Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol R*vers dustbin thread


42nite

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

 

But aren’t “they” paying him interest from the money taken against the charge..? Effectively borrowing more money to pay interest on the monies already borrowed, all stacking up against the ground..?

it's a credit facility, its like Bristol Sport Lending Bristol City money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

My thoughts are that when the money taken against the charge runs out they are ****** unless they can raise cash via a January sale of their talented squad members.

selling bodin will see them through til the end of the season (if he hasn't got a matty taylor clause in his contract)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

Using the mortgage analogy presumably if they default on interest payments it opens the door for the lender to take ownership of the borrowers assets?

 

28 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

As the major holder of a charge on the mem, can WAQ force the sale of the land to recoup his / DS's £10M? They would be seriously up sh1t creek if he can.

The mortgage analogy is only an analogy - this is not a mortgage. A mortgage lender can take possession in default of payment because that is a term of the mortgage deed. The mortgage also operates a charge. But an ordinary charge does not also contain a right to possession. A charge has the advantage of giving you priority if the person who owes you money becomes insolvent. If, and this is purely hypothetical, NLBR were to become insolvent (I am not in the know at all and actually doubt this will happen), the chargeholder would be paid the value of their charge in full from the sale of the land, any surplus would then be split between anyone else owed money. Football League rules mean football debts (wages etc) are paid first, so those at the back of the queue would be anyone non-footballing people like HMRC, contractors, pie suppliers, fence builders etc.

The chargeholder can, with the court's permission, force a sale but it is difficult and expensive, especially as the chargeholder (WAQ/DS) would be taking NLBR (which he/they own) to court. If they sell NLBR, it is unlikely the new purchaser wouldn't also acquire the Mem so the charge would fall away, providing the loan is repaid. It would get murkier if NLBR was sold and either the loan wasn't repaid or the new owners didn't also take on the Mem, but I'll cross that bridge if we need to. 

Most football clubs are bought and sold cheaply on the understanding that all debts will be paid (I think Rangers were sold for just £1 when they were sold before their financial difficulties became known). That's what Higgs did - the £10m loan was to pay off all the debts (or so we are told). The charge doesn't increase the asking price, WAQ have just taken a different approach from Higgs.

I'll leave you to decide if it suggests that Higgs was confident that he would be paid in full when he sold because the club had some (apparent) value to a buyer, and that on the other hand WAQ was concerned about the club's value and so made sure he would be paid by taking a charge over the most valuable asset which could be sold without a buyer for NLBR being found. 

On a side note, I am not aware SL has ever taken a charge out over BCFC, Bristol Sport or any of their assets.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

My thoughts are that when the money taken against the charge runs out they are ****** unless they can raise cash via a January sale of their talented squad members.

If I was the AQs I'd put in sufficient extra funds to take them to the end of the season ?£300k - £500k and then aim for a sale as a going concern with a Div 3 place.

They'll get far more for that than for a Div 4 club in administration.

This strategy does require a buyer coming in in the summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BrightCiderLife said:

 

The mortgage analogy is only an analogy - this is not a mortgage. A mortgage lender can take possession in default of payment because that is a term of the mortgage deed. The mortgage also operates a charge. But an ordinary charge does not also contain a right to possession. A charge has the advantage of giving you priority if the person who owes you money becomes insolvent. If, and this is purely hypothetical, NLBR were to become insolvent (I am not in the know at all and actually doubt this will happen), the chargeholder would be paid the value of their charge in full from the sale of the land, any surplus would then be split between anyone else owed money. Football League rules mean football debts (wages etc) are paid first, so those at the back of the queue would be anyone non-footballing people like HMRC, contractors, pie suppliers, fence builders etc.

The chargeholder can, with the court's permission, force a sale but it is difficult and expensive, especially as the chargeholder (WAQ/DS) would be taking NLBR (which he/they own) to court. If they sell NLBR, it is unlikely the new purchaser wouldn't also acquire the Mem so the charge would fall away, providing the loan is repaid. It would get murkier if NLBR was sold and either the loan wasn't repaid or the new owners didn't also take on the Mem, but I'll cross that bridge if we need to. 

Most football clubs are bought and sold cheaply on the understanding that all debts will be paid (I think Rangers were sold for just £1 when they were sold before their financial difficulties became known). That's what Higgs did - the £10m loan was to pay off all the debts (or so we are told). The charge doesn't increase the asking price, WAQ have just taken a different approach from Higgs.

I'll leave you to decide if it suggests that Higgs was confident that he would be paid in full when he sold because the club had some (apparent) value to a buyer, and that on the other hand WAQ was concerned about the club's value and so made sure he would be paid by taking a charge over the most valuable asset which could be sold without a buyer for NLBR being found. 

On a side note, I am not aware SL has ever taken a charge out over BCFC, Bristol Sport or any of their assets.

never, he's always converted monies owed to equity 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

If I was the AQs I'd put in sufficient extra funds to take them to the end of the season ?£300k - £500k and then aim for a sale as a going concern with a Div 3 place.

They'll get far more for that than for a Div 4 club in administration.

This strategy does require a buyer coming in in the summer.

This is what led to my question TBH Eddie. If the the AQ's wanted out as soon as the value of the supposed £10M charge is reached, bearing in mind they've made 6% in interest, couldn't they conceivably bankrupt the club and still get their £10M back, plus interest, regardless of a buyer being available? I appreciate they wouldn't be too popular but could they conceivably do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

selling bodin will see them through til the end of the season (if he hasn't got a matty taylor clause in his contract)

They'll be lucky to get Taylor money for Bodin, he's out of contract at the end of the season.

£150K tops I reckon (half a Taylor)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, BrightCiderLife said:

 

The mortgage analogy is only an analogy - this is not a mortgage. A mortgage lender can take possession in default of payment because that is a term of the mortgage deed. The mortgage also operates a charge. But an ordinary charge does not also contain a right to possession. A charge has the advantage of giving you priority if the person who owes you money becomes insolvent. If, and this is purely hypothetical, NLBR were to become insolvent (I am not in the know at all and actually doubt this will happen), the chargeholder would be paid the value of their charge in full from the sale of the land, any surplus would then be split between anyone else owed money. Football League rules mean football debts (wages etc) are paid first, so those at the back of the queue would be anyone non-footballing people like HMRC, contractors, pie suppliers, fence builders etc.

The chargeholder can, with the court's permission, force a sale but it is difficult and expensive, especially as the chargeholder (WAQ/DS) would be taking NLBR (which he/they own) to court. If they sell NLBR, it is unlikely the new purchaser wouldn't also acquire the Mem so the charge would fall away, providing the loan is repaid. It would get murkier if NLBR was sold and either the loan wasn't repaid or the new owners didn't also take on the Mem, but I'll cross that bridge if we need to. 

Most football clubs are bought and sold cheaply on the understanding that all debts will be paid (I think Rangers were sold for just £1 when they were sold before their financial difficulties became known). That's what Higgs did - the £10m loan was to pay off all the debts (or so we are told). The charge doesn't increase the asking price, WAQ have just taken a different approach from Higgs.

I'll leave you to decide if it suggests that Higgs was confident that he would be paid in full when he sold because the club had some (apparent) value to a buyer, and that on the other hand WAQ was concerned about the club's value and so made sure he would be paid by taking a charge over the most valuable asset which could be sold without a buyer for NLBR being found. 

On a side note, I am not aware SL has ever taken a charge out over BCFC, Bristol Sport or any of their assets.

Do you do pension advice as well, out of interest?  :whistle:

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

This is what led to my question TBH Eddie. If the the AQ's wanted out as soon as the value of the supposed £10M charge is reached, bearing in mind they've made 6% in interest, couldn't they conceivably bankrupt the club and still get their £10M back, plus interest, regardless of a buyer being available? I appreciate they wouldn't be too popular but could they conceivably do it?

Yes they could just pull the plug though it is a faff that they would presumably rather avoid; though the £10m includes the interest.  So they would would be getting their money back plus interest rather than £10m plus interest.  If you see what I mean!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Yes they could just pull the plug though it is a faff that they would presumably rather avoid; though the £10m includes the interest.  So they would would be getting their money back plus interest rather than £10m plus interest.  If you see what I mean!

Indeed, that's makes sense Eddie. The interest forms part of the £10M charge so the actual amount available is lessened. Given their alleged current debt levels, the spring could be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ska Junkie said:

Indeed, that's makes sense Eddie. The interest forms part of the £10M charge so the actual amount available is lessened. Given their alleged current debt levels, the spring could be interesting.

Their companies' house site will be worth a regular visit for filings, SJ.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04501223/filing-history

Accounts (to June 2017) are due end of March but there could be other charges as they scout around to secure any more money they may have to put in to complete the season.

Maybe a further £1.1m charge on the ground as it's valued in the accounts at £11.1m.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BrightCiderLife said:

Work hard, retire early and enjoy spending the money - you can't take it with you :cool:

I’ve always worked hard and now, at nearly 39 years old, I have enough money to retire and live out the rest of my life in retirement,  enjoying regular luxuries and treats for myself and my family. 

Well, as long as I die before I’m 40 I can..! :grr:

  • Like 4
  • Haha 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BrightCiderLife said:

I've seen a few posts in which people say that WAQ's charge over the Mem means NLBRFC2015 either don't own it or that it's value has been reduced. Neither is wrong exactly, but also neither is an accurate description of the effect of a charge.

Essentially, it works the same as a mortgage. The charge doesn't change who owns the land. However, if it is sold, the charge holder (WAQ/Dwayne Sports) gets paid first. We're told the charge is to cover the £10m loan meaning the charge holder gets the first £10m of any sum paid to buy the ground. It does not devalue the property. Same as if you sell a house with a mortgage, the bank gets its cut first, and you get whatever is left (proceeds of sale). 

It is, however, unlikely the ground would be sold. If the club is sold, WAQ/DS will be bought out and their loan repaid, meaning the charge will be removed. The new owners can then charge or sell their new asset as they wish. 

The charge doesn't change who owns the Mem or its value, except that in effect, the charge holder 'owns' the first £10m and so the value to the seller (not the buyer) is reduced by the same amount. 

But could the land be sold for a lower price? 

In the case of a house, the bank can sell for a low-ball offer, so long as they get their cash you get whatever is left. The bank don't care if that's full market rate or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rovers saga is shaping up to be like a re-run of Evelyn Waugh’s novel Decline and Fall.

The prosperity promised through Nicholas’s millions turns to dust and the prospect of dire mediocrity coupled with interest slavery looms. Then, miraculously like a genie from a lamp, the Al Qadi family appear and spirits are raised to new heights. But with the UWE Stadium on the eve of construction it suddenly all falls to pieces and gloom descends once more. Rovers look as though they are finished completely when an unforeseen helping hand enables them to revert to the lowly position they were trying to escape from. But this time, effectively neutered, they are quite content to accept their status as permanent underdogs.

Sorry it couldn’t be a happy one but Evelyn’s endings are notoriously realistic. Many people are unaware that we actually came down from Oxford together although I got off at Stapleton Road and she carried on to Temple Meads. There are even claims that I was the inspiration for her masterpiece Bridewell Revisited.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, bert tann said:

The Rovers saga is shaping up to be like a re-run of Evelyn Waugh’s novel Decline and Fall.

The prosperity promised through Nicholas’s millions turns to dust and the prospect of dire mediocrity coupled with interest slavery looms. Then, miraculously like a genie from a lamp, the Al Qadi family appear and spirits are raised to new heights. But with the UWE Stadium on the eve of construction it suddenly all falls to pieces and gloom descends once more. Rovers look as though they are finished completely when an unforeseen helping hand enables them to revert to the lowly position they were trying to escape from. But this time, effectively neutered, they are quite content to accept their status as permanent underdogs.

Sorry it couldn’t be a happy one but Evelyn’s endings are notoriously realistic. Many people are unaware that we actually came down from Oxford together although I got off at Stapleton Road and she carried on to Temple Meads. There are even claims that I was the inspiration for her masterpiece Bridewell Revisited.

So instead of the notorious Santa's grotto, this year the R*vers will be putting on a panto. But which one? :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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