GSE and the Owners; where do you stand?

[davenportram]

On the Jewell didnt want to spend money debate - this interview from Glick in 2008 says as much, well it says hes turned down the chance to spend more than he had

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7528704.stm

[ramblur]

I think £11m sounds about right, but I was led to believe that something like the latter £6m-£7m was spent on a loan which was held off (ie no payments for X amount of time) in a period coinciding with knowing which division we were in. Once promotion was secured, the loan was somehow added to the overall debt, and ended up swallowing, along with the Earnshaw signing, The first parachute payment (The TV money went to the Co-op)

There was only just over £1m net borrowing in the promotion season,so I don't know where you got that from (from memory,about £2.4m came in from player sales,and then you have the cash the LOG put in). There was c£6m owing on transfer fees,but more than half of this could well have been down to Earnshaw,though it's impossible to tell.The actual funding for Earnshaw,Clod,Todd and Feilhaber would have appeared to come from the Five Arrows loan taken out in Aug 07 (and repayable out of first chute payment),Miller I think being funded from the rights issue.

 

When talking of the promotion season,most clubs would pay out promotion bonuses,and we'd be no different.As you can't budget for this possibility (or should I say wouldn't) it's reasonable to expect this additional (welcome) burden to be borne out of promotion cash.

 

Not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that tv money went to the Co-op bank.

[Mostyn6]

Probably. Wish a Rich Arab would come in.

 

 

Not sure you really want that. Haven't Forest got that?

 

Er.... curious about your profile picture? Has his son said anything to you on here?

[NormantonRam]

Not sure you really want that. Haven't Forest got that?

 

Er.... curious about your profile picture? Has his son said anything to you on here?

 

Look at Man City, outspending Man Utd, would love for us to be the top dogs of the East Midlands again.

[ramblur]

On the Jewell didnt want to spend money debate - this interview from Glick in 2008 says as much, well it says hes turned down the chance to spend more than he had

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7528704.stm

Glad you found that-I remember it had me laughing at the time it was first aired in July 08.The subsequently published 07/08 accounts (i.e up to 30 June 08) showed no new cash introduced,to be followed by 08/09 showing new borrowing of £9m+,supported by a charge document lodged at Companies House round about the time (from memory) of the interview.I notice Uncle Tom didn't mention any of this,but was keen to take credit for the Jan 08 business (which he no doubt subsequently regretted).

[davenportram]

there is an interview with gadsby in radio Derby where he is asked about the debt on takeoveer and starts talking about it being set when they passed the club over, because of parachut payments and monies coming in. some could interpret that as being the debt is there and will be repaid by parachute payments but for me its more a case of its manageable because of extra income.

Heres the interview, and Glicks response. I have a different (ish interpretation) of them than at the time but PG seems to be saying - the debt was there and manageable from the income coming in.

Glick seems to be saying yep debt was payable using future inco9me but thats not a sustainable model

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/derby/hi/tv_and_radio/newsid_8563000/8563938.stm

[smiffy]

So how much has passed through the club since they took over, takeover price, parachute payments, league payments, gate receipts and other income ,$200,000,000, more ?

[ramblur]

there is an interview with gadsby in radio Derby where he is asked about the debt on takeoveer and starts talking about it being set when they passed the club over, because of parachut payments and monies coming in. some could interpret that as being the debt is there and will be repaid by parachute payments but for me its more a case of its manageable because of extra income.

Heres the interview, and Glicks response. I have a different (ish interpretation) of them than at the time but PG seems to be saying - the debt was there and manageable from the income coming in.

Glick seems to be saying yep debt was payable using future inco9me but thats not a sustainable model

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/derby/hi/tv_and_radio/newsid_8563000/8563938.stm

Well,you could say it's not sustainable if you've not generated the exceptional income,but the LOG had.As I've said many times before,the LOG only spent what the Prem season itself was to eventually allow (which couldn't necessarily be said about the Jan 08 spree),and on that basis didn't put us in hock in real terms.

[davenportram]

Well,you could say it's not sustainable if you've not generated the exceptional income,but the LOG had.As I've said many times before,the LOG only spent what the Prem season itself was to eventually allow (which couldn't necessarily be said about the Jan 08 spree),and on that basis didn't put us in hock in real terms.

no, i guess it come down to the fact that the 1st parachute payment was spent so not available to help sustain the wage bill from the prem - i know some of that was down to spending in the January - which may have been the reason for the borrowing against the next chute payment which the current board took out.

0

[Guest]

there is an interview with gadsby in radio Derby where he is asked about the debt on takeoveer and starts talking about it being set when they passed the club over, because of parachut payments and monies coming in. some could interpret that as being the debt is there and will be repaid by parachute payments but for me its more a case of its manageable because of extra income.

Heres the interview, and Glicks response. I have a different (ish interpretation) of them than at the time but PG seems to be saying - the debt was there and manageable from the income coming in.

Glick seems to be saying yep debt was payable using future inco9me but thats not a sustainable model

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/derby/hi/tv_and_radio/newsid_8563000/8563938.stm

Gadsby really didn't cover himself in glory on that interview.

I can understand why a lot of fans would not trust him back here.

[ramblur]

Courtesy of a fellow poster who has passed on to me the relevant Companies House document,I can now give the definitive final (prior to takeover) shareholdings of Gellaw 101,the company bought by our present owners:-

 

Adam Pearson 2,000,000 ,John Kirkland  1,750,000  ,Mel Morris  1,500,000  ,Peter Marples 1,000,000  ,Ark Capital Pension Fund (Peter Gadsby) 250,000  ,Don Amott 900,000 +City Trust Limited and Donald Keith Amott 600,000 = 1,500,000 total ,and finally Mike Horton 300,000 +Ewart Chain Ltd 700,000 = 1,000,000 total. 

 

If my maths is correct this adds up to 9,000,000,representing the original 6,000,000 + the 3,000,000 Rights Issue

 

Just under £15m purchased 93% of Gellaw,whilst just over £1m eventually bought out AP's residual holding.

 

Even though the final holdings were unequal,Don Amott's holding still represented 1/6 th ,so he would be right to say he roughly doubled his money.Gadsby ended up with 1/36th,but I've no doubt Plaza development rights (if true) maybe put him back on par with the others.

[ramblur]

no, i guess it come down to the fact that the 1st parachute payment was spent so not available to help sustain the wage bill from the prem - i know some of that was down to spending in the January - which may have been the reason for the borrowing against the next chute payment which the current board took out.

0

If it weren't for the fact that, because a loan was used to buy certain players,a large chunk of Prem cash was unutilised (hence the large increase in cash shown over the year in the cash flow statement).This cash replaces the chunk taken out of the first chute payment,or at least most of it-it would have been all if it hadn't been for the Jan 08 spree (which Glick takes the 'credit' for in the interview you put up)

[davenportram]

Courtesy of a fellow poster who has passed on to me the relevant Companies House document,I can now give the definitive final (prior to takeover) shareholdings of Gellaw 101,the company bought by our present owners:-

Adam Pearson 2,000,000 ,John Kirkland 1,750,000 ,Mel Morris 1,500,000 ,Peter Marples 1,000,000 ,Ark Capital Pension Fund (Peter Gadsby) 250,000 ,Don Amott 900,000 +City Trust Limited and Donald Keith Amott 600,000 = 1,500,000 total ,and finally Mike Horton 300,000 +Ewart Chain Ltd 700,000 = 1,000,000 total.

If my maths is correct this adds up to 9,000,000,representing the original 6,000,000 + the 3,000,000 Rights Issue

Just under £15m purchased 93% of Gellaw,whilst just over £1m eventually bought out AP's residual holding.

Even though the final holdings were unequal,Don Amott's holding still represented 1/6 th ,so he would be right to say he roughly doubled his money.Gadsby ended up with 1/36th,but I've no doubt Plaza development rights (if true) maybe put him back on par with the others.

How much did Gadsby sell his share to Pearson for - I know you said at cost but what's your source for this? Also was on the rights issue was each share valued the same as on the original takeover so would they have the same cost price (if not which cost price was used for the sale to Pearson)

1/36th of £15m =£416,000

[Mostyn6]

How much did Gadsby sell his share to Pearson for - I know you said at cost but what's your source for this? Also was on the rights issue was each share valued the same as on the original takeover so would they have the same cost price (if not which cost price was used for the sale to Pearson)

1/36th of £15m =£416,000

 

 

When I spoke to Pearson, he kind of said (without actually saying it) that Gadsby had a lot more shares than everyone else, maybe he was the only one to put some more money in at some point, and when he sold to Pearson, it made Pearson top dog somehow. He had more shares than anyone else. When the others sold to GSE/Owners, Pearson didn't.

[ramblur]

How much did Gadsby sell his share to Pearson for - I know you said at cost but what's your source for this? Also was on the rights issue was each share valued the same as on the original takeover so would they have the same cost price (if not which cost price was used for the sale to Pearson)

1/36th of £15m =£416,000

Gadsby said on air that the shares were sold at cost (£1 per share,including rights) -AP(or anybody else,to my knowledge) didn't refute the claim.I shouldn't try working out who got what,because the fact that AP held onto c7% of Gellaw makes things tricky.It's not something I'd particularly like to do in public anyway,though everyone has access to the form at CH. My first bit in brackets means everything was at par (£1 per share).  

[ramblur]

When I spoke to Pearson, he kind of said (without actually saying it) that Gadsby had a lot more shares than everyone else, maybe he was the only one to put some more money in at some point, and when he sold to Pearson, it made Pearson top dog somehow. He had more shares than anyone else. When the others sold to GSE/Owners, Pearson didn't.

Without looking at it closer (and frankly I'm starting to tire of it all),it seems to me that PG took up more than his share of the rights (which I made to be 500,000 each) in order for him to be able to sell 2,000,000 to AP and still retain 250,000 himself.As AP's 2.000,000 represented more than the 7% he carried forward,he too must have received something.

 

When you know that (a) PG sold 2,000,000 to AP and (b) the original holdings of the 6 excluding AP were 1,000,000 each,then it's possible to work out who took what of the Rights Issue. 

[Gritstone Ram]

Anyway nice to see you back Ramblur. Hope you recover ok.

[ramblur]

Anyway nice to see you back Ramblur. Hope you recover ok.

Thanks Gritters-hope you've been enjoying your footie of late.Was able to catch the live stream of the Watford game.Banging crutches together makes a fine goal salute (preferably with legs unattached).

[ladyram]

Ramblur, hi! Good to see you back posting and here's wishing you a swift recovery :-).

In one of your posts you mention John Kirkland, just out of interest, is it the same Kirkland who's building the Velodrome and is going to be building the new business park next to Rolls Royce?

Blimey them blokes must be minted, RD says Mr Gadsby is an investor too.

Do you know if/when the plaza will go ahead?

(Sorry guys, just wandering ot for a mo).

[ramblur]

Ramblur, hi! Good to see you back posting and here's wishing you a swift recovery :-).

In one of your posts you mention John Kirkland, just out of interest, is it the same Kirkland who's building the Velodrome and is going to be building the new business park next to Rolls Royce?

Blimey them blokes must be minted, RD says Mr Gadsby is an investor too.

Do you know if/when the plaza will go ahead?

(Sorry guys, just wandering ot for a mo).

Thanks for the kind wishes,ladyram. Unfortunately I don't know a great deal about either Kirkland or Gadsby and have probably far less idea of what's going on around PP than the vast majority of posters. However,I do view things with interest and when I heard SM had been appointed something in my memory bank told me he was mates with PG (can't remember where I heard this,although he would have got to know him quite well before).There's something about the Plaza that doesn't sit right for me at the moment and I'm now beginning to wonder if PG is going to build this in exchange for a stake in the club.Stranger things have actually happened.

 

PS I think (though I don't know) that Kirkland is far wealthier than Gadsby.