|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 12, 2017 20:38:54 GMT
Trying to pick out some positives. Not very easy. I'm sure Wael said that owning the land was vital or at least very important. That now seems to have changed and the owners have conceded a leasehold is acceptable. So they are still negotiating and that presumably revolves around the proportion of the income we get from the stadium generating the income, and perhaps issues around the income from other parts of the land we don't own, such as car parking and other things such as hotels and restaurants on the land, which presumably would be fed by the match day fans. Do we get the major share of that or just a smaller percentage? These are the kind of things that can make the whole project feasible or not in terms of covering the finance for the building costs and generating a profit for the club on top. What I don't understand is why he's backtracked from owning the land being vital to being happy to lease it. That's the main thing about Nicks plan that I really didn't like. If this really is now the case then you can only assume the rumours about the UWE wanting the full value for the land were correct and rather than just walk away from the deal the ALQ's are now prepared to lease the land. What we don't know is how much land they are prepared to lease as it could also include the additional land.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 12, 2017 20:44:16 GMT
You are. You've said: 1. The club was bought without due diligence being undertaken. Where did I say that?2. Wael has to convince his family to remain invested in Rovers. Stop lying when I actually said "The problem with that is Wael's got to convince his family that investing in Rovers is a good idea, whereas the likes of Abramovich can just make their own decisions" which was in response to a poster saying we were being run similar to Chelsea when its clearly a family affair at Rovers3. Hami will be putting his foot down and withdrawing his support in August if the UWE deal is not completed. Where did I say that? 4. And you've just said that it's a "fact" that "we are as in bad financial shape as we've ever been". The auditors don't agree with your analysis. I agreed with them when I said we're OK whilst the ALQ's continue to support us but at present that's only guaranteed for 12 months according to the accounts, if they don't decide to continue support us after the 12 months then we've got out biggest ever debts to worry about and that is a fact.
1. You said it earlier in this thread. Do you say so much untrue stuff you can't even remember? 2. I know what you said I've quoted it to you enough times. It's baseless scaremongering. 3. You said it in the UWE thread in which you also tries to claim if we owned the freehold it definitely wouldn't be called the UWE stadium (another piece of baseless speculation). 4. Yet again you're reading something, understanding half of it and making up the rest. The statement about the club as a going concern refers to a 12 month period because the financial statements are produced on an annual basis. There is literally no denying that we are better off not owing a large external debt to a commercial lender, literally no way to deny that. So to say we are in as bad financial shape as we've ever been is just untrue scaremongering crap.
|
|
|
Post by yategas78 on Apr 12, 2017 20:47:57 GMT
Aren't loads of clubs at ours and Champioship level in debt isn't it just about how they pay things off with dodgy cash gifts acquired from for example not paying the correct amount of income tax ?!😈😈
|
|
|
Post by womble on Apr 12, 2017 22:47:23 GMT
32 pages of utter guff on the UWE thread and yet this doesn't even reach a page in 2 days? I despair. Despair not Hugo! We're up to 10 pages and plenty of speculation, varying from informed to highly imaginative.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Apr 13, 2017 6:40:59 GMT
A fair response and I fully subscribe to the idea that we should not be sucked in by scaremongering too. Who's scaremongering the facts are there to be seen, we are as in bad financial shape as we've ever been but we now have the ALQ's managing the debt, rather than NH & co struggling to keep us from going to the wall. As long as they are prepared to carry on doing that there's no problems, the problems will only come if they can't agree a deal with the UWE and then decide they aren't prepared to hang around for a Plan B. Assuming they do agree a deal with the UWE then it'll be a few years before we know whether borrowing the £50/60m was a brilliant move, or a total disaster for the club. If they do build the UWE you have to admire them for pulling it off. The Club will not be borrowing any money DS will. The "Club" will be a Lease the ground from DS. If the club go's titsup DS get to keep the stadium complex
|
|
|
Post by lympstonegas on Apr 13, 2017 6:55:01 GMT
32 pages of utter guff on the UWE thread and yet this doesn't even reach a page in 2 days? I despair. Despair not Hugo! We're up to 10 pages and plenty of speculation, varying from informed to highly imaginative. And don't forget those frequent up their own ass full of know it all negative challenges to everything Rovers visitors
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 13, 2017 7:31:54 GMT
Who's scaremongering the facts are there to be seen, we are as in bad financial shape as we've ever been but we now have the ALQ's managing the debt, rather than NH & co struggling to keep us from going to the wall. As long as they are prepared to carry on doing that there's no problems, the problems will only come if they can't agree a deal with the UWE and then decide they aren't prepared to hang around for a Plan B. Assuming they do agree a deal with the UWE then it'll be a few years before we know whether borrowing the £50/60m was a brilliant move, or a total disaster for the club. If they do build the UWE you have to admire them for pulling it off. The Club will not be borrowing any money DS will. The "Club" will be a Lease the ground from DS. If the club go's titsup DS get to keep the stadium complex I never said the club would be borrowing any money but wouldn't it be a total disaster for the "club" if it did all go tits up? Although not sure what DS would do with a 22K seat stadium in S Glos if we didn't use.
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Apr 13, 2017 7:56:18 GMT
haven't read this thread since page one started but from what I can see now it is 10 pages of Bull & Scare Mongering
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 13, 2017 7:58:55 GMT
1. You said it earlier in this thread. Do you say so much untrue stuff you can't even remember? 2. I know what you said I've quoted it to you enough times. It's baseless scaremongering. 3. You said it in the UWE thread in which you also tries to claim if we owned the freehold it definitely wouldn't be called the UWE stadium (another piece of baseless speculation). 4. Yet again you're reading something, understanding half of it and making up the rest. The statement about the club as a going concern refers to a 12 month period because the financial statements are produced on an annual basis. There is literally no denying that we are better off not owing a large external debt to a commercial lender, literally no way to deny that. So to say we are in as bad financial shape as we've ever been is just untrue scaremongering crap. Point 4, read page 10 of the accounts. The facts are very clear when you open your eyes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 8:09:56 GMT
Trying to pick out some positives. Not very easy. I'm sure Wael said that owning the land was vital or at least very important. That now seems to have changed and the owners have conceded a leasehold is acceptable.So they are still negotiating and that presumably revolves around the proportion of the income we get from the stadium generating the income, and perhaps issues around the income from other parts of the land we don't own, such as car parking and other things such as hotels and restaurants on the land, which presumably would be fed by the match day fans. Do we get the major share of that or just a smaller percentage? These are the kind of things that can make the whole project feasible or not in terms of covering the finance for the building costs and generating a profit for the club on top. When did this happen?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 13, 2017 8:54:33 GMT
1. You said it earlier in this thread. Do you say so much untrue stuff you can't even remember? 2. I know what you said I've quoted it to you enough times. It's baseless scaremongering. 3. You said it in the UWE thread in which you also tries to claim if we owned the freehold it definitely wouldn't be called the UWE stadium (another piece of baseless speculation). 4. Yet again you're reading something, understanding half of it and making up the rest. The statement about the club as a going concern refers to a 12 month period because the financial statements are produced on an annual basis. There is literally no denying that we are better off not owing a large external debt to a commercial lender, literally no way to deny that. So to say we are in as bad financial shape as we've ever been is just untrue scaremongering crap. Point 4, read page 10 of the accounts. The facts are very clear when you open your eyes. I've read page 10 of the accounts. "... that is repayable only at such time as the Club is in a position to repay the outstanding loans". So nothing like having an outstanding loan to a commercial lender. If you're referring to the reference to a 12 month period read this: www.accountingtools.com/going-concern-principle"The auditor evaluates an entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a period not greater than one year following the financial statements being audited". Stop trying to peddle scaremongering crap.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Apr 13, 2017 8:54:38 GMT
Trying to pick out some positives. Not very easy. I'm sure Wael said that owning the land was vital or at least very important. That now seems to have changed and the owners have conceded a leasehold is acceptable.So they are still negotiating and that presumably revolves around the proportion of the income we get from the stadium generating the income, and perhaps issues around the income from other parts of the land we don't own, such as car parking and other things such as hotels and restaurants on the land, which presumably would be fed by the match day fans. Do we get the major share of that or just a smaller percentage? These are the kind of things that can make the whole project feasible or not in terms of covering the finance for the building costs and generating a profit for the club on top. When did this happen? From what I've been told by an ex employee of the UWE who has taken Voluntary redundancy, they have a bit of a cash flow issue so i would think they would need hard cash upfront now
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 13, 2017 9:20:16 GMT
Point 4, read page 10 of the accounts. The facts are very clear when you open your eyes. I've read page 10 of the accounts. "... that is repayable only at such time as the Club is in a position to repay the outstanding loans". So nothing like having an outstanding loan to a commercial lender. If you're referring to the reference to a 12 month period read this: www.accountingtools.com/going-concern-principle"The auditor evaluates an entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a period not greater than one year following the financial statements being audited". Stop trying to peddle scaremongering crap. Like when the Mem is sold or (unlikely) remortgaged? And the power to do this is held by who? Oh the Al Qadi's. There is a clue in what is supporting this statement (auditors can't rely on rumours like you): Still let's hope (I truly do hope they do) that the Al Qadi's get a successful agreement with UWE & they don't have to reconsider their ownership of the club. Or if they don't do you see them owning the club in a largely undeveloped Mem for the next 10 years? Ultimately if you & others don't care about the financial position of the club then this thread isn't for you.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 13, 2017 9:46:24 GMT
I've read page 10 of the accounts. "... that is repayable only at such time as the Club is in a position to repay the outstanding loans". So nothing like having an outstanding loan to a commercial lender. If you're referring to the reference to a 12 month period read this: www.accountingtools.com/going-concern-principle"The auditor evaluates an entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a period not greater than one year following the financial statements being audited". Stop trying to peddle scaremongering crap. Like when the Mem is sold or (unlikely) remortgaged? And the power to do this is held by who? Oh the Al Qadi's. There is a clue in what is supporting this statement (auditors can't rely on rumours like you): Still let's hope (I truly do hope they do) that the Al Qadi's get a successful agreement with UWE & they don't have to reconsider their ownership of the club. Or if they don't do you see them owning the club in a largely undeveloped Mem for the next 10 years? Ultimately if you & others don't care about the financial position of the club then this thread isn't for you. What this thread isn't (or shouldn't be for) is people who misunderstand things trying to assert their own ignorance as fact or risk. Judging by your response you clearly didn't click the link I provided for you. You're confusing generally accepted accounting practice (UK GAAP) with a statement of intent by the owners. Hami Al Qadi didn't pull one of the auditors aside and say "Listen I'm going to put up with this 'playing football club owner' thing for another 12 months and no longer, write that in the bloody financial statements, make sure the idiots know". How are you seriously trying to pretend that having amounts outstanding to the club owners which they confirm is repayable "when the Club is in a position to repay" them is as bad or worse than having a loan outstanding to a commercial lender with a repayment date of six months like we did last year?
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 13, 2017 10:05:21 GMT
Like when the Mem is sold or (unlikely) remortgaged? And the power to do this is held by who? Oh the Al Qadi's. There is a clue in what is supporting this statement (auditors can't rely on rumours like you): Still let's hope (I truly do hope they do) that the Al Qadi's get a successful agreement with UWE & they don't have to reconsider their ownership of the club. Or if they don't do you see them owning the club in a largely undeveloped Mem for the next 10 years? Ultimately if you & others don't care about the financial position of the club then this thread isn't for you. What this thread isn't (or shouldn't be for) is people who misunderstand things trying to assert their own ignorance as fact or risk. Judging by your response you clearly didn't click the link I provided for you. You're confusing generally accepted accounting practice (UK GAAP) with a statement of intent by the owners. Hami Al Qadi didn't pull one of the auditors aside and say "Listen I'm going to put up with this 'playing football club owner' thing for another 12 months and no longer, write that in the bloody financial statements, make sure the idiots know". How are you seriously trying to pretend that having amounts outstanding to the club owners which they confirm is repayable "when the Club is in a position to repay" them is as bad or worse than having a loan outstanding to a commercial lender with a repayment date of six months like we did last year? Am I? Making things up again LJG why do it? Before the accounts came out many (quite possibly you included) asserted as fact that the club was debt free, one or two of us who speculated that this wasn't true were shot down in flames and now it's a FACT that the Club isn't debt free people don't like being told this (rumours hold much more value on a football forum than facts it seems). As it happens I'd rather owe Dwane Sports, at what ever interest rate (which you have admitted to guessing is below 'commercial' rates nothing like ignorance is there?), & the previous directors rather than a commercial lender (which I think the Club would find very hard to find at 'commercial' rates and MSP wasn't at 'commercial' rates). You are quite right 'Hami Al Qadi didn't pull one of the auditors aside' (the exact point I was making, nice to agree on something isn't it?) there will be a legally signed agreement (imo) between the Club and Dwane Sports and/or Mr H Al Qadi, and my guess is that it'll be a 12 month revolving credit facility hence the point in the accounts I highlighted. There you go speculation based on what is written in the accounts, we have the unqualified support of the Al Qadi's for the next 12 months. That is a FACT no ignorance there at all (well on your view yes, not on mine). Obviously you didn't want to consider the question I asked if there isn't an agreement with UWE, shame but just bury your head in the sand & hope for the best (I'm hoping for the best but just asking what happens if that doesn't happen).
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 13, 2017 10:31:52 GMT
What this thread isn't (or shouldn't be for) is people who misunderstand things trying to assert their own ignorance as fact or risk. Judging by your response you clearly didn't click the link I provided for you. You're confusing generally accepted accounting practice (UK GAAP) with a statement of intent by the owners. Hami Al Qadi didn't pull one of the auditors aside and say "Listen I'm going to put up with this 'playing football club owner' thing for another 12 months and no longer, write that in the bloody financial statements, make sure the idiots know". How are you seriously trying to pretend that having amounts outstanding to the club owners which they confirm is repayable "when the Club is in a position to repay" them is as bad or worse than having a loan outstanding to a commercial lender with a repayment date of six months like we did last year? Am I? Making things up again LJG why do it? Before the accounts came out many (quite possibly you included) asserted as fact that the club was debt free, one or two of us who speculated that this wasn't true were shot down in flames and now it's a FACT that the Club isn't debt free people don't like being told this (rumours hold much more value on a football forum than facts it seems). As it happens I'd rather owe Dwane Sports, at what ever interest rate (which you have admitted to guessing is below 'commercial' rates nothing like ignorance is there?), & the previous directors rather than a commercial lender (which I think the Club would find very hard to find at 'commercial' rates and MSP wasn't at 'commercial' rates). You are quite right 'Hami Al Qadi didn't pull one of the auditors aside' (the exact point I was making, nice to agree on something isn't it?) there will be a legally signed agreement (imo) between the Club and Dwane Sports and/or Mr H Al Qadi, and my guess is that it'll be a 12 month revolving credit facility hence the point in the accounts I highlighted. There you go speculation based on what is written in the accounts, we have the unqualified support of the Al Qadi's for the next 12 months. That is a FACT no ignorance there at all (well on your view yes, not on mine). Obviously you didn't want to consider the question I asked if there isn't an agreement with UWE, shame but just bury your head in the sand & hope for the best (I'm hoping for the best but just asking what happens if that doesn't happen). You and Topper have both said time after time that our financial position is as precarious as it ever was. That's demonstrably wrong and you've just admitted so. OK, so we agree that until now you've been scaremongering on that point and now you appear to have dropped it. Where have I ever said we are debt free? Show me a post of mine that says that. I've never thought we would be debt free after purchase. That would be like assuming that the person who buys my house will pay my mortgage off as well. What I did think was that we are in a more secure position not owing sums to a commercial lender (think I might have mentioned that once or twice already). As for your made up bullsh*t about our credit facility having a rolling 12 month extension, I've said it three times now I can't repeat myself anymore, I've even tried to show you explanatory sources to help you understand. The statement is even made under the heading "Accounting Policies".
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 13, 2017 10:47:15 GMT
Am I? Making things up again LJG why do it? Before the accounts came out many (quite possibly you included) asserted as fact that the club was debt free, one or two of us who speculated that this wasn't true were shot down in flames and now it's a FACT that the Club isn't debt free people don't like being told this (rumours hold much more value on a football forum than facts it seems). As it happens I'd rather owe Dwane Sports, at what ever interest rate (which you have admitted to guessing is below 'commercial' rates nothing like ignorance is there?), & the previous directors rather than a commercial lender (which I think the Club would find very hard to find at 'commercial' rates and MSP wasn't at 'commercial' rates). You are quite right 'Hami Al Qadi didn't pull one of the auditors aside' (the exact point I was making, nice to agree on something isn't it?) there will be a legally signed agreement (imo) between the Club and Dwane Sports and/or Mr H Al Qadi, and my guess is that it'll be a 12 month revolving credit facility hence the point in the accounts I highlighted. There you go speculation based on what is written in the accounts, we have the unqualified support of the Al Qadi's for the next 12 months. That is a FACT no ignorance there at all (well on your view yes, not on mine). Obviously you didn't want to consider the question I asked if there isn't an agreement with UWE, shame but just bury your head in the sand & hope for the best (I'm hoping for the best but just asking what happens if that doesn't happen). You and Topper have both said time after time that our financial position is as precarious as it ever was. That's demonstrably wrong and you've just admitted so. OK, so we agree that until now you've been scaremongering on that point and now you appear to have dropped it. Where have I ever said we are debt free? Show me a post of mine that says that. I've never thought we would be debt free after purchase. That would be like assuming that the person who buys my house will pay my mortgage off as well. What I did think was that we are in a more secure position not owing sums to a commercial lender (think I might have mentioned that once or twice already). As for your made up bullsh*t about our credit facility having a rolling 12 month extension, I've said it three times now I can't repeat myself anymore, I've even tried to show you explanatory sources to help you understand. The statement is even made under the heading "Accounting Policies".So what were the auditors shown to support that note? We've agreed it wasn't a nudge, nudge conversation so what was it? The auditors have to be satisfied so what satisfied them (em something in writing maybe?), come on you have all the answers have a guess like usual. And where have I said precarious? I've merely pointed at we've still got debts that i was told, on here, didn't exist. We don't need to worry about them for at least the next 12 months though, the accounts tell us that quite clearly. Still you don't seem to want to think about what could occur if no agreement is made with the UWE, obviously that would fundamentally change the Al Qadi's business plan. Now we are told that they are smart businessmen (& I've no reason to disagree with that) so I wouldn't expect them to keep ploughing money into a business that couldn't give a return on that money. So what do they do at that point? Come on they are either smart businessman or idiots pouring their money down a black hole (& I'm just saying that I don't believe they'll do that)
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Apr 13, 2017 10:49:20 GMT
Well the facts are that we now have zero external debt, as a group of companies the value of our assets exceeds our liabilities and the controlling party is committed to funding ongoing losses. As LJH says, the "for at least 12 months" thing is a standard phrase.
As CGH says, the risks are that under the current ownership and funding structure (which is common in football), the AQ family may reconsider their commitment if the UWE project doesn't happen. I think we would all have been reassured if debt had been capitalised and the UWE deal hadn't needed to be fundamentally renegotiated. Especially as SH has alluded to issues with the deal which only came to light after they acquired the club. My view however, is that we have progressed from a position where I was somewhere between the doomed and mildly perturbed camp to being somewhere between mildly perturbed and not bothered. At the end of the day, DS, BRFC etc are all owned by the same people and regardless of the structure, those owners can do what they want. The risk under the old regime was that while nobody questioned their intentions, the owners could no longer fund our losses. The risk under the new regime is that while nobody can seriously question their ability to fund our losses, they may cut and run if things don't go entirely to plan. I'm a glass half full type and IMO the fact that substantial investment is being made in training facities etc suggests that the owners are confident that either UWE will proceed or if it doesn't, an alternative will be found.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 13, 2017 11:01:22 GMT
You and Topper have both said time after time that our financial position is as precarious as it ever was. That's demonstrably wrong and you've just admitted so. OK, so we agree that until now you've been scaremongering on that point and now you appear to have dropped it. Where have I ever said we are debt free? Show me a post of mine that says that. I've never thought we would be debt free after purchase. That would be like assuming that the person who buys my house will pay my mortgage off as well. What I did think was that we are in a more secure position not owing sums to a commercial lender (think I might have mentioned that once or twice already). As for your made up bullsh*t about our credit facility having a rolling 12 month extension, I've said it three times now I can't repeat myself anymore, I've even tried to show you explanatory sources to help you understand. The statement is even made under the heading "Accounting Policies". So what were the auditors shown to support that note? We've agreed it wasn't a nudge, nudge conversation so what was it? The auditors have to be satisfied so what satisfied them (em something in writing maybe?), come on you have all the answers have a guess like usual. And where have I said precarious? I've merely pointed at we've still got debts that i was told, on here, didn't exist. We don't need to worry about them for at least the next 12 months though, the accounts tell us that quite clearly. Still you don't seem to want to think about what could occur if no agreement is made with the UWE, obviously that would fundamentally change the Al Qadi's business plan. Now we are told that they are smart businessmen (& I've no reason to disagree with that) so I wouldn't expect them to keep ploughing money into a business that couldn't give a return on that money. So what do they do at that point? Come on they are either smart businessman or idiots pouring their money down a black hole (& I'm just saying that I don't believe they'll do that) What the he'll are you talking about? I literally don't understand how you don't understand this now. The auditors have to show whether the accounts are prepared on the basis of the business being a going concern. If they have they can only make that judgement for the period of one year from the time the financial statements are audited. (This is all in the link I provided you by the way). They ask the owners to confirm if their continued support will cover the next accounting period (guess how long that is?). The owners say yes or no. This imagined scenario you've dreamt up is just your own fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 13, 2017 11:13:14 GMT
So what were the auditors shown to support that note? We've agreed it wasn't a nudge, nudge conversation so what was it? The auditors have to be satisfied so what satisfied them (em something in writing maybe?), come on you have all the answers have a guess like usual. And where have I said precarious? I've merely pointed at we've still got debts that i was told, on here, didn't exist. We don't need to worry about them for at least the next 12 months though, the accounts tell us that quite clearly. Still you don't seem to want to think about what could occur if no agreement is made with the UWE, obviously that would fundamentally change the Al Qadi's business plan. Now we are told that they are smart businessmen (& I've no reason to disagree with that) so I wouldn't expect them to keep ploughing money into a business that couldn't give a return on that money. So what do they do at that point? Come on they are either smart businessman or idiots pouring their money down a black hole (& I'm just saying that I don't believe they'll do that) What the he'll are you talking about? I literally don't understand how you don't understand this now. The auditors have to show whether the accounts are prepared on the basis of the business being a going concern. If they have they can only make that judgement for the period of one year from the time the financial statements are audited. (This is all in the link I provided you by the way). They ask the owners to confirm if their continued support will cover the next accounting period (guess how long that is?). The owners say yes or no. This imagined scenario you've dreamt up is just your own fantasy. Go on read the accounts properly I've even quoted the piece that contradicts the your highlighted statement but I'll repeat it for you as you are obviously struggling 'at least twelve months from the signing of these accounts'. You really don't have a clue do you? So the auditors are relying on a nudge, nudge conversation? There would be a lot of auditors getting sued if they relied on a yes or no from business owners. But hey you know everything. As someone wiser than me once said don't debate with an idiot. So I'll leave you on your own to continue making things up
|
|