Nick Higgs says that the board of directors had no choice but to take out a high-interest loan if they were to avoid being “starved into submission” by Sainsbury’s. Rovers took out a short-term loan, believed to be in the region of £2 million with a company called MSP Capital in December, when it was clear their dispute with Sainsbury’s over sale of the Memorial Stadium site was going to end up in the High Court. The club investigated issues of refinancing with existing partner Barclays to continue funding the legal challenge, which has so far cost the club in excess of £1 million, but were declined. Instead, Rovers opted to take the loan from MSP Capital at a rate of 1.2 per cent interest per month and will have to repay the full amount and accrued interest by the end of the year. When asked why the directors had opted to refinance at such a high rate of interest instead of loaning the money themselves at lower rates of interest, Higgs said: "The refinancing was done for a very specific reason. We knew the case was likely to end up in the High Court and we wanted to make sure we were not starved into submission before it got there. The directors are already funding the football club and we continue to do so. If you look at the losses over a number of years, they have all been covered by directors and they have still contributed to the current year in terms of trading losses. We had gone to our bank (Barclays), who hold the mortgage on the site, to help us with restructuring in light of the increasing costs and legal fees associated with the stadium project and we couldn’t make any headway. We ended up bringing in alternative methods of funding that enables us to fight the court case coming up in May. We are classing these costs associated with the upcoming court case as an extraordinary thing and a separate entity. We want to make sure we have the funds available to fight this case, while still trading normally within the football club.” A High Court trial date has been set for May 14 after Rovers made a plea to have the situation expedited as a result of their uncertain financial position and the willingness of other partners to remain on board with the project beyond the summer. When asked how confident he was that the High Court judge would rule in Rovers’ favour, Higgs replied: “We are bound by legal agreements and the least I say at this stage the better.” Higgs was speaking after addressing shareholders at the club’s AGM on Tuesday night. Higgs and his board of directors were all re-elected to their positions while the annual figures, which showed yearly losses cut by 27.5 per cent, were approved. Annual losses for the year ending June 30, 2014 were down from £781,911 to £566,408 – mostly as a result of about £400,000 received as part of a sell-on clause when Rickie Lambert left Southampton to join Liverpool in the summer. Total debt was slightly reduced year-on-year (3.7 per cent) – but current liabilities still exceed assets by almost £5.5 million. Elsewhere, turnover was up to £4,328,341 from £3,819,633, but the wage bill across the company as a whole was up from about £3.2 million to £3.5 million as the board invested in a number of loan players to try to improve a season of struggle that eventually ended in relegation. Higgs said: “There was a reduction in losses year-on-year, so we are moving in the right direction in terms of day-to-day trading. There is another level of funding we would lose if we don’t get promotion at the end of this season, but at this moment in time all our efforts are focussed on regaining our Football League status. We are very pleased with the spirit and work ethic (manager) Darrell (Clarke) has built within the group of players we have here now. The players all fight for each other and we go into the last stage of the season with high hopes that we can really have achieved something special by the end of it.” Taken from the Post.
If we beat Sainsburys in the courts then Sainsburys will have to pay the damages, basically paying that loan back. If we lose in the courts then...... we're in trouble. Although, there is a plan B, C & D in place apparently!
TRASH nearly TRASHED us. I thought they were not out to harm the club just stop Sainsburys. Their meddling has cost a lot of time,money and a great deal of aggravation for the club and its supporters. its a shame we cant find out which business supported them so we could cease to support them
Think you can find that out. Wasnt there names of businesses who were opposed to Sainsburys on the Council site where people could say if they were for or against? One place was a hardware store which was like a base for TRASH. He has a small little hardware shop and felt threatened by Sainsburys thinking his business will be harmed! Strange. TRASH also has costed the tax payer too! Wonder if they paid their bills yet or have gone into liquidation to avoid paying up.
If would appear that the Nick Higgs and the Board feel they are 100% sure of their ground and the loan seems to counteract any of Sainsbury's delaying tactics which prevent the argument being settled by legal means. If that was the tactic which Sainsburys employed to get off the hook because they consider their defence is not adequate, then it is probable that the matter will be settled out of court prior to the extra expenses of a court hearing.
I still think the opponents are misguided. The local residents would actually prefer a supermarket to a football ground. The top end of the Gloucester Road has been on its knees for years. A free car park and cycle park will bring footfall to that part of the Gloucester Road. Far from being put out of business, new shops and cafés will thrive and new ones will open. This dead part of the Gloucester Road will spring to life. New businesses, new jobs, new community. I won't be voting Green, that's for sure. I reckon I know more about green politics than most of the greens I have spoken to in Bristol. And being green doesn't mean being a white,middle class nimby, which is my impression of what the majority the Bristol greens seem to be. And what can be greener than running around a field kicking a ball around? Definitely not sitting in a coffee shop twiddling with a tablet.
My wife worked with a lady who cant wait for the Rovers to be gone not because she is against the football club but she wants to be able to walk across the road for her shopping instead of driving to Tescos
CJS I still have the copy about the compensation claim being heard at a different hearing, will be a the match on Saturday if you want it
