- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 7,925
He is so dense. He couldn't even understand a market stall example where you put £1000 in instead of lending it £1000. It is like trying to explain gravity to an ape.
Some credit to Maurice...
He is so dense. He couldn't even understand a market stall example where you put £1000 in instead of lending it £1000. It is like trying to explain gravity to an ape.
Sometimes it's best to leave it be. Move on being happy that you think/know you're right, but accepting you're not going to change anothers mind.
At the end of the day, do any of us really know how the financing is done?
At the end of the day, do any of us really know how the financing is done?
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 7,925
OK mate. I hear what you are saying. I'm not here to change people's minds. I was asked what the alternative there was and I provided it. I even provided a very simple example of what that meant. Less debt for the club. But there are people who have an agenda which involves putting a blindfold over their eyes.
When you say at the end of the day, do any of us really know how the financing is done, well we have established that Pardy clearly doesn't. He really couldn't even understand that if you put £1,000 into a market stall and you want to put more money into it, you can either lend it another £1,000 or instead put another £1,000 in so that there is no debt. But then not everyone can run a market stall.
Hemmings has loaded the club with debt. To some people, it was wrong that Shaw did that but ok that Hemmings is doing it now.
Perhaps he should just stick with the Sunshine Band.
Yes, Hemmings can gift his money if he chooses to - he doesn't. An ape that can't understand gravity might be able to grasp the concept that only an idiot would inject equity into something he already own 100%.
Example - a company has 100 shares (each representing 100th part ownership of the club) and I own them all. I decide to create extra equity - say 100 more share (each now represents 1/200th of the club). Great if sell the additional shares to new investors to create new income but if I sell to myself I have got precisely nothing for my money. Whilst I think that 8% above LIBOR is close to abusive I can't blame the guy for not chucking his money away.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 13,332
He hasn't taken the interest out. The accounts state that it has been added to the amount of the total outstanding debt. i.e. it is owed to him: he has not taken a penny out.
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 19,087
You've put your case forward well mate. When it comes to Maurice and Trev there are a bizarre gang of defenders who base much of their views on the fact that they are "shrewd business men" and yet things like Maurice telling us bare faced lies (I can prove this) are tolerated or swept under the carpet.
Feel sorry for them and move on is my advice. They won't change their minds.
Is it pleasing to be so intelligent?
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 7,925
Well credit to him. He may sound like a cunt but at least he seems to understand the difference between a gift and a loan and the difference between debt and equity. Which is more than can be said for most of the fookwits who come on here to suck up to Hemmings. He also recognises that Hemmings is looking after his own interests rather than those of the club. Certainly a class above your average sneering ponce.
Right off to Ingol golf course for a couple of rounds.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 13,332
I don't see how you can say that TH isn't acting in the club's interests when he has loaned the club over £20m!
Why would anybody convert their loans to equity in this situation, At least as loans he stands a chance of partial repayment in the unlikely event of a cash inflow (e.g premiership football). As an equity holder you rank last in the event of liquidation. You can receive dividends, again unlikely, and if he does eventually sell the company, then he owns 100% anyway without converting any debt to equity. OK, the club would be worth more if debt was converted to equity but the scenario of somebody buying the club for a significant amount is so far-fetched that it is not worth considering.
What has been overlooked is that TH only owned 28.03% of the shares at 30/06/10 and so he was hardly likely to have his advances of £13,863m at that date treated as anything but loans.
Since the takeover and de-listing we do not yet know whether anything has changed e.g he may not now be charging interest on his loans now that he owns the club outright.
Would it have been in the clubs best interests not to have the debt? Is it arguable that we should never have tried to spend that money on increasing the wage bill and moving away from the successful model of buying and selling?
I think that the club is not an attractive proposition with debt, or with high levels of expenditure. From there, well...
I think that the club is not an attractive proposition with debt, or with high levels of expenditure. From there, well...
dirk pnemouse
The Gentry (RIP)
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 26,968
Spot on , we should have stayed withing our budget and tried to progress slowly just a shame after lonners it took 8 years to bring anyone decent through our youth system .
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 7,925
MOSSYPNE
Advisor to the owner.
I'll be honest I don't understand any of the shit being posted on this thread.
So what I want to know is this, how will TH ever get his 20 million pound back.
So what I want to know is this, how will TH ever get his 20 million pound back.
Well he would never get it with a 'Fuck me my back and me are stressed' with work shy tools like you.
MOSSYPNE
Advisor to the owner.
dirk pnemouse
The Gentry (RIP)
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 26,968
Well this is it really , he is not really going to get it back but by saying he,s asset stripping us or hes bleeding us dry it covers up the tracks of why were in this mess in the first place . If he isnt going to get his money back its a gift in my eyes and as we owe him a fortune and every player weve signed in years came out of his cheque book how the fuck has he become such a hate figure ? .
Because he retained Derek as Chairman, so that got half the fans to hate him. Then he picked Maurice so that has converted the other half seemingly
I'll be surprised if he made his money back. If the finances were put on an even keel, then he could sell the club as a going concern, but what level of potential to make money for a buyer?
If the club were in the Premier League with little or no debt, then they'd be queuing up to buy. None of these two scenarios are going to happen in the short term & Trevor isn't a young fella.
Dirk. How did Trevor become such a hate figure you ask?
I don't know. It really bugs the fucking shit out of me as to why. There have been posters on here, who I have always suspected had an agenda or agendas against Hemmings for some reason. The favourites in the frame are the pro-Shaw brigade, who I believe fed the fans with some enormous bullshit about a conspiracy or two perpetrated by secret agents working for Hemmings in the background or that Mo is some sort of evil entity from hell.
Nobody & I repeat nobody has one shred of evidence to convince me that Hemmings is assett stripping, fleecing the cash from the coffers or any other hanging offence. There are cospiracy theories coming out of peoples arses, but nothing that I believe, other than Trevor is doing what he can to turn the fortunes of this club around.
I hate this debate surrounding Hemmings. To me the 'hate brigade' seem very disloyal to the club, the team, fellow fans. They diss everything about PNE, they cause no end of trouble between fans & relations between us & the club could suffer very badly if they don't give up on this relentless pursuit of TH & Mo. It's not healthy.
Last edited: