General Discussion Eric Watson

Discussion in 'General Warriors Discussion' started by ToiletDuck, Feb 17, 2013.

  1. mt.wellington
    Posts:
    20,372
    Likes:
    39,048
    Join:
    Jun 21, 2012

    mt.wellington TRUST THE PROCESS? Contributor

    Know more than you and your BF brucey lol. Eric Watson saved the club after bruce's mates nearly sunk the place. Prove otherwise...
     
  2. mt.wellington
    Posts:
    20,372
    Likes:
    39,048
    Join:
    Jun 21, 2012

    mt.wellington TRUST THE PROCESS? Contributor

    But you said there was enough cashflow???

    I did read and its all pro Watson. Whats your point? What happened before 2002 when the club was shit and the books were shit? Eric Watson's wallet is what happened...
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  3. Mr Frank White
    Posts:
    2,183
    Likes:
    3,219
    Join:
    May 19, 2012

    Mr Frank White 1st Grade Fringe

    Incorrect, hes told the IRS that he cant pay his taxes on the Manny fight until he fights Connor
     
  4. Mr Brownstone
    Posts:
    1,536
    Likes:
    2,952
    Join:
    Nov 9, 2014

    Mr Brownstone 1st Grade Fringe

    Unlikely. Scratch a bit and it doesn't take long to find out the truth. Also I don't agree with plenty of what bruce writes, Kearney being a very good example of that. However that's better than disagreeing with pretty much all the crap you throw up on here. I didn't have a problem with it until you started calling everyone out that disagreed with you.
     
  5. mt.wellington
    Posts:
    20,372
    Likes:
    39,048
    Join:
    Jun 21, 2012

    mt.wellington TRUST THE PROCESS? Contributor

    Well feel free to educate us.

    All my knowledge on the issue comes from the Warriors book Beleguered and all the media reports at the time about the shambles the club was under the Tainui/Lowe/Boyle era. How anyone can say their was sufficient cashflow through the place during that time is beyond me when every single account of the time says the exact opposite is beyond me.

    Why did Auckland Rugby League get the hell out of dodge? Cause they were bleeding money left right and centre trying to keep the Warriors afloat. Money that was meant to be for Aucklands provincial game, not the NRL team.

    Why did Tainui wipe their hands of the place despite having $170 million from their 1995 Treaty of Waitangi settlement? Cause the Warriors were a bottomless pit that needed monthly cash injections just to keep the lights on.

    Eric Watson got the place for an absolute steal cause he promised to underwrite the club. Its common knowledge that he wrote some very big cheques early on to keep the club doors open. To say the salary cap gate takings and sponsors paid for everything is a straight out lie considering the fact that our biggest sponsor in the history of the club DB Bitter had left the year before, crowd averages were only 1100 above the number needed to break even and at least 90% of the cap needed to be spent. These are all facts. Not some hushed talk in some incompetent organisations AGM. Who paid the CEO, coach, trainers, office staff and the fares for our reserve grade players who played for Wynnum-Manly?

    Eric Watson did.

    While his approach was controversial asf at the time we now all have a viable club that we can support because he gutted the place, hired a new coach, a new football manager and made players re-sign new contracts that removed the over inflated salaries players were getting post Super League wars. The fact that his methods saw them make the Grand Final, gain record memberships and sell a shit ton of merchandise means he no longer needs to put any new investment from his personal wealth. Remembering that he has never taken a cent out of the place.

    Whether he does in fact need to invest a lot more is another debate entirely but he did save this club in 1999. To suggest otherwise is just bullshit and probably comes from jealous individuals or Hanover idiots...

    A lot of disinformation from individuals who are so far removed from what actually goes on in the club it gets frustrating reading he retardness and rubbish that gets posted sometimes. Who knows, maybe Im the retard. Happy to be called out...
     
  6. Jordan G
    Posts:
    0
    Likes:
    0
    Join:

    Jordan G Guest

    You forgot to ask for the door to be closed.
     
  7. bruce
    Posts:
    8,641
    Likes:
    9,836
    Join:
    Sep 1, 2015

    bruce Warriors 1st Grader Contributor

    Pensioners whose lives will be shortened by what happened with Hanover should not be called idiots. Eric Watson hasn't built any organisation in his life, he is a corporate scavenger. Nothing wrong with that, it is a legal way to make a living, but if he hasn't built anything how come he has rebuilt the Warriors?
     
  8. mt.wellington
    Posts:
    20,372
    Likes:
    39,048
    Join:
    Jun 21, 2012

    mt.wellington TRUST THE PROCESS? Contributor

    My opinion is as above. Im just going to it at that cause you love to sidestep the real debate. If you want to have a real debate using real facts then do so. Enjoy yourself in this thread brucey...
     
  9. bruce
    Posts:
    8,641
    Likes:
    9,836
    Join:
    Sep 1, 2015

    bruce Warriors 1st Grader Contributor

    You are moderating tonight. You are seeing the posts coming through showing what a mess the club is in, and that might be the least of it. Who owns the club? He is saving it? Yeah right, he will be too busy saving his arse over that court case. He probably wants out and the sooner the better.
     
  10. mt.wellington
    Posts:
    20,372
    Likes:
    39,048
    Join:
    Jun 21, 2012

    mt.wellington TRUST THE PROCESS? Contributor

    Eric Watson has always had a hands off approach to the club. Appoint the right people, Jim Doyle, and let them do their job. Jim Doyle's biggest recruitment seems to the biggest problem at the moment.

    But again you are sidestepping the debate and thats your statement that Eric Watson didnt save the club in 1999. Not 2017 like you are trying to turn it around to now. 1999 when Tainui, Graham Lowe and Malcolm nearly bankrupted the place...
     
  11. brightman
    Posts:
    2,551
    Likes:
    3,041
    Join:
    May 18, 2012

    brightman 1st Grade Fringe

  12. bruce
    Posts:
    8,641
    Likes:
    9,836
    Join:
    Sep 1, 2015

    bruce Warriors 1st Grader Contributor

    So how is that going so far, apart from selling a lot of Jerseys and paying the bills? Just asking like.:D
     
  13. mt.wellington
    Posts:
    20,372
    Likes:
    39,048
    Join:
    Jun 21, 2012

    mt.wellington TRUST THE PROCESS? Contributor

    The Melbourne consortium have been after the Warriors for a long time. The bit about being a feeder club to the Storm is utter bullshit...
     
  14. Wellington Warrior
    Posts:
    3,831
    Likes:
    5,515
    Join:
    May 15, 2012

    Wellington Warrior Warriors 1st Grader

    Eric Watson's selling off continues with Soul Bar on market
    Eric Watson is continuing to sell off leading New Zealand-based assets with the award-winning Soul Bar & Bistro being put on the market.

    Watson recently sold his multi-million dollar Karaka estate and is understood to be close to confirming a deal with the Auckland Rugby League for the sale of the Warriors NRL team.

    Now Soul - the landmark restaurant on Auckland's Viaduct Basin that is co-owned by his Cullen Investments and Judith Tabron - has been put on the market via a tender process.

    Watson did not respond to requests for comment this week about the pending sale of the venue - which has achieved iconic status over the past 17 years.

    But Tabron told the Weekend Herald it was "a joint decision" between her and Watson to sell the top food and beverage venue, which had an annual turnover of more than $10 million.

    She felt it was "a good time" to sell. "You've got to make a decision at some point in time."

    "It's been a good run. Let somebody else have some fun."

    Tabron said she would miss "the people ... working in a tremendous team".

    "And also we've had such an incredibly loyal following of customers," she said.

    The property is being marketed by Paul Dixon of Bayleys.

    Soul Bar & Bistro is one of New Zealand's most decorated food and beverage venues.

    Gongs include Best Restaurant category winner in 2009, 2010, and 2012, and supreme winner in 2010 at the Hospitality New Zealand Awards for Excellence. It made Metro magazine's Top 50 restaurants in 2012, '13, '14, '15 and '17.

    Signature events, including fashion shows by Yvonne Bennetti, Trelise Cooper and Kathryn Wilson, have been held there making it a hot spot on the city's exclusive social calendars.

    Beyonce and Jay-Z, Scarlett Johansson, Charlize Theron, Russell Brand, Anthony Hopkins and Bono are among the international celebrities who have sat by the water at Soul's famous terrace, overlooking the marina with its multimillion-dollar yachts and launches.

    Restaurant Association of New Zealand chief executive Marisa Bidois said Soul Bar & Bistro was "a true staple in the hospitality industry".

    Tabron was "a very well respected business owner", Bidois said.

    "She has built up an amazing business that has stood the test of time as well, which I think is a major challenge in our industry...

    "Judith Tabron has always been very committed to training in her establishment, and I think it really shows in the way her restaurant runs so smoothly."

    Soul, which opened in 2001 and has a seating capacity of 250, sits underneath the Sebel Auckland Viaduct Harbour hotel.

    Tabron was excited for the waterfront tourist and dining mecca's future.

    "For the Viaduct, and Soul as the jewel in the crown from a hospitality destination perspective, summer is also coming up - bringing with it the Volvo Around the World Yacht Race boats, support teams and visitors, along with the cruise ship season. And in 2021, the America's Cup," Tabron said in the Bayleys release.

    The Soul Bar & Bistro business is a standalone brand and operation. It is a separate entity from the restaurant and bar's building. Soul is currently on a lease of the premises, running through until 2026, with two further six-year rights of renewal.

    The restaurant and bar's building, meanwhile, did not sell at auction on October 25. It was now for sale by private treaty.
     
  15. bruce
    Posts:
    8,641
    Likes:
    9,836
    Join:
    Sep 1, 2015

    bruce Warriors 1st Grader Contributor

    Good post.

    So the guy is broke. It shouldn't be news because why would you tea leaf $200 million from your business partner unless you were desperate in the first place. Somebody in the know in the press must have been keeping very quiet about our Eric.

    I have often wondered how so many posters get down on Kiwis and Warrriors for doing dumb things, Konnie Hurrell being one example. However I have never heard of Konnie ripping anybody off, let alone for $200 million.

    Before anybody gives me grief again about it being a business tactic o_O let me remind the ladies and jellybeans that that the rip off was so obvious the judge didn't even have to take time to think about it and has already ruled it has to be paid back. :bookworm:

    If one were to stretch the imagination about "business tactics" Hanover springs to mind. In that case the Courts ruled no case against our Eric. The pensioners who lost their life savings were obviously relieved to hear that.:rolleyes:

    Personally I think the guy is a disgrace and the sooner the club is rid of him the better.
     
  16. Miket12
    Posts:
    6,504
    Likes:
    8,428
    Join:
    Apr 20, 2012

    Miket12 Warriors 1st Grader

    Bruce... Bruce... Bruce... Watson is no saint but there's no need to rewrite history.

    Watson wasn't a part of the management or a director or even an owner of the Hanover Financial Ltd, United Finance Ltd or Hanover Capital Ltd. He was a director of the company which owned them, Hanover Group Ltd. The parent company was Hanover Overseas Ltd. held the majority of the shares in HGL. Watson was a director of this company and a minority shareholder.

    As a minority shareholder, when HOL was sold, he received nothing for his share of the estimated $745 million which he and Hotchin invested in HOL.

    Before the Financial Markets Authority applied to the Court to sue the Directors of Hanover Financial Ltd, United Finance Ltd and Hanover Capital for $35 million over the inaccuracies in a prospectus, it tried to include Watson because of his involvement with Hanover Group. But he was able to show them that as he wasn't a director of the three companies that issued the prospectus, he shouldn't be included as a defendant. He was also able to show that HOL had not promoted the prospectus. It wasn't a court that ruled "no case against our Eric", it was decided by the FMA not to include him in an out of court settlement for $18 million. Not to sure where on earth you got the idea that a court ruled on it when it never got to court!!! BTW, he (and all the directors of HFL, UFL HCL and HG) was also cleared by the SFO in what it described as "the most extensive and challenging of the finance company investigations undertaken".

    As for the pensioners who "lost their life savings". Which ones?

    In mid 2007, HGL froze payments to the bondholders and investors in the three companies. The boards of HFL, UFL and HCL proposed paying them back their invested money (not including interest) in installments which the investors accepted. The investors received 6 cents in the dollar in late 2007.

    Instead of letting HGL go into receivership, the investors voted to sell the assets in 2008 as the property market was losing more value and the assets of HGL were sold to Allied Farmers. The sale included letting all the investors receive 75% of the value of their investments in shares in Allied Farmers - a publically listed company so, if they choose to, the investors could sell their shares that day and receive another payout equivalent to 75 cents for every dollar they had invested.

    Then, the settlement between the FMA and the directors of HFL, UFL and HCL meant that anyone of the investors who had put money into those companies from the time the prospectus was issued and when the companies froze payments, would receive additional money: Hanover Financial Limited Secured Depositors 16 cents in the dollar, United Finance Limited Secured Stockholders 19 cents in the dollar and Hanover Capital Limited Bondholders 6.5 cents in the dollar.

    Depending on which company they had their money in and when they'd invested it, the investors had the potential to receive anywhere between 81 cents in the dollar and 100 cents in the dollar.

    Not bad when you consider that between 2007 and 2012, 64 other finance companies/schemes went under.

    Of those, the investors in 9 companies received 100% payouts under the Government Deposit Guarantee Scheme. BTW, Hanover wasn't eligible for the GDGS, not because of the actions of the directors or the owners but because they received incorrect information from the CFO and that incorrect information was used in the prospectus issued in December 2007.

    Five were sold to other companies. The investors had the choice to either withdraw 100% of their money or reinvest into the new companies. Sadly, a number of them lost their money when the new companies/schemes collapsed.

    Five were able to arrange time payments with their investors and they received between 80-100% of their money back.

    So, what happened with the other 48 companies/schemes. 17, I couldn't find any information as to how much their investors received.

    But, the investors in the other 31 financial companies/schemes that are publically available averaged payouts of 36 cents in the dollar.... compare that to 81 cents to 100 cents for investors in Hanover!!!!!

    Oh, and of that 31 other companies, investors in eight of them received 10 cents or less for every dollar they'd invested - investors in four didn't get anything!!!!

    I think Bruce, not that I like to lose money if a financial group went under, but if I did, I'd far rather get back 81 to 100 cents in the dollar, than Eric Watson who got no money from his share of the $745 million he'd put into the Hanover Group or be one of the 1,694 investors who had put $76.7 million into Bridgecorp Inv., Antares, Five Star Finance or C+M Inv. and didn't get a cent out or the part of the 25,302 investors who had put $819.7 million into the four other companies to only receive 10 cents or less for every dollar they'd invested. These are the "pensioners who lost their life savings" you should be concerned about and not those who invested in any of the Hanover Group companies and still received back 81-100% of their money!!!!
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017
  17. bruce
    Posts:
    8,641
    Likes:
    9,836
    Join:
    Sep 1, 2015

    bruce Warriors 1st Grader Contributor

    So he lost half of $745 million in Hanover? How much did he take back in fees before it went under though? Add that loss to the $100 million plus for Powerhouse as another example that is a lot of money. He sure is a successful businessman.:rolleyes: That might explain why he had to tea leaf $200 million from Owen Glenn. Like you say he is no saint. Do you really want him around the club?
     
  18. Miket12
    Posts:
    6,504
    Likes:
    8,428
    Join:
    Apr 20, 2012

    Miket12 Warriors 1st Grader

    No - he was a minority share holder so a figure less than half.

    The two shareholders received $86.4 million in dividends the two years before the freeze of investors funds. However, except for approximately $3 million dollars they each received for both years, they then paid $74.4 million back into another HOL subsidiary for an adjustment in the land value for a development at Jacks Point, Queenstown. This means their pre-tax earnings which they personally received was around $6 million combined each year - only a 0.8% return on their investment per annum - a lot less than the 7-8% return the mum and dad investors were receiving for their money in the Hanover Group at the same time!!!

    I'm grateful that he put money into the club to keep it going.... I wish he'd put in more.... But I think he's being greedy with what he wants for it now compared to what he valued when he was paying out Owen.

    I'd prefer another owner but that's not my decision to make.

    And, although this isn't the Warriors for Sale thread, I do have one main concern about the ARL (though the Carlaw Park Trust) owning the Warriors that I don't want to see the club developing even more Auckland based players solely because the ARL say they need to in order to be a pathway from the local club. There's already enough thoughts about the Warriors never looking outside of South Auckland without the new owners making that perception a reality!
     
  19. bruce
    Posts:
    8,641
    Likes:
    9,836
    Join:
    Sep 1, 2015

    bruce Warriors 1st Grader Contributor

    Did anybody know about this?
    Link has been hidden. Please Register to view.
    Tax man chases Eric Watson's firm for $60m
    Eric Watson's holding company is facing demands to pay $60 million in back taxes after Inland Revenue decided its complex network of related-party loans and Cayman Island vehicles amounted to tax avoidance.

    The high-profile expatriate businessman - famous for marrying lingerie models, getting into a fistfight with Hollywood star Russell Crowe, and past ownerships stakes in the New Zealand Warriors league team and collapsed Hanover Finance - faces the prospect of the tax bill indirectly taking a chunk of his estimated $450m fortune.

    The tax claims, which have worked their way through the High Court at Auckland over the past two years, are set down for a full airing at a three-week trial starting on August 27.

    Watson is not being personally chased, with IRD making its claims against his holding vehicle Cullen Group. Justice Mark Woolford noted in a pre-trial ruling that "before the arrangement at issue, Mr Eric Watson personally held all the ordinary shares".

    ustice Woolford said Inland Revenue claimed the manoeuvre was "not a genuinely arms-length transaction" but was instead "contrived" and "carefully designed" to ensure the interest payments involved qualified to pay only a 2 per cent levy instead of 15 per cent non-resident withholding tax.

    COMMISSIONER CLAIMS CAYMAN DEALINGS ARE CONTRIVED FOR TAX AVOIDANCE (p. 3)
    Media has been hidden. Please
    Register to view.
    View the entire document with DocumentCloud




    Tax consultant Terry Baucher, who reviewed the published ruling on the case, said the dispute boiled down to the spirit of the law.

    "This will all comes back to the very nebulous concept of 'Parliament contemplation'. At the time Cullen complied with the letter of the law. The issue is that Inland Revenue is arguing that Parliament never contemplated the law being used this way, so aggressively," he said.

    He compared aggressive tax planning to the over-the-ball play of former All Black captain Richie McCaw.

    "Any good openside will push it to the limit. They'll secure you lots of turnovers, but sometimes they'll get whistled for it."

    According to public notices in the Cayman Islands, the two entities connected to the case - Modena Holdings and Mayfair Equities - were wound up, respectively, in 2009 and 2010.

    Baucher noted the age of the dispute - with some transactions in question dating back 16 years - did raise questions but there may have been issue obtaining information from entities in "non-transparent" jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands.

    "On the other hand, you might argue justice delayed is justice denied. It's clearly been in dispute for some time but when taxpayers dig in and exercise their rights, it can grind on," he said.

    The tax dispute at the High Court in Auckland is only one legal front for the battling Watson, with other significant proceedings pitting him against fellow rich-lister Sir Owen Glenn also soon to come to a head.

    That case, over a soured business relationship between the two men and the fate of more than $200m stashed in a Jersey bank account, has spanned four years and courts in Europe and the British Virgin Islands.

    A 12-week trial over the matter at the Chancery Division of the London High Court concluded in July, with a ruling yet to be handed down.

    KEA (GLENN) AND PARK (WATSON) HAVE "FALLEN OUT" (p. 2)
    Media has been hidden. Please
    Register to view.
    View the entire document with DocumentCloud




    Reached for comment this week Glenn said the legal limbo meant he was unable to comment. "I am not allowed to discuss this case until a decision is handed down by the judge," he said.

    The multimillion-dollar legal battles come as Watson has apparently exited New Zealand, the country of his birth but where he has not resided since 2002. In the past year he has cashed up his remaining local holdings, including an estate in Karaka, a stake in Viaduct eatery Soul Bar & Bistro and the New Zealand Warriors NRL team.
    The tax claim is being contested, with Watson's Cullen Group arguing its actions were not only legal, but intended to be legal by Parliament when the relevant tax legislation was passed.

    In pre-trial skirmishes, Cullen Group won a bid to seek documents offering advice to Parliament - but Inland Revenue have disputed this ruling with an appeal to be heard in Wellington on May 29.

    Both Inland Revenue and representatives for Watson and Cullen cited the legal action in declining to comment about the dispute

    Watson's restructuring of his Cullen empire in 2002 - when he relocated from New Zealand to London - is at the centre of the case.

    WATSON ASSIGNS $291M TO CAYMAN ISLANDS ENTITIES (p. 2)
    Media has been hidden. Please
    Register to view.
    The arrangement saw Watson trim his tax bill by more than 85 per cent.
    Link has been hidden. Please Register to view.




    The restructuring saw a complex chain of loans and share transfers between entities - with Watson making $291m in loans to Cullen Group to enable the sale of his Cullen Investments shares, then assigning these loans to two Cayman Island companies - that Inland Revenue alleges served no purpose except to avoid paying $59.5m in tax.

    "The Commissioner alleges that this was a tax avoidance arrangement," Justice Woolford summarised in his ruling.


     
  20. Inruin
    Posts:
    6,959
    Likes:
    11,084
    Join:
    May 19, 2012

    Inruin One Sock, Two Sock, Red Sock, Blue Sock

    Should have just set it up as a charitable trust like the ARL.