Search results

They don't need room They need cash!

They need a concerted complaint to the FCA , news media and Private Eye !

It requires 25% of bondholder value to get Trustee to act But the bondholders have not told how they get to that 25% as the Registet is not public

The lease actually went to a Richardson personal company not WASPS. Asset shifting?

The instalments have to have some cerainty of being paid though and the stories around Burnley dont give that confidence

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-42832508

If they have not yet applied they certainly will if WASPS get funding Have just passed the Arena, road signs warning of closures next week. How many they expecting? More significant is they refer to Birmingham 2022!!

Wycombe?

The update will say they are still progressing to being able to give another update in August If the parent company accounts were approved last November the subsidiaries/ associated would have had to been approved The question should be why not published?

Can you say which MP?

The application was sidestepped by CCC to WMCA. They get funded by Central Government so I suspect they will argue not local monies being used. It does beg the question however- how do WASPs always seem to get preferential treatment

The council will be worried both financially and politically that WASPS will fail Equally they are aware of local opinion and the gathering criticism of their pandering to WASPS So expect some very creative PR !! So exo The Council canni

They have sent a few loanees to BPA over past few season? There is quite a close connection between both teams

Apples and pears G I keep saying don't mix cash and profit The CF statement shows cash received and paid out that year. So the timing of sale and the receipt of funds will be in different periods

Capital or Accrued Interest it does not matter as debt reduction Reducing the Capital should reduce the interest?

No idea!

If the purpose of the initial advance was as investment then removing funds to the extent of it being detrimental hardly makes sense I don't know where the shareholders raised their funds so can only assume it relates in someway to their borrowing rate plus risk You are also basing (it seems)...

Well at present it it is not being detrimental to the club is it? Although people on here think it is I have no idea how the rate was set but what cover would you expect from a loss making company that is totally unsecured with no prospect of early repayment.

Suspect - imagine - suggesting- nothing concrete there? Putting a fictitious high rate of interest that isn't being paid into the accounts to gain a mysterious benefit is a bit far fetched?

I assume who ever lent the money in the first place put in the cost. That being so it has to be accounted for. Accruing it and paying it are different matters. However the mantra that keeps being repeated on here is that it is hitting annual cash flow and evidently it isn't