|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 31, 2011 8:12:27 GMT
Amulya/Stadium: Reminder...Doesn't mean anything has to be announced today (It may have been "resolved" without notification. But today is deadline day) Flashback to November: "The directors propose the Resolution in order to obtain members approval to a proposed amendment to the option agreement between the Company and Amulya (the Option) a company in which Flavio Briatore and Amit Bhatia, directors of the company are connected. Such members approval is required persuant to Section 190 of the Companies Act 2006 because the Option is within the wide definition of an acquisition from the company of a 'substantial non-cash asset' by a person connected with a director of the company. The Company was prepared to repay an existing loan of £10,000,000 to Amulya Property Limited on or before 28th July 2010. Amulya currently has an option over Loftus Road Stadium which became exercisable once the company failed to repay the loan in full by 28th July 2010. The option is exercisable up to and including 29th October 2010. Amuulya is owned by entities in which Flavio Briatore, Amit Bhatia and Marco Rapini are interested. For the purposes of the most recent statutory accounts the Stadium was valued at £21,250,000 as at 31st May. Should this option be exercised, Amulya will acquire the stadium at the option price of £10,000,000. The Company and Amulya are currently in discussions regarding the option and Amulya has suggested that the option be extended to 31 January 2011 to give more time for such discussions given the expiry of the option on 28th October in return for Amulya agreeing not to exercise its right under the option"   |
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Jan 31, 2011 8:39:14 GMT
tick tick tick, thats the sound of your life going
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 1, 2011 8:35:34 GMT
Date now passed.
Sooner or later, whatever transpired or didn't transpire, will seep into the public domain.
|
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Feb 1, 2011 8:39:14 GMT
I still ask the same question.
If I lend me money to buy my house, who owns my house?
Another one to add.
What then happens if I fail to repay me?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Feb 1, 2011 9:01:58 GMT
you declare yourself bankrupt and get off paying and as the owner of the new house you get it for nothing!
|
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Feb 1, 2011 9:16:54 GMT
So i still have the house i had in the first place?
See my point?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Feb 1, 2011 9:25:14 GMT
yes and you have a bankrupcy by your name and a free hold house!!
|
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Feb 1, 2011 9:28:38 GMT
Can't see our owners declaring bankrupcy though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Feb 3, 2011 12:10:19 GMT
A new letter has just gone out to the shareholders proposing an extension to the option until 16th May 2011. This moves the deadline to repay the option back to after the season once we know what division we will be in next season (I didn't write 'once we are promoted' for KLR  ) This, for my fears, is good news as it enables us to repay the loan with monies received from going up and in the meantime we are not paying interest out. We might still owe the backdated interest once we go to pay off the loan but at least we will be able to pay off the loan, retain the ground as an asset on our books and look to finally 'move on, onwards and upwards' without this financial albatross around our necks. Fail to go up and we could be in serious trouble though.  |
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Feb 3, 2011 12:11:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 3, 2011 13:17:27 GMT
Don't usually just copy/paste from other sites. But on this occasion |
|
|
|
Post by zicoshoops on Feb 3, 2011 13:26:41 GMT
Isn't this just a game played by the big boys?
Granted, one where all the cards are stacked.
ABC were paid off their 10 Million by Amulya. (Flav and Amit and Co)
No need to make any capital repayments on what they 'owe' themselves.
'Earn' 8.5% off the 10 Million.
So there we have it, the Ground will eventually become legally theirs for less than 10 Million.
Keep this agreement until the end of season.
If we go up..............
Take/Award/Pay the Ten Million to Amulya, with TV money.
Result?..................What a Result.
Ground valued at 23 million odd is legally theirs.
If we don't go up?
Pay off the Ten Million (taking into account the interest 'earned' at 8.5%.
Result?..............What a result.
Ground valued at 23 million odd is legally theirs.
Heads they win.
Tails they win.
I suppose you could call it a type of gamble.
But unless I've got shit in my eyes, isn't it more a case of buying money?
Now if we do go up, do we invest to stay up?
Or do we do a 'West Brom' and bounce up and down for a few years, eventually establishing ourselves in the Prem?
You could argue that the Boy Bernie doesn't have the time for that.
But, consider this....................
If you were God or the Devil, would you want the Boy Bernie anywhere near you, trying to tell you how to run your business?
They've probable already clocked Bernie, and reached an agreement together.
Such as.............
'I don't want him up here.'
'Well I don't want him down here.'
'F**k it then, I tell you what...............let him live for 150 years'
So bouncing between divisions for the next few years it is then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 3, 2011 14:03:20 GMT
David McIntyre Blog
The loan: in 5 minutes
By davidmcintyre Just a quick post – and a massive over-simplification – about a letter sent to shareholders regarding the non-repayment of a £10m loan to Amulya. Here’s the broad thrust of what it’s all about… Most QPR fans are aware of the infamous ABC loan. This was a £10m loan which enabled the club to come out of administration in 2002, paying Chris Wright some of the money he was owed as a result of his time as chairman and owner. This loan was bad news, and the interest repayments alone were a noose around the club’s neck. It meant that ABC Corporation, in loaning QPR that money, had the right to acquire Loftus Road should that loan not be repaid at the due date. In short, Loftus Road was used as collateral to secure that loan. What’s never said about the ABC loan is that a large chunk of it was also used to fund QPR’s promotion by making the club the biggest spenders in Division Two. Without that additional capital, it’s doubtful Rangers would have gone up. Most wrongly believe that promotion was achieved on a shoestring. Before and after the 2007 takeover, the ABC loan was a big issue facing the club, and by definition the new owners. In order for QPR to repay ABC, the club was loaned £10m by Amulya – a company the club say Flavio Briatore and Amit Bhatia have an interest in. This did NOT mean that the issue of the £10m loan had gone away. It meant that the loan had been transferred from ABC to Amulya, who then had the option to acquire Loftus Road just as ABC did previously. The loan to Amulya was due to be repaid by QPR by the end of July 2010, at which time the likes of Briatore expected to be owning a Premier League club, with all the financial rewards that brings. When the loan was not repaid by QPR to Amulya, the ‘deadline’ for the club to repay it was extended to the end of October 2010 and then to the end of January 2011. With the second date now passed, the directors are looking to move it to May 2011 – by which time they really do expect QPR to be in the Premier League. In the meantime, Loftus Road will remain as their collateral, or to put it another way, their insurance, should that not happen and the loan remain unpaid. Like ABC, Amulya have the option to effectively acquire the stadium for the £10m they loaned to QPR (even though the stadium was last valued at more than £21m). This can seem confusing, and I’ve been asked how the directors can “default on their own loan”. The answer is to stop seeing QPR and the owners as one and the same. They’re not. The loan isn’t “theirs” and neither is the default on the repayment. It’s QPR’s alone. The club was given that £10m by Amulya to repay the ABC loan. And like that previous loan, QPR must repay it or face the prospect of losing Loftus Road. The bottom line is that the ‘sorting’ of the ABC loan was no more intended to be a gift to QPR on the part of the current owners than Wright’s investment back in the mid-90s. Both were directors’ loans – a fact that in both cases was overlooked because of the hype surrounding the respective regimes and their willingness to spend money on players. And in an important sense, those two eras are linked by this £10m loan. The Amulya loan was used to pay off the ABC loan, which was arranged in response to the troublesome directors’ loans that QPR were not in a position to repay in 2001, when Wright quit. Got that? It’s a loan to repay the loan that settled the other loan. davidmcintyre.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/the-loan-in-5-minutes/
|
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Feb 3, 2011 15:25:23 GMT
So if I lend me money to buy my house who owns my house?
|
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Feb 3, 2011 16:04:36 GMT
So if I lend me money to buy my house who owns my house? Meet me in the Adi before Forest and I'll explain to you what I think the various permutations of this loan situation are. Once I've finished we'll both probably be drinking heavily! |
|
obk
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,516
|
Post by obk on Feb 3, 2011 17:04:20 GMT
So if I lend me money to buy my house who owns my house? Meet me in the Adi before Forest and I'll explain to you what I think the various permutations of this loan situation are. Once I've finished we'll both probably be drinking heavily! Yes, this shit is seriously depressing... |
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Feb 3, 2011 17:26:25 GMT
Now we know why board members have been so quiet and inconspicuous recently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 3, 2011 17:29:37 GMT
Now we know why board members have been so quiet and inconspicuous recently. Put it this way: I doubt that any of them would give a shit about all the wonderful photos you've been posting. Because they have no interest in the roots and soul and history of QPR. And that's why they are not REALLY the owners of QPR. We are. |
|
bowles
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,939
|
Post by bowles on Feb 3, 2011 22:09:35 GMT
thats right mate! all the fans are Q.P.R!!!!!! W*nkerS TO A MAN ARE THE BOARD MEMBERS! by the way cpr i own your house so please leave as im going to knock it down and build a block of swanky flats on it!  |
|
|
|
Post by harlowranger on Feb 3, 2011 22:28:20 GMT
thats right mate! all the fans are Q.P.R!!!!!! W*nkerS TO A MAN ARE THE BOARD MEMBERS! by the way cpr i own your house so please leave as im going to knock it down and build a block of swanky flats on it! But i own the Shed , Jacuzzi and the QPR Gnome !!  |
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Feb 3, 2011 22:39:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Feb 3, 2011 22:44:25 GMT
thats right mate! all the fans are Q.P.R!!!!!! W*nkerS TO A MAN ARE THE BOARD MEMBERS! by the way cpr i own your house so please leave as im going to knock it down and build a block of swanky flats on it! But i own the Shed , Jacuzzi and the QPR Gnome !! Steady on harlow just because you own his shed and jacuzzi no need to call him a Gnome. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by harlowranger on Feb 3, 2011 22:48:11 GMT
But i own the Shed , Jacuzzi and the QPR Gnome !! Steady on harlow just because you own his shed and jacuzzi no need to call him a Gnome. ;D |
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Feb 4, 2011 14:22:03 GMT
Good article by Dave as usual.
The basic illusion is that the way WE feel about the Club somehow modifies the way THEY behave about the shares and property deals they do through the companies which they control.
Just as our feelings don't translate directly into share ownership or property deals, their shares and property dealings don't translate into feelings about the Club.
And what evidence is there for those feelings? Have they prevented any 'investor' from taking out his money and putting it in another Club, leaving the Club still heavily in debt, despite the 'investor's wealth. And, for that matter, how many former QPR 'owners' continued to attend the Club regularly as supporters AFTER they sold up/cashed in?
Their deals may be calculated to enrich themselves, but how many of them have made the Club profitable? Wealthy? Successful?
Don't make me laugh. They haven't a clue. Their only talent is to lose more money this season than they lost the last. Strangely, though, they all arrive wealthy, and leave wealthy.
And they all have an eye on the Ground. You don't need to know anything about football, or making money for the Club, to use your position to help yourself to its assets.
Gregory proposed to close us down - along with Brentford and then Fulham - in deals which would have seen Griffin Park and then Loftus Road disappear. Marler, his successor, and Bulstrode, Marler's representative and successor, were involved in those deals.
Thompson wasn't, but he left us with that £10 million debt - the price Thompson exacted from Wright to buy the Club - and Thompson later made a grab for Griffin Park himself. Purely as a business deal, he said. He was always more honest than the rest in some things. He went to Leeds and they subsequently collapsed and no longer own their Ground.
Wright, Blackburn and the others voted unanimously to close QPR and Wimbledon down and sell off Loftus Road to make us part of the MK 'Dons' assault on Wimbledon FC, which saw that Club disappear in its original form. After 'Mr Wimbledon' Hammam pocketed the value of Plough Lane, then moved in with Noades who helped himself to the value of Selhurst. So now, surprise, surprise, the new Palace want to dump the Club - a la West Ham - in a municipal stadium so they can sell off Selhurst.
Why would anyone trust any of them any further than he can spit?
Clueless? If they were good enough to be considered clueless, that would represent progress in my opinion.
Still, no we're run by a bloke who thinks we'll lose even more money in the Premiership than the losses he and his pals have incurred already.
All at the Club's expense, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 3, 2013 14:34:28 GMT
Bump: What were focused on two years ago, in the financial area of QPR
|
|
)
