as we are literally watering away our equity in the mem every day and that can't go on forever
|
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Dec 20, 2015 12:12:49 GMT
It's a shame that every bit of information has to be leaked by fans doing their own investigations rather that our board being honest and straight with us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2015 12:30:36 GMT
Seems we can't even now afford Sainsbury's Appeal costs let alone build a £30m new stadium according to this post on the IF. Dec 18, 2015 at 6:14pm QuotelikePost Options Post by gasbound on Dec 18, 2015 at 6:14pm Sorry to restart this thread but this time last year we found out about the MSP loan, and now I've had one of those phone calls from a friend...! I've been told there is yet another charge listed on the Companies House website against Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd. After some searching I've found it, dated 16 December 2015. It is registration of a charge riased by 'Bristol Rovers (1883) ltd. with Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited being the entitled party. I do not understand most of the document but in one section it clearly states that "This charge is provided as security for the lenders potential legal costs...in the event the borrower is ordered by the court of appeal to pay such costs. A sum of £199,000 is quoted in the document Thanks for this Topper Gas. I see that the document was created on 27 November - the day after the AGM. A coincidence, or another case of Mr Higgs ensuring that he could not be accused of lieing if any awkward questions regarding Charges were raised? |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 20, 2015 14:12:33 GMT
Probably tells us directors not willing to put more of their own money at risk in pursuit of new stadium glory. But we knew that with MSP didn't we? There better be a good plan b as we are literally watering away our equity in the mem every day and that can't go on forever Can you honestly see we can afford a Plan B if we can't even give security to meet the additional £199K solicitors costs for the Appeal? Does this now mean all the MSP loan has already been spent, if so, how's that going to be repaid let alone finding money for Plan B if we lose the Appeal? |
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Dec 20, 2015 17:57:43 GMT
I thought the purpose of the MSP loan was to cover these costs + costs for paying of other loans and day to day costs for this season ??
|
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Dec 20, 2015 18:12:09 GMT
Seems we can't even now afford Sainsbury's Appeal costs let alone build a £30m new stadium according to this post on the IF. Dec 18, 2015 at 6:14pm QuotelikePost Options Post by gasbound on Dec 18, 2015 at 6:14pm Sorry to restart this thread but this time last year we found out about the MSP loan, and now I've had one of those phone calls from a friend...! I've been told there is yet another charge listed on the Companies House website against Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd. After some searching I've found it, dated 16 December 2015. It is registration of a charge riased by 'Bristol Rovers (1883) ltd. with Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited being the entitled party. I do not understand most of the document but in one section it clearly states that "This charge is provided as security for the lenders potential legal costs...in the event the borrower is ordered by the court of appeal to pay such costs. A sum of £199,000 is quoted in the document I do not understand the problem as NH has assured us that we WILL win the appeal, or probably more likely, his legal team have convinced him that we will not lose. |
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Dec 20, 2015 18:14:55 GMT
I thought the purpose of the MSP loan was to cover these costs + costs for paying of other loans and day to day costs for this season ?? There is no way the £2.6m MSP loan would cover all the Directors outstanding loans as they were in June 2014, yet alone the other items mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Dec 20, 2015 18:42:33 GMT
The bigger worry is that the original MSP loan seems unable to cover the costs of the appeal, and this must be why we renegotiated the loan , presumably to borrow more.
If this is the case what the hell happened to the original loan? Surely it cannot have been spent already on the original case plus running the club until the end of this season? After all, we haven't got through this season yet.
It really highlights the fact that the directors are no longer funding the club, and it's now sh*t or bust as far as they are concerned.
Nobody else can take the place of MSP having first charge on the stadium, so it must mean we have borrowed more. Presumably also from them.
We are going to hell in a hand cart.
Well, we would be if it was not for the consortium. This is a sure fire way of getting a damn good deal when he loses the appeal. As they say in all the good stories, the less they have to pay , the more can be spent on the club.
What I find totally disgraceful is that NH doesn't even have the decency to call an EGM to tell the shareholders what is happening. I know there is no legal requirement for him to do so, but it just reinforces the disdain in which he holds the fans who are one of the biggest shareholders.
Cue the " look out it's the anti Higgs agenda again". Some of you who still believe in him really are sleepwalking into oblivion.
|
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Dec 20, 2015 19:00:10 GMT
The bigger worry is that the original MSP loan seems unable to cover the costs of the appeal, and this must be why we renegotiated the loan , presumably to borrow more. If this is the case what the hell happened to the original loan? Surely it cannot have been spent already on the original case plus running the club until the end of this season? After all, we haven't got through this season yet. It really highlights the fact that the directors are no longer funding the club, and it's now sh*t or bust as far as they are concerned. Nobody else can take the place of MSP having first charge on the stadium, so it must mean we have borrowed more. Presumably also from them. We are going to hell in a hand cart. Well, we would be if it was not for the consortium. This is a sure fire way of getting a damn good deal when he loses the appeal. As they say in all the good stories, the less they have to pay , the more can be spent on the club. What I find totally disgraceful is that NH doesn't even have the decency to call an EGM to tell the shareholders what is happening. I know there is no legal requirement for him to do so, but it just reinforces the disdain in which he holds the fans who are one of the biggest shareholders. Cue the " look out it's the anti Higgs agenda again". Some of you who still believe in him really are sleepwalking into oblivion. I really do hope that there is a consortium or individuals ready to act after the appeal is concluded, the fantastic work that dc and this group of players are doing surely only increases our attractiveness to any bidder. If we can get to league one this season it makes the uwe all that more viable, to move into it with a winning team will give us more impetus and give us more of a chance of keeping the immediate increase in crowds on board. All the good things we are witnessing on the field will completely fall apart if the off the field situation is not resolved quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 20, 2015 19:10:28 GMT
Not sure the latest developments imply we've borrowed more just that we've been unable to satisfy Sainsbury's we can afford their legal costs should we lose the Appeal? The question now is how do we afford their costs, plus own own costs, without either borrowing even more money or selling the Mem in a fire sale without any pp should MSP refuse to increase the loan?
Let's hope the consortium does exist and don't jump ship as the futures looking grim if we do lose the Appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Dec 20, 2015 19:15:28 GMT
I think that if the consortium don't exist and we lose the appeal we will be placed in administration and our assets will be liquidated starting with player sales, lockyer, taylor and sinclair won't cover what we owe to third parties so then it will be down to what the mem can raise. It's either off into the sunset with the consortium or to hell in a handcart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Dec 20, 2015 19:23:38 GMT
I thought the purpose of the MSP loan was to cover these costs + costs for paying of other loans and day to day costs for this season ?? There is no way the £2.6m MSP loan would cover all the Directors outstanding loans as they were in June 2014, yet alone the other items mentioned. I was refering to the Barclays Loans big boy ! Can YOU confirm the purpose of the MSP Loan then ? |
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Dec 20, 2015 19:26:13 GMT
The bigger worry is that the original MSP loan seems unable to cover the costs of the appeal, and this must be why we renegotiated the loan , presumably to borrow more. If this is the case what the hell happened to the original loan? Surely it cannot have been spent already on the original case plus running the club until the end of this season? After all, we haven't got through this season yet. It really highlights the fact that the directors are no longer funding the club, and it's now sh*t or bust as far as they are concerned. Nobody else can take the place of MSP having first charge on the stadium, so it must mean we have borrowed more. Presumably also from them. We are going to hell in a hand cart. Well, we would be if it was not for the consortium. This is a sure fire way of getting a damn good deal when he loses the appeal. As they say in all the good stories, the less they have to pay , the more can be spent on the club. What I find totally disgraceful is that NH doesn't even have the decency to call an EGM to tell the shareholders what is happening. I know there is no legal requirement for him to do so, but it just reinforces the disdain in which he holds the fans who are one of the biggest shareholders. Cue the " look out it's the anti Higgs agenda again". Some of you who still believe in him really are sleepwalking into oblivion. I fully expect to club to go into Administration soon after we fail the appeal...... and with the UWE about to look for different investment we may not have a plot of land to build on if we win the appeal ! |
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Dec 20, 2015 20:09:18 GMT
There is no way the £2.6m MSP loan would cover all the Directors outstanding loans as they were in June 2014, yet alone the other items mentioned. I was refering to the Barclays Loans big boy ! Can YOU confirm the purpose of the MSP Loan then ? Sorry, I did not read this properly |
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on Dec 20, 2015 20:33:08 GMT
There is no way Nick would take us into administration, because he will lose his investment, there is a party interested in buying us so he sells to them after the hearing, one way or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinsdale on Dec 20, 2015 20:40:57 GMT
We should be making a profit this season based on the fact when out budget was 60% higher we needed to average 9000 to break even. That means with our 60% lower budget we only need 5400 crowds. Odd that we gave to carry on borrowing
|
|
|
|
Post by peterpirate on Dec 20, 2015 21:02:47 GMT
We should be making a profit this season based on the fact when out budget was 60% higher we needed to average 9000 to break even. That means with our 60% lower budget we only need 5400 crowds. Odd that we gave to carry on borrowing here here,we should have money to spend on the team the robbing pricks |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Dec 20, 2015 22:06:46 GMT
We should be making a profit this season based on the fact when out budget was 60% higher we needed to average 9000 to break even. That means with our 60% lower budget we only need 5400 crowds. Odd that we gave to carry on borrowing here here,we should have money to spend on the team the robbing pricks I think you mean redirecting resources to priority channels by means of budget revisioning. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 20, 2015 22:16:42 GMT
We should be making a profit this season based on the fact when out budget was 60% higher we needed to average 9000 to break even. That means with our 60% lower budget we only need 5400 crowds. Odd that we gave to carry on borrowing Surely nothing odd as we've still got the old loan plus interest and the legal costs to pay? What's odd is what the hell PB/MM/JW were spending 40% more of our present wage bill on!! |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 20, 2015 22:24:31 GMT
There is no way Nick would take us into administration, because he will lose his investment, there is a party interested in buying us so he sells to them after the hearing, one way or another. Surely an "investment" makes money not losses millions? At some point our debts are going to become so great we'll have to go into Admin, as we're not even paying off any of the wonga loan interest at present let alone paying off the loan unless we can sell MT or TL for silly money, as far as somebody looking to buy us what is there to actually buy if we lose the Appeal? Although after Wembley knowing NH luck then we'll win the Appeal to save his skin. |
|
