• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
spygirl

Bury-ied

Recommended Posts

I did wonder whether to post i the Gavin Woodhouse thread.

Same sort of fuckwittery by the same sort of fuckwit.

https://www.ft.com/content/5f185398-c9a6-11e9-a1f4-3669401ba76f

Two years after Stewart Day became owner and chairman of Bury FC, the English football club became involved in an unusual financial arrangement with a property company the businessman also ran.

In 2015 Mederco Ltd, of which Mr Day was the sole director, entered into leases on the car park that the Greater Manchester club owned outside its Gigg Lane stadium. The spaces were then subleased to retail investors for £9,995 each, with the company offering the buyers returns of 9 per cent a year for five years.

Property. Buy a room to rent/carpark to rent whatever. Bending sense backwards to avoid security laws.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the article in FTAlphaville -- it is similar but with nuance differences:

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/08/28/1566988112000/The-financialisation-of-Bury-FC-s-car-park/

I quite like:

Quote

As you might have guessed, this didn’t go well for those who bought in. Mederco is now in administration, and people who bought the car park spaces should be getting £232,000 a year, of which £190,000 is in arrears. 

What about the underlying collateral - the spaces themselves? Well, here’s the administrator’s report:

The parking spaces themselves generate no income, and the Company must have therefore utilised other income streams to pay the sub under-lease rents.

So, the spaces have been sold (yes), but they're not actually entitled (in contract) to any actual return.  Sounds mad (and par for the course).  I like the 'must have therefore utilised other income streams' -- ie, it is all made up nonsense.

I have a feeling that many 'invest in a room' schemes are exactly like this -- ie, the asset is sort-of yours, but the income stream isn't necessarily.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dgul said:

I prefer the article in FTAlphaville -- it is similar but with nuance differences:

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/08/28/1566988112000/The-financialisation-of-Bury-FC-s-car-park/

I quite like:

So, the spaces have been sold (yes), but they're not actually entitled (in contract) to any actual return.  Sounds mad (and par for the course).  I like the 'must have therefore utilised other income streams' -- ie, it is all made up nonsense.

I have a feeling that many 'invest in a room' schemes are exactly like this -- ie, the asset is sort-of yours, but the income stream isn't necessarily.

 

The parking spaces themselves generate no income, and the Company must have therefore utilised other income streams to pay the sub under-lease rents.

Cough, Ponzi. Cough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.