|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 15, 2016 22:03:44 GMT
Topper. I answered that question on the previous page hence my next posting to Dinsdale. With regard to showing the money Topper, the consortium of which I am aware has spoken with TW, especially when NH was away, trying to get a meeting to go over it all. Despite having spoken with TW, NH never returned their calls. ( This is what I have been told) It's difficult to progress it when one of the parties doesn't play ball. This is why I believe our consortium should go public and let all you guys and gals know what is happening. Sometimes it can take fan power to make people talk. I can only assume that NH doesn't want to talk to consortium A because he wants to deal with consortium B. Why? I don't know. But as I said previously, it could be because one wants him gone and the other may offer him a position ongoing. But that is just a stab in the dark on my part. Sorry lagging behind Dinsdale as I had to catch up on 30 pages on accounts when I got home! If what TW is telling you is true it's bizarre given that we have total debts of circa £10m now, even more whee have to pay out the £950K in costs, that NH just seems to be burying his head in the sand when it comes to the club's future, I think it's about time the likes of Ware & Jelf also need to break ranks along with the consortium, as things stand the only way forward is sell the Mem to clear our debts and then hope the UWE build a stadium we can then rent/at best part own. Shares wise it seems NH has "lost" 3m shares any chance they've been passed to MSP as security on their loan, as surely if it was a prospective purchaser they'd want a seat on the Board?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 15, 2016 22:10:17 GMT
Is that players wages our employees wages, which inc's management, centre of excellence, catering staff etc? What's a worry is that despite a very good end to the season, attendances wise, inc Wembley losses before transfers remained virtually the same, in truth we haven't really learned anything from our relegation as it seems we're still spending well beyond our means, but now instead of Directors loans we're borrowing from wonga! Players/ management / Admin / Commercial Staff total 68 people (on average). For ease of numbers, lets say that the other 147 people (centre of excellence / bar / catering / stewards) cost only £85k. That would mean that Players/ management / Admin / Commercial Staff on average earn £40k p.a. How much do you think our top players are on ? I'd expect including the NI the club pays we have at least four over £100k ...I seem to recollect that 15 years ago Mark Walters, David Hillier, Robbie Pethick, Andy Thomson were allegedly on £3k a week. Yes, we live beyond our means. But how do clubs like Dagenham & Redbridge survive...with only a handful of admin / management? Barnet were claiming last season their wage bill was £750K whilst ours seems to have been double that from those figures, no wonder Gaffney was so desperate to join us!!
|
|
|
Post by Strange Gas on Feb 15, 2016 22:18:05 GMT
Shares wise it seems NH has "lost" 3m shares any chance they've been passed to MSP as security on their loan, as surely if it was a prospective purchaser they'd want a seat on the Board? That's how it looks to me. My equity for debt swap thought has been poo poo'd but I am sure something like that is feasible as it is just a way of switching funding sources. Akin to a share buy back. Can't quite think it through but will keep trying!
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Feb 15, 2016 22:18:58 GMT
Well this does seem to me to suggest NH is now spending the club's money (or lack of) on lawyers and moneylenders as a desperate last roll of the dice. Win the appeal and associated costs - his gamble has paid off, albeit with a shortfall in UWE building costs and the Wonga loan still to be repaid. No doubt through the 22,000 crowds streaming through the turnstiles and the Lady Gaga concerts to be staged at the stadium.
If it fails, the Consortium will step in, oust him, pay him back in full or part and he can retire to Italy.
I think he wouldn't have been spending so freely on all this if he didn't know there was a backup plan - i.e. a Consortium. He is without doubt a Gashead through and through, and wouldn't take such a chance on bankrupting the club.
JUst my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by amgas on Feb 15, 2016 22:20:30 GMT
I think it was more about playing football in a winning team and him scoring goals ......
|
|
|
Post by rambo on Feb 15, 2016 22:27:13 GMT
One interesting thing I took from the accounts - and I may be a bit wide of the mark here - but there's no provision for the legal fees of 950k. Normally a provision is made when a liability is probable ( >51% ) and simply disclosed in a note as a contingent liability if it's possible ( <51% ).
Its a material balance and so I can't imagine the auditors have let it slide on the word of higgs and Co. So maybe on that basis there is a bit of hope that we will win the case? If it was probable we'd lose it, I believe a provision would have had to be made.
Worrying though 2mil of stadium costs have been capitalised. Lose the case and we're going to see circa 3 million quid hit the p&l for june 2016 and that headline loss figure will be up at 4mil or so.worrying indeed
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 15, 2016 22:34:02 GMT
Well this does seem to me to suggest NH is now spending the club's money (or lack of) on lawyers and moneylenders as a desperate last roll of the dice. Win the appeal and associated costs - his gamble has paid off, albeit with a shortfall in UWE building costs and the Wonga loan still to be repaid. No doubt through the 22,000 crowds streaming through the turnstiles and the Lady Gaga concerts to be staged at the stadium. If it fails, the Consortium will step in, oust him, pay him back in full or part and he can retire to Italy. I think he wouldn't have been spending so freely on all this if he didn't know there was a backup plan - i.e. a Consortium. He is without doubt a Gashead through and through, and wouldn't take such a chance on bankrupting the club. JUst my opinion. It also seems from the accounts NH loans are fairly minimal for somebody of his wealth, still less than £2m, even though he's built up £10m of debts during his time as Chairman.
|
|
|
Post by You can call me Al. on Feb 15, 2016 22:50:59 GMT
Looking at that i can clearly bleedin see why Barclays called time on us. We have been, and continue to be poorly soddin run financially, which is why we are now kept afloat by what amounts to a bloody loan shark. Outside investment or help is clearly needed or it looks like we will continue to dig ourselves into a deeper bleedin hole.
Very sad indeed.
|
|
|
Post by gonzales on Feb 15, 2016 22:51:59 GMT
It also seems from the accounts NH loans are fairly minimal for somebody of his wealth, still less than £2m, even though he's built up £10m of debts during his time as Chairman. Surely a percentage of the circa £10m debt was already there when Higgs took over. Any ideas anyone?
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Feb 15, 2016 23:18:04 GMT
From memory, the debt was just over £2m when NH took over.
|
|
|
Post by slam on Feb 15, 2016 23:29:36 GMT
Just to go back to the very first post for one minute. The implication from these accounts is that, as at 20th June 2014, Nick Hicks owned 4,419,828 shares in Bristol Rovers (1883) Limited. This was out of a total number of shares of 8,155,000 (ish). As at 30th June 2015, Nick Hicks owned 1,500,000 shares out of a total number of 8,167,690. That means that he has disposed of 2,919,828 shares representing about 35% of the control of the Club. To me that is a material change and yet we have been told nothing about it. Who does own those shares now? ?
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Feb 15, 2016 23:35:53 GMT
Sorry lagging behind Dinsdale as I had to catch up on 30 pages on accounts when I got home! If what TW is telling you is true it's bizarre given that we have total debts of circa £10m now, even more whee have to pay out the £950K in costs, that NH just seems to be burying his head in the sand when it comes to the club's future, I think it's about time the likes of Ware & Jelf also need to break ranks along with the consortium, as things stand the only way forward is sell the Mem to clear our debts and then hope the UWE build a stadium we can then rent/at best part own. Shares wise it seems NH has "lost" 3m shares any chance they've been passed to MSP as security on their loan, as surely if it was a prospective purchaser they'd want a seat on the Board? Topper. You now begin to see what I have been banging on about with regard to the running of our club. It is totally unsustainable. When I told you the debts were about £10m you couldn't quite believe it. Now you can see it for yourself. By the way, TW didn't talk to me. It was the consortium he spoke with. With regard to the other directors, I'd guess EW has been in the NH loop, but doubt CJ was. If the consortium take over, we will have a wholly owned ground because they will also own us . They will also fund a rapid rise through the leagues. They aren't daft. To make the club sustainable they know we have to be at least in the championship, and I believe their initial target was within 5 years. If they ever go public, I'm sure you will hear something to that effect directly from them. This is the vital bit. It's no good sitting in a pretty stadium whilst playing Boreham Wood, or some other god forsaken team. ( Sorry Boreham). With regard to the missing shares, my bet is they are being held in trusts. Whilst that would mean no direct benefit can then accrue to the former owners, they are probably held in such a way that the former owners will then hold the nominee voting rights on them, for all practicable purposes they will still vote the shares their way. So in effect it makes no difference. You may ask why then put them in trust. My bet is that at some stage they can issue themselves with as many new shares as they want, to dilute the effectiveness of the shares they don't hold. But that is just my guess. The loan is held against the stadium because our shares are worth sod all.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Feb 15, 2016 23:37:30 GMT
Just to go back to the very first post for one minute. The implication from these accounts is that, as at 20th June 2014, Nick Hicks owned 4,419,828 shares in Bristol Rovers (1883) Limited. This was out of a total number of shares of 8,155,000 (ish). As at 30th June 2015, Nick Hicks owned 1,500,000 shares out of a total number of 8,167,690. That means that he has disposed of 2,919,828 shares representing about 35% of the control of the Club. To me that is a material change and yet we have been told nothing about it. Who does own those shares now? ? That's the 10m dollar question. Have a look at my previous post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 23:44:57 GMT
No transfer has been registered at companies house.
|
|
|
Post by slam on Feb 16, 2016 0:02:33 GMT
No transfer has been registered at companies house. I checked that too - but the Companies House returns that I checked only included transactions to 1/8/2015.
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Feb 16, 2016 0:16:20 GMT
So we have thrown 3m at the uwe project, most of it most probably after we knew sains already wanted out of the project, and we owe 10m. Those people doubting the existence of the consortium (or consortia if that is the plural!) better hope they're wrong or the club is heading for oblivion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2016 0:21:49 GMT
I think it was more about playing football in a winning team and him scoring goals ...... ... and then stopped scoring goals!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2016 5:56:50 GMT
No transfer has been registered at companies house. I checked that too - but the Companies House returns that I checked only included transactions to 1/8/2015. And these accounts are up until June 2015
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Feb 16, 2016 6:28:51 GMT
Separate to the accounts was the notice of the meeting taking place on Monday 7th March.
This contains the Resolutions to be voted on by the Shareholders and takes the usual format. We have to agree to re-elect NH, EW and BSS. The other resolutions are standard from one year to the next apart from Resolution 8 which seeks to allow BRFC to buy a property owned by Edward Ware for a fixed amount of money.
I am asking the fellow member who uploaded the Accounts for me to upload this two page document, I will then post my question/concern.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 16, 2016 6:47:57 GMT
Separate to the accounts was the notice of the meeting taking place on Monday 7th March. This contains the Resolutions to be voted on by the Shareholders and takes the usual format. We have to agree to re-elect NH, EW and BSS. The other resolutions are standard from one year to the next apart from Resolution 8 which seeks to allow BRFC to buy a property owned by Edward Ware for a fixed amount of money. I am asking the fellow member who uploaded the Accounts for me to upload this two page document, I will then post my question/concern. Why do we need to buy a house of off Ed. I thouvht the club had purchased all propertirs required around the Mem when the last project was ongoing or is this part of some plan B
|
|