|
|
Post by Okebournegas on Feb 10, 2017 21:35:09 GMT
We really should have a separate room for all the conspiracy bollocxs. This sort of crap makes us look so ungreatful for what we have. It's like some of you think we have some great entitlement to pick at everything our owners do. I didn't see any queues being formed to buy this failing business concern. Amen to that ! |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Feb 10, 2017 21:41:10 GMT
We really should have a separate room for all the conspiracy bollocxs. This sort of crap makes us look so ungreatful for what we have. It's like some of you think we have some great entitlement to pick at everything our owners do. I didn't see any queues being formed to buy this failing business concern. Amen to that ! There is one which sort of fits the bill, but nobody ever posts on it. gaschat.co.uk/thread/5/uwe-stadium-news-updates?page=2 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2017 10:26:13 GMT
you keep saying this but you are wrong or being lied to. They HAVE all been paid - name one who has not! or shut up. Nick Higgs. Looks like the new owners are following GD's advice of not rewarding failure. |
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Feb 11, 2017 10:30:27 GMT
Looks like the new owners are following GD's advice of not rewarding failure. Shame he did not follow his own advice then |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2017 11:08:57 GMT
I have heard that Wael & Co would like the SC shares. Perhaps with the news today that the SC are now skint and various individuals are financially liable for the rent on 199, it might be a good time to enter into negotiations to sell the shares back. If that does happen you would hope that safeguards are in place to stop the SC being fleeced again. (by misappropriation not the owners) Why would Wael and co want the shares? They already have full control so it would make no difference other than Wael would have to spend money on the additional shares for no real gain. Holding 92% of the equity, they could force it through anyway if need be. The downside is you cannot offer one price to one shareholder and a different price to another on a takeover. Further, why are the s/c skint? Remember, these disclosures relate to June last year. We don't no what the current position is, but we can sure as hell ask next week. No idea why they want the shares, maybe to end the legal agreement that gives the SC representation in the boardroom? Maybe the thief put everything they had on zero and it came up so the money has been paid back. You can ask next week. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 11, 2017 12:24:38 GMT
Why would Wael and co want the shares? They already have full control so it would make no difference other than Wael would have to spend money on the additional shares for no real gain. Holding 92% of the equity, they could force it through anyway if need be. The downside is you cannot offer one price to one shareholder and a different price to another on a takeover. Further, why are the s/c skint? Remember, these disclosures relate to June last year. We don't no what the current position is, but we can sure as hell ask next week. No idea why they want the shares, maybe to end the legal agreement that gives the SC representation in the boardroom? Maybe the thief put everything they had on zero and it came up so the money has been paid back. You can ask next week. I would hazard a guess as well they dont want BSS or Ken in the boardroom. I dont think NH and co did either, but the difference is Dwane dont need the SCs money Going by the accounts the SC has lost money in many of the recent years. Aside from the Share Scheme and 50/50 money, I am not sure what if anything the SC have 'donated' to the club |
|
|
|
Post by amgas on Feb 11, 2017 12:55:39 GMT
Given the investment they are making the 8% will clearly increase in value should we go up the leagues - better to buy now than when you have made them worth a load more money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2017 13:03:41 GMT
Why would Wael and co want the shares? They already have full control so it would make no difference other than Wael would have to spend money on the additional shares for no real gain. Holding 92% of the equity, they could force it through anyway if need be. The downside is you cannot offer one price to one shareholder and a different price to another on a takeover. Further, why are the s/c skint? Remember, these disclosures relate to June last year. We don't no what the current position is, but we can sure as hell ask next week. No idea why they want the shares, maybe to end the legal agreement that gives the SC representation in the boardroom? Maybe the thief put everything they had on zero and it came up so the money has been paid back. You can ask next week. Only reason would be to do the Supporters' Club a favour and bale them out of this apparent financial crisis. |
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Feb 11, 2017 18:45:23 GMT
you keep saying this but you are wrong or being lied to. They HAVE all been paid - name one who has not! or shut up. Nick Higgs. I thought I knew the answer to this but as things can change I saw Nick Higgs after todays game and he assured me that NONE of the previous Directors have been repaid and said "I can guarantee you 100% that is the case", in fact he was quite indignant that anyone is suggesting otherwise.
I assume you are not suggesting that Nick Higgs is lying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 11, 2017 18:50:23 GMT
I thought I knew the answer to this but as things can change I saw Nick Higgs after todays game and he assured me that NONE of the previous Directors have been repaid and said "I can guarantee you 100% that is the case", in fact he was quite indignant that anyone is suggesting otherwise.
I assume you are not suggesting that Nick Higgs is lying.
Could it be that people are talking at cross-purposes? Might it be, and I have no idea what the arrangements are, something like Dwane and the old directors having an agreed schedule of payment. Which is being adhered to? So that if one side says they've paid the directors, then that is correct in the sense they are paying them as agreed, and the other side say they haven't been paid, then that's correct in that they are still owed money, as agreed, or something? I mean, surely they have an agreement that is enforceable. Surely Nick didn't say, just pay me when you fancy it. No rush. |
|
|
|
Post by CostaBlancaGas on Feb 11, 2017 18:58:07 GMT
Nick, agree to a contract as open as that? Never! I'll get my coat!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Feb 11, 2017 19:06:19 GMT
I thought I knew the answer to this but as things can change I saw Nick Higgs after todays game and he assured me that NONE of the previous Directors have been repaid and said "I can guarantee you 100% that is the case", in fact he was quite indignant that anyone is suggesting otherwise.
I assume you are not suggesting that Nick Higgs is lying.
Could it be that people are talking at cross-purposes? Might it be, and I have no idea what the arrangements are, something like Dwane and the old directors having an agreed schedule of payment. Which is being adhered to? So that if one side says they've paid the directors, then that is correct in the sense they are paying them as agreed, and the other side say they haven't been paid, then that's correct in that they are still owed money, as agreed, or something? I mean, surely they have an agreement that is enforceable. Surely Nick didn't say, just pay me when you fancy it. No rush. That is my understanding of the details concerning the sale of the previous Directors shares.
I was just correcting any misunderstanding that the previous Directors HAD been paid, which is not the case at the moment.
The new set of Accounts, up to 30th June 2015 will only show any outstanding loans etc up to that date and not what has happened since.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 11, 2017 19:16:56 GMT
I thought I knew the answer to this but as things can change I saw Nick Higgs after todays game and he assured me that NONE of the previous Directors have been repaid and said "I can guarantee you 100% that is the case", in fact he was quite indignant that anyone is suggesting otherwise.
I assume you are not suggesting that Nick Higgs is lying.
Of course not. It's not like he's ever lied to us before is it? Trust him completely. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2017 19:19:15 GMT
Reading this thread makes me glad I'm not in to all the politics at BRFC.
I pays me money, I watch the game, I have a moan & groan and I go home.
Anything else like loans & shares, and who owns what, and what happens in the boardroom goes completely over my head!
|
|
|
|
Post by Strange Gas on Feb 11, 2017 19:27:49 GMT
Reading this thread makes me glad I'm not in to all the politics at BRFC. I pays me money, I watch the game, I have a moan & groan and I go home. Anything else like loans & shares, and who owns what, and what happens in the boardroom goes completely over my head! As it should. We are fans, just enjoy the ride. I too am bored shiteless of the ownership / funding / shareholder issues. Surely the point of the takeover was we need not worry anymore, so that's what I'm doing. Paying up the SC shareholders would be a great step and remove a cloud over the club I think. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 11, 2017 19:56:46 GMT
Could it be that people are talking at cross-purposes? Might it be, and I have no idea what the arrangements are, something like Dwane and the old directors having an agreed schedule of payment. Which is being adhered to? So that if one side says they've paid the directors, then that is correct in the sense they are paying them as agreed, and the other side say they haven't been paid, then that's correct in that they are still owed money, as agreed, or something? I mean, surely they have an agreement that is enforceable. Surely Nick didn't say, just pay me when you fancy it. No rush. That is my understanding of the details concerning the sale of the previous Directors shares.
I was just correcting any misunderstanding that the previous Directors HAD been paid, which is not the case at the moment.
The new set of Accounts, up to 30th June 2015 will only show any outstanding loans etc up to that date and not what has happened since.
Won't the new set be up to 30 June 2016 so would cover last season's promotion and the club takeover not our promotion from the Conference, which I thought was covered in last year's results? So when do NH & co expect to get paid, when we finally sell the Mem? We must have been in a bad way if NH was prepared to hand over ownership without being paid! |
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Feb 11, 2017 20:31:48 GMT
The agreement was that the ex directors would be paid when the Mem is sold. I await the apology from knowall. Or I won't be able to sleep at night.
Perhaps you should change your name to knowf..kall.
|
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Feb 11, 2017 20:41:19 GMT
I thought I knew the answer to this but as things can change I saw Nick Higgs after todays game and he assured me that NONE of the previous Directors have been repaid and said "I can guarantee you 100% that is the case", in fact he was quite indignant that anyone is suggesting otherwise.
I assume you are not suggesting that Nick Higgs is lying.
There's a big difference between being repaid in instalments and not being repaid at all. What you said above may depend on the question he was asked, how he chose to answer it and how you chose to report it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2017 21:36:58 GMT
I thought I knew the answer to this but as things can change I saw Nick Higgs after todays game and he assured me that NONE of the previous Directors have been repaid and said "I can guarantee you 100% that is the case", in fact he was quite indignant that anyone is suggesting otherwise.
I assume you are not suggesting that Nick Higgs is lying.
Were his lips moving? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2017 21:39:35 GMT
Reading this thread makes me glad I'm not in to all the politics at BRFC. I pays me money, I watch the game, I have a moan & groan and I go home. Anything else like loans & shares, and who owns what, and what happens in the boardroom goes completely over my head! Never move from that place. The other side spoils it. |
|
