The Large One
Who's Next?
Does this imply you believe Dick Knigt was complicit?afters said:
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Albion Invester Rumour
- Thread starter seagull inde away stand
- Start date
aftershavedave
Well-known member
The Large One said:
not at all, not very smart, but not complicit.
The Large One
Who's Next?
So why do you say it was right for some verbal shit to be slung in his direction?
aftershavedave
Well-known member
two reasons:
1) it really wasn't smart to get himself in the mess he did and it could have seriously impacted on the club; and
2) the case for the defence if i remember rightly was rather vociferous in its support and some of the putdowns of anybody with a contrary view reminiscent of london irish at his most dismissive.
that's all.
1) it really wasn't smart to get himself in the mess he did and it could have seriously impacted on the club; and
2) the case for the defence if i remember rightly was rather vociferous in its support and some of the putdowns of anybody with a contrary view reminiscent of london irish at his most dismissive.
that's all.
The Large One
Who's Next?
That was because some people were assuming Dick Knight's guilt without listening to any evidence. The rumpus on here was between the people who felt Dick Knight had been stupid and should go because he is a crook versus those who wanted to hear the story of the level of Dick Knight's involvement in the company and its dealings.afters said:
afters said:
DK didn't 'get into the mess'. He was a shareholder in a company in which he apparently had very little personal involvement, and none in the allegations. There were concerns about what effect it could have had on the club. I assume that the investigations are still on-going, and DK may well still have to account for his involvement, but that's different from saying that it was right to sling some verbal shit his way.
The verbal shit MIGHT be deserved IF it impacted on the club, but at the time it wasn't because it didn't, much to DK's detractors' chagrin.
aftershavedave
Well-known member
The Large One said:
all of which demonstrates quite nicely my point 2.
he was the chairman of sporting options not some sort of casual observer who happened to have a few shares, and in that position he should have been more careful.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
So the question arises now ...
If Tony Bloom has money, should Albion fans:-
(a) welcome him, without question, as an investor in the Club?
(b) not welcome him (recalling that he was a shareholder in Sporting Options, which doesn't look good on his CV)?
(c) ask some questions?
(d) take the view that "This is nothing to do with us, it's up to the owners of the Club to decide"?
If Tony Bloom has money, should Albion fans:-
(a) welcome him, without question, as an investor in the Club?
(b) not welcome him (recalling that he was a shareholder in Sporting Options, which doesn't look good on his CV)?
(c) ask some questions?
(d) take the view that "This is nothing to do with us, it's up to the owners of the Club to decide"?
Last edited:
dcseagull
New member
One would hope that the Board would opt for c) and conduct some pretty extensive due dilligence.
If he wanted to invest, presumably he would want to be a Director. Wouldn't the Sporting Options shambles impact upon his ability to pass the FA's new Fit and Proper test?
If he wanted to invest, presumably he would want to be a Director. Wouldn't the Sporting Options shambles impact upon his ability to pass the FA's new Fit and Proper test?
London Irish
Well-known member
afters said:
Your stated position that Dick Knight should have been more careful re. S Options was precisely the position I argued at the time, against those who were idiotically and libellously accusing him of criminal behaviour. But hey, why not rewrite history?
Instead of having the usual rote pop at me, you could try and stretch yourself a bit, and ask a more interesting question of more contemporary relevance.
Which is this: if Dick Knight was unwise to lend his name to a internet gaming start-up, and subsequent history has shown he was indeed unwise to do so, what should be his approach to someone like Bloom wanting to take an influential stake in the club?
I would suggest that this previous experuence means one of extreme caution should now be adopted. Do you agree?
Last edited:
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,321
Marc said:
MEAT products? RSPCA-approved farms? Just what kind of a coffee-shop chain is he running here
Lord Bracknell said:
The assumption appears to be that the new investor is about to put significant new money into Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club Limited, but this is probably not the case.
It is perhaps more likely, that the new investor has agreed to subscribe for shares in The Community Stadium plc, a completely separate public limited company who will build and hold the new stadium. The new stadium will be financed through a share issue, sale of the name of the stadium and the brewing rights and loan finance. Before placing a share issue, the club will need to be sure that the share placing is adequately underwritten, so if any of the potential funding is lost at this stage, it could seriously impact on the funding model and place the project in jeopardy.
Another possible alternative is that the new investor has already loaned money to the club with the intention of converting this to equity at a later date. Any fall-out could have serious consequences if he demanded repayment. Remember also, that the club will benefit by £3 million repayment of the “Falmer Costs” as soon as the funding for the stadium is in place.
(I believe there is also a separate issue with Skint.)
From the club accounts, at June 2005, the indebtedness was:
Bank Overdraft...............................235,423
Payment received on account........1,599,217
Trade Creditors..............................824,195
Owed to BHA Holdings.................4,483,530
Capital Gains Tax...........................365,418
Tax and Social Security..................810,229
Directors Loan Accounts.................564,083
Other Creditors...............................220,771
Other Loans.................................2,681,898
Accruals..........................................100,622
Total Indebtedness.....................11,885,386
Projecting forward to today’s position, it is reasonable to assume that the underlying turnover and expenditure have been similar to last year and that the sale of Virgo and Harding has probably just about balanced the books in terms of cash flow, so it is likely that the above figures will not have changed significantly if projected forward to today.
The major concerns with these figures are:
1. As these figures are as at the end of June, the overdraft at the bank, of £235k, is after having already received most of the season ticket renewals for the coming season. I would assume that most of the “Payment received on account” of £1,599k represented season ticket sales, which means the club would only receive a further ~£800k of gate receipts in the following 12 months and have already spent the season ticket proceeds.
2. Trade Creditors of £824k is very high, considering the comparatively low level of third party suppliers. County Court Judgements highly likely.
3. Capital Gains Tax of £365k. This gain arising from the sale of the Goldstone has been rolled over every year in the expectation of an offset against a new stadium. Given the continuing delays, HM Customs and Revenue could easily call this for payment.
4. Tax and Social Security £810k. Presumably this relates to PAYE and NI deducted from players/staff wages, but not passed to HM Customs and Revenue and the Employer’s liability for NI. The level of this is alarming and I would assume an “arrangement to pay” is in place. Failure to make agreed payments on time, could result in full payment being demanded and inevitably severe court action.
5. Other Loans £2,681k – This is perhaps the most concerning given events of the last few days. There is no indication of who has loaned this money and under what terms the loan has been placed. It isn’t the directors; those are shown separately, and it isn’t a bank loan – that is also shown separately. From the accounts most of this loan is shown as payable within 12 months and very little interest has been paid in the year. It is therefore reasonable to assume that this is a short term, unsecured, interest-free loan from an individual, or individuals. A fall-out with somebody who has already loaned money to the club, and could threaten to demand repayment, is potentially far more damaging than a fall-out with a potential new investor.
For information, the Director’s loan of £564,083 comprised:
Dick Knight - £418,333
Derek Chapman – £110,750
Ray Bloom - £35,000
Shareholding of BHA Holdings Ltd (who indirectly own 99.99% of BHA Football Club Ltd)
Dick Knight..................1,367,500.......29.61%
Pig City Incorporated......550,000.......11.91%
Ray Bloom.......................500,000.......10.83%
William Brown.................500,000.......10.83%
Friday-Ad.........................500,000.......10.83%
Kevin Griffiths.................500,000.......10.83%
Derek Chapman...............350,000.........7.58%
Michael Hastilow.............150,000.........3.25%
Robert Pinnock.................120,000.........2.60%
John Vickers.......................50,000.........1.08%
Joseph Hirschel..................15,000.........0.32%
Peter Jackson.....................10,000.........0.22%
John Town...........................5,000.........0.11%
Martin Perry...........................130.........0.00%
.....................................4,617,630......100.00%
surrey jim
Not in Surrey
what is Pig City Incorporated
blockhseagull
Well-known member
surrey jim said:what is Pig City Incorporated
FBS i guess
blockhseagull
Well-known member
In reference to the 3million Falmer costs that the club will recieve when funding is in place.... will that be allocated to pay off debts or be available for the manager etc.
blockhseagull said:
Scenario: You are £11m in debt, someone repays £3m that you had lent them.
a) you pay off some of the £11m debt because you aren't going to do it any other way
b) you blow the £3m on 'stuff'
surrey jim
Not in Surrey
Martlet said:
Fatboy slim,
where does he fit in to all of this then?/