SCALLY INTERVIEW

[iblue]

Mini-report on Chairman's BBC Radio Kent interview this morning now on GillsConnect

tinyurl.com/o44wvvc

[technical]

I know he saved the club and has managed to keep it going for a long time so we (probably) have a lot to be grateful for but I still can't find it in me to like the man and this hasn't changed that I'm afraid.

I think it's the way we have to "be" grateful but also the shadiness. The deal with the tf if ownership for the ground has never been adequately explained imo and the thing about his earnings? If, like he says it's easy for anyone to find out why not just say?

[durhamgills]

Aug 19, 2014 12:46:03 GMT 1 technical said:

I know he saved the club and has managed to keep it going for a long time so we (probably) have a lot to be grateful for but I still can't find it in me to like the man and this hasn't changed that I'm afraid.

I think it's the way we have to "be" grateful but also the shadiness. The deal with the tf if ownership for the ground has never been adequately explained imo and the thing about his earnings? If, like he says it's easy for anyone to find out why not just say?

Why does he need to explain the ground ownership deal? He stated he owned the club and ground and we had no debts other than to directors. It maybe that the other parties involved have stated that details of the deal should remain confidential.

His earnings with the club have been discussed and disclosed on many on-line sites - why should he state on the radio his earning, I certainly wouldn't state mine but like PS they can be obtained in the accounts

[johnknee]

Aug 19, 2014 12:46:03 GMT 1 technical said:

I know he saved the club and has managed to keep it going for a long time so we (probably) have a lot to be grateful for but I still can't find it in me to like the man and this hasn't changed that I'm afraid.

I think it's the way we have to "be" grateful but also the shadiness. The deal with the tf if ownership for the ground has never been adequately explained imo and the thing about his earnings? If, like he says it's easy for anyone to find out why not just say?

Scally might suck at PR when it comes to appleasing sections of the fans, but shadiness?? Probably a harsh accusation and one Scally would probably strongly disagree with.If Scally had done anything remotely dodgy or shady then it would have come out by now.

[gillsjan]

Personally I thought the interview was good

[Deleted]

Fair play to him for going on a radio show when he knows he'll get battered.
If we are externally debt free, he's done a great job in 19 years, whether you like him or not

[muppet]

Agree hessisgod, I remember seeing some accounts a number of years ago showing a few million of debt so fair play to him for clearing this, however it was done.

[technical]

Yes I know, I'm sure he couldn't care less if I like him but the club owned that land for 100+ years. It's great that the debt etc was cleared but you can't just make it disappear. I'd like to now how it was done.

[johnknee]

Scally's handling of the finances has generally been good - the only balls'up was with the building of the Medway Stand which was single handedly responsible for the mass debt that followed.

technical
Most likely the bank wrote it off as they were doing with a lot of other debts...

[technical]

They werent wrighting off debts and not touching the property assets the secured them.

When the club had debts it also had a substantial asset. At the time of the deal, probably the land was worth less than the debts but the bank would still gave enforced its mortgage if it was writing off debts.

If Scally got them to do that it was a work of genius which also resulted in him owning the land unencumbered (?). I do know quite a bit about commercial property deals and I can't work this one out. It's the secrecy that bothers me.

[johnknee]

The banks writing it off is the still most likely as evident by your inability to think of any possible alternative scenario.

[technical]

It's not at all likely though. Why would they write off millions and not take possession of the substantial property asset over which they have a first charge? And, in the unlikely event that they did, why would that result in the club's asset being transferred to the director?

[Deleted]

Remember that the bank was Bank Of Scotland. BOS are partially taxpayer owned. The job of the directors of Lloyds, who own BOS, is to return the bank to the private sector. That means they need to lose the "toxic" debt. Gills debt was toxic. The bank lent more than the ground was worth.
Yes the bank had a charge, but a publicly owned bank isn't going to take possession of a community asset, like a football ground, potentially meaning the club go into administration/out of business.
That makes the charge basically worthless.
The bank wanting to get the debt off its books then can either write off the debt or come to an arrangement with the borrower. We don't know if PDPS paid, say, 10p in the pound to write the debt off. Given we have £2mill of director loans and no external debt, could we deduce that the bank accepted £2million to write the debt on the ground off?
I'd suggest that would make sense for all parties

[technical]

Yes, that's a good answer but where did the £2m come from, how was the price agreed and why is there nothing in the accounts explaining it all?

There obviously is a sensible answer - as I said, it's the not knowing and the secrecy that makes it all feel a bit suspect.

And, having seen the way banks' recoveries arms work I not sure I agree that they would have been squeamish about putting gills out of business.

[johnknee]

The £2m came from director's loans - ie, the personal wealth of the directors...