|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 5, 2016 15:10:21 GMT
When you say original plans, do you mead tearing down the West stand and replacing it with a wooden one? Seriously we HAVE to move, the Mem is sh** and as the old saying goes, you cannot polish a turd Totally agree. If we stay at the Mem we will always be rag bag Rovers. if we stay at the mem we will be rag bag Rovers a while longer. If we don't own our own ground we will ALWAYS be rag bag Rovers. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 5, 2016 15:12:48 GMT
Apparently plan b is to rebuild the Mem to the original plans, except instead of student flats there will be accommodation for Syrian refugees in the corners. True story! When you say original plans, do you mead tearing down the West stand and replacing it with a wooden one? Seriously we HAVE to move, the Mem is sh** and as the old saying goes, you cannot polish a turd No one is saying we don't have to move, but should that be at ANY cost? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 15:29:35 GMT
Same old chat over and over again! We need so news!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by 2nd May 1990 on Feb 5, 2016 15:57:35 GMT
Is that strictly true ? - Geoff and Dennis were both involved at the start and I thought it was Geoff who talked his father into getting involved. Really Gerry Francis was our saviour at that time with decent results on the pitch despite all the financial constraints ..... Agreed. Everything Gerry achieved was on a shoestring budget - and he got us to mid table in what is now the championship. We've never got anywhere near there since despite relatively large amounts of money being spent. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Feb 5, 2016 18:47:24 GMT
Surely DC was our real saviour as just look at how Torquay are struggling in their second season, or how Grimsby, Wrexham & Lincoln have just become Conference sides. As far as "we are actually more secure under NH than we are under GD. Higgs has the clout to more than keep us afloat." if that really is the case why as he took on the wonga loan and so far falied to repay any on the interest?? As NH ran out of money as far as spending it on Rovers are concerned? Because underwriting your own money on a court case is a greater risk if you lose. In fact its in part a sensible move, we win, the loan is repaid with sainsburys picking up the tab in costs. We move the loan becomes property of the new tenant they will have to renegotiate if they dont like the terms. NH clearly feels the interest on the loan is affordable currently for him to underwrite and its better to keep your money in somewhere at higher interest (Higgs personal fortune will be in a form of bonds earning good returns I would imagine) than in a club that loses money year on year. Although its greater risk, its one that could pay off in the longer term. We dont know all the ins and outs, but it is with good reason, Higgs is a multimillionaire, he isnt daft. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 5, 2016 19:24:15 GMT
Surely DC was our real saviour as just look at how Torquay are struggling in their second season, or how Grimsby, Wrexham & Lincoln have just become Conference sides. As far as "we are actually more secure under NH than we are under GD. Higgs has the clout to more than keep us afloat." if that really is the case why as he took on the wonga loan and so far falied to repay any on the interest?? As NH ran out of money as far as spending it on Rovers are concerned? Because underwriting your own money on a court case is a greater risk if you lose. In fact its in part a sensible move, we win, the loan is repaid with sainsburys picking up the tab in costs. We move the loan becomes property of the new tenant they will have to renegotiate if they dont like the terms. NH clearly feels the interest on the loan is affordable currently for him to underwrite and its better to keep your money in somewhere at higher interest (Higgs personal fortune will be in a form of bonds earning good returns I would imagine) than in a club that loses money year on year. Although its greater risk, its one that could pay off in the longer term. We dont know all the ins and outs, but it is with good reason, Higgs is a multimillionaire, he isnt daft. "He isn't daft"? Surely only somebody a bit daft would" invest" millions in a FL club with no guarantee of a return? As far as NH getting a better return elsewhere perhaps he needs to forget about football and become a financial advisor if he's found an investment paying out over 14% per annum! It's fairly obvious to most NH as invested as much as he's going to in the club and the moment of truth, regarding our debts, is about to be reached. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 5, 2016 21:26:27 GMT
Because underwriting your own money on a court case is a greater risk if you lose. In fact its in part a sensible move, we win, the loan is repaid with sainsburys picking up the tab in costs. We move the loan becomes property of the new tenant they will have to renegotiate if they dont like the terms. NH clearly feels the interest on the loan is affordable currently for him to underwrite and its better to keep your money in somewhere at higher interest (Higgs personal fortune will be in a form of bonds earning good returns I would imagine) than in a club that loses money year on year. Although its greater risk, its one that could pay off in the longer term. We dont know all the ins and outs, but it is with good reason, Higgs is a multimillionaire, he isnt daft. "He isn't daft"? Surely only somebody a bit daft would" invest" millions in a FL club with no guarantee of a return? As far as NH getting a better return elsewhere perhaps he needs to forget about football and become a financial advisor if he's found an investment paying out over 14% per annum! It's fairly obvious to most NH as invested as much as he's going to in the club and the moment of truth, regarding our debts, is about to be reached. Sorry to keep labouring this point but it's loans not investment. If Nick had invested his own money to cover they way he has run Rovers I wouldn't have any problems at all with him. But it's loans. Which need to be repaid. |
|
|
|
Post by Langford Gas on Feb 6, 2016 8:04:06 GMT
Surely DC was our real saviour as just look at how Torquay are struggling in their second season, or how Grimsby, Wrexham & Lincoln have just become Conference sides. As far as "we are actually more secure under NH than we are under GD. Higgs has the clout to more than keep us afloat." if that really is the case why as he took on the wonga loan and so far falied to repay any on the interest?? As NH ran out of money as far as spending it on Rovers are concerned? Because underwriting your own money on a court case is a greater risk if you lose. In fact its in part a sensible move, we win, the loan is repaid with sainsburys picking up the tab in costs. We move the loan becomes property of the new tenant they will have to renegotiate if they dont like the terms.
NH clearly feels the interest on the loan is affordable currently for him to underwrite and its better to keep your money in somewhere at higher interest (Higgs personal fortune will be in a form of bonds earning good returns I would imagine) than in a club that loses money year on year. Although its greater risk, its one that could pay off in the longer term. We dont know all the ins and outs, but it is with good reason, Higgs is a multimillionaire, he isnt daft. Serious, Genuine question why is it someone would buy the property and take on the loan ? as i have said before who would buy a house and take on the sellers mortgage as well ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 8:40:23 GMT
The Wonga loan is against the stadium not him. When the stadium/club is sold that loan will be on the new owners That was my point you can hardly say we're safer under NH when he's taken out a £3m+ loan against the Mem which no other Chairman has ever done, time will tell whether any new owners are prepared to take on the debts or whether the club has to sell the Mem just to clear the debt, or stuggle on at the Mem whilst trying to pay down the loan. Isn't Higgs been our only chairman whilst we've owned the Mem? In which how could any other chairman taken out a loan against it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 9:12:31 GMT
That was my point you can hardly say we're safer under NH when he's taken out a £3m+ loan against the Mem which no other Chairman has ever done, time will tell whether any new owners are prepared to take on the debts or whether the club has to sell the Mem just to clear the debt, or stuggle on at the Mem whilst trying to pay down the loan. Isn't Higgs been our only chairman whilst we've owned the Mem? In which how could any other chairman taken out a loan against it? Two before him. Geoff Dunford and Ron Craig. There have been previous loans secured against the stadium including the stadium mortgage, a brewery loan and directors loans. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 10:53:27 GMT
Because underwriting your own money on a court case is a greater risk if you lose. In fact its in part a sensible move, we win, the loan is repaid with sainsburys picking up the tab in costs. We move the loan becomes property of the new tenant they will have to renegotiate if they dont like the terms.
NH clearly feels the interest on the loan is affordable currently for him to underwrite and its better to keep your money in somewhere at higher interest (Higgs personal fortune will be in a form of bonds earning good returns I would imagine) than in a club that loses money year on year. Although its greater risk, its one that could pay off in the longer term. We dont know all the ins and outs, but it is with good reason, Higgs is a multimillionaire, he isnt daft. Serious, Genuine question why is it someone would buy the property and take on the loan ? as i have said before who would buy a house and take on the sellers mortgage as well ? It would depend,in my view, why said person would want the Mem/land for. And the loan would be bargained in the asking price I would have thought so taken off the price. Land worth £10 million minus £2 million loan may sell for just under the £8 million mark. Not £10 million plus £2 million loan! That's the way Id be looking at it from from a business point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Feb 6, 2016 12:08:32 GMT
Isn't Higgs been our only chairman whilst we've owned the Mem? In which how could any other chairman taken out a loan against it? Two before him. Geoff Dunford and Ron Craig. There have been previous loans secured against the stadium including the stadium mortgage, a brewery loan and directors loans. and some supporters are still owed the money they paid for preference shares to buy the Mem which should have been paid back within 5 years - and we are talking hundreds of thousands of pounds |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 6, 2016 12:10:17 GMT
Two before him. Geoff Dunford and Ron Craig. There have been previous loans secured against the stadium including the stadium mortgage, a brewery loan and directors loans. and some supporters are still owed the money they paid for preference shares to buy the Mem which should have been paid back within 5 years - and we are talking hundreds of thousands of pounds Stupid question but can't you just sell them? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 12:38:19 GMT
Two before him. Geoff Dunford and Ron Craig. There have been previous loans secured against the stadium including the stadium mortgage, a brewery loan and directors loans. and some supporters are still owed the money they paid for preference shares to buy the Mem which should have been paid back within 5 years - and we are talking hundreds of thousands of pounds Individual supporters or supporters groups? Are they still receiving their interest payments? |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 6, 2016 12:47:47 GMT
Serious, Genuine question why is it someone would buy the property and take on the loan ? as i have said before who would buy a house and take on the sellers mortgage as well ? It would depend,in my view, why said person would want the Mem/land for. And the loan would be bargained in the asking price I would have thought so taken off the price. Land worth £10 million minus £2 million loan may sell for just under the £8 million mark. Not £10 million plus £2 million loan! That's the way Id be looking at it from from a business point of view. The wonga loan is now well over £3m not £2m plus if NH sells the Mem, I assume he'll want his own "loans" paid off, plus there's our other debtors who are taking the total debts to nearly £10m. I can't see it's simply a case of selling the Mem and transferring a loan of £2m to a new ground, plus if we move to the UWE they always wanted the club to be debt free anyway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 12:54:22 GMT
It would depend,in my view, why said person would want the Mem/land for. And the loan would be bargained in the asking price I would have thought so taken off the price. Land worth £10 million minus £2 million loan may sell for just under the £8 million mark. Not £10 million plus £2 million loan! That's the way Id be looking at it from from a business point of view. The wonga loan is now well over £3m not £2m plus if NH sells the Mem, I assume he'll want his own "loans" paid off, plus there's our other debtors who are taking the total debts to nearly £10m. I can't see it's simply a case of selling the Mem and transferring a loan of £2m to a new ground, plus if we move to the UWE they always wanted the club to be debt free anyway. I'm just using example figures. Like I said, the loan may come off the asking price?? Pretty simple really but we don't know what stipulations are made. What appears straightforward may well be complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by Langford Gas on Feb 6, 2016 12:54:52 GMT
It would depend,in my view, why said person would want the Mem/land for. And the loan would be bargained in the asking price I would have thought so taken off the price. Land worth £10 million minus £2 million loan may sell for just under the £8 million mark. Not £10 million plus £2 million loan! That's the way Id be looking at it from from a business point of view. The wonga loan is now well over £3m not £2m plus if NH sells the Mem, I assume he'll want his own "loans" paid off, plus there's our other debtors who are taking the total debts to nearly £10m. I can't see it's simply a case of selling the Mem and transferring a loan of £2m to a new ground, plus if we move to the UWE they always wanted the club to be debt free anyway. I see it exactly the same way as Eastville 73 It would be my assumption that the £2M loan is secured against the Mem and ownership of the Mem would not be transferred i.e contracts exchanged and completed until the loan was discharged |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 14:56:20 GMT
Because underwriting your own money on a court case is a greater risk if you lose. In fact its in part a sensible move, we win, the loan is repaid with sainsburys picking up the tab in costs. We move the loan becomes property of the new tenant they will have to renegotiate if they dont like the terms. NH clearly feels the interest on the loan is affordable currently for him to underwrite and its better to keep your money in somewhere at higher interest (Higgs personal fortune will be in a form of bonds earning good returns I would imagine) than in a club that loses money year on year. Although its greater risk, its one that could pay off in the longer term. We dont know all the ins and outs, but it is with good reason, Higgs is a multimillionaire, he isnt daft. "He isn't daft"? Surely only somebody a bit daft would" invest" millions in a FL club with no guarantee of a return? As far as NH getting a better return elsewhere perhaps he needs to forget about football and become a financial advisor if he's found an investment paying out over 14% per annum! It's fairly obvious to most NH as invested as much as he's going to in the club and the moment of truth, regarding our debts, is about to be reached. More scaremongering,its been going on for years that the club will be going bust/into administration.Not happened yet and very unlikely to do so,.Rovers are a long way down the list when it comes to clubs being in debt and very few have gone the way you are saying,even Bolton who owe close to 180,000,000 are not in danger,and their assets do not cover 1% of their debt |
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Feb 6, 2016 16:00:32 GMT
Because underwriting your own money on a court case is a greater risk if you lose. In fact its in part a sensible move, we win, the loan is repaid with sainsburys picking up the tab in costs. We move the loan becomes property of the new tenant they will have to renegotiate if they dont like the terms.
NH clearly feels the interest on the loan is affordable currently for him to underwrite and its better to keep your money in somewhere at higher interest (Higgs personal fortune will be in a form of bonds earning good returns I would imagine) than in a club that loses money year on year. Although its greater risk, its one that could pay off in the longer term. We dont know all the ins and outs, but it is with good reason, Higgs is a multimillionaire, he isnt daft. Serious, Genuine question why is it someone would buy the property and take on the loan ? as i have said before who would buy a house and take on the sellers mortgage as well ? You can sell the stadium for a price less the cost of the loan against it, the new owners take on that loan. Way of the new owners keeping a higher cash flow if they choose to. Or its paid in full and we settle the debt. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Feb 6, 2016 16:09:03 GMT
Isn't Higgs been our only chairman whilst we've owned the Mem? In which how could any other chairman taken out a loan against it? Two before him. Geoff Dunford and Ron Craig. There have been previous loans secured against the stadium including the stadium mortgage, a brewery loan and directors loans. Ron Craig was never a majority shareholder though was he? He had the same sort of stake that Ed Ware or BB have so he would be unable to do anything without the consent of the whole board of directors and majority share holders, especially taking out loans against the stadium. There was also no need to finance anything back then so its of little relevance. The whole board appointed him as chairman although GD and NH were the majority share holders at the time. NH as the majority shareholder and Chairman now, effectively can force through anything he wants. If he chose to step down as chairman and say Ed Ware took charge, any major decisions would be made in consultation of the whole board. |
|
