TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Nobody was talking about using them to raise finance.

Just pointing out that their existence meant that we weren't trading insolvently as someone claimed.

Interesting that there is a sudden influx of new posters who seem very keen for us to own the ground.

wbw wrote:Neither of which are much use if there is a need to raise finance.

In the present climate, a lending institution is not going to place a great deal of reliance on a stand as security (especially on leased land).

The only way forward is to own the ground.

It might be how accountancy works, but this is real life not an archaic way of recording.

You are missing the point. We are discussing whether the club are trading insolvency. The assets exist, if the club folded they could be sold off to cover liabilities. If our assets don't cover our liabilities we could be judged to be trading insolvently. This is not "archaic recording" but an important piece if business law.

Also interestingly, you are probably incorr3ct about people using our stands as security. I imagine we have an overdraft, and while a major factor for the bank in offering that may be liquidity and cash flow (guaranteed 23 matches a season), I imagine the security of the assets ( buildings, stands and equipment) and the value of these is also of consideration.

What it doesn't do is provide any non-footballing reason for an INVESTOR to take it on, save for the fact the stadium is fit for purpose and no money needs to be spent on it. However I'm not sure if what I want is a queue of people looking to take TUFC off our hands because of things like the ground ownership.

Anyway, half off topic now.

Kit_robin wrote:
You are missing the point. We are discussing whether the club are trading insolvency. The assets exist, if the club folded they could be sold off to cover liabilities. If our assets don't cover our liabilities we could be judged to be trading insolvently. This is not "archaic recording" but an important piece if business law.

Also interestingly, you are probably incorr3ct about people using our stands as security. I imagine we have an overdraft, and while a major factor for the bank in offering that may be liquidity and cash flow (guaranteed 23 matches a season), I imagine the security of the assets ( buildings, stands and equipment) and the value of these is also of consideration.

Anyway, half off topic now.

There are two tests for trading while insolvent - balance sheet which you refer to and cashflow which basically means you can't pay your bills when they become due. Its unlikely we will reach a balance sheet insolvent position but cashflow insolvent position is more than possible if funds really are as tight as are being talked about.

In terms of the value of the stand on the balance sheet - it will be valued as the amount it cost to build minus any depreciation since it was completed. I assume the depreciation will be straight line basis over 20 odd years.

In terms of what it is actually worth as security for a lender, it will be next to nothing. The materials are probably not worth much more than the cost of dismantling it and its not like there will be great demand to buy a stand on a piece of land owned by somebody else. So I'd be surprised if there is anything secured on it.

I see we have a new contributor: wbw. His favourite player is Robin Stubbs. Isn't wbw a firm of (local) solicitors? Mmmm....some clues here.

Ok, without wishing to be pedantic - how much would the stand be sold for in the event of the club folding?

I would suggest probably less than £NIL. The demolition costs would far outweigh any realisable value from second hand bricks, cement etc. The seats may interest another impoverished club, perhaps. The value in the balance sheet is irrelevant.

Security is offered to guarantee the payment of a loan in the event of forclosure. Your house against a mortgage is the obvious one, but the lender has to be confident that an asset is saleable.

Football clubs (and most businesses to be fair) go bust because they cannot meet their debts when they fall due - nothing whatsoever to do with balance sheet assets.

Added in 16 minutes 54 seconds:

wivelgull wrote:I see we have a new contributor: wbw. His favourite player is Robin Stubbs. Isn't wbw a firm of (local) solicitors? Mmmm....some clues here.

Based in Exeter, Newton Abbot, Torquay and Bovey Tracey.

OOOOPs!

wbw wrote:Ok, without wishing to be pedantic - how much would the stand be sold for in the event of the club folding?

I would suggest probably less than £NIL. The demolition costs would far outweigh any realisable value from second hand bricks, cement etc. The seats may interest another impoverished club, perhaps. The value in the balance sheet is irrelevant.

Security is offered to guarantee the payment of a loan in the event of forclosure. Your house against a mortgage is the obvious one, but the lender has to be confident that an asset is saleable.

Football clubs (and most businesses to be fair) go bust because they cannot meet their debts when they fall due - nothing whatsoever to do with balance sheet assets.

It is actually very common for stands to sold to other people. There are a couple of examples in our division alone, one of which was a sale by our near neighbours Exeter Chiefs to Eastleigh! . Of course you then have the historic prescidents - our previous grandstand being from Buckfastleigh racecourse I believe.

I'm not saying we have a queue of people desperate to buy stuff from us, but it's conceivable that the stand a could be sold and therefore is an asset.

And yes, I agree we are most at risk of becoming insolvent because we cannot pay our bills - that's what I've said all along on this matter, I (and jerry) were just pointing out some errors of fact that's all.

Cox has delayed his statement for "24 hours or so". He says he wants to make sure everything is "absolutely right" when he says what he wants to say.
http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/T ... story.html

Interesting that he says "there are a lot of good people at Torquay United"... is he saying that there are also a few 'bad' people?

If so, it would be concordant to his wife's tweets earlier this week, where he apparently told her "they were a bad bunch".

Definitely something went on behind the scenes - will be interesting to see what he says tomorrow.

Perhaps the "bad" people (person) has left?

Orange Gull wrote:Cox has delayed his statement for "24 hours or so". He says he wants to make sure everything is "absolutely right" when he says what he wants to say.
http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/T ... story.html

So basically that means he wants his legal team to make sure everything is okay before he goes public!

BayGull wrote: So basically that means he wants his legal team to make sure everything is okay before he goes public!

More like he has no desire at all to make a statement, never did, and doesn't want to. I had a feeling on Friday we would never hear what Cox thought, good or bad.

Only other option would be if he was waiting to actually sign a contract at another club, and thought it would have been done by now.

Is it conceivable that Cox could return, if the DOF was the issue/ problem?

dunno, but Halifax & Port Vale are both denying that they're hiring him.....

Just read on Port Vales web site Cox was there Saturday a supporters saying they don't want him because they'll get all the Mansfield players and mentioned Exodus.
I expect Steve Breen will offer the job back to him when Cox finds nobody wants him, do we want him back after the confusion he's caused down here.

arcadia wrote:Just read on Port Vales web site Cox was there Saturday a supporters saying they don't want him because they'll get all the Mansfield players and mentioned Exodus.
I expect Steve Breen will offer the job back to him when Cox finds nobody wants him, do we want him back after the confusion he's caused down here.

I thought you were nailed on to get the job until I realised you'd been talking to the wrong person................