|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 13, 2017 11:16:44 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. A well balanced summing up bluebeard, nice to see that at least someone can think through the worse case scenario. As it happens I'm more confident of the future under the Al Qadi's than I was under Higgs & co, however if it all goes tits up then I believe we'll be in as bad a position under Al Qadi's as under Higgs & co. I however have more confidence it won't go tits up than I did before.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Apr 13, 2017 11:22:09 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. A good summary and sums up how I feel. I'm a glass half empty guy as far as Rovers are concerned, but I'm only mildly perturbed.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 13, 2017 11:43:29 GMT
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 Simple question: when will the next set of financial statements be audited? Do me a favour and do my tax return for me, would you? Which one are you anyway? Mr. Grant or Mr. Thornton?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 13, 2017 11:45:33 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. A well balanced summing up bluebeard, nice to see that at least someone can think through the worse case scenario. As it happens I'm more confident of the future under the Al Qadi's than I was under Higgs & co, however if it all goes tits up then I believe we'll be in as bad a position under Al Qadi's as under Higgs & co. I however have more confidence it won't go tits up than I did before. So you do accept the point I was making. Just not if I was making it. Finally!
|
|
|
Post by gasstrictband on Apr 13, 2017 13:02:35 GMT
Why don't we invite someone with proper knowledge of number punching,to go over the accounts and give spot on verdict on where we are ,and where we are going, who would you invite, I'll start you all off, got to be Carol Vorderman, she would get her head around it
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 13, 2017 13:08:10 GMT
Why don't we invite someone with proper knowledge of number punching,to go over the accounts and give spot on verdict on where we are ,and where we are going, who would you invite, I'll start you all off, got to be Carol Vorderman, she would get her head around it If that's the way we're heading then we might as well enjoy ourselves; Rachel Riley surely?
|
|
|
Post by A Source (aka Angry Badger) on Apr 13, 2017 13:17:52 GMT
Why don't we invite someone with proper knowledge of number punching,to go over the accounts and give spot on verdict on where we are ,and where we are going, who would you invite, I'll start you all off, got to be Carol Vorderman, she would get her head around it If that's the way we're heading then we might as well enjoy ourselves; Rachel Riley surely? Do the younger generation on a night out now ask bar staff for 'A Riley' rather than 'A Vorderman' For those not ITK its ordering from the shelf/optics. '2 from the top and 4 from anywhere else'
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Apr 13, 2017 13:29:38 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? Severncider, following his report of the recent AGM, said it on page 31 of the Big UWE News thread, in response to a question about this issue from Topper. "The question of BRFC owning the land as opposed to leasing it now seems to be a thing of the past." I don't know if it's accurate, which is why I said things appear to have changed
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 13, 2017 13:32:25 GMT
If that's the way we're heading then we might as well enjoy ourselves; Rachel Riley surely? Do the younger generation on a night out now ask bar staff for 'A Riley' rather than 'A Vorderman' For those not ITK its ordering from the shelf/optics. '2 from the top and 4 from anywhere else' Hang on I'll ask one ... He says "Nah" but I don't know if he heard the question. He never looked up from his phone.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Apr 13, 2017 13:44:58 GMT
Severncider, following his report of the recent AGM, said it on page 31 of the Big UWE News thread, in response to a question about this issue from Topper. "The question of BRFC owning the land as opposed to leasing it now seems to be a thing of the past." I don't know if it's accurate, which is why I said things appear to have changed The first mention of this is on page 26 of the thread, from....GGMI. Bishopston quotes him, but GGMI's original post appears to have been deleted. Hmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 13, 2017 14:40:06 GMT
Why don't we invite someone with proper knowledge of number punching,to go over the accounts and give spot on verdict on where we are ,and where we are going, who would you invite, I'll start you all off, got to be Carol Vorderman, she would get her head around it Tell you who could set us straight. First class honours degree in Accounting ... Rory Gaffney: uk.linkedin.com/in/rory-gaffney-91a26882
|
|
Marshy
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,129
|
Post by Marshy on Apr 13, 2017 14:44:12 GMT
Why don't we invite someone with proper knowledge of number punching,to go over the accounts and give spot on verdict on where we are ,and where we are going, who would you invite, I'll start you all off, got to be Carol Vorderman, she would get her head around it Tell you who could set us straight. First class honours degree in Accounting ... Rory Gaffney: uk.linkedin.com/in/rory-gaffney-91a26882 Good idea, but he won't have time as he is very busy shagging all our wives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 15:33:55 GMT
Severncider, following his report of the recent AGM, said it on page 31 of the Big UWE News thread, in response to a question about this issue from Topper. "The question of BRFC owning the land as opposed to leasing it now seems to be a thing of the past." I don't know if it's accurate, which is why I said things appear to have changed The first mention of this is on page 26 of the thread, from....GGMI. Bishopston quotes him, but GGMI's original post appears to have been deleted. Hmmmm. Ah - thanks for the info. I have to admit that I don't check on that thread very often, so that's why it passed me by.
|
|
|
Post by gasstrictband on Apr 13, 2017 16:49:57 GMT
GORDON GEKKO ,I'm sure could tackle it , made his fortune on Wall Street .
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Apr 13, 2017 19:09:24 GMT
A well balanced summing up bluebeard, nice to see that at least someone can think through the worse case scenario. As it happens I'm more confident of the future under the Al Qadi's than I was under Higgs & co, however if it all goes tits up then I believe we'll be in as bad a position under Al Qadi's as under Higgs & co. I however have more confidence it won't go tits up than I did before. So you do accept the point I was making. Just not if I was making it. Finally! I wouldn't take it too personally, I had a similar feeling of going round in circles yesterday. I agree with your view of the 12 months for what it is worth. From memory accounts have a window for being produced as well which may also explain the more than 12 months comment. In answer to your other question, definitely Carol for me, although if we are talking maths skills and not aesthetics then what about Jonny Ball?
|
|
|
Post by mftc on Apr 13, 2017 19:19:55 GMT
It might seem a bit simplistic but already for next season we have more income from the sponsors draw, a good chance of some live tv money (based on law of averages that we didn't feature this season), a chance to increase FA cup, EFL trophy revenue, similar ST revenue, more money raised at a weekend Fun Day, macron pulling their finger out to get kid ready 2 months earlier and quite a few less " honorary" contracts - Lawrence,Gos etc, plus a evens chance of a play place.
Yeah most of this increases will go on new players wages, but the club are continuing to make small steps in the right direction, which had to be positive.
The "models/hostesses?" at the entrances to hospitality is a bit if a waste of money though.
|
|