Billy happy to stay

[wilts rover]

Interest accrued during the year isn't necessarily paid. I would be very surprised of any directors take money out of the club. The interest just has to be accounted for.

exactly. There is a reason why the directors are having to put money in - because we are running at a loss. So if they take money out - all they do is create a bigger loss for themselves which they have to fund as we have no other source of revenue other than matchday income and there has been plenty of discussion over low crowds already this season - and the consequences!

[benaldo]

Interest accrued during the year isn't necessarily paid. I would be very surprised of any directors take money out of the club. The interest just has to be accounted for.

So why is the money lent at 4% return? If I came into 50 million pounds I'd have no hesistation in \"loaning\" Rovers a million or two at zero % interest. I'm guessing it has to be a loan to get around the \"gifting\" law - as I understand it you can only gift £3,000 a year to a single entity without attracting the governments 50% capital tax...at least I think that's how it works?

Anyway...however you look at it, someone is making money off loaning Rovers money. Not unfair at all, but a shock to the people who thought everything was given without strings.

[silent majority]

And just to add to the idea that this is unheard of and some of our Directors must not be as saintly as portrayed, loans have been converted to share stock before. What's to say they don't intend to do it again therefore essentially 'gifting' the money to the club?

I don't mind anybody having a go at owners of any club, either over debt issues or general governance misappropriations, and people who know me will tell you I'm the first in the queue anyway, but our club is exceptionally well run and it does annoy me that people are constantly trying to find fault. It's certainly no shock value at all.

[benaldo]

Not trying to find fault at all. It's just that we've been repeatedly told people are gifting money, then it becomes apparent that allegedly there is a loan repayment to persons/entities unknown at 4%. I don't think that's unfair, but I do think it flies in the face of the philanthropic stance the rovers pr dept give out.

Personally I think the club is very well run, but don't tell me that it's all done out of the kindness of peoples hearts because the world ain't like that.....as jennys post backs up.

[silent majority]

Benny,

We've already done this, Wilts and Nick have already given you good answers to why those figures are in the accounts, and as they rightly point out they will more than likely not be taking that money, it doesn't make any sense. And as I've already stated this has been done before, and will more than likely be done again.

Which means that the directors are not making anything out of DRFC!! Zilch, zero, squat! Read that again! The directors will not be making any money out of DRFC, not loan repayments, not interest, nothing!

Crikey, how many more times?

If the club loses money because the Directors have lent the club money and are charging interest then who has to make up the shortfall?? That's right the Directors themselves!

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Interest accrued during the year isn't necessarily paid. I would be very surprised of any directors take money out of the club. The interest just has to be accounted for.

So why is the money lent at 4% return? If I came into 50 million pounds I'd have no hesistation in \"loaning\" Rovers a million or two at zero % interest. I'm guessing it has to be a loan to get around the \"gifting\" law - as I understand it you can only gift £3,000 a year to a single entity without attracting the governments 50% capital tax...at least I think that's how it works?

Anyway...however you look at it, someone is making money off loaning Rovers money. Not unfair at all, but a shock to the people who thought everything was given without strings.

Well it keeps it relatively close to inflation so you could say they're keeping their investment at similar to real terms.  Even though it is a cost quite clearly, 4% is far better than the rate we'd get from a bank.

[DRFC-PERKINS]

Back to the original point, theFree Press quotes Dean as saying 'the vultures are circling' for sharp and diouf, several prem clubs after diouf.

Also on a different story on the fp website, it says that Diouf is out until Boxing day.

[benaldo]

WOuldn't it be funny if Diouf never plays for Rovers again and moves after his contract is up?

[RUPRECHT]

Hilarious

WOuldn't it be funny if Diouf never plays for Rovers again and moves after his contract is up?

[graingrover]

Try to get a bank to lend Rovers £3 million of unsecured money at 4% interest ... ! You would need to be much more than a smart  accountant to work out the solution to that sort of funding requiremant. The creditors would have to have a profile which included qualities like ROVERSPHILE and not accountable to others for their high risk investment strategies!

[Viking Don]

WOuldn't it be funny if Diouf never plays for Rovers again and moves after his contract is up?

Tha what lad?