|
Post by newmarketgas on Apr 12, 2017 12:41:30 GMT
Better off with bankers than Liberal Lefty nutters !
|
|
|
Post by Gas_Quarters on Apr 12, 2017 12:58:59 GMT
Debt isn't always seen as a negative thing in business. Obviously if it's unmanageable and unsustainable then it can be very dangerous. But you often have to have some form of debt to move forward. Every time you make an investment with a loan it is a risk, but risks often have to be taken to be successful. If we were to get promoted to the Championship, then a £10 million debt wouldn't seem that much because our revenue would increase and we could have it paid off within a few years. Likewise if we get the new stadium and end up being profitable.
Obviously the risk could also not pay off and we could end up like Coventry/Leyton Orient. But at least now we look like we are going places whereas a few years ago we were building up debt at the same time as being a struggling League Two side followed by relegation to the Conference. I'm sure if we were to get promoted there would be a few teams around envious of our recent success, growth and the position of our football club. There wouldn't be too many teams looking at us and going, 'Thank God we're not like Bristol Rovers with £10m worth of debt'. UTG!
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 12, 2017 13:08:55 GMT
I've just checked my mortgage statement. Turns out I owe them three times as much as I earn in an entire year! I'm sh*tting it. Well, given Rovers appears to run at a loss, and have debts equal to their asset and would find it very difficult to move house, downsize or rent somewhere more affordable to income I would respectfully suggest the 2 scenarios are very different. Unless you are in negative equity I would also assume that your debt is much less than the asset you are borrowing against. Well like me it would also appear the club have a relatively steady income and unlike me the club have assets beyond their property. The Mem is not the only asset of the club. Things like goodwill and players contracts all have a value. We also don't have debt equal to the value of that major asset as far as I can see. And the club have moved to rented accommodation twice in the last 25 years having downsized once so it's not impossible. I don't see that as a likely or desirable outcome but it's worth pointing out. The truth is that nearly all large businesses run with thin capital reserves because debt financing allows for faster growth. Being run by bankers I'd expect nothing less. In my opinion we are better off than a year ago - we have a serviceable debt at below commercial rates and have been made visibly more commercial in our operations. I also don't buy the baseless scare mongering of Topper and the "ciders" particularly the part that "no due diligence was done prior to the purchase". I can think of almost no circumstances in which that might be true.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Apr 12, 2017 13:12:08 GMT
Well, given Rovers appears to run at a loss, and have debts equal to their asset and would find it very difficult to move house, downsize or rent somewhere more affordable to income I would respectfully suggest the 2 scenarios are very different. Unless you are in negative equity I would also assume that your debt is much less than the asset you are borrowing against. Well like me it would also appear the club have a relatively steady income and unlike me the club have assets beyond their property. The Mem is not the only asset of the club. Things like goodwill and players contracts all have a value. We also don't have debt equal to the value of that major asset as far as I can see. And the club have moved to rented accommodation twice in the last 25 years having downsized once so it's not impossible. I don't see that as a likely or desirable outcome but it's worth pointing out. The truth is that nearly all large businesses run with thin capital reserves because debt financing allows for faster growth. Being run by bankers I'd expect nothing less. In my opinion we are better off than a year ago - we have a serviceable debt at below commercial rates and have been made visibly more commercial in our operations. I also don't buy the baseless scare mongering of Topper and the "ciders" particularly the part that "no due diligence was done prior to the purchase". I can think of almost no circumstances in which that might be true. A fair response and I fully subscribe to the idea that we should not be sucked in by scaremongering too.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 12, 2017 14:54:42 GMT
Well, given Rovers appears to run at a loss, and have debts equal to their asset and would find it very difficult to move house, downsize or rent somewhere more affordable to income I would respectfully suggest the 2 scenarios are very different. Unless you are in negative equity I would also assume that your debt is much less than the asset you are borrowing against. Well like me it would also appear the club have a relatively steady income and unlike me the club have assets beyond their property. The Mem is not the only asset of the club. Things like goodwill and players contracts all have a value. We also don't have debt equal to the value of that major asset as far as I can see. And the club have moved to rented accommodation twice in the last 25 years having downsized once so it's not impossible. I don't see that as a likely or desirable outcome but it's worth pointing out. The truth is that nearly all large businesses run with thin capital reserves because debt financing allows for faster growth. Being run by bankers I'd expect nothing less. In my opinion we are better off than a year ago - we have a serviceable debt at below commercial rates and have been made visibly more commercial in our operations. I also don't buy the baseless scare mongering of Topper and the "ciders" particularly the part that "no due diligence was done prior to the purchase". I can think of almost no circumstances in which that might be true. What rates are we paying on debt LJG?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 12, 2017 15:17:19 GMT
Well like me it would also appear the club have a relatively steady income and unlike me the club have assets beyond their property. The Mem is not the only asset of the club. Things like goodwill and players contracts all have a value. We also don't have debt equal to the value of that major asset as far as I can see. And the club have moved to rented accommodation twice in the last 25 years having downsized once so it's not impossible. I don't see that as a likely or desirable outcome but it's worth pointing out. The truth is that nearly all large businesses run with thin capital reserves because debt financing allows for faster growth. Being run by bankers I'd expect nothing less. In my opinion we are better off than a year ago - we have a serviceable debt at below commercial rates and have been made visibly more commercial in our operations. I also don't buy the baseless scare mongering of Topper and the "ciders" particularly the part that "no due diligence was done prior to the purchase". I can think of almost no circumstances in which that might be true. What rates are we paying on debt LJG? No idea but if our debt isn't with a commercial lender we're not paying commercial rates. Next.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 12, 2017 15:29:01 GMT
What rates are we paying on debt LJG? No idea but if our debt isn't with a commercial lender we're not paying commercial rates. Next. So your making assumptions without a shred of evidence to back that up? We could be paying anything from 0 to 10% the way everything is hidden in the accounts.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 12, 2017 16:06:03 GMT
No idea but if our debt isn't with a commercial lender we're not paying commercial rates. Next. So your making assumptions without a shred of evidence to back that up? We could be paying anything from 0 to 10% the way everything is hidden in the accounts. Yes inference. No not assumption. No not without a shred of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by bluegas on Apr 12, 2017 16:17:38 GMT
I'm no accountant or business analyst, but......many years ago, in my youth, first job, was appalled to hear what the company owed. The old hands around me laughed at this & said it was the norm. I believe no company wants piles of cash sat about - they either get taxed on it or it's seen as dead money, doing no good. Best to keep borrowing & (hopefully) expand, as long as you can keep up repayments of course.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Apr 12, 2017 16:27:52 GMT
I'm no accountant or business analyst, but......many years ago, in my youth, first job, was appalled to hear what the company owed. The old hands around me laughed at this & said it was the norm. I believe no company wants piles of cash sat about - they either get taxed on it or it's seen as dead money, doing no good. Best to keep borrowing & (hopefully) expand, as long as you can keep up repayments of course. years ago the company I worked for made a healthy profit. Trouble was it was more than the parent company were going to expect for us, so come the year end we were trying to find 'bad news' so it could be hidden for a few months at least. The last thing you want to do is to give the bigwigs an incentive to expect even more out of you the following year
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 12, 2017 17:53:44 GMT
Well like me it would also appear the club have a relatively steady income and unlike me the club have assets beyond their property. The Mem is not the only asset of the club. Things like goodwill and players contracts all have a value. We also don't have debt equal to the value of that major asset as far as I can see. And the club have moved to rented accommodation twice in the last 25 years having downsized once so it's not impossible. I don't see that as a likely or desirable outcome but it's worth pointing out. The truth is that nearly all large businesses run with thin capital reserves because debt financing allows for faster growth. Being run by bankers I'd expect nothing less. In my opinion we are better off than a year ago - we have a serviceable debt at below commercial rates and have been made visibly more commercial in our operations. I also don't buy the baseless scare mongering of Topper and the "ciders" particularly the part that "no due diligence was done prior to the purchase". I can think of almost no circumstances in which that might be true. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 18:13:32 GMT
I can't be arsed to read this thread. What's all the fuss about?
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Apr 12, 2017 18:25:27 GMT
I can't be arsed to read this thread. What's all the fuss about? We're still in debt to the tune of about 8 million.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Apr 12, 2017 18:51:39 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. You are. You've said: 1. The club was bought without due diligence being undertaken. 2. Wael has to convince his family to remain invested in Rovers. 3. Hami will be putting his foot down and withdrawing his support in August if the UWE deal is not completed. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Apr 12, 2017 18:51:42 GMT
I can't be arsed to read this thread. What's all the fuss about? We're still in debt to the tune of about 8 million. And some people say we are all doomed, some are mildly perturbed and most don't seem bothered.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Apr 12, 2017 20:02:27 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.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Apr 12, 2017 20:05:32 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.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Apr 12, 2017 20:13:15 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. It worries me too. I thought they wanted to own not only the stadium footprint but also additional land, from which we could have received rent from all the other businesses moving in to take a piece of the lucrative new revenue the stadium would have generated. These UWE boffins are stubborn or astute. Or more likely both.
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Apr 12, 2017 20:16:34 GMT
We're still in debt to the tune of about 8 million. And some people say we are all doomed, some are mildly perturbed and most don't seem bothered. I'm still deciding how I feel. I guess as long as the Al-Qadis stick around, and are happy with the arrangement that the club only needs pay the money when it's good for it - then I'm mildly perturbed. Were MSP banging down the door threatening to close us down, I'd be in the "doomed" camp. I had hoped the debt would be written off, but I don't think deep down I believed that would be the case. Also, the Al-Qadis are not showing any signs of buggering off so I'm not going to waste time and energy worrying just yet.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 12, 2017 20:25:12 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. 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.
|
|