|
Post by gasincider on Aug 4, 2017 1:43:15 GMT
20p tried and failed to ascertain why the deal had collapsed. Perhaps that would be a good place to start. UWE said they awaited the heads of terms. That indicates that what had been agreed was satisfactory. So why the change of heart?
Until this is resolved, I don't see how blind faith can continue. I want to believe, but at the moment serious questions need answering.
By the way, the stadium site at the Mem is valued at £18m.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Aug 4, 2017 2:28:36 GMT
20p tried and failed to ascertain why the deal had collapsed. Perhaps that would be a good place to start. UWE said they awaited the heads of terms. That indicates that what had been agreed was satisfactory. So why the change of heart? Until this is resolved, I don't see how blind faith can continue. I want to believe, but at the moment serious questions need answering. By the way, the stadium site at the Mem is valued at £18m. The 2016 accounts say the Mem was valued at £11,100.000 by Jones Lang LaSalle on March 23rd 2017. I think blind faith has been damaging Rovers for years. It didn't do Nick Higgs any good and it isn't doing Wael or Steve Hamer any good. If they knew that their words and actions would be scrutinized by fans wanting what was best for the club they would soon sharpen up their act and not hide away or put in the kind of weak performance that Steve did today. Which would ultimately be in the best interests of the club.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 4, 2017 3:06:06 GMT
Couple of observations. Steve Hamer stated quite clearly that we had submitted heads of terms to UWE, which though not binding, was the precursor to the final contract. The UWE vice chancellor stated, that they were waiting for a heads of terms to be submitted. Simple question: Who is telling the porkies? Someone said we are better off now than 5 years ago. Our losses are now over double of those 5 years ago. We are signing more and more players and back room staff, how safe do they feel given our current losses? Have we paid all our bills to date, or have we been threatened with court action over non payment? Think you will find he was waiting for "Agreed" Heads of Terms if you follow his interview on the radio
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Aug 4, 2017 4:04:29 GMT
Are you forgetting that 31 years ago Rovers were handed over to Denis and Geoff Dunford by owners who were not prepared to put any more of their money into the club ? These owners, Barry Bradshaw and Martin Flook, had tried but failed to make us sustainable so they wrote off their losses and passed the club to other Gasheads which saved us from going out of business. Four years later we were in the Championship and twelve years later we were able to acquire the Memorial Stadium which is now worth £11 million. All this was achieved through the new owners, led by Denis and Geoff, investing their own cash and taking responsibility for a low level of borrowing. There was never any question of them securing the money they had put into the club through a charge over it's assets because, as genuine supporters, it was capital they were prepared to risk for the good of Bristol Rovers. I stand corrected I was 6 at the time your talking about I remember the twerton years but before that is a blur , I still think that Wael has our best interests at heart and isn't in it to asset strip the club like some seem to think he also seems to understand the game in a way previous owners haven't and I love the fact that he's given DC and our best players good deals to keep them here. Under Gerry Francis we had great success but the board never backed him or the players financially with wages or incentives ( maybe because they couldn't financially - fair enough )Francis had to pay for Holloway himself) our training ground was crap our offices and changes mg rooms were shipping containers and as soon as we had success those managers and players were off. Also Francis built that squad from a shoe string budget during one of our hardest times , I don't see this as one of our hardest times in fact I believe it's one of our strongest times in recent history. There's a professional set up back room staff sports scientists land purchased for a new state of the art training facility etc. In that respect he's given us more than we've had in my time. I agree that Wael is not in this to asset strip the club and that he is a keen football fan with a genuine passion for the game. But, as I posted on the other forum earlier, this has all the signs of being an almighty cock up caused by mistakes, miscalculations and wishful thinking. Rovers may now be in a position where our liabilities exceed our assets and we are probably leaking cash at the rate of about £150 000 per month. When Denis Dunford was Chairman he ran a tight ship because his family's cash was at stake. Of course he wanted better facilities with more backroom staff and he strove to find land for a new stadium but everything had to be worked out to the penny and justified not just to himself but to the other who were with him. Agonizing decisions had to be made about what to spend on and what not to spend on so a huge amount of thought was given to every detail of the club's expenditure. It wasn't called evolution it was called common sense. Anyone considering buying Rovers at the start of 2016 should have known they would need to inject a substantial amount of equity capital into the club to enable restructuring to take place so that trading losses could be stemmed and a turnaround effected. They should also have known that the UWE Stadium project was not a development where a lucrative piece of land could attract retail or leisure partners whose investment would subsidise the construction of a football stadium in what is called an enabling development. They should have known that the location on a University campus would restrict the type of development which could take place and so much more equity capital would be needed than would be the case in other circumstances. So I am afraid deciding to buy Rovers without having made a full assessment of the amount of the equity capital needed and instead deciding to rely purely on monies borrowed against the security of the Memorial Stadium was, in my opinion, defying common sense. It is documented that within 4 months £7.2 million of the £10 million credit line had been spent and, instead of a planned business restructuring, it looks to all intents and purposes that cash was being used to satisfy Wael's footballing passions rather than on things which would put the business on a sustainable footing. If (and this is speculation by me) part of Rovers credit line was used to pay for the Colony training ground then it would defy normal business logic which says cash is a precious commodity used to finance operations and not long term investments. But it may be that if, even before the business is restructured, you have convinced yourself that a training ground is a "must have" you may not stop to think of the consequences and go ahead regardless. Spending on new backroom staff and an expanded youth set up is very commendable and may be beneficial in the long term but there may not be a long term if expenditure continually exceeds income. Being a nice guy and wanting people to like you is a wonderful attribute but not necessarily helpful in a business losing £1.5 million per year where hard decisions have to be made to ensure effective change in the operation. And when every change is welcomed unanimously by staff and customers alike there is bound to be a suspicion that easy options have been taken to maintain popularity and that commercially things will carry on in the same old way to save upsetting anyone. To believe you can successfully turn around an ailing football club by borrowing all your capital secured against it's assets, by neglecting to make effective operational changes in case it upsets people and by allowing your football passions to run wild is, in my opinion, wishful thinking in the extreme.
|
|
|
Post by syg on Aug 4, 2017 4:11:07 GMT
Heads of terms:
Just before I went to bed I went on twitter and saw that Richard payne had tweeted steve west asking him to confirm had they received them. Nobody else had commented or "loved" that post.
As of now, no response, although it is 15:14!
|
|
|
Post by syg on Aug 4, 2017 7:45:31 GMT
Take a look at @richardpayneitv's Tweet:
|
|
Marshy
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,129
|
Post by Marshy on Aug 4, 2017 7:57:37 GMT
Take a look at @richardpayneitv's Tweet: Just like everything else, as clear as mud! Time to concentrate on the football me thinks? UTG
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 4, 2017 8:01:25 GMT
Take a look at @richardpayneitv's Tweet: Wow, that's a lady garden's answer.
|
|
Marshy
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,129
|
Post by Marshy on Aug 4, 2017 8:05:43 GMT
Take a look at @richardpayneitv's Tweet: Wow, that's a lady garden's answer. He's not that useful!
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Aug 4, 2017 8:29:36 GMT
Take a look at @richardpayneitv's Tweet: So he seems to be admitting that final terms were with them but they hadn't received them in the legal form that would enable them to sign. Next questions then. Did the document that you did have set out terms totally and completely agreeable to UWE? If you had received them in the legal form necessary to sign would they have been signed? If he can answer those positively then maybe Wael or his brother will do us the courtesy of telling us why the terms were never sent in the form they needed to be. If everyone REALLY was agreed as is almost being suggested here, it would be extremely petty to let a deal of such importance as this fall apart on such a technicality. How about some honesty and integrity chaps?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 4, 2017 8:33:32 GMT
Take a look at @richardpayneitv's Tweet: So he seems to be admitting that final terms were with them but they hadn't received them in the legal form that would enable them to sign. Next questions then. Did the document that you did have set out terms totally and completely agreeable to UWE? If you had received them in the legal form necessary to sign would they have been signed? If he can answer those positively then maybe Wael or his brother will do us the courtesy of telling us why the terms were never sent in the form they needed to be. If everyone REALLY was agreed as is almost being suggested here, it would be extremely petty to let a deal of such importance as this fall apart on such a technicality. How about some honesty and integrity chaps? He's not necessarily saying that at all. He might be saying we got them by email, you can't sign an email. With a response as evasive as that extrapolating possibilities is just pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 4, 2017 8:33:42 GMT
Take a look at @richardpayneitv's Tweet: So he seems to be admitting that final terms were with them but they hadn't received them in the legal form that would enable them to sign. Next questions then. Did the document that you did have set out terms totally and completely agreeable to UWE? If you had received them in the legal form necessary to sign would they have been signed? If he can answer those positively then maybe Wael or his brother will do us the courtesy of telling us why the terms were never sent in the form they needed to be. If everyone REALLY was agreed as is almost being suggested here, it would be extremely petty to let a deal of such importance as this fall apart on such a technicality. How about some honesty and integrity chaps? No, he's just avoiding the question in a yellow and mealy-mouthed over-pedantic way. Take a hint. You will not be able to broker an agreement between the two parties via this thread. If you want to talk about integrity, you probably shouldn't start threads accusing people of being fake on the basis of a few rumours and some garbled information. You're not part of the solution.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Aug 4, 2017 8:54:16 GMT
So he seems to be admitting that final terms were with them but they hadn't received them in the legal form that would enable them to sign. Next questions then. Did the document that you did have set out terms totally and completely agreeable to UWE? If you had received them in the legal form necessary to sign would they have been signed? If he can answer those positively then maybe Wael or his brother will do us the courtesy of telling us why the terms were never sent in the form they needed to be. If everyone REALLY was agreed as is almost being suggested here, it would be extremely petty to let a deal of such importance as this fall apart on such a technicality. How about some honesty and integrity chaps? No, he's just avoiding the question in a yellow and mealy-mouthed over-pedantic way. Take a hint. You will not be able to broker an agreement between the two parties via this thread. If you want to talk about integrity, you probably shouldn't start threads accusing people of being fake on the basis of a few rumours and some garbled information. You're not part of the solution. Fans are part of the solution for any club, Blackpool have lost the goodwill of their fans, Coventry have lost the goodwill of their fans and our owners will too if they refuse to communicate and treat with respect the fans who were here before them and will be here after them no matter how well they do or the mess they leave behind. The title of the thread is deliberately provocative. If they want to be treated with respect they need to do the same to us on such an important issue as the collapse of the most important project in the history of the club. My beef if you actually read what I've said as opposed to just the headline is the contemptuous lack of communication. If they come out today or any other day and explain what the true position is, that will show integrity, we can then ALL (not just the see no evil brigade) rally behind them ag if we have faith in their answers. For the good of our football club we shouldn't just blindly support whoever owns us, we should always question because I guarantee you that anyone who is a committed supporter will absolutely have the best interests of the FC as their motive. Unfortunately we cannot say that about everyone that owns football clubs.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 4, 2017 9:07:40 GMT
No, he's just avoiding the question in a yellow and mealy-mouthed over-pedantic way. Take a hint. You will not be able to broker an agreement between the two parties via this thread. If you want to talk about integrity, you probably shouldn't start threads accusing people of being fake on the basis of a few rumours and some garbled information. You're not part of the solution. Fans are part of the solution for any club, Blackpool have lost the goodwill of their fans, Coventry have lost the goodwill of their fans and our owners will too if they refuse to communicate and treat with respect the fans who were here before them and will be here after them no matter how well they do or the mess they leave behind. The title of the thread is deliberately provocative. If they want to be treated with respect they need to do the same to us on such an important issue as the collapse of the most important project in the history of the club. My beef if you actually read what I've said as opposed to just the headline is the contemptuous lack of communication. If they come out today or any other day and explain what the true position is, that will show integrity, we can then ALL (not just the see no evil brigade) rally behind them ag if we have faith in their answers. For the good of our football club we shouldn't just blindly support whoever owns us, we should always question because I guarantee you that anyone who is a committed supporter will absolutely have the best interests of the FC as their motive. Unfortunately we cannot say that about everyone that owns football clubs. But all the questions you keep asking have been addressed by Hamer yesterday. You've either ignored or not understood the answers. That's only one person's fault.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Aug 4, 2017 9:08:42 GMT
First of all, the title of this thread is insulting, distasteful and disrespectful. Mods, you should change it, it's not an opinion, it's emotionally charged rhetoric. That's my 10p on that.
The Al'Qadi family have never promised to throw millions at an unsustainable business model. The previous board did that and we ended up in the conference. It's about building blocks and those blocks have to have good foundations.
I have had a chat with Wael this morning. I put a fair bit to him and he didn't dodge any direct questions. He said ultimately the decision for pulling out was that terms from UWE were not acceptable despite of long negotiations. It was not a good long term deal for the club. His other concerns were that we would become a nomad club as a result. Out of the county, and whilst the land plot was decent, there would be little else there that could drive the kind of revenue streams other stadiums enjoy. (I do think he has a point on this, UWE is a bit out of town, everyone here said previously that apart from drinking etc inside the ground, there is nowhere else to go, it's also a pain to get to by bus etc). He also said that it took so long as they had to go back to planning as there were environmental changes, that required more plans and case studying.
Essentially the UWE terms are what broke the deal and as we heard the non reply to the final heads of terms or the missing of that deadline to be precise.
It certainly sounds like the UWE is definitely dead, but it isn't the end for a stadium or the Al'Qadi's ownership.
We just need to put a bit more faith in. Remember the UWE was never the Al'Qadi's project, they inherited it, so we might just get something a little better, providing we can find the place and of course, that is going to take a little more time.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 4, 2017 9:13:38 GMT
No, he's just avoiding the question in a yellow and mealy-mouthed over-pedantic way. Take a hint. You will not be able to broker an agreement between the two parties via this thread. If you want to talk about integrity, you probably shouldn't start threads accusing people of being fake on the basis of a few rumours and some garbled information. You're not part of the solution. Fans are part of the solution for any club, Blackpool have lost the goodwill of their fans, Coventry have lost the goodwill of their fans and our owners will too if they refuse to communicate and treat with respect the fans who were here before them and will be here after them no matter how well they do or the mess they leave behind. The title of the thread is deliberately provocative. If they want to be treated with respect they need to do the same to us on such an important issue as the collapse of the most important project in the history of the club. My beef if you actually read what I've said as opposed to just the headline is the contemptuous lack of communication. If they come out today or any other day and explain what the true position is, that will show integrity, we can then ALL (not just the see no evil brigade) rally behind them ag if we have faith in their answers. For the good of our football club we shouldn't just blindly support whoever owns us, we should always question because I guarantee you that anyone who is a committed supporter will absolutely have the best interests of the FC as their motive. Unfortunately we cannot say that about everyone that owns football clubs. Fair enough, but undermining the owners is only useful if they are bad owners. If they are good owners they need to be backed. If they are endeavouring to negotiate difficult issues with entities that don't give a f**k about the club then they need to be backed. I don't believe you get to undermine them on a whim and then back them on a whim, depending on the time of day or the particular issue. You either back them or don't. And you have chosen not to, and you have chosen to insult them. I suppose, as you have tagged them fake and believe they are bad for the club then you should continue to call them names and undermine them at every opportunity until you get rid of them. Not sure how you have come to this conclusion (on the say-so of some randomer at UWE I guess). But you go for it. If you feel they need to be brought down, then despise them and undermine them for all you're worth; go for it. Meanwhile, I will back them until I get some sort of evidence that they are bad for the club. All I have got so far is that they are good for the club, and want us to succeed. All I have got is that they are not prepared to dump a shedload of cash down the sh**ter following the half-baked 'watertight' plans that they had nothing to do with and that have already been discredited on a number of points.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Aug 4, 2017 9:16:23 GMT
Fans are part of the solution for any club, Blackpool have lost the goodwill of their fans, Coventry have lost the goodwill of their fans and our owners will too if they refuse to communicate and treat with respect the fans who were here before them and will be here after them no matter how well they do or the mess they leave behind. The title of the thread is deliberately provocative. If they want to be treated with respect they need to do the same to us on such an important issue as the collapse of the most important project in the history of the club. My beef if you actually read what I've said as opposed to just the headline is the contemptuous lack of communication. If they come out today or any other day and explain what the true position is, that will show integrity, we can then ALL (not just the see no evil brigade) rally behind them ag if we have faith in their answers. For the good of our football club we shouldn't just blindly support whoever owns us, we should always question because I guarantee you that anyone who is a committed supporter will absolutely have the best interests of the FC as their motive. Unfortunately we cannot say that about everyone that owns football clubs. But all the questions you keep asking have been addressed by Hamer yesterday. You've either ignored or not understood the answers. That's only one person's fault. What? Hamer didn't answer any questions, he avoided answering questions and all he told us was that the deadline was set, it passed, it's over. If you had your eyes closed and didn't see his smirking face he could have been a spokesman from Sainsbury's a couple of years back. Anyway communication from the men that make the decisions is what I'm talking about as well you know.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 4, 2017 9:32:21 GMT
But all the questions you keep asking have been addressed by Hamer yesterday. You've either ignored or not understood the answers. That's only one person's fault. What? Hamer didn't answer any questions, he avoided answering questions and all he told us was that the deadline was set, it passed, it's over. If you had your eyes closed and didn't see his smirking face he could have been a spokesman from Sainsbury's a couple of years back. Anyway communication from the men that make the decisions is what I'm talking about as well you know. No. That's not all he said. That's just all you've paid attention to. The two things are totally different. And you have had communication from the men making the decisions. Via the chairman they employ to communicate these things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 9:39:39 GMT
Even Geoff 20pence sounded like he only vaguely understood what and why it happened and he is pretty clued up. Clear as mud imo
Also, why is everyone assuming "investment" would still be available for a redevelopment of the Mem?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 9:40:51 GMT
What? Hamer didn't answer any questions, he avoided answering questions and all he told us was that the deadline was set, it passed, it's over. If you had your eyes closed and didn't see his smirking face he could have been a spokesman from Sainsbury's a couple of years back. Anyway communication from the men that make the decisions is what I'm talking about as well you know. No. That's not all he said. That's just all you've paid attention to. The two things are totally different. And you have had communication from the men making the decisions. Via the chairman they employ to communicate these things. Are you happy with what SH said on Twentyman yesterday? Do you think he spoke with clarity?
|
|