Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 19:34:46 GMT
Fair play to Starnes and the club for putting this out, as any communication at all is welcome as far as I'm concerned, even though it didn't really tell us much more than we already knew. The Colony is the biggest mystery to me, and I wish they could just be honest and front up as to why they didn't submit a planning application when they said they would. Hamer told GT it was because of increasing costs, which has never been mentioned since then and the comment seems to have been brushed under the carpet. If that is indeed true then it begs the question of how the club ever think they'll be able to afford to put in the necessary infrastructure that they keep saying is "an aspiration". Granted perhaps plans are afoot in the background that mean the colony is no longer a go-er, and other parties are involved hence the lack of info, but that still doesn't explain Hamer's comment to GT. If you care to do a search for the topic on here, you will find Steve Hamers reply to an email I sent him much earlier in this season. In it he explained the cost of the Colony development had increased three fold in the planning stage and that was the reason why it was on hold.
|
|
|
Post by glengas on Feb 22, 2019 19:36:10 GMT
So do we have a site for the new stadium as people were suggesting this week?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 20:07:29 GMT
So do we have a site for the new stadium as people were suggesting this week? Not according to our CEO today!
|
|
|
Post by paulrandallstash on Feb 22, 2019 20:27:06 GMT
So do we have a site for the new stadium as people were suggesting this week? yes we do
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Feb 22, 2019 20:28:55 GMT
Fair play to Starnes and the club for putting this out, as any communication at all is welcome as far as I'm concerned, even though it didn't really tell us much more than we already knew. The Colony is the biggest mystery to me, and I wish they could just be honest and front up as to why they didn't submit a planning application when they said they would. Hamer told GT it was because of increasing costs, which has never been mentioned since then and the comment seems to have been brushed under the carpet. If that is indeed true then it begs the question of how the club ever think they'll be able to afford to put in the necessary infrastructure that they keep saying is "an aspiration". Granted perhaps plans are afoot in the background that mean the colony is no longer a go-er, and other parties are involved hence the lack of info, but that still doesn't explain Hamer's comment to GT. If you care to do a search for the topic on here, you will find Steve Hamers reply to an email I sent him much earlier in this season. In it he explained the cost of the Colony development had increased three fold in the planning stage and that was the reason why it was on hold. Personally I think that sounds like total BS. How could it have tripled? Of course it could have tripled beyond what they THOUGHT it would cost, in which case they didn't do their homework before announcing plans for it.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 22, 2019 20:56:57 GMT
The land was bought is owned by DS whereas the London office is paid for by the club. During the 2017 financial year Bristol Rovers made purchases of £127,566.00 on behalf of Dwane Colony Ltd. At the end of the financial year Dwane Colony Ltd had not repaid that money which was shown as still being owed to Bristol Rovers. Technically thats correct, but What difference does that make though. 1883ltd owe DS however many million. Just inter group accounts
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 22, 2019 21:10:23 GMT
During the 2017 financial year Bristol Rovers made purchases of £127,566.00 on behalf of Dwane Colony Ltd. At the end of the financial year Dwane Colony Ltd had not repaid that money which was shown as still being owed to Bristol Rovers. Technically thats correct, but What difference does that make though. 1883ltd owe DS however many million. Just inter group accounts DS have waste their own money on the colony land, it's not come out of the club's funds so, I assume, will never appear as a debt the club owes if things ever go pair shaped with the owners and they decide to sell up, or worse!
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 22, 2019 21:19:51 GMT
Technically thats correct, but What difference does that make though. 1883ltd owe DS however many million. Just inter group accounts DS have waste their own money on the colony land, it's not come out of the club's funds so, I assume, will never appear as a debt the club owes if things ever go pair shaped with the owners and they decide to sell up, or worse! Well yes. If the purchase of the land was directly from DS then it is nothing to do with Rovers (unless that land is rolled up in a sale of 1883 ltd) I just didnt understand Swiss' point if there was one, or if he was just stating a fact. DS owe BRFC 100k, BRFC owe 10m. Net effect is... (rhetorical question)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 21:27:07 GMT
I guess he means well but I had to laugh at 10 department heads reporting in to him and regularly having meetings with the head of recruitment.
Has ever so much resulted in so little? We must be the most expensive tinpot operation in the league. We could probably get rid of most of the admin costs that DS have introduced and discern no conceivable difference from the day to day experience of being a fan. Build a suitable property infrastructure and *then* bring in the admin people. Otherwise it's like putting lipstick on a pig.
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 22, 2019 21:32:11 GMT
What a shame the Q&A couldn't be done face to face, where he didn't have the time to prepare his answers word by word
|
|
|
Post by toddy1953 on Feb 22, 2019 21:48:33 GMT
I have probably lost the plot on all of this now, but when asked in Aug, about new site for a stadium or rebuild the Mem , I thought he said all options are on the table. Well in this interview MS only mentions a new site. So a rebuild of the Mem is now (again) a non starter? The more I hear from the hierarchy at the club, the more I think I'd rather they say nothing
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Feb 22, 2019 22:01:57 GMT
During the 2017 financial year Bristol Rovers made purchases of £127,566.00 on behalf of Dwane Colony Ltd. At the end of the financial year Dwane Colony Ltd had not repaid that money which was shown as still being owed to Bristol Rovers. Technically thats correct, but What difference does that make though. 1883ltd owe DS however many million. Just inter group accounts Yes I guess so long as VAT regulations have been adhered to its just a question of wondering whether the £127,566.00 cash came from the Dwane Sports loan, the bank overdraft, season ticket revenue, Supporters Club donations, EFL money, share scheme contributions or pastie sales. On a day when the club have proudly announced that the new member of the coaching staff is working unpaid on a voluntary basis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 22:15:58 GMT
I have probably lost the plot on all of this now, but when asked in Aug, about new site for a stadium or rebuild the Mem , I thought he said all options are on the table. Well in this interview MS only mentions a new site. So a rebuild of the Mem is now (again) a non starter? The more I hear from the hierarchy at the club, the more I think I'd rather they say nothing I bet if you asked Starnes, Hamer and Wael what the goal is with regards to a stadium you would get a different answer from all 3. The only thing that I think is safe to conclude is that we will still be at the mem in 5 and most likely 10 years time.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Feb 22, 2019 22:31:51 GMT
DS have waste their own money on the colony land, it's not come out of the club's funds so, I assume, will never appear as a debt the club owes if things ever go pair shaped with the owners and they decide to sell up, or worse! Well yes. If the purchase of the land was directly from DS then it is nothing to do with Rovers (unless that land is rolled up in a sale of 1883 ltd) I just didnt understand Swiss' point if there was one, or if he was just stating a fact. DS owe BRFC 100k, BRFC owe 10m. Net effect is... (rhetorical question) For a thriving, profitable company which was expanding rather than cutting back, where people felt secure in their jobs, customers were happy and bills were paid on time then I don't suppose anyone would object to the owners instructing their Financial Director to lend £127,566.00 to an associated company under the same ownership umbrella. But in a struggling, loss making company which was facing budget cuts, where staff felt insecure, customers were unhappy and bills were not always being paid on time then questions may be asked about why the owners did not inject the required amount of cash directly into the associated company which needed it. Not least by the staff, customers and creditors.
|
|
|
Post by islandgas on Feb 22, 2019 22:38:02 GMT
If DS remain in charge I'm pretty sure we'll never have a new stadium or training ground.
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Feb 22, 2019 22:42:17 GMT
From what? From he took us in to the conference, spent all of this seasons budget on dross, and only went after we lost 4-0 at home to doncaster WUM
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,841
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 22, 2019 22:47:09 GMT
Well yes. If the purchase of the land was directly from DS then it is nothing to do with Rovers (unless that land is rolled up in a sale of 1883 ltd) I just didnt understand Swiss' point if there was one, or if he was just stating a fact. DS owe BRFC 100k, BRFC owe 10m. Net effect is... (rhetorical question) For a thriving, profitable company which was expanding rather than cutting back, where people felt secure in their jobs, customers were happy and bills were paid on time then I don't suppose anyone would object to the owners instructing their Financial Director to lend £127,566.00 to an associated company under the same ownership umbrella. But in a struggling, loss making company which was facing budget cuts, where staff felt insecure, customers were unhappy and bills were not always being paid on time then questions may be asked about why the owners did not inject the required amount of cash directly into the associated company which needed it. Not least by the staff, customers and creditors. I've always presumed that the cost of purchasing the Colony was through the (then) £10m credit facility (and therefore liable for any interest on the loan) but the ownership was under DC as a separation of assets exercise. Are you suggesting the loan was for another purpose?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 22:49:01 GMT
Well yes. If the purchase of the land was directly from DS then it is nothing to do with Rovers (unless that land is rolled up in a sale of 1883 ltd) I just didnt understand Swiss' point if there was one, or if he was just stating a fact. DS owe BRFC 100k, BRFC owe 10m. Net effect is... (rhetorical question) For a thriving, profitable company which was expanding rather than cutting back, where people felt secure in their jobs, customers were happy and bills were paid on time then I don't suppose anyone would object to the owners instructing their Financial Director to lend £127,566.00 to an associated company under the same ownership umbrella. But in a struggling, loss making company which was facing budget cuts, where staff felt insecure, customers were unhappy and bills were not always being paid on time then questions may be asked about why the owners did not inject the required amount of cash directly into the associated company which needed it. Not least by the staff, customers and creditors. Which bills have not been paid? Details would be nice if you answer the question. What evidence do you have that the budget will be cut? ps like all clubs the budget will be cut if were relegated but what clear evidence do you have that it will happen if we stay up?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 22, 2019 22:55:16 GMT
For a thriving, profitable company which was expanding rather than cutting back, where people felt secure in their jobs, customers were happy and bills were paid on time then I don't suppose anyone would object to the owners instructing their Financial Director to lend £127,566.00 to an associated company under the same ownership umbrella. But in a struggling, loss making company which was facing budget cuts, where staff felt insecure, customers were unhappy and bills were not always being paid on time then questions may be asked about why the owners did not inject the required amount of cash directly into the associated company which needed it. Not least by the staff, customers and creditors. I've always presumed that the cost of purchasing the Colony was through the (then) £10m credit facility (and therefore liable for any interest on the loan) but the ownership was under DC as a separation of assets exercise. Are you suggesting the loan was for another purpose? #fencegate
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Feb 22, 2019 23:37:32 GMT
Good on MS for answering these questions.
It's what everyone was demanding, and he's done it.
The answers aren't very inspiring, but who thought they would be?
Let's hope this isn't the last Q&A for months.
Ten people reporting to him on a daily basis though?
What on earth are they actually reporting?
|
|