Sons' sorrow

[O'Kelly Isley III]

1 hour ago, The Moonster said:

The only thing I wonder is why we need a benefactor to do that at all tbh. Over £200K in funds pumped into the club in the last 9 months and we've not paid any wages for about 6 of those. 

Aren't we going round in circles now ? Wilf has already pointed out the debt the club is currently servicing; the trading position is not clever and I'm not sure it's as simple as the crude arithmetic would suggest. Having said that, I think that any future appeals to the supporters/public for money should involve a frank and open revelation of the prevailing financial situation, especially as AGM's now seem to be a distant memory.

Edited February 8, 2021 by O'Kelly Isley III

[Howlin' Wilf]

The problem that Brabco have is that I would imagine it's quite difficult for them to force us into folding as a club. I'm not sure they have any cards to play that would have a negative impact on our financial state.

Ironically if they had actually invested/loaned us some money like most owners they could probably have called in their loans and made us fold that way.

As the 75% majority shareholders in Dumbarton FC, there is no advantage to Brabco in the club “folding”. If you mean entering administration or a creditor calling a winding up order on them, they immediately lose control. The administrator/liquidator would then seek a buyer for the clubs assets.

[Howlin' Wilf]

There's no money in it.
There is planning permission (or at least there was) for a small development on part of the land. The land makes no money for Brabco if Dumbarton are tenants. There would be a minimal rent value in us hiring the ground. Theres the added complication of the so called golden shares that essentially try to protect the ground for the benefit of the club.
Brabco can sit back and do nothing. It isnt costing them anything. If nobody is willing to match their price then there's no compulsion to sell because they're not putting money into the club. Worst case scenario and the club folds? They go down the route of selling the land that includes the current ground and make whatever they can from it. Theres no urgency for them right now. The only thing that will realistically change that is friction within Brabco itself and a desire by some of the separate investors to cut their losses and realise whatever return they can.

The “so called golden shares” is right. It’s a nickname. Dumbarton FC Ltd. had until 2001, two categories of shares, namely A and B. The “so called golden shares” are 100 special category C shares listed in the Articles of Association of the Company. These C shares are held by a Limited Company by the name of Dumbarton Community Stadium. The wording of the conferred rights of these shares has been debated and discussed. However, the purpose of the special category was clearly to prevent the sale of the club’s heritable property and I believe were the situation ever put to the test that the holders of these shares would have a pivotal role. In the event of administration or liquidation of course control and decision shift to the administrator/ liquidator.

[BallochSonsFan]

58 minutes ago, Howlin' Wilf said:

The “so called golden shares” is right. It’s a nickname. Dumbarton FC Ltd. had until 2001, two categories of shares, namely A and B. The “so called golden shares” are 100 special category C shares listed in the Articles of Association of the Company. These C shares are held by a Limited Company by the name of Dumbarton Community Stadium. The wording of the conferred rights of these shares has been debated and discussed. However, the purpose of the special category was clearly to prevent the sale of the club’s heritable property and I believe were the situation ever put to the test that the holders of these shares would have a pivotal role. In the event of administration or liquidation of course control and decision shift to the administrator/ liquidator.

I only really use the "so called golden share" tag because fans refer to them as golden shares rather than C shares. I know that the intention was to provide a safeguard in respect of the current ground. Hopefully they do exactly that. I'd also hope that their effectiveness is never tested.

[George Parr]

1 hour ago, Howlin' Wilf said:

The “so called golden shares” is right. It’s a nickname. Dumbarton FC Ltd. had until 2001, two categories of shares, namely A and B. The “so called golden shares” are 100 special category C shares listed in the Articles of Association of the Company. These C shares are held by a Limited Company by the name of Dumbarton Community Stadium. The wording of the conferred rights of these shares has been debated and discussed. However, the purpose of the special category was clearly to prevent the sale of the club’s heritable property and I believe were the situation ever put to the test that the holders of these shares would have a pivotal role. In the event of administration or liquidation of course control and decision shift to the administrator/ liquidator.

Did Brabco's plan put forward last year re residential development in sections of the car park trigger a C share concern? A potential change in ownership of some of the heritable property?  

Edited February 8, 2021 by George Parr

[O'Kelly Isley III]

As the 75% majority shareholders in Dumbarton FC, there is no advantage to Brabco in the club “folding”. If you mean entering administration or a creditor calling a winding up order on them, they immediately lose control. The administrator/liquidator would then seek a buyer for the clubs assets.

There is no advantage to Brabco in DFC folding as you say. But there is very little prospect of their original business plan ever coming to fruition, and they now have very little appetite to financially maintain the club that they don't wish to fold. Something is not adding up here, and it would appear that financial support from the public risks prolonging Brabco's unwelcome presence here, or have I got this wrong ?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Pie and Bovril mobile app

[Howlin' Wilf]

Did Brabco's plan put forward last year re residential development in sections of the car park trigger a C share concern? A potential change in ownership of some of the heritable property?  

That planning consent was sought some time ago and it was just that. I don’t think there would be any concern from the holders of the C shares were there to be a sale of undeveloped land at the site. The purpose of the shares is to monitor sale of the land occupied by the stadium without an alternative being in place.

[Howlin' Wilf]

There is no advantage to Brabco in DFC folding as you say. But there is very little prospect of their original business plan ever coming to fruition, and they now have very little appetite to financially maintain the club that they don't wish to fold. Something is not adding up here, and it would appear that financial support from the public risks prolonging Brabco's unwelcome presence here, or have I got this wrong ?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Pie and Bovril mobile app

I think you may have got it wrong. Brabco is for sale. I would think it more likely that they would have a better chance to sell the better the situation of the club.

However, without any viable plan to move location I can’t see anyone being interested in buying Brabco. Neil Rankine had the club for sale in a considerably more favourable financial climate than this for six years (widely advertised in The Times and elsewhere) and had interest only in the land.

We have a reluctant owner but one who can’t really do anything to recoup their investment. A benefactor has stepped in to help. C and G Systems have taken the view that they can invest and try to improve the club, I don’t see any reason for us not to try to help them and the board. Even if Brabco were to continue as is, the Record article by Fraser Clarke I posted suggests that nothing will happen until 2024.

[super-son]

What's all this talk about a benefactor?


Have I missed something?

[Silverton End]

1 hour ago, super-son said:

What's all this talk about a benefactor?


Have I missed something?

C&G Systems.

Sponsor the strips 

Sponsor the Stadium 

Helped with the mural on the home end facade  

Employ some of our players 

Very glad they are involved with DFC tbh. 

[The Moonster]

Haud on, C&G Systems are the benefactor?

[Howlin' Wilf]

Haud on, C&G Systems are the benefactor?

The benefactor isn’t publicly known. He/she is mentioned in the club accounts as having assisted the club financially.

[The Moonster]

Just now, Howlin' Wilf said:

The benefactor isn’t publicly known. He/she is mentioned in the club accounts as having assisted the club financially.

Aye, I didn't think the benefactor had been named.

[Howlin' Wilf]

7 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Aye, I didn't think the benefactor had been named.

Although clearly C and G have been a big benefactor by way of sponsorship and giving employment to players etc. 

[Howlin' Wilf]

For those who missed it last time. This is from the 2019 accounts, the most recent available.

 

 

[Skyline Drifter]

35 minutes ago, Howlin' Wilf said:

For those who missed it last time. This is from the 2019 accounts, the most recent available.

 

 

For what it's worth, the definition of a "related party" is reasonably narrow. That has to be either someone who owns at least 20% of the club, or a current director (or a member of their immediate family) or someone who is deemed by the Directors to be able to exercise control over the company. It's not some random 3rd party.

Realistically then it's a current director surely? From what's been said nobody at Brabco would be providing that guarantee.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Skyline Drifter

[super-son]

C&G Systems.
Sponsor the strips 
Sponsor the Stadium 
Helped with the mural on the home end facade  
Employ some of our players 
Very glad they are involved with DFC tbh. 

I'm aware of all of that and I'm delighted with their involvement and generosity in all of the above.

I wasn't aware they were also underwriting our debt if that is indeed the case.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

In other news, the current sitution will not be reviewed until the 1st of March as the goverment have refused to give the go ahead for the resumption of fixtures. The league and the Scottish Cup must be in serious doubt at this stage.

CANCEL IT ALL!

[Jan Vojáček]

11 minutes ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

In other news, the current sitution will not be reviewed until the 1st of March as the goverment have refused to give the go ahead for the resumption of fixtures. The league and the Scottish Cup must be in serious doubt at this stage.

CANCEL IT ALL!

I've just posted about that on the other thread, but that decision is pathetic (if true).

The season started when the rate per 100k was 153.1. It's currently 118. The "three week suspension" was introduced when it was at 269.1.

Given clubs have offered to test, given the most vulnerable are being vaccinated and given how much the rate has dropped - I cannot understand this decision at all.  Let alone pushing any restart into (given clubs need two weeks to return to training) mid-March from the start of February. How much lower do they want rates to get? We weren't allowed to start the season in August when it was 1.1 per 100k and it's difficult to see the country getting near those levels until about summer 2027 at this rate...

[Boghead ranter]

30 minutes ago, Jan Vojáček said:

The season started when the rate per 100k was 153.1. It's currently 118. The "three week suspension" was introduced when it was at 269.1.

The per 100k rate is irrelevant, below championship football was sacrificed on the altar of SPFL saving face after the Celtic/Dubai debacle.  They were trying to appease the Scottish Government in advance, and being too feart to take Celtic on, they pissed all over lower league football instead.

The per 100k rate was just a smokescreen.