BrightCiderLife

It seems their much talked about stadium tour has had another addition. Following recent trips to the Not Yetihad and the No Camp, they appear to now be playing at the Sand Siro. Where will they be playing next?

Could the extra £5m be secured against other property? I haven't had the chance to go through it all myself but wonder if the Colony has been used (although I originally thought Dwayne Sports purchased that not BRFC). If it is £15m against the Mem that looks absurd given Sainsbury's pulled out of their proposed £12m purchase because it was no longer affordable - not sure who could value that land with an extra 25% on top. Am I also right in thinking that the interest is being paid to the owners/Dwayne Sport so the owners are taking £0.3m out each year plus any salaries/dividends for directors/shareholders. I wonder if the £5m could be the approximate value of the funds they would have taken out of the club by the end of the next two years, in which case there isn't much of a risk: £5m in payments (over several years) and £10 secured on the Mem. Would appreciate your thoughts on the above as you clearly have a better grasp of this than I do.

"He kept saying I'm a gas head I'd never do that." Danny Baker told us they were all liars so this shouldn't shock anyone.

To commemorate this 5 year anniversary, the 'NotYetihad'* is to be renamed the 'No Camp' with immediate effect. *Credit to whichever OTIBer originally came up with that nickname in years gone by.

Have we had any confirmation about them being locked out from their own tinpot cinema?

You mean this hasn't sold out...?!? How many consecutive non-sell outs is that at the Mem now? I assume the run stretches back to Colin 'God in a Rovers Shirt' Daniel's last appearance there?

January: Rov*rs are just one win away from starting their play-off charge that will see them leapfrog the Teds for the first time in 16 years. February: Rov*rs are just one win away from starting their play-off charge that will see them leapfrog the Teds for the first time in 16 years. March: Rov*rs are just one win away from starting their play-off charge that will see them leapfrog the Teds for the first time in 16 years. April: Rov*rs are just one win away from starting their play-off charge that will see them leapfrog the Teds for the first time in 16 years. May: The season ends with Rov*rs in mid-table obscurity. The gap will last for another year. June-August: To close the off-field gap and the give the loyal and few the facilities they deserve, the curtains and carpets are cleaned and a canopy is built. September: Rov*rs are just one win away from starting their play-off charge that will see them leapfrog the Teds for the first time in 17 years etc etc etc December: 2 dirty Teds provide much needed good cheer across North Bristol and appear as Rov*rs' festive pin-up boys. Tick Tock

Picture the scene this morning as excited younger Gappers opened their advents calendars and then turned over their BRFC calendar singing festive songs to themselves.. "On the first day of Christmas my blue love sent to me .. 2 dirty 'Teds..."

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

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.

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.

I think their Coach 2 is @Robbored's minibus that only comes out for special trips to 'Wembly'.

"One nil on your big day out, one nil on your big day out...!"

I see where you're coming from Bert but there's an option between the two put forward that seems more likely than the first: SL buys the Mem, kicks R*vers out and brings the rugby club home. Whether that is a cost worth paying when they're happy at AG and the running costs of the Mem may prevent that anyway.

The new GIF!!

Or as I like to call him, the Gaptain!

So after all this it seems their long list of no-fixed-abodes has grown: Twerton, Eastville, the aborted move to Cheltenham, and now we can add the NotYetihad and the No Camp. Never has a team played at so many 'home' grounds without building anything (canopies and carpets aside). Always Look On The Bright Cider Life

It's important to remember that this is the supporters' club and not BRFC involved in the latest fiasco. Of course, one of those organisations is a professional body with proper accountants and lawyers, while the other is a bunch of well-intentioned amateurs who may struggle to get their finances in order. The professional's accountants and lawyers justify their fees by pointing out that while they lost £150k in a year, the amateurs managed to lose ten times that in just one day last week! Always look on the BrightCiderLife

In fairness though, Pete, Cardiff did change their shirts to red and their badge to a dragon having always been the Bluebirds. That was funny. In the midst of the relegated-in-their-own-kit, horse-punching, bus-boarding, Sainsbury's-suing, court-case-losing, non-league, billionaire-buy-out, tent-building, pub-singing (have I missed anything?) hijinks from across town, it is important we don't forget how funny things have been the other side of the bridge as well. Obviously it is all relative and I think the size of the threads we've had for the Blue Few represents just how funny this has all been for us. It's a shame they don't get the joke.

In honour of his consistent dedication to brightening up the close season and providing us all with great entertainment, can we rename this thread the 'PhilGas Q & A' thread? I feel that us extending the olive branch to him in this way will ease his transition to being a 'gurt ted', which we can all see is only a short matter of time away. We will then surely be treated to further curious trips through the confusing corridors of this martial arts expert's mind. His asking questions and providing answers to our questions (and sometimes his own when he has a quiet night at work) has cheered us all up a lot I know so I feel we need to recognise his contributions. Always look on the BrightCiderLife

It was listed 'for further argument' so we shouldn't be surprised there is no news as yet. I am not sure what the further arguments will be about though.

I have also heard that this won't be the end of the Gas as other investors are interested in the club but seemingly not while Higgs is there. The UWE ground is his project and almost exclusively determines the value of the club. I wouldn't be surprised to see Higgs appeal as a make or break situation and if he loses hang up his boots so to speak and sell the club, if he wins then he will no doubt be heralded as a Gas hero along with the glorious likes of... erm .... umm well there must be someone!

I heard a story this week about the famous Bristol Rovers, it went something like this... 'The famous Bristol Rovers went to court to see a judge, the famous Bristol Rovers went to court to see a judge, the famous Bristol Rovers went to court to see a judge, and this is what she said, "Sainsbury's must succeed because of the construction of Schedule 1 to the Agreement [2.11] which seems to me to be an insuperable barrier to the Club."' I'm not sure that last bit scans properly so maybe one of our resident wordsmiths can find a shorter phrase with words to that effect.

Havana, this isn't a story of naughty Mr Sainsbury's and his orange van turning up outside the clubhouse of the local parish team and offering to buy them a stand or two and then dropping it at a time of his choosing. For starters Higgs and most of the R*vers board have made vast sums of money in the construction industry, they know how these things work and have the financial clout to rule out them playing the 'little guy' card now it has gone against them. Both sides went to great expense to get lawyers to draft a complicated document to which both sides AGREED. It seems this was poorly drafted but that is irrelevant, both sides had plenty of chances during negotiations to protect themselves and get what they wanted. One of those agreed terms gave both sides the right to terminate under certain scenarios to protect both sides. As it happened, it protected Sainsbury's and the court said they were within their rights to terminate. This is not about big business v the little guy. That battle was won when TRASHorfield lost. Had a new Sainsbury's been built that would have been the big PLC putting the little guys out of business. Instead, this was two experienced sides coming to an agreement for a lot of money (but not so big compared to each side's financial muscle) with complicated terms and conditions. They knew what they were doing but they got it wrong and lost. There is no socialist sob story to this.