Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
- Thread starter Jimbo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 48
- Views 448
Pauly Paul
The Bee at Hull's Guildhall
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
Well I think it's answered why a planning application hasn't been submitted yet.
feltham
Member
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
For those of us that were not at the match, what did RN say in his notes?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Pauly Paul
The Bee at Hull's Guildhall
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
well a fair bit really. but my comment is related to Ron saying a planning application hasn't been submitted because anyone that does so has to undertake a transport study which'll cost around 100K. Hounslow Council are doing this anyway so as I understand BFC will submit something after the study has been done. Ron didn't want to spend 100K uneccessarily.
I
Isleworth Bee
Guest
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
Well I'll probably get slated as a conspiracy theorist for not immediately feeling reassured by the article. There were a fair few interesting points about the planning application and to be fair to Ron the point about the transport study is perfectly reasonable.
However, in my opinion Ron always chooses his words extremely carefully when writing such articles and the undermentioned quote doesnt make me feel at ease at all.
"Obviously the option to go to Woking is a prudent precaution for us to take because even though supporters may be adamant that Griffin Park should not be sold unless the new ground is available, although a commendable position that all of us would like to be in, sometimes it is simply not possible to achieve."
He mentions the Lange veto in a way that implies we should be reassured but refers to Lange's statement in the Chronicle this week as being "absolutely correct". In this statement Lange was quoted as saying "when the crunch comes I might just say to the fans this is the situation, how do you want to deal with it.". This doesnt sound to me like a man who is prepared to exercise his veto to prevent leaving GP without a new home at all costs.
He ends by requesting that the fans trust him to do the best job he can to achieve a new stadium but the burning question is;
DO WE?
However, in my opinion Ron always chooses his words extremely carefully when writing such articles and the undermentioned quote doesnt make me feel at ease at all.
"Obviously the option to go to Woking is a prudent precaution for us to take because even though supporters may be adamant that Griffin Park should not be sold unless the new ground is available, although a commendable position that all of us would like to be in, sometimes it is simply not possible to achieve."
He mentions the Lange veto in a way that implies we should be reassured but refers to Lange's statement in the Chronicle this week as being "absolutely correct". In this statement Lange was quoted as saying "when the crunch comes I might just say to the fans this is the situation, how do you want to deal with it.". This doesnt sound to me like a man who is prepared to exercise his veto to prevent leaving GP without a new home at all costs.
He ends by requesting that the fans trust him to do the best job he can to achieve a new stadium but the burning question is;
DO WE?
D
De-Generation Bee
Guest
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
Havent read it fully yet, put it looks ok from a brief glance.
Russell
Active member
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
What Ron failed to say was anything about covering the club's losses that he and his cohorts have so willingly accumalated. Yes, I'm banging on about it again but let's not allow him to forget it eh?
JimLevack
JimLevack
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
It's quite easy for Ron to have a pop at the Chronicle and to be fair to him he presents a very reasoned article on what is going on.
However, as someone said earlier on this thread there will always be resistance over moving the club into a groundshare situation without having first secured a guarantee on a new home.
There is also the issue of the debt which abee - who is clearly a very astute financier - insists ois nearer the £4 million mark.
I would love to be proved 101 per cent wrong by Ron Noades and for him to turn round and call me what he likes, but the role of a newspaper is to question the actions of people who hold all the cards.
Today's programme comment was the first time he has really spelled out what he is up to, and even then it lacked a bit of flesh on the bones.
Perhaps we have all got him all wrong...let's hope so, but the question still nags - why is a multi millionaire aged 63 still so anxious to give us a new stadium?
Perhaps he is, as Gary Hargraves stressed in his statement this week, a Brentford fan after all.
However, as someone said earlier on this thread there will always be resistance over moving the club into a groundshare situation without having first secured a guarantee on a new home.
There is also the issue of the debt which abee - who is clearly a very astute financier - insists ois nearer the £4 million mark.
I would love to be proved 101 per cent wrong by Ron Noades and for him to turn round and call me what he likes, but the role of a newspaper is to question the actions of people who hold all the cards.
Today's programme comment was the first time he has really spelled out what he is up to, and even then it lacked a bit of flesh on the bones.
Perhaps we have all got him all wrong...let's hope so, but the question still nags - why is a multi millionaire aged 63 still so anxious to give us a new stadium?
Perhaps he is, as Gary Hargraves stressed in his statement this week, a Brentford fan after all.
TOMOGP
Active member
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
I found the article very long on words and very short on real substance apart from 2 points which had been rumoured but not known
first the fact that Hounslow Council will be Selling the land therefore we sell gp and buy feltham where there is nothing except a great big debt to service and repay.
Then Hounslow obviously want a 25k stadium now and ron talks about partners or in reality ground sharing surely if we ground share it dilutes the inco9me from the improved stadium?
The other which is new I think to everyone was about the study already reported, this is interesting because at least Hounslow are putting something positive together.
One last point I hadnt realised until I checked today that Lange is no longer a director of the club, How can he hold any power or veto ?
first the fact that Hounslow Council will be Selling the land therefore we sell gp and buy feltham where there is nothing except a great big debt to service and repay.
Then Hounslow obviously want a 25k stadium now and ron talks about partners or in reality ground sharing surely if we ground share it dilutes the inco9me from the improved stadium?
The other which is new I think to everyone was about the study already reported, this is interesting because at least Hounslow are putting something positive together.
One last point I hadnt realised until I checked today that Lange is no longer a director of the club, How can he hold any power or veto ?
BoroBee
That's Mr.Puss to you pal
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
I thought the article was quite reasonable. The only problem was that he claimed that he was right again and everyone else was wrong!
The problem, as I see it, has often been not what Noades does, but rather the fact that he doesn't tell people - especially the supporters - what he is doing. The result is the spate of rumours and conspiracy theories that appear everytime there is am announcement from the club.
If he got his PR sorted out, he wouldn't have half the trouble he has had recently.
The problem, as I see it, has often been not what Noades does, but rather the fact that he doesn't tell people - especially the supporters - what he is doing. The result is the spate of rumours and conspiracy theories that appear everytime there is am announcement from the club.
If he got his PR sorted out, he wouldn't have half the trouble he has had recently.
Roy_loak
Active member
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2001
- Messages
- 1,305
- Reaction score
- 0
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
the statement contained a few platitudes clearly intended to stifle criticism and reassure the doubters.anything in it could be rescinded at a later date as and when convenient.what it does not say is how such a lamentable financial situation exists after we have been told repeatedly that he was funding the club for 2 years and the profit on herman's sale funded a 3rd year.some people say it's because playing 'fantasy football' with real money has been a gamble which hasn't succeeded.i wouldnt know but i would very much like to. the statement didn't explain how the finances have become so bad we lose the ancestral home and become lodgers at a distant non league dump.that's the explanation a lot of people wanted but it wasn't there.
the good news? that he felt obliged to break the deafening silence and that the king has acknowledged the pawns. for that i thank the 'chronicle' and everybody who has expressed their concern and disquiet at the very worrying plight we find our club to be in.
the fact that this statement was made at all is proof of the importance of the supporters as an integral and vital component of the football club. it's been said elsewhere on this board that if you did not buy the club when it was up for sale then you have no right to complain. this statement PROVES the relevance and importance of protesting against, and the questioning of, every action and decision that concerns us.i don't mean abuse or ignorant threats, i mean letting people know that the magnifying glass is ready to examine their conduct and decision making.keep it up jim levack and john lyons at the chronicle, keep it up abee, keep it up everyone who is concerned about what is, or what might be, happening to our beloved brentford fc. if you write to bfc telling them what you do NOT want to happen to our club, that is not a personal criticism of anyone- it is simply constructive and positive customer feedback.to those whose strategy is to wait and see, i'm not saying you're wrong, write to the club and tell them that you are waiting and watching.
the good news? that he felt obliged to break the deafening silence and that the king has acknowledged the pawns. for that i thank the 'chronicle' and everybody who has expressed their concern and disquiet at the very worrying plight we find our club to be in.
the fact that this statement was made at all is proof of the importance of the supporters as an integral and vital component of the football club. it's been said elsewhere on this board that if you did not buy the club when it was up for sale then you have no right to complain. this statement PROVES the relevance and importance of protesting against, and the questioning of, every action and decision that concerns us.i don't mean abuse or ignorant threats, i mean letting people know that the magnifying glass is ready to examine their conduct and decision making.keep it up jim levack and john lyons at the chronicle, keep it up abee, keep it up everyone who is concerned about what is, or what might be, happening to our beloved brentford fc. if you write to bfc telling them what you do NOT want to happen to our club, that is not a personal criticism of anyone- it is simply constructive and positive customer feedback.to those whose strategy is to wait and see, i'm not saying you're wrong, write to the club and tell them that you are waiting and watching.
South Acton Bee
Ashford Middlesex Bee now
feltham
Member
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
I am not aware that Hounslow Council have ever said they are going to sell the Feltham Arenas site and if they did how much is it would be worth. The site is massive and in a prime spot next to the Feltham railway station it could be worth 10 times what GP is worth.
The other thing that is odd is tha Brentford FC have done nothing localy in Feltham to promote this move.(unlike Bias have started to do) How does RN think this idea will be recived? Also there could be other alternatives to Brentford FC going on the site that might be financialy or politicly more exceptable to the locals.
If Brentford FC are so keen to move here why have we heard nothing locally from the football Club except in the press and from Bias ?
Baz Bee
INVALID EMAIL
- Joined
- 9 May 2000
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 1
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
I read the article at half time yesterday and want to carefully read it again prior to making any detailed comment.
However, first impression is that it does not really have much real substance to it and some of the comments are rather shallow and expose RN's complete lack of knowledge of development and the processes associated with it. Has he actually ever been involved in any large scale development(s)I wonder?
Importantly though, he singularly fails to mention how the overdraft is secured with the bank. He says the ground will be avialable to use to finance the future but makes no mention of whether Barclays PLC will take the first £4m, at suggested current figure, of whatever may be raised through the sale. Have you something to hide Ron?
However, first impression is that it does not really have much real substance to it and some of the comments are rather shallow and expose RN's complete lack of knowledge of development and the processes associated with it. Has he actually ever been involved in any large scale development(s)I wonder?
Importantly though, he singularly fails to mention how the overdraft is secured with the bank. He says the ground will be avialable to use to finance the future but makes no mention of whether Barclays PLC will take the first £4m, at suggested current figure, of whatever may be raised through the sale. Have you something to hide Ron?
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
Did the article reassure me? a little perhaps in that he is actually talking to fans.
Do I trust him? I'd like to but I don't. The article did not say the sale of GP would not be used to pay off any debt which is the real crux of the debate.
We are now in a rather "stand off" position with our Chairman while we wait to see if actions speak louder than words. Until then we are right to remain wary and question every move.
Do I trust him? I'd like to but I don't. The article did not say the sale of GP would not be used to pay off any debt which is the real crux of the debate.
We are now in a rather "stand off" position with our Chairman while we wait to see if actions speak louder than words. Until then we are right to remain wary and question every move.
Chalfont Bees
Member
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
Should i be feeling more optimistic about the future of Brentford F.C. after what Ron said in the prgramme or not?? (I haven't read it?)
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
The article seems mainly centred on answering recent criticisms but in truth does little to reassure peeps.
The fundamental question regards how will Feltham be financed. The club seem to harp on about "outside investors".
The article mentions the probability of Feltham being a 50/50 project (reading between the lines). If this is the case, my favoured `partner` would be London Irish RUFC - they (i believe) have money and the location is surely more suitable to them than playing 30 miles down the M4.
Obviously any partnership with a rugby club raises problems re the pitch but i`d have thought in this day and age these issues could be overcome. L.Irish to me are logical partners and certainly preferential to sharing with another football club. I`m only guessing though.
RN`s comments in truth do little to raise any optimism in view of the club`s precarious (RN-inflicted) position. He says it`s "normal " for clubs to `live off` an overdraft facility such as BFC`s. Hmmmm, i dont quite think so.
You dont have to be a mathematical genius to work out that BFC doesnt really have a pot to piss in.
So who`s gonna pay for the new ground?????
In my eyes (and i`ve raed the piece 3/4 times) RN does nothing to reassure me. All he is doing is stressing that he`s not out to stitch BFC up.
There is no mention of the overdraft he and his boardroom cronies have allowed to run up to such absurd levels and, though he shows perhaps a hint of humility (ie the article was less aggressive than we have come to expect when he`s on the back foot), he doesnt expand on the club`s financial crisis (and that IS what it is IMHO).
There are no answers to the vital points, ie funding of Feltham, etc... so really we`re not much the wiser. The point re wasting £100k on a `transport study` is valid though.
It does, however, beg the question as to how BFC should be sensible in this regard yet so unbelievably irresponsible/negligent in other aspects of the board`s totally incompetent and downright reckless control of BFC`s finances.
GP`s worth @£6m. The club`s overdraft is allegedly getting on for £4m. So who`s gonna pay for Feltham??
Hmmmmmmm
The fundamental question regards how will Feltham be financed. The club seem to harp on about "outside investors".
The article mentions the probability of Feltham being a 50/50 project (reading between the lines). If this is the case, my favoured `partner` would be London Irish RUFC - they (i believe) have money and the location is surely more suitable to them than playing 30 miles down the M4.
Obviously any partnership with a rugby club raises problems re the pitch but i`d have thought in this day and age these issues could be overcome. L.Irish to me are logical partners and certainly preferential to sharing with another football club. I`m only guessing though.
RN`s comments in truth do little to raise any optimism in view of the club`s precarious (RN-inflicted) position. He says it`s "normal " for clubs to `live off` an overdraft facility such as BFC`s. Hmmmm, i dont quite think so.
You dont have to be a mathematical genius to work out that BFC doesnt really have a pot to piss in.
So who`s gonna pay for the new ground?????
In my eyes (and i`ve raed the piece 3/4 times) RN does nothing to reassure me. All he is doing is stressing that he`s not out to stitch BFC up.
There is no mention of the overdraft he and his boardroom cronies have allowed to run up to such absurd levels and, though he shows perhaps a hint of humility (ie the article was less aggressive than we have come to expect when he`s on the back foot), he doesnt expand on the club`s financial crisis (and that IS what it is IMHO).
There are no answers to the vital points, ie funding of Feltham, etc... so really we`re not much the wiser. The point re wasting £100k on a `transport study` is valid though.
It does, however, beg the question as to how BFC should be sensible in this regard yet so unbelievably irresponsible/negligent in other aspects of the board`s totally incompetent and downright reckless control of BFC`s finances.
GP`s worth @£6m. The club`s overdraft is allegedly getting on for £4m. So who`s gonna pay for Feltham??
Hmmmmmmm
roddy
INVALID EMAIL
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
I would really like to see what he said (thought it might be on the club site.)
However my immediate reaction is not to trust someone who gets the club into monumental debt whilst supposedly funding the club. I dont understand why those that want to give him a chance consistently fail to take this on board.
However my immediate reaction is not to trust someone who gets the club into monumental debt whilst supposedly funding the club. I dont understand why those that want to give him a chance consistently fail to take this on board.
Mr Tree
bigger than massive
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
not answering the debt point at all
when RN was in charge of Palace, he did develop their ground substantially, albeit it not from scratch....
Heston Bee
Leptokurtic Distribution
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
They are going to sell it. They're booting Feltham FC of it at the end of this season. Who it gets sold to depends on BFCs interest.
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
If according to RN it is "normal for a club to live off an overdraft facility" would the bank only agree to provide the present facility against the security of the ground?
If the answer to that very simple question is yes what then exactly is going to happen in the future when we do not own our own ground. If the answer is no actually the bank did not ask for the stadium but it was offered to them "pari-passu" Altonwoods guarantee then that raises a further highly significant question.
The situation is unchanged; the ground will be sold to repay the bank leaving BFC with a derisory sum for any equity.
I did not see the article but I have not yet seen an answer to a question that I have been asking for several months. According to the recent "Ron opens up" BIAS newsletter the BFC board were expecting to move into a new ground for the start of next season.
This of course would have been within say four/five months from now if their plans had worked out.
On that basis there must have detailed financial projections presented to the board so what was the budgeted cost for the new stadium and what was the equity/loan split.Simple eh!!!
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
If the answer to that very simple question is yes what then exactly is going to happen in the future when we do not own our own ground. If the answer is no actually the bank did not ask for the stadium but it was offered to them "pari-passu" Altonwoods guarantee then that raises a further highly significant question.
The situation is unchanged; the ground will be sold to repay the bank leaving BFC with a derisory sum for any equity.
I did not see the article but I have not yet seen an answer to a question that I have been asking for several months. According to the recent "Ron opens up" BIAS newsletter the BFC board were expecting to move into a new ground for the start of next season.
This of course would have been within say four/five months from now if their plans had worked out.
On that basis there must have detailed financial projections presented to the board so what was the budgeted cost for the new stadium and what was the equity/loan split.Simple eh!!!
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
Baz Bee
INVALID EMAIL
- Joined
- 9 May 2000
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 1
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dan the Bee:
not answering the debt point at allbut....
when RN was in charge of Palace, he did develop their ground substantially, albeit it not from scratch....</font>
Unfortunately it is not quite the same thing as taking a development forward from scratch.
On the transport study, I would consider that £100k is rather on the high side.
The main question though is how is the suggested overdraft secured and who has first call on any monies raised through any sale, forced or voluntary, of GP? That's the $64,000 question that RN has failed to address. It is also the question that the majority appear to want an answer to as it is the key to everything.
Ace Face
Well-known member
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
Having read the article in full, I am still very concerned about the future of our BFC.
But to keep my comments brief:
1. Can he provide the real owners of BFC with a Business Case for the options of staying at GP while the new ground is built & moving to Timbucktwo
(don’t laugh at the spelling) while the new ground is being built.
2. If we do have to move to a groundshare ( quick survey in the Brickies on Sat found 2 people out 30 who would go to Woking ) it should be guaranteed that it will be for a maximum of 1 season.
3. Why have we not seen any plans for what the new ground will look like – forget W.I.Market Stadium design. He must have some idea.
4. Why can our potential partners not groundshare at GP while the new Stadium is built, removing the need to move to Woking.
Conclusion:
RN statement was very sparse on any real concrete assurances to us fans.
BOYCOTT WOKING.!!
But to keep my comments brief:
1. Can he provide the real owners of BFC with a Business Case for the options of staying at GP while the new ground is built & moving to Timbucktwo
(don’t laugh at the spelling) while the new ground is being built.
2. If we do have to move to a groundshare ( quick survey in the Brickies on Sat found 2 people out 30 who would go to Woking ) it should be guaranteed that it will be for a maximum of 1 season.
3. Why have we not seen any plans for what the new ground will look like – forget W.I.Market Stadium design. He must have some idea.
4. Why can our potential partners not groundshare at GP while the new Stadium is built, removing the need to move to Woking.
Conclusion:
RN statement was very sparse on any real concrete assurances to us fans.
BOYCOTT WOKING.!!
C
Chrisbee
Guest
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
I'll bet Messrs.Seuke et al are delighted at that statement Heston Bee!!!!
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
I have now read Noades statement and have the following comments :
I have been adamant that the "debt" is around the £4million mark which Noades says is wide of the mark. Let me state here and now that as at May 31 2000 the amounts owing and specifically secured by Griffin Park was £4,060,576. This is from the audited accounts for BFC and GPS. I have of course made due allowances for the payables and receivables and my best guesstimate of what has happened from June 1 2000. This includes the purchase of players at their generally accepted transfer fees plus an allowance for the signing on fees for the free transfers Gibbo and Oli.(If they did not get a signing on fee then they might consider appointing me as their agent).I allowed for the unbudgeted income from the two Tottenham matches plus the additional Hreidarsson income following his transfer to Ipswich. I had however personally calculated losses at £23,000 per week but I adjusted my numbers following statements that the Club was losing £30,000 p.w.I don't remember where that figure came from but if anyone has a better and more up to date weekly loss number then I will tell you within + or - 5% what the debt is within two hours.There is room for error in such cases as McCammon where I have taken his transfer fee as £300,000 but it is probable that perhaps £200,000 of that is deferred. It is still however a liability to be recorded however remote the chances of paying i.e. skippers England to victory in the World Cup etc. Noades also refers to the Club debt.What does he mean by Club??? Is he excluding GPS which had a debt of £500,000 secured by GP.He also relates "investing more in the Club" to increasing the overdraft which is of course absolute rubbish.
He further states that the overdraft has always been secured by the ground.
Absolutely untrue. I refer him to the 1999 audited accounts for Brentford Football Club signed by himself.
At 31 May 1999 the BFC overdraft was £2,151,321 and I quote :
"The bank overdraft is secured by a fixed and floating charge over all of the assets of the company and guarantees provided by the ultimate holding company". The assets are of course those of BFC and the ultimate holding company is Altonwood.
As at 31 May 2000 the overdraft had increased to £3,560,576 and from these accounts I quote :
" The bank overdraft is secured by a fixed and floating charge over all the assets of the company and guarantees provided by Altonwood Ltd and Griffin Park Stadium Ltd, the latter also supporting its guarantee with a charge over the freehold stadium"
Spot the difference.Either the 1999 audited accounts for BFC were materially incorrect or the stadium was given as security and put between the overdraft and Altonwoods guarantee sometime between June 1 1999 and May 31 2000.
The details of planning applications etc are way outside my area of competence so I do not comment other than to wonder again how on earth in view of his new comments that the directors were expecting to be playing at Feltham from next season.
You can twist words around to mean anything and I believe that his statement was carefully written so that it held no hostages to future fortune. A perfect example is referring to the "Club" debt and presumably conveniently ignoring the GPS debt.The current "debt" that I have previously posted being in excess of £4million was carefully arrived at and I accept that there is room for error with regard to the weekly loss and the booking of certain liabilities i.e. how much will McCamman finally cost and did we really pay £150,000 for Javary.
As far as the financial aspects of his statement are concerned I have marked it :
3/10. See me after school to go through material errors.
However remember that Griffin Park secured debts of over £4million only nine months ago and the situation regarding weekly losses has deteriorated since then. He is clearly getting his ducks in place regarding the valuation of the players for the year ending 31 May 2001 and now they are considered to be collectively worth more than the book valuations. Strange, I thought that the transfer market was dead a couple of months ago.
I don't see that the total GPS/BFC liabilities should be such a mystery; after all we shall know the truth of it when the 31 May 2001 accounts come out and you can all judge who was giving you the straight goods and who was being "economical with the verite". Just remember please what he told you about the debt in March 2001.
I have been adamant that the "debt" is around the £4million mark which Noades says is wide of the mark. Let me state here and now that as at May 31 2000 the amounts owing and specifically secured by Griffin Park was £4,060,576. This is from the audited accounts for BFC and GPS. I have of course made due allowances for the payables and receivables and my best guesstimate of what has happened from June 1 2000. This includes the purchase of players at their generally accepted transfer fees plus an allowance for the signing on fees for the free transfers Gibbo and Oli.(If they did not get a signing on fee then they might consider appointing me as their agent).I allowed for the unbudgeted income from the two Tottenham matches plus the additional Hreidarsson income following his transfer to Ipswich. I had however personally calculated losses at £23,000 per week but I adjusted my numbers following statements that the Club was losing £30,000 p.w.I don't remember where that figure came from but if anyone has a better and more up to date weekly loss number then I will tell you within + or - 5% what the debt is within two hours.There is room for error in such cases as McCammon where I have taken his transfer fee as £300,000 but it is probable that perhaps £200,000 of that is deferred. It is still however a liability to be recorded however remote the chances of paying i.e. skippers England to victory in the World Cup etc. Noades also refers to the Club debt.What does he mean by Club??? Is he excluding GPS which had a debt of £500,000 secured by GP.He also relates "investing more in the Club" to increasing the overdraft which is of course absolute rubbish.
He further states that the overdraft has always been secured by the ground.
Absolutely untrue. I refer him to the 1999 audited accounts for Brentford Football Club signed by himself.
At 31 May 1999 the BFC overdraft was £2,151,321 and I quote :
"The bank overdraft is secured by a fixed and floating charge over all of the assets of the company and guarantees provided by the ultimate holding company". The assets are of course those of BFC and the ultimate holding company is Altonwood.
As at 31 May 2000 the overdraft had increased to £3,560,576 and from these accounts I quote :
" The bank overdraft is secured by a fixed and floating charge over all the assets of the company and guarantees provided by Altonwood Ltd and Griffin Park Stadium Ltd, the latter also supporting its guarantee with a charge over the freehold stadium"
Spot the difference.Either the 1999 audited accounts for BFC were materially incorrect or the stadium was given as security and put between the overdraft and Altonwoods guarantee sometime between June 1 1999 and May 31 2000.
The details of planning applications etc are way outside my area of competence so I do not comment other than to wonder again how on earth in view of his new comments that the directors were expecting to be playing at Feltham from next season.
You can twist words around to mean anything and I believe that his statement was carefully written so that it held no hostages to future fortune. A perfect example is referring to the "Club" debt and presumably conveniently ignoring the GPS debt.The current "debt" that I have previously posted being in excess of £4million was carefully arrived at and I accept that there is room for error with regard to the weekly loss and the booking of certain liabilities i.e. how much will McCamman finally cost and did we really pay £150,000 for Javary.
As far as the financial aspects of his statement are concerned I have marked it :
3/10. See me after school to go through material errors.
However remember that Griffin Park secured debts of over £4million only nine months ago and the situation regarding weekly losses has deteriorated since then. He is clearly getting his ducks in place regarding the valuation of the players for the year ending 31 May 2001 and now they are considered to be collectively worth more than the book valuations. Strange, I thought that the transfer market was dead a couple of months ago.
I don't see that the total GPS/BFC liabilities should be such a mystery; after all we shall know the truth of it when the 31 May 2001 accounts come out and you can all judge who was giving you the straight goods and who was being "economical with the verite". Just remember please what he told you about the debt in March 2001.
Mr Tree
bigger than massive
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
surely...
someone must be able to arrange a meeting with Noades?
someone must be able to make him answer the points raised by abee et al?
Jim Levack? Edmundo?
someone must be able to arrange a meeting with Noades?
someone must be able to make him answer the points raised by abee et al?
Jim Levack? Edmundo?
California Bee
Well-known member
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
It is quite normal for a privately held enterprise to be secretive about it's finances. Without endorsing anything that Ron Noades has stated, it does not necessarily follow that he is executing a sinister plan to pillage the club and sell it down the river which is the innuendo being expressed in some quarters. It may be part of his negotiations with LBH or it may be a tax strategy or they may be several other scenarios. If the monies from Griffin Park are required to bankroll a new ground development maybe groundsharing is a necessary evil for a year or so. I'm not in a position to know that.
I just don't feel that hostility being directed towards Ron Noades is very conducive to a good outcome. Like all of us he is stuck with his own personality. So slagging him off is not likely to produce a spirit of cooperation from him. He has made an effort in the Stoke programme to communicate with the Brentford fans. Let's accept that and try to keep it going so that we will have an opportunity to put forward our concerns and he will have an opportunity to explain his goals and actions as appropriate. It's called a "win win" negotiation.
Setting ourselves up as a kind of board to whom he must render account is not reasonable or productive and it isn't realistic either. Threats of boycott are not likely to get the right result.
I want Brentford to survise and prosper. IF the energy and emotion shown on this board were put into lobbying the Hounslow politicians and Brentford's local businesses, it could be a more productive course of action in the long run.
I'm beginning to bore myself now so I'll shut up.
I just don't feel that hostility being directed towards Ron Noades is very conducive to a good outcome. Like all of us he is stuck with his own personality. So slagging him off is not likely to produce a spirit of cooperation from him. He has made an effort in the Stoke programme to communicate with the Brentford fans. Let's accept that and try to keep it going so that we will have an opportunity to put forward our concerns and he will have an opportunity to explain his goals and actions as appropriate. It's called a "win win" negotiation.
Setting ourselves up as a kind of board to whom he must render account is not reasonable or productive and it isn't realistic either. Threats of boycott are not likely to get the right result.
I want Brentford to survise and prosper. IF the energy and emotion shown on this board were put into lobbying the Hounslow politicians and Brentford's local businesses, it could be a more productive course of action in the long run.
I'm beginning to bore myself now so I'll shut up.
feltham
Member
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
Yes we want to move to Feltham Arena's so 'up yours', is not very polite!
From what I read in the local press Feltham Fc and the other users have been given assurances by Cllr Lamey of LBH over the Club being looked after if a deveopment happens on the Arenas site.
It dosent hurt to be nice to people, if you want to move into there back yard!
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
For California Bee.
Noades was only flushed out by people like Jim Levack and John Lyons at the Chronicle and at least we have got a statement out of him.If anyone wants to hose him down with treacle then that is their right but I remember just about every statement that Noades has made in the past and as long as he provides disinformation then he knows that he can expect to be shot down. For all I know Noades may see old ladies across the road and help bugs out of his swimming pool but I don't care.I seriously dislike the way this man does business and I shall continue to treat him with the same contempt with which he has treated the fans in the past. Now we have the caring communicative Ron (sob sob)who only wants to see Brentford in a new stadium so that he can retire in peace.This was the guy who refused to commit to Brentford and only got emotional when he thought his beloved Crystal Palace were going down the tubes.He has brought everything on himself but at least he is starting to play the "collective responsibility" card and wrap the board around him.
Forget the board being Brentford fans and all of that crap. Read the paperwork. Altonwood "invested" in Brentford because the club had no debt and it met their criteria. This is what they said in the take-over document. Not " we are all Brentford fans, love this club and want to put some dosh into it". If the Chronicle and the GPG had not ferreted out and challenged every statement then you would never have seen the Stoke programme article.
Anyone who wants to cuddle up to him is most welcome; me I would sooner stroke a Rotweiller
Noades was only flushed out by people like Jim Levack and John Lyons at the Chronicle and at least we have got a statement out of him.If anyone wants to hose him down with treacle then that is their right but I remember just about every statement that Noades has made in the past and as long as he provides disinformation then he knows that he can expect to be shot down. For all I know Noades may see old ladies across the road and help bugs out of his swimming pool but I don't care.I seriously dislike the way this man does business and I shall continue to treat him with the same contempt with which he has treated the fans in the past. Now we have the caring communicative Ron (sob sob)who only wants to see Brentford in a new stadium so that he can retire in peace.This was the guy who refused to commit to Brentford and only got emotional when he thought his beloved Crystal Palace were going down the tubes.He has brought everything on himself but at least he is starting to play the "collective responsibility" card and wrap the board around him.
Forget the board being Brentford fans and all of that crap. Read the paperwork. Altonwood "invested" in Brentford because the club had no debt and it met their criteria. This is what they said in the take-over document. Not " we are all Brentford fans, love this club and want to put some dosh into it". If the Chronicle and the GPG had not ferreted out and challenged every statement then you would never have seen the Stoke programme article.
Anyone who wants to cuddle up to him is most welcome; me I would sooner stroke a Rotweiller
Roy_loak
Active member
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2001
- Messages
- 1,305
- Reaction score
- 0
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
with the southend game a matter of hours away, this could be a good time to remember that one of the first things rn said when he acquired bfc was "the fans were wrong about webb- i only bought the club as it was debt free".
now he instructs us to trust him.
wrong about webb were we?
now he instructs us to trust him.
wrong about webb were we?
Heston Bee
Leptokurtic Distribution
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Chrisbee:
I'll bet Messrs.Seuke et al are delighted at that statement Heston Bee!!!!
</font>
Eh?
Alex
VAR review advisor
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
Here are my thoughts on this.
I cannot understand why the club is so hugely in debt when Ron has said he will fund the club for 2 years, now 3 following the sale of Herman and the extra revenue from his onward sale. This is what I don't understand. If Ron were to have funded the club there would be no overdraft. Is this right or wrong? My understanding is that if I were to fund something then I would pay for everything to keep it running for the said amount of time, and not borrow money against what the assets it owned so it didn't pay exhorbotant amounts of interest.
If Ron wants us in a new ground then he must want to pay for it as the money has to come from somewhere. Where else will it come from?
I cannot understand why the club is so hugely in debt when Ron has said he will fund the club for 2 years, now 3 following the sale of Herman and the extra revenue from his onward sale. This is what I don't understand. If Ron were to have funded the club there would be no overdraft. Is this right or wrong? My understanding is that if I were to fund something then I would pay for everything to keep it running for the said amount of time, and not borrow money against what the assets it owned so it didn't pay exhorbotant amounts of interest.
If Ron wants us in a new ground then he must want to pay for it as the money has to come from somewhere. Where else will it come from?
California Bee
Well-known member
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
me I would sooner stroke a Rotweiller[/B][/QUOTE]
Here's the link ...
http://www.brentfordfc.co.uk/news/item.asp?id=665&next=25
Please don't cut and paste stuff from the official site. Give the club a link and they benefit from the hits. Copy the stuff wholesale and we are in breach of their copyright.
[This message has been edited by Edmundo (edited 21 March 2001).]
Here's the link ...
http://www.brentfordfc.co.uk/news/item.asp?id=665&next=25
Please don't cut and paste stuff from the official site. Give the club a link and they benefit from the hits. Copy the stuff wholesale and we are in breach of their copyright.
[This message has been edited by Edmundo (edited 21 March 2001).]
C
Chrisbee
Guest
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
They are the main officials at FFC Heston.I met them a couple of years back when there were talks on a merger between Feltham FC and Osterley FC!!
Bigbee
Well-known member
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
Hull City saved from the brink of extinction by a Leeds Utd board member.Debts of £1.5 million with a huge potential catchment area.What is our debt agian ;???
Heston Bee
Leptokurtic Distribution
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
I know that..I just wasn't quite sure what you meant!
There's also a different chairman now, Mr Seuke is still around, shouting unintelligible abuse at the boys though!
[This message has been edited by Heston Bee (edited 13 March 2001).]
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
With regard to Abee`s overdraft figure, it has to be said that it is way off the mark. The Club received in excess of £2million in respect of the Hermann Hreidarsson transfer last August, with further payments due in February and August of this year.
The Local Authority would certainly look after Feltham Football Club and it was their suggestion that the Club look for a partner for the Feltham project and it was also their idea of a 25,000 capacity and therefore they were dealing with the planning on Feltham and also the Transport study. Furthermore any site with a Planning consent for leisure facilities, such as a football stadium, would be worth considerably less than a site being sold for redevelopment for residential use.
With regard to the "idea" that the Club would be playing at Feltham from next season. When RN came in he referred to the fact that he expected a new stadium to be a two year project. Feltham wasn`t even on the agenda at that time as a new stadium, it was the Western International Site.
It appears also that everyone is missing the fact that the alternative is to stay at Griffin Park and the Club just dies. No one seems to look at the alternative option, which is not an option at all.
The Local Authority would certainly look after Feltham Football Club and it was their suggestion that the Club look for a partner for the Feltham project and it was also their idea of a 25,000 capacity and therefore they were dealing with the planning on Feltham and also the Transport study. Furthermore any site with a Planning consent for leisure facilities, such as a football stadium, would be worth considerably less than a site being sold for redevelopment for residential use.
With regard to the "idea" that the Club would be playing at Feltham from next season. When RN came in he referred to the fact that he expected a new stadium to be a two year project. Feltham wasn`t even on the agenda at that time as a new stadium, it was the Western International Site.
It appears also that everyone is missing the fact that the alternative is to stay at Griffin Park and the Club just dies. No one seems to look at the alternative option, which is not an option at all.
Baz Bee
INVALID EMAIL
- Joined
- 9 May 2000
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 1
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
PG. Thanks for the information. I know it is not your job or place but it is exactly these type of facts and dissemination (or rather lack of it) information that has been sadly lacking from the club.
You are correct that there is speculation and conjecture based on half-truths, myths or whatever. But whose fault is that? The supporters have asked for information, facts etc but have been blanked by the club.
I believe you're wrong regarding GP. If you read this board, which we know you do, then the majority of supporters accept that a move away from GP is the future for the club. That is not in dispute. What is of concern is how the move is managed, particularly the how and when coupled with where will the new stadium be located. Also how much of the cash raised by selling GP will be available for this purpose if GP is the security on an ever increasing debt?
Most of us are as passionate about the Bees as you and all we ask is to be treated to a fair and open way with the current secrecy coming to an end.
On the planning issue how were LBH suppose to progress this element to outline stage? Surely you are not suggesting that they were to commission the initial design of a 25k seater stadium?
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
Peter G. I have generally always talked about "debt" rather than overdraft. I am aware of the Herman monies which showed in the receivables figure as £1,220,000 as at 31 May 2000 and I allowed for a further £1million for the current financial year.The overdraft can be anything that the financial manager wants at any time. Take the overdraft as at 31 May 2000 add the payables deduct the receivables and you more or less have the starting debt as at June 1 2000. Do not allow yourself to be used in this way. I am prepared to come to the Club and go through my numbers anytime that you like. As you are now involved do you accept that the specific debt secured by Griffin Park as at 31 May 2000 was £4,060,576. Peter G. I am telling you once again that you cannot talk about "overdraft" and I fully accept that this is probably well below £4million and I am certain that some of the transfer fees will not yet have been paid for in full. I am talking about "debt" that has to be repaid abd that includes the £500,000 on GPS specifically secured by the stadium.
The financial year closes in another couple of months so we shall see who is right.
The financial year closes in another couple of months so we shall see who is right.
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
Peter G. I have just re-read your comment on this thread and regarding Feltham I refer you to the BIAS newsletter February 2001 when RN was quoted as saying that " last year (2000)he was hopeful that the club would be moving for the start of next season".
The inference in the newsletter was that the debt was allowed to run up in the expectation that BFC would be in a new stadium for season 2001/2 with a corresponding increase in ancillary income (i.e corporate entertaining etc).Also that we maybe able to flog a player or two to balance the books. I repeat it is claimed that RN said this at the BIAS/fanzines meeting at his house. If he did not then let him come out and say so and my quarrel is then with BIAS.However sometime during 2000 the penny dropped that we were not going to be moving for next season and that we had a bloody great debt (not overdraft) which is when RN started running around turning the lights out. We can reasonably assume that that this was after the summer signings and the offers put in for Jason Crowe and perhaps Kevin Austin.So we are talking about beginning of November 2000 when there was an attack of financial discipline.I have asked before that if the board was really expecting to move by say June/July 2001 then :
1) where was the business plan and
2) what was the equity/loan financing structure.
Peter,on my related posting above if someone is waving a bank statement in your face saying "Look Peter the overdraft is only £2.4million or whatever so get on the GPG and tell abee that he is totally out to lunch" then please tell them to put their own posting on here and I shall deal with them directly with the greatest of pleasure.
The inference in the newsletter was that the debt was allowed to run up in the expectation that BFC would be in a new stadium for season 2001/2 with a corresponding increase in ancillary income (i.e corporate entertaining etc).Also that we maybe able to flog a player or two to balance the books. I repeat it is claimed that RN said this at the BIAS/fanzines meeting at his house. If he did not then let him come out and say so and my quarrel is then with BIAS.However sometime during 2000 the penny dropped that we were not going to be moving for next season and that we had a bloody great debt (not overdraft) which is when RN started running around turning the lights out. We can reasonably assume that that this was after the summer signings and the offers put in for Jason Crowe and perhaps Kevin Austin.So we are talking about beginning of November 2000 when there was an attack of financial discipline.I have asked before that if the board was really expecting to move by say June/July 2001 then :
1) where was the business plan and
2) what was the equity/loan financing structure.
Peter,on my related posting above if someone is waving a bank statement in your face saying "Look Peter the overdraft is only £2.4million or whatever so get on the GPG and tell abee that he is totally out to lunch" then please tell them to put their own posting on here and I shall deal with them directly with the greatest of pleasure.
Ace Face
Well-known member
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
Peter G - Everybody knows you love Brentford and everybody knows you can`t say what you think of the great white shark. But please wake up and smell the coffee.
Where are the assurrances to the fans. All we ever get is trust me I`m a Businessman. But this is not going to satisfy the real owners of the club and it`s history.I see no reason to move to Woking for more than one year ( whilst new ground is built) - NOT MENTIONED BY RONALD.
Why should we trust him when he comes with a track record of leaving Southall, Wimbledon and C Palace without a ground.
If Uncle Ron really cared about the club and it`s fans he would attend every game and not be a resident of Costa Del Crime.
For all the people who say Ronnie was sensible to just secure the Woking option think again because what this realy means is that however unpallatable we are going to Woking.
All Bees fans start getting angry and don`t wait to mid-season 2001-2002 when it`d too late.
We have to unite and fight off this threat to our club - this invader from Benidorm.
Where are the assurrances to the fans. All we ever get is trust me I`m a Businessman. But this is not going to satisfy the real owners of the club and it`s history.I see no reason to move to Woking for more than one year ( whilst new ground is built) - NOT MENTIONED BY RONALD.
Why should we trust him when he comes with a track record of leaving Southall, Wimbledon and C Palace without a ground.
If Uncle Ron really cared about the club and it`s fans he would attend every game and not be a resident of Costa Del Crime.
For all the people who say Ronnie was sensible to just secure the Woking option think again because what this realy means is that however unpallatable we are going to Woking.
All Bees fans start getting angry and don`t wait to mid-season 2001-2002 when it`d too late.
We have to unite and fight off this threat to our club - this invader from Benidorm.
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
Spot on Bricklayers Bee.
The fact is that the Club makes it up as it goes along and Peter G. is exempted from this comment as he is presumably "just following orders".
According to my little book "The Wit and Wisdom of Uncle Ron" we were being told a while back that Griffin Park "was an option" if average gates got back to 7000. I posted on here many months ago that the Season 2000/1 was being "financed" on an assumption of average gates of 13,900 i.e. more than capacity and that the Club was careering headlong into an abyss.
We are now being told that Griffin Park is not an option. Too bloody right because it has to be sold sooner or later to pay off the "debts" (not overdraft Peter).
Whatever happened to Target 10000? Do I now understand that if we were averaging 10000 in a debt free Griffin Park that the Club would still not be viable???
This is rubbish and whilst I agree with the conclusion in Peter G's posting (GP has to go) I refuse to skirt around the reason that we are in this situation in the first place and that is appalling decisions by the two executive directors (Noades and Hargreaves) and apathy or incomprehension by the non-execs.
I ask again Peter G. ( and I direct it to you as you signed the posting) are we in this situation by mismanagement or design. If it is the first then why should we be asked to suppose that the people who got us into the sh*t are going to get us out.If it is the second then there is absolutely no hope.
The fact is that the Club makes it up as it goes along and Peter G. is exempted from this comment as he is presumably "just following orders".
According to my little book "The Wit and Wisdom of Uncle Ron" we were being told a while back that Griffin Park "was an option" if average gates got back to 7000. I posted on here many months ago that the Season 2000/1 was being "financed" on an assumption of average gates of 13,900 i.e. more than capacity and that the Club was careering headlong into an abyss.
We are now being told that Griffin Park is not an option. Too bloody right because it has to be sold sooner or later to pay off the "debts" (not overdraft Peter).
Whatever happened to Target 10000? Do I now understand that if we were averaging 10000 in a debt free Griffin Park that the Club would still not be viable???
This is rubbish and whilst I agree with the conclusion in Peter G's posting (GP has to go) I refuse to skirt around the reason that we are in this situation in the first place and that is appalling decisions by the two executive directors (Noades and Hargreaves) and apathy or incomprehension by the non-execs.
I ask again Peter G. ( and I direct it to you as you signed the posting) are we in this situation by mismanagement or design. If it is the first then why should we be asked to suppose that the people who got us into the sh*t are going to get us out.If it is the second then there is absolutely no hope.
Mr Tree
bigger than massive
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
one thing that's always bugged me (well two, actually!)...
1.) why doesn't RN sell off Selhurst Park? This would raise substantial funds (alright, not for us, for him, but it would give him more money to be able to fund us with, tho of course i know that's still a big point of debate...)
2.) how come RN is allowed to own Selhurst Park?! surely the fact that he owns Selhurst and owns GP gives him a controlling interest in THREE clubs (incl. Wimbledon)... which contravenes Football League rules!! so how come this situation has arisen
1.) why doesn't RN sell off Selhurst Park? This would raise substantial funds (alright, not for us, for him, but it would give him more money to be able to fund us with, tho of course i know that's still a big point of debate...)
2.) how come RN is allowed to own Selhurst Park?! surely the fact that he owns Selhurst and owns GP gives him a controlling interest in THREE clubs (incl. Wimbledon)... which contravenes Football League rules!! so how come this situation has arisen
BIAS
Member
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
abee, this a direct quote from a letter received by BIAS from Ron regarding the Newsletter's report of the meeting, "....I think it's a fair and frank report of our meeting which is appreciated."
Luton Bee
Gone
- Joined
- 6 Apr 2000
- Messages
- 7,174
- Reaction score
- 20
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
Oddly enough arond the time Ron decided to stop playing at being manager. I remember when Ron first came and installed himself as manager he said something along the lines of I am appointing myself as manager as I am not prepared to let someone else spend my money for me. Sorry Ron, Who's money?
Bee H
Brouilly Guzzler
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
surely if you won £20 million on the Goldberg lottery and you loved football so much "that you bought the company", you'd stash £15 million away for a rainy Day and say "right Brentford Football Club, here's £5 million, let's see what we can do".
Bail the club out yourself Mr Noades, you got us in to this mess. I know Abee (top man) will say the people who got you in to this mess aren't the people to get you out of it, but surely Mr Noades could not have blown the £20 million and he's the only wealthy man around TW8 at the mo
Bail the club out yourself Mr Noades, you got us in to this mess. I know Abee (top man) will say the people who got you in to this mess aren't the people to get you out of it, but surely Mr Noades could not have blown the £20 million and he's the only wealthy man around TW8 at the mo
roddy
INVALID EMAIL
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
So according to RN we have a great chance for the future. Presumably we would have had an even better chance if he had not screwed up in the first place.
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
and slightly less debt/overdraft (same thing) if he hadnt been paying himself £168,000 per annum.
Great value that, Ron - highest paid manager in the bottom 2 divisions, and no experience either. Nice work if you can get it.....what an absolute bargain you`ve proved Ron, compassionate sugardaddy if ever there was one eh?
Please step forward an honourable chap who sees some future in the Bees...
Great value that, Ron - highest paid manager in the bottom 2 divisions, and no experience either. Nice work if you can get it.....what an absolute bargain you`ve proved Ron, compassionate sugardaddy if ever there was one eh?
Please step forward an honourable chap who sees some future in the Bees...
Baz Bee
INVALID EMAIL
- Joined
- 9 May 2000
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 1
Ron 's programme notes (Stoke game)
This has always bugged me as well. Can we assume that if RN keeps to this logic he is happy to pay any incoming player, with no previous league experience, the highest salary in the bottom two flights?
If not, why was it good enough for himself. Arrogance??? Will any shareholders question this philosophy at the next AGM pllease?