|
|
Post by oldtoteender on Dec 9, 2018 18:50:18 GMT
Would it have been better to have had a long term lease deal with UWE rather than own it and have the income from Match days etc surely we would have bigger crowds generating more cash etc. I am sure the whole feeling about the club would be better and i don't think we would be in such a mess/low place as what we are now if we knew it was going ahead I know we leased Eastville for many years and although it did not end well surely UWE would be different and i just cannot see us ever building/owning a new Stadium. We also built a great team when renting Twerton.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Dec 9, 2018 18:57:31 GMT
If the owners truly had a point about it being a bad deal for the club, I would like to hear what those reasons really were.
The reason given that UWE missed a deadline, if true is an insult to the hard work done by all to get the project that far. And I mean an insult to let that be a reason to cancel a deal that could have had a monumental and profound effect on the club's future like no other thing in our history. That and UWE didn't meet them in Jordan? I mean, seriously? That reason never washed with me, as it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. That along with "Well the training ground is difficult, the costs are considerably higher than we anticipated".
Extra Extra: Training Ground and Stadium Developments cost significant amount of money. Who'd have thought that!?
|
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Dec 9, 2018 19:11:46 GMT
If the owners truly had a point about it being a bad deal for the club, I would like to hear what those reasons really were. The reason given that UWE missed a deadline, if true is an insult to the hard work done by all to get the project that far. And I mean an insult to let that be a reason to cancel a deal that could have had a monumental and profound effect on the club's future like no other thing in our history. That and UWE didn't meet them in Jordan? I mean, seriously? That reason never washed with me, as it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. That along with "Well the training ground is difficult, the costs are considerably higher than we anticipated". Extra Extra: Training Ground and Stadium Developments cost significant amount of money. Who'd have thought that!? That's a bit selective, isn't it? The reason given was that it wasn't a good deal for the club, and that UWE were not forthcoming in renegotiating it, eg, they didn't want to come to Jordan, and they didn't bother replying to stuff. If it really wasn't a good deal for the club, would you have wanted them to do it anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 9, 2018 19:14:04 GMT
Would it have been better to have had a long term lease deal with UWE rather than own it and have the income from Match days etc surely we would have bigger crowds generating more cash etc. I am sure the whole feeling about the club would be better and i don't think we would be in such a mess/low place as what we are now if we knew it was going ahead I know we leased Eastville for many years and although it did not end well surely UWE would be different and i just cannot see us ever building/owning a new Stadium. We also built a great team when renting Twerton. Forum debates go around in circles so, to repeat again, millions of successful businesses do not own the premises from which they operate because these businesses decided it was more profitable to invest their capital into the business itself rather than land bricks and mortar. Rovers fans have readily accepted the myth of stadium ownership because it fits with most people's perception of "an Englishman's home is his castle" and our leaders in recent times encouraged this thinking because ownership of land gave them a way of reducing or even eliminating the risk to the cash they invested in the club. |
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 9, 2018 19:19:27 GMT
Would it have been better to have had a long term lease deal with UWE rather than own it and have the income from Match days etc surely we would have bigger crowds generating more cash etc. I am sure the whole feeling about the club would be better and i don't think we would be in such a mess/low place as what we are now if we knew it was going ahead I know we leased Eastville for many years and although it did not end well surely UWE would be different and i just cannot see us ever building/owning a new Stadium. We also built a great team when renting Twerton. Hard to say without knowing the details. Plus long term, you need more than just match day revenue, to move forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Dec 9, 2018 19:38:48 GMT
Would it have been better to have had a long term lease deal with UWE rather than own it and have the income from Match days etc surely we would have bigger crowds generating more cash etc. I am sure the whole feeling about the club would be better and i don't think we would be in such a mess/low place as what we are now if we knew it was going ahead I know we leased Eastville for many years and although it did not end well surely UWE would be different and i just cannot see us ever building/owning a new Stadium. We also built a great team when renting Twerton. Forum debates go around in circles so, to repeat again, millions of successful businesses do not own the premises from which they operate because these businesses decided it was more profitable to invest their capital into the business itself rather than land bricks and mortar. Rovers fans have readily accepted the myth of stadium ownership because it fits with most people's perception of "an Englishman's home is his castle" and our leaders in recent times encouraged this thinking because ownership of land gave them a way of reducing or even eliminating the risk to the cash they invested in the club. Trouble is, you can't just use the law of supply and demand to get you decent premises at a decent price, like you can for a warehouse or an office. You have to rely on good will or luck. So when a sympathetic organisation own the perfect stadium for you, you don't need to own it. But obviously Rovers fans don't really need it explained to them what happens if the stadium owners are not sympathetic. It's not about 'an Englishman's home is his castle,' it's about Eastville. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 9, 2018 19:50:27 GMT
I wonder, once it was obvious Sainsburys were trying to withdraw from the deal, what would have happened if Nick Higgs had been proactive and proposed to them that, if market conditions had changed, Rovers would renegotiate the deal and accept a lower figure than £28 million, perhaps eventually securing a price of £20 million.
If he had then gone to the UWE and property developers with a proposal that the stadium should be built and leased back to Rovers and that the club would contribute £10 million upfront and sign a lease committing to pay £1 million per year to operate it. Knowing that set against those lease costs would be rent received from sub lessees (including UWE for classroom space) leaving a net figure of say £500 000 per year for Rovers to pay.
If Gashead 1981 is correct then a £6 million grant from the FA would have also been available in addition to the £10 million left from the stadium sale making a total of £16 million cash available for fitting out costs, long term working capital and team development.
It would have given Rovers the chance,as Darrell Clarke might have said, "to have a right good go".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 20:00:25 GMT
If the owners truly had a point about it being a bad deal for the club, I would like to hear what those reasons really were. The reason given that UWE missed a deadline, if true is an insult to the hard work done by all to get the project that far. And I mean an insult to let that be a reason to cancel a deal that could have had a monumental and profound effect on the club's future like no other thing in our history. That and UWE didn't meet them in Jordan? I mean, seriously? That reason never washed with me, as it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. That along with "Well the training ground is difficult, the costs are considerably higher than we anticipated". Extra Extra: Training Ground and Stadium Developments cost significant amount of money. Who'd have thought that!? That's a bit selective, isn't it? The reason given was that it wasn't a good deal for the club, and that UWE were not forthcoming in renegotiating it, eg, they didn't want to come to Jordan, and they didn't bother replying to stuff. If it really wasn't a good deal for the club, would you have wanted them to do it anyway? They sold DC a pipe dream, how do you know they didn't sell us one too? |
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Dec 9, 2018 20:05:41 GMT
If the owners truly had a point about it being a bad deal for the club, I would like to hear what those reasons really were. The reason given that UWE missed a deadline, if true is an insult to the hard work done by all to get the project that far. And I mean an insult to let that be a reason to cancel a deal that could have had a monumental and profound effect on the club's future like no other thing in our history. That and UWE didn't meet them in Jordan? I mean, seriously? That reason never washed with me, as it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. That along with "Well the training ground is difficult, the costs are considerably higher than we anticipated". Extra Extra: Training Ground and Stadium Developments cost significant amount of money. Who'd have thought that!? That's a bit selective, isn't it? The reason given was that it wasn't a good deal for the club, and that UWE were not forthcoming in renegotiating it, eg, they didn't want to come to Jordan, and they didn't bother replying to stuff. If it really wasn't a good deal for the club, would you have wanted them to do it anyway? For something as important as a new stadium, I would want it to be a good deal for the club, of course. If it wasn't, fair enough. But we haven't got a clue whether the deal was a good deal or not. What we do know is that the owners couldn't have afforded to build it even if it was a good deal. We know that much because they've admitted they can't afford a training ground. They haven't even submitted plans for that. The final nail in the coffin of UWE being that UWE wouldn't meet them in Jordan is not a valid reason. The owners could have met them in the UK and thrashed out a deal. To cancel what was potentially the best opportunity this club has had in it's history, because ultimately UWE wouldn't meet them in Jordan to attempt to negotiate a resolution, is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 9, 2018 20:07:29 GMT
I wonder, once it was obvious Sainsburys were trying to withdraw from the deal, what would have happened if Nick Higgs had been proactive and proposed to them that, if market conditions had changed, Rovers would renegotiate the deal and accept a lower figure than £28 million, perhaps eventually securing a price of £20 million. If he had then gone to the UWE and property developers with a proposal that the stadium should be built and leased back to Rovers and that the club would contribute £10 million upfront and sign a lease committing to pay £1 million per year to operate it. Knowing that set against those lease costs would be rent received from sub lessees (including UWE for classroom space) leaving a net figure of say £500 000 per year for Rovers to pay. If Gashead 1981 is correct then a £6 million grant from the FA would have also been available in addition to the £10 million left from the stadium sale making a total of £16 million cash available for fitting out costs, long term working capital and team development. It would have given Rovers the chance,as Darrell Clarke might have said, "to have a right good go". Your falling for the same trap NH, and SL, fell in to, you're assuming Sainsbury's intended building a supermarket the truth is what they, & Tesco's, have done all over the UK, out bid their rivals for the land with the sole intention of stopping them building a store rather than ever intended building their own store. What NH should have done is take the £1m(?) offered towards our costs rather than lose everything taking the case to trial. As far as the UWE is couldn't have taken the ALQ's 18 months to decide they didn't want to lease the land, did they mess the UWE around so they decided they sooner do a deal with EW from the MV's, or where they just simply unable to come up with the money due to issues in their homeland etc? |
|
|
|
Post by oldtoteender on Dec 9, 2018 20:08:50 GMT
My own feeling is they thought the UWE complex would be a great money spinner for themselves not Bristol Rovers FC and when they could not get what they wanted they pulled the plug regardless !
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 9, 2018 20:14:07 GMT
That's a bit selective, isn't it? The reason given was that it wasn't a good deal for the club, and that UWE were not forthcoming in renegotiating it, eg, they didn't want to come to Jordan, and they didn't bother replying to stuff. If it really wasn't a good deal for the club, would you have wanted them to do it anyway? For something as important as a new stadium, I would want it to be a good deal for the club, of course. If it wasn't, fair enough. But we haven't got a clue whether the deal was a good deal or not. What we do know is that the owners couldn't have afforded to build it even if it was a good deal. We know that much because they've admitted they can't afford a training ground. They haven't even submitted plans for that. The final nail in the coffin of UWE being that UWE wouldn't meet them in Jordan in not a valid reason. The owners could have met them in the UK and thrashed out a deal. To cancel what was potentially the best opportunity this club has had in it's history, because ultimately UWE wouldn't meet them in Jordan to attempt to negotiate a resolution, is ridiculous. Isn't the truth that without a new stadium a new training ground is totally pointless? I guess you can look at the Jordan trip, if it's true, two ways, how can the UWE expect somebody to invest £30m+ on their campus if they are not even prepared to visit them in Jordan? The UWE haven't uttered one word about the stadium since shortly after the talks collapsed. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 9, 2018 20:16:07 GMT
Forum debates go around in circles so, to repeat again, millions of successful businesses do not own the premises from which they operate because these businesses decided it was more profitable to invest their capital into the business itself rather than land bricks and mortar. Rovers fans have readily accepted the myth of stadium ownership because it fits with most people's perception of "an Englishman's home is his castle" and our leaders in recent times encouraged this thinking because ownership of land gave them a way of reducing or even eliminating the risk to the cash they invested in the club. Trouble is, you can't just use the law of supply and demand to get you decent premises at a decent price, like you can for a warehouse or an office. You have to rely on good will or luck. So when a sympathetic organisation own the perfect stadium for you, you don't need to own it. But obviously Rovers fans don't really need it explained to them what happens if the stadium owners are not sympathetic. It's not about 'an Englishman's home is his castle,' it's about Eastville. There is a long list of people and organizations which we think of as "unsympathetic" to Rovers and the Bristol Stadium Company are certainly on it but what would anyone else have done in their position ? They had a prime piece of real estate which they would have leased at a price but Rovers wouldn't or couldn't pay it. This happens all the time in business and it is the responsibility of the lessee to make sure their business will always have suitable premises from which to operate. By now I think many fans have come to realise that we cannot always keep blaming outsiders for our woes. We have to look at how effectively our own leaders perform and how effectively we hold them to account. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 9, 2018 20:19:45 GMT
My own feeling is they thought the UWE complex would be a great money spinner for themselves not Bristol Rovers FC and when they could not get what they wanted they pulled the plug regardless ! But how would they make money out of an EFL league club, even if they built an hotel on the land it would hardly offset the club's annual losses. |
|
|
|
Post by oldtoteender on Dec 9, 2018 20:28:30 GMT
Pretty sure they had more than a hotel in mind, and i think we could have vastly improved the clubs income with bigger sponsors, match day revenue, selling more merchandise. Also no pubs or anywhere to eat nearby so that alone could increase the match day revenue big time UTG !
|
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Dec 9, 2018 20:40:13 GMT
For something as important as a new stadium, I would want it to be a good deal for the club, of course. If it wasn't, fair enough. But we haven't got a clue whether the deal was a good deal or not. What we do know is that the owners couldn't have afforded to build it even if it was a good deal. We know that much because they've admitted they can't afford a training ground. They haven't even submitted plans for that. The final nail in the coffin of UWE being that UWE wouldn't meet them in Jordan in not a valid reason. The owners could have met them in the UK and thrashed out a deal. To cancel what was potentially the best opportunity this club has had in it's history, because ultimately UWE wouldn't meet them in Jordan to attempt to negotiate a resolution, is ridiculous. Isn't the truth that without a new stadium a new training ground is totally pointless? I guess you can look at the Jordan trip, if it's true, two ways, how can the UWE expect somebody to invest £30m+ on their campus if they are not even prepared to visit them in Jordan? The UWE haven't uttered one word about the stadium since shortly after the talks collapsed. In response to your first sentence, no I don't think a training ground without a stadium is pointless. It'd be an asset for a start, rather than a debt, and it'd enable all age groups to train together which would further the ideal of investing in youth. To just pull the plug on the training ground because the stadium deal couldn't be agreed, is as poor as them simply not realising the cost, which is the reason Hamer came up with. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 9, 2018 20:40:56 GMT
I wonder, once it was obvious Sainsburys were trying to withdraw from the deal, what would have happened if Nick Higgs had been proactive and proposed to them that, if market conditions had changed, Rovers would renegotiate the deal and accept a lower figure than £28 million, perhaps eventually securing a price of £20 million. If he had then gone to the UWE and property developers with a proposal that the stadium should be built and leased back to Rovers and that the club would contribute £10 million upfront and sign a lease committing to pay £1 million per year to operate it. Knowing that set against those lease costs would be rent received from sub lessees (including UWE for classroom space) leaving a net figure of say £500 000 per year for Rovers to pay. If Gashead 1981 is correct then a £6 million grant from the FA would have also been available in addition to the £10 million left from the stadium sale making a total of £16 million cash available for fitting out costs, long term working capital and team development. It would have given Rovers the chance,as Darrell Clarke might have said, "to have a right good go". Your falling for the same trap NH, and SL, fell in to, you're assuming Sainsbury's intended building a supermarket the truth is what they, & Tesco's, have done all over the UK, out bid their rivals for the land with the sole intention of stopping them building a store rather than ever intended building their own store. What NH should have done is take the £1m(?) offered towards our costs rather than lose everything taking the case to trial. As far as the UWE is couldn't have taken the ALQ's 18 months to decide they didn't want to lease the land, did they mess the UWE around so they decided they sooner do a deal with EW from the MV's, or where they just simply unable to come up with the money due to issues in their homeland etc? Topper, with respect (as they say) you are falling into the trap of believing the myth that Rovers are always unlucky and outsiders are constantly seeking opportunities to do the dirty on us. Sainsburys react to market conditions and those who do business with them have to as well so surely you don't believe they always had a "hidden agenda" just to mess up Rovers plans ? Supermarkets were being built then and land deals done every week in the same way as when the Mem Regeneration project failed student accommodation was still being built in huge volumes but the Rovers story was that we had been let down and it was that darned bad luck again. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 9, 2018 20:42:29 GMT
Pretty sure they had more than a hotel in mind, and i think we could have vastly improved the clubs income with bigger sponsors, match day revenue, selling more merchandise. Also no pubs or anywhere to eat nearby so that alone could increase the match day revenue big time UTG ! There's still few team outside the Premiership making profits, they probably saw a good business opportunity but that's going to be the same with any potential owner, I can't see anybody saying I'd love to buy Rovers and lose £10/20m of my hard earned money! |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Dec 9, 2018 22:58:23 GMT
Trouble is, you can't just use the law of supply and demand to get you decent premises at a decent price, like you can for a warehouse or an office. You have to rely on good will or luck. So when a sympathetic organisation own the perfect stadium for you, you don't need to own it. But obviously Rovers fans don't really need it explained to them what happens if the stadium owners are not sympathetic. It's not about 'an Englishman's home is his castle,' it's about Eastville. There is a long list of people and organizations which we think of as "unsympathetic" to Rovers and the Bristol Stadium Company are certainly on it but what would anyone else have done in their position ? They had a prime piece of real estate which they would have leased at a price but Rovers wouldn't or couldn't pay it. This happens all the time in business and it is the responsibility of the lessee to make sure their business will always have suitable premises from which to operate. By now I think many fans have come to realise that we cannot always keep blaming outsiders for our woes. We have to look at how effectively our own leaders perform and how effectively we hold them to account. I'm not blaming anyone, I'm pointing out that just saying, 'well let's rent then, and anyone who doesn't want to rent must have some sort of castle fixation,' ignores the history of the club. |
|
|
|
Post by justin blue on Dec 9, 2018 23:50:21 GMT
Would it have been better to have had a long term lease deal with UWE rather than own it and have the income from Match days etc surely we would have bigger crowds generating more cash etc. I am sure the whole feeling about the club would be better and i don't think we would be in such a mess/low place as what we are now if we knew it was going ahead I know we leased Eastville for many years and although it did not end well surely UWE would be different and i just cannot see us ever building/owning a new Stadium. We also built a great team when renting Twerton. Owning always sounds better, but really what difference does it make. We owned the Mem, but the outstanding mortgage was killing us yet we seemed to thrive while renting Twerton. We thrived for years at Eastville after selling due to the fact we were losing money running it ourselves. Sadly our people then did not have the foresight to negotiate a longer lease. Rovers just don't seem to make good owners and I wouldn't trust this lot with a big stadium. So if someone offered to lease us UWE matchdays we would at least have a decent home. Still it's all academic now as nobody's interested in us atm. |
|
