Jump to content
IGNORED

Sainsbury V Blbr


Arkateee

Recommended Posts

The gas guzzler mob are still on about boycotting Sainsburys, if 30k of us (!) didn't shop in Sainsburys, they'd feel it!

 

:facepalm:

 

They were not able to get 30k of them to attend the biggest game in their history, I doubt they will be able to arrange for 30k of them to stop buying bakes beans in a certain shop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How we going to find out the result, didn't I read the Rovers guy isn't going today and tomorrow?

 

Anyone else there?

 

The result won't be made at the end of tomorrow, it'll be a few weeks till the judge makes their decision... I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How we going to find out the result, didn't I read the Rovers guy isn't going today and tomorrow?

 

Anyone else there?

If Rovers win there'll be millions of people celebrating in the streets.

If Sainsbury's win you'll hear a loud clunk as a padlock shuts the gates of the mem for the final time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can lead a horse to water....

Look it up for yourself, its all there. Can't be arsed to do it for you.

If you choose to dismiss it, fine.

Anybody would dismiss it without hard facts so why is it so hard for you to do that i wonder?...just show some facts..to your strong allegations.. U r the one bandying 'facts' about its down to you to prove it...but since u cannot be arsed as you put it please do me a favour and show me the link that answers all that then squire. I will be bery happy to accept you are right at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for what it's worth, i really hope the the gas overcome this hurdle and an amicable settlement is reached,

i have many friends that i grew up with who chose to support rovers as kids and have stuck with the club they love

through thick and thin, it's the real supporters who will lose most from this if it all goes tits up...arent we real supporters too ?

 

I know i will be lambasted and ridiculed for having this opinion but hey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majoirty of the debt is with a third party at very high interest.

I think it was 6m and due to be paid up in July but I'm sure someone will correct that if I am wrong.

Arghhh OK is this one of the places you got your 'facts' from then? I thought you said it was all 'there' wherever that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for what it's worth, i really hope the the gas overcome this hurdle and an amicable settlement is reached,

i have many friends that i grew up with who chose to support rovers as kids and have stuck with the club they love

through thick and thin, it's the real supporters who will lose most from this if it all goes tits up...arent we real supporters too ?

I know i will be lambasted and ridiculed for having this opinion but hey

Not from me you won't nor from people who have a sense of understanding and empathy toward a fellow supporter of whatever club they support. Real supporters and many on here have lamented in the past when other teams fall into hardship. And to those who would say they recall when a Gas fan laughed at us in 1982 i would say this.... You should be a bigger man and not lower yourself to the same level. That is what being a Bristol City fan should be about. Not some ignorant person who lives off hatred. Cue the ignorance coming my way now. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like he's conveninently skipped that post.....

Cynic, i think, is referring to the post about Wonga loan?

No need for the sarcasm by the way.

So If i am right Cynic ie..that this is the post you are talking about, and sorry but i could not find your reply to it, then are you saying you are taking those remarks as a statement of fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cynic is indeed correct. The charge document is available from Companies House - small fee; thankfully I can access via a subscription in work so I can categorically confirm I have seen it.

2 and 3 come from Bristol Rovers statements. You are correct it could be a red herring or a line fed. I will tell you now that is highly unlikely. In the UK Directors of a company owe several duties of care: avoid conflicts of interest, promote best interests etc. There is a danger statements such as those, if untrue, would breach those duties. Therefore I think it relatively safe to take them at face value those.

As for 4 again it was confirmed at the AGM. If that's not enough, in light of the above duties, it will be disclosed in the next set of accounts whether settled or as a balance sheet liability.

As for 5 the cost of this refinancing makes that an assumption with basis. The fact that they've refinanced, and most importantly in the manner which they have indicates the directors are unwilling to lend it - after all they could have earned interest on the cash injection - or perhaps like other conventional lenders the directors know their credit worthiness is poor and are not willing to consider it a gift; or perhaps the directors feel there is a slim chance of winning their case or getting damages they require. Flip this around, what would make you assume that they can and will?

 

Noted and accepted on 1 thru 4. on 5, which is the most important here regarding affordability, I think one is still assuming a lot; we cannot say or know why one would take out such a loan. We know, probably, it is effectively like a bridging loan. I prefer to hold judgement on that one.

 

I can see where Cynic is coming from and why he would take the angle he has but we are still assuming more than is fair to then exclaim something else as a known fact.

As I hope you now see this isn't clouded by emotion.

As for your part on abbreviated accounts, once again Directors owe fiduciary duties and a duty not to mislead shareholders. The law recognises accounts are prepared for reliance upon by third parties - shareholders; creditors etc. If they are misleading there could be an action in law.

 

I know a fair bit about abbreviated accounts. 

Abbreviated accounts are not bullcrap as you seem to suggest. They are abbreviated to ease administrative and cost burdens for those smaller businesses. It is still a document you can rely upon, just as you could audited accounts, albeit the level of materiality changes... But nothing like what you suggest.

 

You assume wrong; what i was trying to convey is that prior to submission one has more than one way of presenting numbers.. directors loans versus investment, dividends versus director remuneration/salary/paye for example. Decisions on how these are shown or presented is perfectly acceptable. On balance sheet off balance sheet, property as asset or liability.. a multitude of ways. Of course you cannot change something from one year to the next. Cash basis or accrual basis accounting.. the list goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Noted and accepted on 1 thru 4. on 5, which is the most important here regarding affordability, I think one is still assuming a lot; we cannot say or know why one would take out such a loan. We know, probably, it is effectively like a bridging loan. I prefer to hold judgement on that one.

 

 

It was stated by Piggs at the AGM that the loan was taken out in a hurry as Barclays withdrew their funding and it was the only source of finance they could obtain, I believe.

Of course you are right that if the directors cover any cash shortfall a business will not go bust, but I think most people have the impression that BLBR directors are unwilling to fund the level of cash required on an ongoing basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless somebody is a shareholder or is related to the ownership of Rovers it is frankly laughable that people can come out and say they are making a loss or making a profit. To the best of my knowledge they are not listed on any bourse anywhere in the world which means they are a private limited company, partnership or sole proprietorship and, as such, any accounts that may need to be submitted to Companies House can be abbreviated.

And let me just add that abbreviated accounts really tell us nothing; a small profit can easily and legally be turned into a small loss and vice versa.

Further, whether they make a loss or not is irrelevant; they may continue to function as an entity due to the largesse or loan of shareholders or outside inputs.

So lets take emotion out of this argument for a moment and simply be frank and honest.. nobody knows if they are doing well or bad and either way they can still function as a business until such time as the owners withdraw their support.

Stories about their losses have frequently featured in the Post and Higgs himself has frequently said they need 10k crowds to break even. It's no mystery H.

Why do you think they had to take the private equity loan out unless they are running substantial losses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stories about their losses have frequently featured in the Post and Higgs himself has frequently said they need 10k crowds to break even. It's no mystery H.

Why do you think they had to take the private equity loan out unless they are running substantial losses?

 

I don't doubt that all the info 2AR, as an example, says he has from Companies House paints a pretty poor and sick picture. And there is usually no smoke without fire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...