Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: albie on July 01, 2021, 02:05:53 am
-
Now up on Companies House website;
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03739676/filing-history
Short form accounts, rather than full accounts, so not as much detail.
-
Hard to takeaway too much without the full detail but headlines are that the bulk of the loans owed to Club Doncaster have been converted to equity (amounts owed to Club Doncaster fell from £6.4m to being owed £50k) and that we appear to have made an accounting loss of approx £540k, but no indication of how much of that is from the Whiteman sale. Trade debtors has increased almost £600k which suggests to me that some of the Whiteman fee is coming in instalments.
One thing that I don’t really get is that our number of employees is apparently now nil. Maybe they’re now employees of Club Doncaster?
-
Nick it's the prior accounting period so won't include the whiteman sale and you wouldn't see the effect of a sale without the p&l etc anyway.
These accounts these days don't tell us much.
-
What does the £33m debt relate to?
-
There isn't a debt of that size? You might be looking at the reserves element which is essentially the aggregated losses. But that's not debt, the debts are really quite small (listed under creditors).
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
-
Nick it's the prior accounting period so won't include the whiteman sale and you wouldn't see the effect of a sale without the p&l etc anyway.
These accounts these days don't tell us much.
D’oh of course! Too early in the morning for commenting, I meant the Marquis sale which was July 19 therefore within that financial year.
You wouldn’t see anything on the face of the P&L but full accounts would have segmental reporting on revenue, split between matchday income, commercial income, broadcasting etc. You’d see revenue from player sales in there.
-
The sale of Whiteman may have been a timely interjection of cash for the club and helped to balance things at a rough time...
-
Very poor form publishing abbreviated accounts .
Especially after everything the fans have done for the club in the last 18 months .
Very disappointing
-
The VSC have seen the full accounts, as committed to by the club under the terms of the MOU.
We will be publishing our report, as usual, once we’ve had the Q&A with the club.
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
-
The VSC have seen the full accounts, as committed to by the club under the terms of the MOU.
We will be publishing our report, as usual, once we’ve had the Q&A with the club.
Will we have access to see the full set of accounts ?
-
Some comment on key points here;
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1409979505528217606
Not sufficient detail to allow full consideration.
The same twitter feed has a good analysis of Scunny accounts, much more fine grain.
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1410341360276758528
The EFL really needs to make sure members issue full accounts, for reasons of transparency.
DRFC have not done anything they should not here, but others use short accounts as a way of avoiding proper scrutiny.
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
-
Hoden has done a summary in the DFP;
https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/doncaster-rovers-accounts-latest-filings-and-why-rovers-ps34m-losses-are-nothing-to-be-concerned-about-3292303
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
I'm not drunk. Your deluded if you think otherwise .
Why convert it to shares ?
Why not write the loan off ?
You base your statement on nothing whatsoever .
I wasn't having a dig, just stating a fact.
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
I'm not drunk. Your deluded if you think otherwise .
Why convert it to shares ?
Why not write the loan off ?
You base your statement on nothing whatsoever .
I wasn't having a dig, just stating a fact.
It would be incredibly bad business and accounting. The write off would produce a credit to p&l thus increase profit. A £6m profit would incur a fairly hefty tax charge costing substantial sums. It's standard business practice to convert to equity. Whether they have 34million shares or 3 shares makes no odds they still get the same money at the point of sale (probably f**k all).
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
I'm not drunk. Your deluded if you think otherwise .
Why convert it to shares ?
Why not write the loan off ?
You base your statement on nothing whatsoever .
I wasn't having a dig, just stating a fact.
It would be incredibly bad business and accounting. The write off would produce a credit to p&l thus increase profit. A £6m profit would incur a fairly hefty tax charge costing substantial sums. It's standard business practice to convert to equity. Whether they have 34million shares or 3 shares makes no odds they still get the same money at the point of sale (probably f**k all).
If the owners wanted to put money in with no strings attached, there are a multitude of ways of doing it without creating more shares .
They have created the shares to protect their money/ investment.
Same as most owners, as when the club gets sold they have more shares to sell and negotiate the price of
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
I'm not drunk. Your deluded if you think otherwise .
Why convert it to shares ?
Why not write the loan off ?
You base your statement on nothing whatsoever .
I wasn't having a dig, just stating a fact.
It would be incredibly bad business and accounting. The write off would produce a credit to p&l thus increase profit. A £6m profit would incur a fairly hefty tax charge costing substantial sums. It's standard business practice to convert to equity. Whether they have 34million shares or 3 shares makes no odds they still get the same money at the point of sale (probably f**k all).
If the owners wanted to put money in with no strings attached, there are a multitude of ways of doing it without creating more shares .
They have created the shares to protect their money/ investment.
Same as most owners, as when the club gets sold they have more shares to sell and negotiate the price of
You my friend, are a financial illiterate.
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
I'm not drunk. Your deluded if you think otherwise .
Why convert it to shares ?
Why not write the loan off ?
You base your statement on nothing whatsoever .
I wasn't having a dig, just stating a fact.
It would be incredibly bad business and accounting. The write off would produce a credit to p&l thus increase profit. A £6m profit would incur a fairly hefty tax charge costing substantial sums. It's standard business practice to convert to equity. Whether they have 34million shares or 3 shares makes no odds they still get the same money at the point of sale (probably f**k all).
If the owners wanted to put money in with no strings attached, there are a multitude of ways of doing it without creating more shares .
They have created the shares to protect their money/ investment.
Same as most owners, as when the club gets sold they have more shares to sell and negotiate the price of
What are these multitude of other methods that are simple and easy.
Forgive me but you seem to lack a grasp as to how share valuations etc work?
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
I'm not drunk. Your deluded if you think otherwise .
Why convert it to shares ?
Why not write the loan off ?
You base your statement on nothing whatsoever .
I wasn't having a dig, just stating a fact.
It would be incredibly bad business and accounting. The write off would produce a credit to p&l thus increase profit. A £6m profit would incur a fairly hefty tax charge costing substantial sums. It's standard business practice to convert to equity. Whether they have 34million shares or 3 shares makes no odds they still get the same money at the point of sale (probably f**k all).
If the owners wanted to put money in with no strings attached, there are a multitude of ways of doing it without creating more shares .
They have created the shares to protect their money/ investment.
Same as most owners, as when the club gets sold they have more shares to sell and negotiate the price of
You my friend, are a financial illiterate.
1. I'm not
2. I'd rather be that than a social illiterate like you .
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
I'm not drunk. Your deluded if you think otherwise .
Why convert it to shares ?
Why not write the loan off ?
You base your statement on nothing whatsoever .
I wasn't having a dig, just stating a fact.
It would be incredibly bad business and accounting. The write off would produce a credit to p&l thus increase profit. A £6m profit would incur a fairly hefty tax charge costing substantial sums. It's standard business practice to convert to equity. Whether they have 34million shares or 3 shares makes no odds they still get the same money at the point of sale (probably f**k all).
If the owners wanted to put money in with no strings attached, there are a multitude of ways of doing it without creating more shares .
They have created the shares to protect their money/ investment.
Same as most owners, as when the club gets sold they have more shares to sell and negotiate the price of
What are these multitude of other methods that are simple and easy.
Forgive me but you seem to lack a grasp as to how share valuations etc work?
Your the one accusing me of being incorrect, so you prove to me how TB won't get his money back .
If your not aware of other ways of getting money into clubs, then your probably not as well read as some in the know .
-
Wriggling a bit there lad
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
I'm not drunk. Your deluded if you think otherwise .
Why convert it to shares ?
Why not write the loan off ?
You base your statement on nothing whatsoever .
I wasn't having a dig, just stating a fact.
It would be incredibly bad business and accounting. The write off would produce a credit to p&l thus increase profit. A £6m profit would incur a fairly hefty tax charge costing substantial sums. It's standard business practice to convert to equity. Whether they have 34million shares or 3 shares makes no odds they still get the same money at the point of sale (probably f**k all).
If the owners wanted to put money in with no strings attached, there are a multitude of ways of doing it without creating more shares .
They have created the shares to protect their money/ investment.
Same as most owners, as when the club gets sold they have more shares to sell and negotiate the price of
What are these multitude of other methods that are simple and easy.
Forgive me but you seem to lack a grasp as to how share valuations etc work?
Your the one accusing me of being incorrect, so you prove to me how TB won't get his money back .
If your not aware of other ways of getting money into clubs, then your probably not as well read as some in the know .
Just let everyone know what these 'other ways' are so they can judge for themselves.
Seems the obvious thing to do.
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
I'm not drunk. Your deluded if you think otherwise .
Why convert it to shares ?
Why not write the loan off ?
You base your statement on nothing whatsoever .
I wasn't having a dig, just stating a fact.
It would be incredibly bad business and accounting. The write off would produce a credit to p&l thus increase profit. A £6m profit would incur a fairly hefty tax charge costing substantial sums. It's standard business practice to convert to equity. Whether they have 34million shares or 3 shares makes no odds they still get the same money at the point of sale (probably f**k all).
If the owners wanted to put money in with no strings attached, there are a multitude of ways of doing it without creating more shares .
They have created the shares to protect their money/ investment.
Same as most owners, as when the club gets sold they have more shares to sell and negotiate the price of
What are these multitude of other methods that are simple and easy.
Forgive me but you seem to lack a grasp as to how share valuations etc work?
Your the one accusing me of being incorrect, so you prove to me how TB won't get his money back .
If your not aware of other ways of getting money into clubs, then your probably not as well read as some in the know .
Just let everyone know what these 'other ways' are so they can judge for themselves.
Seems the obvious thing to do.
This. I'm sure the owners would like to know how they can get their tens of millions of pounds back from a loss making company with next to no assets....
-
I was genuinely interested in reading the other methods.
-
I don't blame tb for creating the shares . Its his money .
But to claim he will never get his money back is very wide of the mark .
It all depends on the negotiations with the buyers, and price per share .
If he didn't want the money back, he could pump it in without creating shares .
There's ways and means . (For the record I don't like these ways )
I much prefer the way tb is doing it .
-
I don't blame tb for creating the shares . Its his money .
But to claim he will never get his money back is very wide of the mark .
It all depends on the negotiations with the buyers, and price per share .
If he didn't want the money back, he could pump it in without creating shares .
There's ways and means . (For the record I don't like these ways )
I much prefer the way tb is doing it .
What are the ways and means that you don't like?
-
I don't blame tb for creating the shares . Its his money .
But to claim he will never get his money back is very wide of the mark .
It all depends on the negotiations with the buyers, and price per share .
If he didn't want the money back, he could pump it in without creating shares .
There's ways and means . (For the record I don't like these ways )
I much prefer the way tb is doing it .
As explained further up the thread, just pumping money in creates a tax liability
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
I'm not drunk. Your deluded if you think otherwise .
Why convert it to shares ?
Why not write the loan off ?
You base your statement on nothing whatsoever .
I wasn't having a dig, just stating a fact.
It would be incredibly bad business and accounting. The write off would produce a credit to p&l thus increase profit. A £6m profit would incur a fairly hefty tax charge costing substantial sums. It's standard business practice to convert to equity. Whether they have 34million shares or 3 shares makes no odds they still get the same money at the point of sale (probably f**k all).
If the owners wanted to put money in with no strings attached, there are a multitude of ways of doing it without creating more shares .
They have created the shares to protect their money/ investment.
Same as most owners, as when the club gets sold they have more shares to sell and negotiate the price of
What are these multitude of other methods that are simple and easy.
Forgive me but you seem to lack a grasp as to how share valuations etc work?
Your the one accusing me of being incorrect, so you prove to me how TB won't get his money back .
If your not aware of other ways of getting money into clubs, then your probably not as well read as some in the know .
Just let everyone know what these 'other ways' are so they can judge for themselves.
Seems the obvious thing to do.
This. I'm sure the owners would like to know how they can get their tens of millions of pounds back from a loss making company with next to no assets....
They will be aware, hence the shares .
It's down to the negotiations with the buyers, on the price of each share .
The club isn't a plc, so it's all in the negotiation .
Tb might not get all of his money back, but he's got a very good chance of getting most/all of it back , he could even make a profit .
-
But genuine question, what are the ways and means?
-
I don't blame tb for creating the shares . Its his money .
But to claim he will never get his money back is very wide of the mark .
It all depends on the negotiations with the buyers, and price per share .
If he didn't want the money back, he could pump it in without creating shares .
There's ways and means . (For the record I don't like these ways )
I much prefer the way tb is doing it .
As explained further up the thread, just pumping money in creates a tax liability
Yes, partly why I think the club goes by it the right way .
-
I don't blame tb for creating the shares . Its his money .
But to claim he will never get his money back is very wide of the mark .
It all depends on the negotiations with the buyers, and price per share .
If he didn't want the money back, he could pump it in without creating shares .
There's ways and means . (For the record I don't like these ways )
I much prefer the way tb is doing it .
What are the ways and means that you don't like?
The way Derby, Wednesday and a few others go about it .
Selling the stadium to themselves, creating fake taxi companies, renting their office space to themselves for silly money .
It's dodgy, and they get stung for it .
-
Increasing the number of shares of a company doesn't increase the value of the company, it decreases the value of the existing shares.
-
I don't blame tb for creating the shares . Its his money .
But to claim he will never get his money back is very wide of the mark .
It all depends on the negotiations with the buyers, and price per share .
If he didn't want the money back, he could pump it in without creating shares .
There's ways and means . (For the record I don't like these ways )
I much prefer the way tb is doing it .
What are the ways and means that you don't like?
The way Derby, Wednesday and a few others go about it .
Selling the stadium to themselves, creating fake taxi companies, renting their office space to themselves for silly money .
It's dodgy, and they get stung for it .
So it seems the only options are; straight forward investment (huge tax implication), dodgy ways that will get them in trouble, or purchasing shares. Thanks
-
redandwhite
For somebody who claims he isn’t a financial illiterate you do spend a lot of time proving otherwise.
It was only a few weeks ago that you were proclaiming you didn’t understand Club Doncaster and the benefits it brings to the DRFC part of the club.
-
Increasing the number of shares of a company doesn't increase the value of the company, it decreases the value of the existing shares.
Yes, but only has implications for other shareholders.
If tb is acquiring more shares, the individual price of each share is less, but his overall share capital increases .
-
redandwhite
For somebody who claims he isn’t a financial illiterate you do spend a lot of time proving otherwise.
It was only a few weeks ago that you were proclaiming you didn’t understand Club Doncaster and the benefits it brings to the DRFC part of the club.
OK, seems as you didn't answer at the time .
What benefit does club doncaster give to Doncaster Rovers, that Doncaster Rovers couldn't already do themselves ?
-
Even by the standards of this forum this is a bizarre hill to die on.
-
redandwhite
For somebody who claims he isn’t a financial illiterate you do spend a lot of time proving otherwise.
It was only a few weeks ago that you were proclaiming you didn’t understand Club Doncaster and the benefits it brings to the DRFC part of the club.
OK, seems as you didn't answer at the time .
What benefit does club doncaster give to Doncaster Rovers, that Doncaster Rovers couldn't already do themselves ?
Perhaps you could use your financial literacy to outline to people why it isn't beneficial?
-
redandwhite
For somebody who claims he isn’t a financial illiterate you do spend a lot of time proving otherwise.
It was only a few weeks ago that you were proclaiming you didn’t understand Club Doncaster and the benefits it brings to the DRFC part of the club.
OK, seems as you didn't answer at the time .
What benefit does club doncaster give to Doncaster Rovers, that Doncaster Rovers couldn't already do themselves ?
Perhaps you could use your financial literacy to outline to people why it isn't beneficial?
Logically it isn't . How could it be ?
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
I'm not drunk. Your deluded if you think otherwise .
Why convert it to shares ?
Why not write the loan off ?
You base your statement on nothing whatsoever .
I wasn't having a dig, just stating a fact.
It would be incredibly bad business and accounting. The write off would produce a credit to p&l thus increase profit. A £6m profit would incur a fairly hefty tax charge costing substantial sums. It's standard business practice to convert to equity. Whether they have 34million shares or 3 shares makes no odds they still get the same money at the point of sale (probably f**k all).
If the owners wanted to put money in with no strings attached, there are a multitude of ways of doing it without creating more shares .
They have created the shares to protect their money/ investment.
Same as most owners, as when the club gets sold they have more shares to sell and negotiate the price of
What are these multitude of other methods that are simple and easy.
Forgive me but you seem to lack a grasp as to how share valuations etc work?
Your the one accusing me of being incorrect, so you prove to me how TB won't get his money back .
If your not aware of other ways of getting money into clubs, then your probably not as well read as some in the know .
Just let everyone know what these 'other ways' are so they can judge for themselves.
Seems the obvious thing to do.
This. I'm sure the owners would like to know how they can get their tens of millions of pounds back from a loss making company with next to no assets....
They will be aware, hence the shares .
It's down to the negotiations with the buyers, on the price of each share .
The club isn't a plc, so it's all in the negotiation .
Tb might not get all of his money back, but he's got a very good chance of getting most/all of it back , he could even make a profit .
I've worked on a number of sales and purchases of businesses. Unless it's a plc the volume of shares is irrelevant. You'd never use that to consider any value of a company. It's only really with public companies that matters and besides you'd then potentially bid at below the share price anyway.
You need to consider what a buyer would be buying and what value could be extracted. One of the strengths of our club is there isn't much to buy. The club doesn't own the stadium, the land and doesn't make any money. Anyone buying rovers would do so for fun not money and they certainly wouldn't pay a fee (unless they are stupid).
You say it's negotiation. If the owner says I want 35 million quid for example, any buyer would probably fall over laughing.
I don't know your background but it doesn't seem to be this or a debate you could come close to winning.
-
redandwhite
For somebody who claims he isn’t a financial illiterate you do spend a lot of time proving otherwise.
It was only a few weeks ago that you were proclaiming you didn’t understand Club Doncaster and the benefits it brings to the DRFC part of the club.
OK, seems as you didn't answer at the time .
What benefit does club doncaster give to Doncaster Rovers, that Doncaster Rovers couldn't already do themselves ?
Perhaps you could use your financial literacy to outline to people why it isn't beneficial?
Logically it isn't . How could it be ?
Could you explain the logic?
-
I don't blame tb for creating the shares . Its his money .
But to claim he will never get his money back is very wide of the mark .
It all depends on the negotiations with the buyers, and price per share .
If he didn't want the money back, he could pump it in without creating shares .
There's ways and means . (For the record I don't like these ways )
I much prefer the way tb is doing it .
As explained further up the thread, just pumping money in creates a tax liability
Yes, partly why I think the club goes by it the right way .
I’ve got to be honest, I’m not sure what your point is in this thread, you’ve gone against your opening post on this
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
I'm not drunk. Your deluded if you think otherwise .
Why convert it to shares ?
Why not write the loan off ?
You base your statement on nothing whatsoever .
I wasn't having a dig, just stating a fact.
It would be incredibly bad business and accounting. The write off would produce a credit to p&l thus increase profit. A £6m profit would incur a fairly hefty tax charge costing substantial sums. It's standard business practice to convert to equity. Whether they have 34million shares or 3 shares makes no odds they still get the same money at the point of sale (probably f**k all).
If the owners wanted to put money in with no strings attached, there are a multitude of ways of doing it without creating more shares .
They have created the shares to protect their money/ investment.
Same as most owners, as when the club gets sold they have more shares to sell and negotiate the price of
What are these multitude of other methods that are simple and easy.
Forgive me but you seem to lack a grasp as to how share valuations etc work?
Your the one accusing me of being incorrect, so you prove to me how TB won't get his money back .
If your not aware of other ways of getting money into clubs, then your probably not as well read as some in the know .
Just let everyone know what these 'other ways' are so they can judge for themselves.
Seems the obvious thing to do.
This. I'm sure the owners would like to know how they can get their tens of millions of pounds back from a loss making company with next to no assets....
They will be aware, hence the shares .
It's down to the negotiations with the buyers, on the price of each share .
The club isn't a plc, so it's all in the negotiation .
Tb might not get all of his money back, but he's got a very good chance of getting most/all of it back , he could even make a profit .
Make a profit on £10-15m invested in a third tier football club with <5k season ticket holders!? Who'd want to pay around £40m for a football club whose ceiling is probably as an almost self sufficient mid-table Championship club.
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
I'm not drunk. Your deluded if you think otherwise .
Why convert it to shares ?
Why not write the loan off ?
You base your statement on nothing whatsoever .
I wasn't having a dig, just stating a fact.
It would be incredibly bad business and accounting. The write off would produce a credit to p&l thus increase profit. A £6m profit would incur a fairly hefty tax charge costing substantial sums. It's standard business practice to convert to equity. Whether they have 34million shares or 3 shares makes no odds they still get the same money at the point of sale (probably f**k all).
If the owners wanted to put money in with no strings attached, there are a multitude of ways of doing it without creating more shares .
They have created the shares to protect their money/ investment.
Same as most owners, as when the club gets sold they have more shares to sell and negotiate the price of
You my friend, are a financial illiterate.
1. I'm not
2. I'd rather be that than a social illiterate like you .
I personally find Martin to be anything but a social illiterate.
-
Come come RandW pot kettle etc with some of your posts
-
I don't blame tb for creating the shares . Its his money .
But to claim he will never get his money back is very wide of the mark .
It all depends on the negotiations with the buyers, and price per share .
If he didn't want the money back, he could pump it in without creating shares .
There's ways and means . (For the record I don't like these ways )
I much prefer the way tb is doing it .
As explained further up the thread, just pumping money in creates a tax liability
Yes, partly why I think the club goes by it the right way .
I’ve got to be honest, I’m not sure what your point is in this thread, you’ve gone against your opening post on this
My point is tb converts the loans to shares, when the club gets sold he will get money for those shares .
Could be less, could be more than what he bought them for .
Saying he won't get a penny back is wide of the mark .
Unless of course he bequeathed the club the someone, or some organisation .
I haven't intentionally gone away from opening post, maybe your interpretation of it has Filo.
Stand to be corrected though . :)
-
We always have to bear in mind the benevolence of our owners who have an excellent track record of converting debt to equity knowing that the only return of that investment would come from the sale of the company for that accumulated equity .
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
Are you drunk? TB has probably put £15m or more of his own money into the club, do you really think he converts that into shares with a hope of getting it back one day? I’ll tell you how much of that amount he will get back, zero pounds and zero pence.
I'm not drunk. Your deluded if you think otherwise .
Why convert it to shares ?
Why not write the loan off ?
You base your statement on nothing whatsoever .
I wasn't having a dig, just stating a fact.
It would be incredibly bad business and accounting. The write off would produce a credit to p&amp;amp;amp;l thus increase profit. A £6m profit would incur a fairly hefty tax charge costing substantial sums. It's standard business practice to convert to equity. Whether they have 34million shares or 3 shares makes no odds they still get the same money at the point of sale (probably f**k all).
If the owners wanted to put money in with no strings attached, there are a multitude of ways of doing it without creating more shares .
They have created the shares to protect their money/ investment.
Same as most owners, as when the club gets sold they have more shares to sell and negotiate the price of
What are these multitude of other methods that are simple and easy.
Forgive me but you seem to lack a grasp as to how share valuations etc work?
Your the one accusing me of being incorrect, so you prove to me how TB won't get his money back .
If your not aware of other ways of getting money into clubs, then your probably not as well read as some in the know .
Just let everyone know what these 'other ways' are so they can judge for themselves.
Seems the obvious thing to do.
This. I'm sure the owners would like to know how they can get their tens of millions of pounds back from a loss making company with next to no assets....
They will be aware, hence the shares .
It's down to the negotiations with the buyers, on the price of each share .
The club isn't a plc, so it's all in the negotiation .
Tb might not get all of his money back, but he's got a very good chance of getting most/all of it back , he could even make a profit .
I've worked on a number of sales and purchases of businesses. Unless it's a plc the volume of shares is irrelevant. You'd never use that to consider any value of a company. It's only really with public companies that matters and besides you'd then potentially bid at below the share price anyway.
You need to consider what a buyer would be buying and what value could be extracted. One of the strengths of our club is there isn't much to buy. The club doesn't own the stadium, the land and doesn't make any money. Anyone buying rovers would do so for fun not money and they certainly wouldn't pay a fee (unless they are stupid).
You say it's negotiation. If the owner says I want 35 million quid for example, any buyer would probably fall over laughing.
I don't know your background but it doesn't seem to be this or a debate you could come close to winning.
OK thanks.
But what specifically have I said that isn't factually correct ?
-
R&W, you've actually got it completely the wrong way round - debt essentially needs to be repaid, shares have a value which is determined by the value of the company and a loss making 3rd tier football club with no assets is effectively worth noting.
By converting the debt to equity, TB & co are giving up their millions being returned.
-
You haven't stated any facts. You have only made assumptions and seem to be aware of what TBs intentions are when and if someone comes in the 'buy the club'.
-
Hoden has done a summary in the DFP;
https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/doncaster-rovers-accounts-latest-filings-and-why-rovers-ps34m-losses-are-nothing-to-be-concerned-about-3292303
So is Mike C still a shareholder? I thought he had moved on? Also, does he still live in Jersey?
-
Hoden has done a summary in the DFP;
https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/doncaster-rovers-accounts-latest-filings-and-why-rovers-ps34m-losses-are-nothing-to-be-concerned-about-3292303
So is Mike C still a shareholder? I thought he had moved on? Also, does he still live in Jersey?
Dont know if he is still a shareholder but yes he still lives in Jersey.
-
Mike Collett resigned as a director in 2012.
-
I don't blame tb for creating the shares . Its his money .
But to claim he will never get his money back is very wide of the mark .
It all depends on the negotiations with the buyers, and price per share .
If he didn't want the money back, he could pump it in without creating shares .
There's ways and means . (For the record I don't like these ways )
I much prefer the way tb is doing it .
As explained further up the thread, just pumping money in creates a tax liability
Yes, partly why I think the club goes by it the right way .
I’ve got to be honest, I’m not sure what your point is in this thread, you’ve gone against your opening post on this
My point is tb converts the loans to shares, when the club gets sold he will get money for those shares .
Could be less, could be more than what he bought them for .
Saying he won't get a penny back is wide of the mark .
Unless of course he bequeathed the club the someone, or some organisation .
I haven't intentionally gone away from opening post, maybe your interpretation of it has Filo.
Stand to be corrected though . :)
No, saying he can't get any money back would be wide of the mark, saying he won't is a matter of opinion and the closer someone is to the situation, the more accurate their opinion is likely to be.
-
R&W, you've actually got it completely the wrong way round - debt essentially needs to be repaid, shares have a value which is determined by the value of the company and a loss making 3rd tier football club with no assets is effectively worth noting.
By converting the debt to equity, TB & co are giving up their millions being returned.
Not sure I follow that .
He's loaned the club money, effectively got paid back in shares .
Tb has now more shares which have a value, which is negotiable to any future buyer .
Part of the negotiable value, is the future potential of the club .
Again to say tb won't get a penny back is simply wrong .
-
R&W, you've actually got it completely the wrong way round - debt essentially needs to be repaid, shares have a value which is determined by the value of the company and a loss making 3rd tier football club with no assets is effectively worth noting.
By converting the debt to equity, TB & co are giving up their millions being returned.
Not sure I follow that .
He's loaned the club money, effectively got paid back in shares .
Tb has now more shares which have a value, which is negotiable to any future buyer .
Part of the negotiable value, is the future potential of the club .
Again to say tb won't get a penny back is simply wrong .
How much do you think those shares are currently worth each - a round number will do.
-
R&W, you've actually got it completely the wrong way round - debt essentially needs to be repaid, shares have a value which is determined by the value of the company and a loss making 3rd tier football club with no assets is effectively worth noting.
By converting the debt to equity, TB & co are giving up their millions being returned.
Not sure I follow that .
He's loaned the club money, effectively got paid back in shares .
Tb has now more shares which have a value, which is negotiable to any future buyer .
Part of the negotiable value, is the future potential of the club .
Again to say tb won't get a penny back is simply wrong .
How much do you think those shares are currently worth each - a round number will do.
That's not my job to calculate that, it's negotiable.
The point is that the shares have a value .
Depending on any future negotiations, and where we are in the football pyramid will determine their value .
Tb might get some/all/none of his money back is the point . He COULD even make a profit, but I imagine not if we're in league 1 or 2 at the time
-
R&amp;W, you've actually got it completely the wrong way round - debt essentially needs to be repaid, shares have a value which is determined by the value of the company and a loss making 3rd tier football club with no assets is effectively worth noting.
By converting the debt to equity, TB &amp; co are giving up their millions being returned.
Not sure I follow that .
He's loaned the club money, effectively got paid back in shares .
Tb has now more shares which have a value, which is negotiable to any future buyer .
Part of the negotiable value, is the future potential of the club .
Again to say tb won't get a penny back is simply wrong .
How much do you think those shares are currently worth each - a round number will do.
That's not my job to calculate that, it's negotiable.
The point is that the shares have a value .
Depending on any future negotiations, and where we are in the football pyramid will determine their value .
Tb might get some/all/none of his money back is the point . He COULD even make a profit, but I imagine not if we're in league 1 or 2 at the time
How much do you think shares in a loss-making third tier football club are worth?
-
Converting loans into equity doesn't increase the value of Rovers to a buyer. They've chucked millions into Rovers and the value of the club stays the same so any new money they chuck into Rovers they won't get back.
-
These are hypothetical numbers, but say before this debt to equity conversion Doncaster Rovers is worth £5m and there are 100,000 shares. Each share is worth £50.
After the conversion, there are 120,000 shares. Which do you think is the most likely scenario:
1. The value of each share is still £50 and the club’s valuation has magically increased to £6m
2. The value of each share is diluted to £41.67 and the club’s valuation remains £5m
-
Increasing the number of shares of a company doesn't increase the value of the company, it decreases the value of the existing shares.
So how much is a single share worth ?
-
Increasing the number of shares of a company doesn't increase the value of the company, it decreases the value of the existing shares.
So how much is a single share worth ?
The value of the company divided by the number of shares. That's what they're worth each. As Nick pointed out.
-
This thread has been linked to the Oxford English dictionaries phrases section, linked directly to " there's none as blind as those that won't see"
-
R&W, you've actually got it completely the wrong way round - debt essentially needs to be repaid, shares have a value which is determined by the value of the company and a loss making 3rd tier football club with no assets is effectively worth noting.
By converting the debt to equity, TB & co are giving up their millions being returned.
Not sure I follow that .
He's loaned the club money, effectively got paid back in shares .
Tb has now more shares which have a value, which is negotiable to any future buyer .
Part of the negotiable value, is the future potential of the club .
Again to say tb won't get a penny back is simply wrong .
Debt has a defined value (and, normally, defined repayment terms).
Equity has a value that is ultimately determined by what someone is prepared to pay for it - as everyone else on this thread realises, that value is most likely a very low figure, definitely nothing like the millions that has been sunk into the club.
-
Increasing the number of shares of a company doesn't increase the value of the company, it decreases the value of the existing shares.
So how much is a single share worth ?
The value of the company divided by the number of shares. That's what they're worth each. As Nick pointed out.
Q) if Rovers were to apply to float on the stock market ..would it sink ?
-
A floatation is as likely as TB taking anything from his shareholding.
More likely at some point, his shares might be transferred to another shareholder for safekeeping.
-
Increasing the number of shares of a company doesn't increase the value of the company, it decreases the value of the existing shares.
So how much is a single share worth ?
The value of the company divided by the number of shares. That's what they're worth each. As Nick pointed out.
Q) if Rovers were to apply to float on the stock market ..would it sink ?
It would meant hat whoever decided to turn Rovers into a public company hadn't learnt the lessons of other football clubs doing so. And as the only real reason for doing so would be to issue more shares to raise capital as long as the current owners are happy to raise that capital themselves there's no reason to seek outside finance. Rovers might even have a rule that any new share issue has to be offered to the current shareholders first anyway.
-
R&W, you've actually got it completely the wrong way round - debt essentially needs to be repaid, shares have a value which is determined by the value of the company and a loss making 3rd tier football club with no assets is effectively worth noting.
By converting the debt to equity, TB & co are giving up their millions being returned.
Not sure I follow that .
He's loaned the club money, effectively got paid back in shares .
Tb has now more shares which have a value, which is negotiable to any future buyer .
Part of the negotiable value, is the future potential of the club .
Again to say tb won't get a penny back is simply wrong .
Debt has a defined value (and, normally, defined repayment terms).
Equity has a value that is ultimately determined by what someone is prepared to pay for it - as everyone else on this thread realises, that value is most likely a very low figure, definitely nothing like the millions that has been sunk into the club.
Seem to be getting somewhere here .
Tb has shares
The shares have a value
If tb sells, he might make a loss, break even or make a profit.
So a blanket statement of he won't get a penny back isn't correct .
-
Oh sweet Jesus.
-
R&amp;W, you've actually got it completely the wrong way round - debt essentially needs to be repaid, shares have a value which is determined by the value of the company and a loss making 3rd tier football club with no assets is effectively worth noting.
By converting the debt to equity, TB &amp; co are giving up their millions being returned.
Not sure I follow that .
He's loaned the club money, effectively got paid back in shares .
Tb has now more shares which have a value, which is negotiable to any future buyer .
Part of the negotiable value, is the future potential of the club .
Again to say tb won't get a penny back is simply wrong .
Debt has a defined value (and, normally, defined repayment terms).
Equity has a value that is ultimately determined by what someone is prepared to pay for it - as everyone else on this thread realises, that value is most likely a very low figure, definitely nothing like the millions that has been sunk into the club.
Seem to be getting somewhere here .
Tb has shares
The shares have a value
If tb sells, he might make a loss, break even or make a profit.
So a blanket statement of he won't get a penny back isn't correct .
How much do you think shares in a loss-making third tier club that doesn't own it's own ground are currently worth? - round numbers will do.
-
R&amp;W, you've actually got it completely the wrong way round - debt essentially needs to be repaid, shares have a value which is determined by the value of the company and a loss making 3rd tier football club with no assets is effectively worth noting.
By converting the debt to equity, TB &amp; co are giving up their millions being returned.
Not sure I follow that .
He's loaned the club money, effectively got paid back in shares .
Tb has now more shares which have a value, which is negotiable to any future buyer .
Part of the negotiable value, is the future potential of the club .
Again to say tb won't get a penny back is simply wrong .
Debt has a defined value (and, normally, defined repayment terms).
Equity has a value that is ultimately determined by what someone is prepared to pay for it - as everyone else on this thread realises, that value is most likely a very low figure, definitely nothing like the millions that has been sunk into the club.
Seem to be getting somewhere here .
Tb has shares
The shares have a value
If tb sells, he might make a loss, break even or make a profit.
So a blanket statement of he won't get a penny back isn't correct .
Do you actually believe that every year that they put £2m into the club the value of their shares goes up £2m too? *facepalm*
-
Are you mounting a takeover bid 1969
-
. We were often told that the club doesn’t have any debts ? Well £34m ploughed and still growing without promotion to the Championship isn’t going to alter or repaid soon through the turnstiles!!
The board are stubborn but practical. I’m very disappointed at last seasons finish as I do believe it was a huge opportunity missed and promotion would have gone a long way to helping their cash flow and they must know that they threw it away . Good luck to Wellens but I’ve had my last season !!
-
. We were often told that the club doesn’t have any debts ? Well £34m ploughed and still growing without promotion to the Championship isn’t going to alter or repaid soon through the turnstiles!!
The board are stubborn but practical. I’m very disappointed at last seasons finish as I do believe it was a huge opportunity missed and promotion would have gone a long way to helping their cash flow and they must know that they threw it away . Good luck to Wellens but I’ve had my last season !!
True colours shown with that last line. Goodbye then. Think you may well miss another golden era for the club. That’s your loss.
-
. We were often told that the club doesn’t have any debts ? Well £34m ploughed and still growing without promotion to the Championship isn’t going to alter or repaid soon through the turnstiles!!
The board are stubborn but practical. I’m very disappointed at last seasons finish as I do believe it was a huge opportunity missed and promotion would have gone a long way to helping their cash flow and they must know that they threw it away . Good luck to Wellens but I’ve had my last season !!
£34 million converted into equity ISN'T a debt!!
-
. We were often told that the club doesn’t have any debts ? Well £34m ploughed and still growing without promotion to the Championship isn’t going to alter or repaid soon through the turnstiles!!
The board are stubborn but practical. I’m very disappointed at last seasons finish as I do believe it was a huge opportunity missed and promotion would have gone a long way to helping their cash flow and they must know that they threw it away . Good luck to Wellens but I’ve had my last season !!
Does that also mean you are finished with this forum? Please!
-
. We were often told that the club doesn’t have any debts ? Well £34m ploughed and still growing without promotion to the Championship isn’t going to alter or repaid soon through the turnstiles!!
The board are stubborn but practical. I’m very disappointed at last seasons finish as I do believe it was a huge opportunity missed and promotion would have gone a long way to helping their cash flow and they must know that they threw it away . Good luck to Wellens but I’ve had my last season !!
I’m beyond words!
-
Mad how wilfully ignorant people are willing to be just to make a point that is not and will never be correct.
-
R&amp;W, you've actually got it completely the wrong way round - debt essentially needs to be repaid, shares have a value which is determined by the value of the company and a loss making 3rd tier football club with no assets is effectively worth noting.
By converting the debt to equity, TB &amp; co are giving up their millions being returned.
Not sure I follow that .
He's loaned the club money, effectively got paid back in shares .
Tb has now more shares which have a value, which is negotiable to any future buyer .
Part of the negotiable value, is the future potential of the club .
Again to say tb won't get a penny back is simply wrong .
Debt has a defined value (and, normally, defined repayment terms).
Equity has a value that is ultimately determined by what someone is prepared to pay for it - as everyone else on this thread realises, that value is most likely a very low figure, definitely nothing like the millions that has been sunk into the club.
Seem to be getting somewhere here .
Tb has shares
The shares have a value
If tb sells, he might make a loss, break even or make a profit.
So a blanket statement of he won't get a penny back isn't correct .
Do you actually believe that every year that they put £2m into the club the value of their shares goes up £2m too? *facepalm*
Christ all f**king mighty .
That's not the point I'm making, engage your brain and re read my posts .
-
R&amp;W, you've actually got it completely the wrong way round - debt essentially needs to be repaid, shares have a value which is determined by the value of the company and a loss making 3rd tier football club with no assets is effectively worth noting.
By converting the debt to equity, TB &amp; co are giving up their millions being returned.
Not sure I follow that .
He's loaned the club money, effectively got paid back in shares .
Tb has now more shares which have a value, which is negotiable to any future buyer .
Part of the negotiable value, is the future potential of the club .
Again to say tb won't get a penny back is simply wrong .
Debt has a defined value (and, normally, defined repayment terms).
Equity has a value that is ultimately determined by what someone is prepared to pay for it - as everyone else on this thread realises, that value is most likely a very low figure, definitely nothing like the millions that has been sunk into the club.
Seem to be getting somewhere here .
Tb has shares
The shares have a value
If tb sells, he might make a loss, break even or make a profit.
So a blanket statement of he won't get a penny back isn't correct .
How much do you think shares in a loss-making third tier club that doesn't own it's own ground are currently worth? - round numbers will do.
My god, wake up .
Re read my posts and understand the point I'm making .
-
R&amp;amp;W, you've actually got it completely the wrong way round - debt essentially needs to be repaid, shares have a value which is determined by the value of the company and a loss making 3rd tier football club with no assets is effectively worth noting.
By converting the debt to equity, TB &amp;amp; co are giving up their millions being returned.
Not sure I follow that .
He's loaned the club money, effectively got paid back in shares .
Tb has now more shares which have a value, which is negotiable to any future buyer .
Part of the negotiable value, is the future potential of the club .
Again to say tb won't get a penny back is simply wrong .
Debt has a defined value (and, normally, defined repayment terms).
Equity has a value that is ultimately determined by what someone is prepared to pay for it - as everyone else on this thread realises, that value is most likely a very low figure, definitely nothing like the millions that has been sunk into the club.
Seem to be getting somewhere here .
Tb has shares
The shares have a value
If tb sells, he might make a loss, break even or make a profit.
So a blanket statement of he won't get a penny back isn't correct .
How much do you think shares in a loss-making third tier club that doesn't own it's own ground are currently worth? - round numbers will do.
My god, wake up .
Re read my posts and understand the point I'm making .
How much do you think shares in a loss-making third tier club that doesn't own its own ground and has faced severe reduction in income over the last 16 months are worth? Just a number.
-
. We were often told that the club doesn’t have any debts ? Well £34m ploughed and still growing without promotion to the Championship isn’t going to alter or repaid soon through the turnstiles!!
The board are stubborn but practical. I’m very disappointed at last seasons finish as I do believe it was a huge opportunity missed and promotion would have gone a long way to helping their cash flow and they must know that they threw it away . Good luck to Wellens but I’ve had my last season !!
£34 million converted into equity ISN'T a debt!!
Exactly, it's share VALUE
-
And by increasing the number of their shares probably reducing their VALUE
-
He's either too stubborn to realise/admit he hasn't got a scooby or he's actively trolling. Can probably harbour a guess.
-
This is ridiculous. Somebody on here has moved his position 180 degrees since it was pointed out what a financial misunderstanding he was making. From suggesting that TB was manoeuvring the finances to suit himself it’s now apparent that that’s not happening and no realistic argument will say otherwise.
Let’s not forget the VSC have approx 120,000 shares in Club Doncaster, bought at a cost of approx £120,000.
Today that investment is worth virtually nothing. So much for redandwhites argument about being in control of share value.
-
This is ridiculous. Somebody on here has moved his position 180 degrees since it was pointed out what a financial misunderstanding he was making. From suggesting that TB was manoeuvring the finances to suit himself it’s now apparent that that’s not happening and no realistic argument will say otherwise.
Let’s not forget the VSC have approx 120,000 shares in Club Doncaster, bought at a cost of approx £120,000.
Today that investment is worth virtually nothing. So much for redandwhites argument about being in control of share value.
Ah but you'll negotiate them to 10 million quid a share so it's all good.
-
. We were often told that the club doesn’t have any debts ? Well £34m ploughed and still growing without promotion to the Championship isn’t going to alter or repaid soon through the turnstiles!!
The board are stubborn but practical. I’m very disappointed at last seasons finish as I do believe it was a huge opportunity missed and promotion would have gone a long way to helping their cash flow and they must know that they threw it away . Good luck to Wellens but I’ve had my last season !!
You say they threw it away. I take it by "they", you mean the board? If so, can you explain in detail why you think that?
You see, from where I'm sitting the season was thrown away by crap signings in January by an overrated manager who'd had his head turned, and a load of loan players who didn't give a f*ck about the club.
-
. We were often told that the club doesn’t have any debts ? Well £34m ploughed and still growing without promotion to the Championship isn’t going to alter or repaid soon through the turnstiles!!
The board are stubborn but practical. I’m very disappointed at last seasons finish as I do believe it was a huge opportunity missed and promotion would have gone a long way to helping their cash flow and they must know that they threw it away . Good luck to Wellens but I’ve had my last season !!
You say they threw it away. I take it by "they", you mean the board? If so, can you explain in detail why you think that?
You see, from where I'm sitting the season was thrown away by crap signings in January by an overrated manager who'd had his head turned, and a load of loan players who didn't give a f*ck about the club.
What we didn’t know is last years budget had been reduced by 23%. Therefore loan players may have the only way to get better players in. Was it that DM could only use the value of Whiteman wages to get in two players that’s why we got Bogle and Bostock(who accepted less than he and his agent wanted).
(
-
. We were often told that the club doesn’t have any debts ? Well £34m ploughed and still growing without promotion to the Championship isn’t going to alter or repaid soon through the turnstiles!!
The board are stubborn but practical. I’m very disappointed at last seasons finish as I do believe it was a huge opportunity missed and promotion would have gone a long way to helping their cash flow and they must know that they threw it away . Good luck to Wellens but I’ve had my last season !!
You say they threw it away. I take it by "they", you mean the board? If so, can you explain in detail why you think that?
You see, from where I'm sitting the season was thrown away by crap signings in January by an overrated manager who'd had his head turned, and a load of loan players who didn't give a f*ck about the club.
What we didn’t know is last years budget had been reduced by 23%. Therefore loan players may have the only way to get better players in. Was it that DM could only use the value of Whiteman wages to get in two players that’s why we got Bogle and Bostock(who accepted less than he and his agent wanted).
(
We can't really speculate on the wages of Bogle and Bostock, because none of us know exactly what they're on.
What we do know is that they were both crap, and the board can't be blamed for that.
-
. We were often told that the club doesn’t have any debts ? Well £34m ploughed and still growing without promotion to the Championship isn’t going to alter or repaid soon through the turnstiles!!
The board are stubborn but practical. I’m very disappointed at last seasons finish as I do believe it was a huge opportunity missed and promotion would have gone a long way to helping their cash flow and they must know that they threw it away . Good luck to Wellens but I’ve had my last season !!
£34 million converted into equity ISN'T a debt!!
Exactly, it's share VALUE
Which altogether adds up to exactly the same value as BEFORE they put any more money into the club because each share is worth the value of the club divided by the number of shares!! The club is worth EXACTLY the same no matter how much money is converted into equity, so every time they put that money in they've lost it!!
-
. We were often told that the club doesn’t have any debts ? Well £34m ploughed and still growing without promotion to the Championship isn’t going to alter or repaid soon through the turnstiles!!
The board are stubborn but practical. I’m very disappointed at last seasons finish as I do believe it was a huge opportunity missed and promotion would have gone a long way to helping their cash flow and they must know that they threw it away . Good luck to Wellens but I’ve had my last season !!
You say they threw it away. I take it by &quot;they&quot;, you mean the board? If so, can you explain in detail why you think that?
You see, from where I'm sitting the season was thrown away by crap signings in January by an overrated manager who'd had his head turned, and a load of loan players who didn't give a f*ck about the club.
What we didn’t know is last years budget had been reduced by 23%. Therefore loan players may have the only way to get better players in. Was it that DM could only use the value of Whiteman wages to get in two players that’s why we got Bogle and Bostock(who accepted less than he and his agent wanted).
(
We can't really speculate on the wages of Bogle and Bostock, because none of us know exactly what they're on.
What we do know is that they were both crap, and the board can't be blamed for that.
Bostock actually said in first interview that he had accepted less than he and his agent wanted to get a club. Now we saw what happened when DM left yes both did not pull any trees up. RW in his latest interview with LH says both have been working really well first week of preseason we can only judge them if they are still here and playing. But I don’t believe RW will take any messing from any player.
-
This is ridiculous. Somebody on here has moved his position 180 degrees since it was pointed out what a financial misunderstanding he was making. From suggesting that TB was manoeuvring the finances to suit himself it’s now apparent that that’s not happening and no realistic argument will say otherwise.
Let’s not forget the VSC have approx 120,000 shares in Club Doncaster, bought at a cost of approx £120,000.
Today that investment is worth virtually nothing. So much for redandwhites argument about being in control of share value.
Ah but you'll negotiate them to 10 million quid a share so it's all good.
You’re right, it’s our master plan to get all our money back and make a handsome profit all at the same time!!
-
This is ridiculous. Somebody on here has moved his position 180 degrees since it was pointed out what a financial misunderstanding he was making. From suggesting that TB was manoeuvring the finances to suit himself it’s now apparent that that’s not happening and no realistic argument will say otherwise.
Let’s not forget the VSC have approx 120,000 shares in Club Doncaster, bought at a cost of approx £120,000.
Today that investment is worth virtually nothing. So much for redandwhites argument about being in control of share value.
I didn't say they were in control of the share value did I?
As far as the vsc shares being virtually valueless now, that's down to the thousands of more shares that have been issued since the vsc bought them .
I haven't done 180 whatsoever, I suggest you re read my posts
-
This is ridiculous. Somebody on here has moved his position 180 degrees since it was pointed out what a financial misunderstanding he was making. From suggesting that TB was manoeuvring the finances to suit himself it’s now apparent that that’s not happening and no realistic argument will say otherwise.
Let’s not forget the VSC have approx 120,000 shares in Club Doncaster, bought at a cost of approx £120,000.
Today that investment is worth virtually nothing. So much for redandwhites argument about being in control of share value.
I didn't say they were in control of the share value did I?
As far as the vsc shares being virtually valueless now, that's down to the thousands of more shares that have been issued since the vsc bought them .
I haven't done 180 whatsoever, I suggest you re read my posts
Makes you wonder why someone would create all those valueless shares in order to get their money back. Crazy.
-
This is ridiculous. Somebody on here has moved his position 180 degrees since it was pointed out what a financial misunderstanding he was making. From suggesting that TB was manoeuvring the finances to suit himself it’s now apparent that that’s not happening and no realistic argument will say otherwise.
Let’s not forget the VSC have approx 120,000 shares in Club Doncaster, bought at a cost of approx £120,000.
Today that investment is worth virtually nothing. So much for redandwhites argument about being in control of share value.
I didn't say they were in control of the share value did I?
As far as the vsc shares being virtually valueless now, that's down to the thousands of more shares that have been issued since the vsc bought them .
I haven't done 180 whatsoever, I suggest you re read my posts
Believe me I have read your posts, and they are as clueless now as when you wrote this;
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
If that’s not a 180 I don’t know what is.
-
This is ridiculous. Somebody on here has moved his position 180 degrees since it was pointed out what a financial misunderstanding he was making. From suggesting that TB was manoeuvring the finances to suit himself it’s now apparent that that’s not happening and no realistic argument will say otherwise.
Let’s not forget the VSC have approx 120,000 shares in Club Doncaster, bought at a cost of approx £120,000.
Today that investment is worth virtually nothing. So much for redandwhites argument about being in control of share value.
I didn't say they were in control of the share value did I?
As far as the vsc shares being virtually valueless now, that's down to the thousands of more shares that have been issued since the vsc bought them .
I haven't done 180 whatsoever, I suggest you re read my posts
Makes you wonder why someone would create all those valueless shares in order to get their money back. Crazy.
Exactly.
-
This is ridiculous. Somebody on here has moved his position 180 degrees since it was pointed out what a financial misunderstanding he was making. From suggesting that TB was manoeuvring the finances to suit himself it’s now apparent that that’s not happening and no realistic argument will say otherwise.
Let’s not forget the VSC have approx 120,000 shares in Club Doncaster, bought at a cost of approx £120,000.
Today that investment is worth virtually nothing. So much for redandwhites argument about being in control of share value.
I didn't say they were in control of the share value did I?
As far as the vsc shares being virtually valueless now, that's down to the thousands of more shares that have been issued since the vsc bought them .
I haven't done 180 whatsoever, I suggest you re read my posts
Believe me I have read your posts, and they are as clueless now as when you wrote this;
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
If that’s not a 180 I don’t know what is.
Your being pedantic to try and win points, arguing over my wording instead of refuting the central point .
My point is.
Tb has shares
The shares have a value
That value is negotiable to any future buyer, and could be more or less than what he paid .
Jesus wept, how can you not understand that ?
-
This is ridiculous. Somebody on here has moved his position 180 degrees since it was pointed out what a financial misunderstanding he was making. From suggesting that TB was manoeuvring the finances to suit himself it’s now apparent that that’s not happening and no realistic argument will say otherwise.
Let’s not forget the VSC have approx 120,000 shares in Club Doncaster, bought at a cost of approx £120,000.
Today that investment is worth virtually nothing. So much for redandwhites argument about being in control of share value.
I didn't say they were in control of the share value did I?
As far as the vsc shares being virtually valueless now, that's down to the thousands of more shares that have been issued since the vsc bought them .
I haven't done 180 whatsoever, I suggest you re read my posts
Makes you wonder why someone would create all those valueless shares in order to get their money back. Crazy.
Exactly.
They are not valueless . :headbang:
-
Quite. Their value is the same now as it was before they put in 34 million quid. Jesus wept, how can you not understand that ?
BobG
-
This is ridiculous. Somebody on here has moved his position 180 degrees since it was pointed out what a financial misunderstanding he was making. From suggesting that TB was manoeuvring the finances to suit himself it’s now apparent that that’s not happening and no realistic argument will say otherwise.
Let’s not forget the VSC have approx 120,000 shares in Club Doncaster, bought at a cost of approx £120,000.
Today that investment is worth virtually nothing. So much for redandwhites argument about being in control of share value.
I didn't say they were in control of the share value did I?
As far as the vsc shares being virtually valueless now, that's down to the thousands of more shares that have been issued since the vsc bought them .
I haven't done 180 whatsoever, I suggest you re read my posts
Makes you wonder why someone would create all those valueless shares in order to get their money back. Crazy.
Exactly.
They are not valueless . :headbang:
So valueless shares aren't valueless.
Just between you and me, have you previously been mis-sold magic beans? Is this what this is all about - four pages of you externalising a feeling of aching regret?
-
This is ridiculous. Somebody on here has moved his position 180 degrees since it was pointed out what a financial misunderstanding he was making. From suggesting that TB was manoeuvring the finances to suit himself it’s now apparent that that’s not happening and no realistic argument will say otherwise.
Let’s not forget the VSC have approx 120,000 shares in Club Doncaster, bought at a cost of approx £120,000.
Today that investment is worth virtually nothing. So much for redandwhites argument about being in control of share value.
I didn't say they were in control of the share value did I?
As far as the vsc shares being virtually valueless now, that's down to the thousands of more shares that have been issued since the vsc bought them .
I haven't done 180 whatsoever, I suggest you re read my posts
Believe me I have read your posts, and they are as clueless now as when you wrote this;
Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells .
I have a suspicion it won't be far off, given the age of TB.
If that’s not a 180 I don’t know what is.
Your being pedantic to try and win points, arguing over my wording instead of refuting the central point .
My point is.
Tb has shares
The shares have a value
That value is negotiable to any future buyer, and could be more or less than what he paid .
Jesus wept, how can you not understand that ?
Everyone understands the principle of shares and how they work. In this instance the shares are worth next to nothing, if not nothing. We aren't an up and coming search engine or social media platform. Your original point was total b*llocks:
"Which is what every owner/ benefactor does to make sure they get their money back when the club sells ".
How many football clubs similar to ours sell for profit? Most don't even sell for money never mind a profit.
-
. We were often told that the club doesn’t have any debts ? Well £34m ploughed and still growing without promotion to the Championship isn’t going to alter or repaid soon through the turnstiles!!
The board are stubborn but practical. I’m very disappointed at last seasons finish as I do believe it was a huge opportunity missed and promotion would have gone a long way to helping their cash flow and they must know that they threw it away . Good luck to Wellens but I’ve had my last season !!
£34 million converted into equity ISN'T a debt!!
So it was gift aid ?
-
. We were often told that the club doesn’t have any debts ? Well £34m ploughed and still growing without promotion to the Championship isn’t going to alter or repaid soon through the turnstiles!!
The board are stubborn but practical. I’m very disappointed at last seasons finish as I do believe it was a huge opportunity missed and promotion would have gone a long way to helping their cash flow and they must know that they threw it away . Good luck to Wellens but I’ve had my last season !!
£34 million converted into equity ISN'T a debt!!
So it was gift aid ?
Are you really so clueless about this as to not understand that a company's share capital isn't a debt of that company?