New TVR still under wraps!

[anonymous-user]

spagbogdog said:

Amazing how many people cant / can't be bothered to read these days...

I haven't looked at the accounts and don't intend to, but I know a lot can be fudged for the public domain set. However it would be really helpful if you were to explain your learn-ed views on what you have taken the accounts to show?

It would hopefully end all this bickering and prove all is good, as given the flack from the nay sayers it would balance things out and those about to make the call to have a deposit returned can stay away from the phone.

[unrepentant]

Ok, I've taken the bait and looked at the accounts again, actually printed them off this time.

I honestly can't see anything to contradict what I posted before.

The balance sheet of TVR Manufacturing Shows liabilities of 10.7 million, mainly consisting of 7.7 million owed to TVR Automotive and 2.6 million of other creditors (presumably deposit holders cash included, they are not mentioned in the accounts from what I can see). This is offset by assets of 9 million, 8.97 million of which are intangibles. Bottom line is negative 1.1 million. The company is considered a going concern because it has the support of TVR Automotive which has agreed not to seek repayment of the loans.

The balance sheet of TVR Automotive shows assets of 800k, debtors of 7.7 million (owed to it by TVR Manufacturing) and creditors due within one year of 2.2 million. That gives net current assets of 6.3 million, less long term debts of 4.3 million including presumably the Welsh loan and directors loans of 1.3 million. Bottom line are net assets of just under 2 million. The notes to accounts point out that the loan of 2 million plus interest of 470k from the Welsh assembly is dependent on further financing being secured by Oct 1st this year, failing which the loan is in default. The directors are "in negotiation with potential investors".

I look forward to Spagbogdog pointing out the inaccuracies in this publicly available info, all of which is available for free by going to Open Corporates (and elsewhere) and downloading it.

[PuffsBack]

This thread totally ruined my lunchtime as instead of getting some fresh air and away from the screen I am trying to work out if £1.6m increase in intangible assets which equates to the capitialisation of development costs that will start amortisastion once production starts is a good thing or not!

[bullittmcqueen]

PuffsBack said:

This thread totally ruined my lunchtime as instead of getting some fresh air and away from the screen I am trying to work out if £1.6m increase in intangible assets which equates to the capitialisation of development costs that will start amortisastion once production starts is a good thing or not!

[spagbogdog]

U said that the farm was put up at a relatively late stage..which then implies..well I leave those implications for the doom-mongers among us...

I think you will find that this is inaccurate

[unrepentant]

spagbogdog said:

U said that the farm was put up at a relatively late stage..which then implies..well I leave those implications for the doom-mongers among us...

I think you will find that this is inaccurate

The latest charge showing was filed on March 29th 2018.

[spagbogdog]

unrepentant said:

spagbogdog said:

U said that the farm was put up at a relatively late stage..which then implies..well I leave those implications for the doom-mongers among us...

I think you will find that this is inaccurate

The latest charge showing was filed on March 29th 2018.

..and on the prior years books..????

[Hobo]

spagbogdog said:

U said that the farm was put up at a relatively late stage..which then implies..well I leave those implications for the doom-mongers among us...

I think you will find that this is inaccurate

Christ. At least if you've gone away quirky people may have been left wondering.

By giving the response you have, you have yourself evidenced you don't know what your on about.

I do wonder at times how people like yourself get to the position of owning a 90k car, that is of course if you have one on order and is not just a figment of your imagination.

[spagbogdog]

Hobo said:

spagbogdog said:

U said that the farm was put up at a relatively late stage..which then implies..well I leave those implications for the doom-mongers among us...

I think you will find that this is inaccurate

Christ. At least if you've gone away quirky people may have been left wondering.

By giving the response you have, you have yourself evidenced you don't know what your on about.

I do wonder at times how people like yourself get to the position of owning a 90k car, that is of course if you have one on order and is not just a figment of your imagination.

so you've still not had time to do a bit of reading then..???

[Speed 3]

Jees, I thought the debate about the front end had become a hamsterwheel, this is turning just as fast.

[unrepentant]

spagbogdog said:

..and on the prior years books..????

There was also a charge in 2017. So what? If anything it suggests a deteriorating situation....

[anonymous-user]

spagbogdog said:

so you've still not had time to do a bit of reading then..???

Why all the cryptic nonsense spag?

Makes it sound like you’re blagging or work for tvr or something. If you know everything is rosey why not just show posters where they’re wrong and put the rumours to bed.

You’re actually making it look like you think they’re in financial trouble yourself.

I’ve no idea who’s right but if I knew TVR weren’t in financial trouble i’d prove it straight away or at least show where those suggesting TVR might be in financial trouble are wrong.

[spagbogdog]

unrepentant said:

spagbogdog said:

..and on the prior years books..????

There was also a charge in 2017. So what? If anything it suggests a deteriorating situation....

Correct on the first part.
(Perhaps you can teach Hobo how to read now please..)
You prior mentioned and jumped to an incorrect conclusion that the collateral charge was recent..which some people would/could interpret in a very detrimental manner. Especially following after the comments made by AD.
The charge on the Heritage estate was collateral for the Bridging (‘seed’) finance delivered by Fiduciam.
Why on earth does that suggest a ‘deteriorating situation’..?
I don’t know any Co that publishes their Accounts way before the ‘deadline’ that are in a ‘detiorating situation’.

[glow worm]

Well that sounds like compelling logic

[anonymous-user]

spagbogdog said:

Correct on the first part.
(Perhaps you can teach Hobo how to read now please..)
You prior mentioned and jumped to an incorrect conclusion that the collateral charge was recent..which some people would/could interpret in a very detrimental manner. Especially following after the comments made by AD.
The charge on the Heritage estate was collateral for the Bridging (‘seed’) finance delivered by Fiduciam.
Why on earth does that suggest a ‘deteriorating situation’..?
I don’t know any Co that publishes their Accounts way before the ‘deadline’ that are in a ‘detiorating situation’.

So if you work for TVR, what is the current situation as it seems you may be able to put minds at rest with some reassurance...?

[m4tti]

V6 Pushfit said:

spagbogdog said:

Correct on the first part.
(Perhaps you can teach Hobo how to read now please..)
You prior mentioned and jumped to an incorrect conclusion that the collateral charge was recent..which some people would/could interpret in a very detrimental manner. Especially following after the comments made by AD.
The charge on the Heritage estate was collateral for the Bridging (‘seed’) finance delivered by Fiduciam.
Why on earth does that suggest a ‘deteriorating situation’..?
I don’t know any Co that publishes their Accounts way before the ‘deadline’ that are in a ‘detiorating situation’.

So if you work for TVR, what is the current situation as it seems you may be able to put minds at rest with some reassurance...?

[spagbogdog]

I do not work for TVR..
I placed my deposit at G~R 2017 after speaking with the team there, in good faith and after completing as much prior ‘dd’ as I was able.

Rumour and gossip are one thing but factually incorrect prose needs to be stopped and apologised for.

[unrepentant]

spagbogdog said:

unrepentant said:

spagbogdog said:

..and on the prior years books..????

There was also a charge in 2017. So what? If anything it suggests a deteriorating situation....

Correct on the first part.
(Perhaps you can teach Hobo how to read now please..)
You prior mentioned and jumped to an incorrect conclusion that the collateral charge was recent..which some people would/could interpret in a very detrimental manner. Especially following after the comments made by AD.
The charge on the Heritage estate was collateral for the Bridging (‘seed’) finance delivered by Fiduciam.
Why on earth does that suggest a ‘deteriorating situation’..?
I don’t know any Co that publishes their Accounts way before the ‘deadline’ that are in a ‘detiorating situation’.

Well if you insist. The filings suggest that part of the 2017 charge was released in January and a fresh charge taken out in March.

[unrepentant]

spagbogdog said:

I do not work for TVR..
I placed my deposit at G~R 2017 after speaking with the team there, in good faith and after completing as much prior ‘dd’ as I was able.

Rumour and gossip are one thing but factually incorrect prose needs to be stopped and apologised for.

Yes, you may have to do that.

[spagbogdog]

unrepentant said:

spagbogdog said:

I do not work for TVR..
I placed my deposit at G~R 2017 after speaking with the team there, in good faith and after completing as much prior ‘dd’ as I was able.

Rumour and gossip are one thing but factually incorrect prose needs to be stopped and apologised for.

Yes, you may have to do that.

That same charge can only be released upon final payment of the original Bridging finance.

Why does this constitute a ‘deteriorating situation’..?
It remains exactly the same.
The charge is as was.

((( I would imagine the subsequent purchase and refurbishment of Gatton Manor would likey explain the re-jigging of the charge..which is fairly common place when using property as collateral )))

Edited by spagbogdog on Monday 15th October 22:55