|
|
Post by Centenary Gas on Sept 24, 2015 10:49:20 GMT
It looks like the board are pressing ahead with the details for Plan B, which are very likely to be a reduced capacity UWE which we part own.
NH says that staying at the Mem isn't financially viable? It would be if we budgeted to break even and didn't have to pay back the debts on the boards mess.
It doesn't look like we will get any say in this, but before our home is taken away from us and a low ceiling imposed on the clubs future progression, what would you prefer?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Sept 24, 2015 11:05:46 GMT
The words "rock" and "hard place" spring to mind. We'll be stuck in the dark depths of League 2/Conf if either of these two options are our long term future, in my opinion. Particularly if we are stuck with our hard-working but let's face it, incompetent board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Sept 24, 2015 11:12:36 GMT
The words "rock" and "hard place" spring to mind. We'll be stuck in the dark depths of League 2/Conf if either of these two options are our long term future, in my opinion. Particularly if we are stuck with our hard-working but let's face it, incompetent board. One option allows for the sale of an asset at a later date to allow progress. The other condemns us to being water poor forever. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 24, 2015 11:15:11 GMT
Isn't Plan B just a rumour like Plan C? I think both rumours coming from the same source?
|
|
|
|
Post by Centenary Gas on Sept 24, 2015 11:16:53 GMT
The words "rock" and "hard place" spring to mind. We'll be stuck in the dark depths of League 2/Conf if either of these two options are our long term future, in my opinion. Particularly if we are stuck with our hard-working but let's face it, incompetent board. One option allows for the sale of an asset at a later date to allow progress. The other condemns us to being p**s poor forever. This. If NH drags us to UWE under Plan B conditions I can see that being the final straw for me. Optimism is everything |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 24, 2015 11:21:22 GMT
Just playing DA here (and for the record I voted for us to stay at the Mem).
But without knowing all the details, what if the actual deal is for us to:
1) Move to the UWE with a smaller capacity
2) In doing so earn more money through the new (and let's face it, far superior) facilities
3) Have the right to extend the capacity and % of our ownership if/when more money becomes available
So, for instance, we might only own 1/3 of a 15,000 stadium to start with, but over time, if we did happen to have money to spare (through investment or increased turnover due to the new stadium etc), we were able to increase our ownership and the capacity if required.
That might not be so unattractive then??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2015 11:23:10 GMT
Just playing DA here (and for the record I voted for us to stay at the Mem). But without knowing all the details, what if the actual deal is for us to: 1) Move to the UWE with a smaller capacity 2) In doing so earn more money through the new facilities 3) Have the right to extend the capacity and % of our ownership if/when more money becomes available So, for instance, we might only own 1/3 of a 15,000 stadium to start with, but over time, if we did happen to have money to spare (through investment or increased turnover due to the new stadium etc), we were able to increase our ownership and the capacity if required. That might not be so unattractive then?? Sorry Roverdrive, but that is just not Black & White enough for most on here. |
|
|
|
Post by Centenary Gas on Sept 24, 2015 11:29:44 GMT
Just playing DA here (and for the record I voted for us to stay at the Mem). But without knowing all the details, what if the actual deal is for us to: 1) Move to the UWE with a smaller capacity 2) In doing so earn more money through the new (and let's face it, far superior) facilities 3) Have the right to extend the capacity and % of our ownership if/when more money becomes available So, for instance, we might only own 1/3 of a 15,000 stadium to start with, but over time, if we did happen to have money to spare (through investment or increased turnover due to the new stadium etc), we were able to increase our ownership and the capacity if required. That might not be so unattractive then?? Maybe the board could try telling us what their plan is? I don't get why it's such a secret. |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 24, 2015 11:30:51 GMT
The more I think about it, the closer I think my example could actually be to reality:
- Think about it; sale of Mem circa £15m
- Ground cost decreased due to smaller capacity but increased due to rise in building materials etc £25m(??!)
- Diluted share due to UWE having to stump up far more money than they ever intended to
That could see us given ownership of about 1/3 of the ground - it's at least plausible IMO.
I can't remember what % we were meant to own initially - was it 100%?
Even if so, the deal may be that if Rovers ever do stump up the full amount (so circa £25m), we'd own the stadium in full as originally planned. And as we stump up more over the coming years etc, our ownership would increase in line. So in my example, a further £5 million or so might see us own 50% etc.
Thinking about it, it's quite a sensible solution. Especially if the ground is built in such a way that the capacity can be easily extended if the additional funds required ever come to being.
|
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 24, 2015 11:32:30 GMT
Just playing DA here (and for the record I voted for us to stay at the Mem). But without knowing all the details, what if the actual deal is for us to: 1) Move to the UWE with a smaller capacity 2) In doing so earn more money through the new (and let's face it, far superior) facilities 3) Have the right to extend the capacity and % of our ownership if/when more money becomes available So, for instance, we might only own 1/3 of a 15,000 stadium to start with, but over time, if we did happen to have money to spare (through investment or increased turnover due to the new stadium etc), we were able to increase our ownership and the capacity if required. That might not be so unattractive then?? Maybe the board could try telling us what their plan is? I don't get why it's such a secret. Perhaps they're worried that doing so would paint a picture of them expecting to lose, which could influence the appeal? I know it wouldn't influence it if done properly, but that's the only (albeit weak) explanation I can think of. |
|
|
|
Post by Centenary Gas on Sept 24, 2015 11:38:14 GMT
The more I think about it, the closer I think my example could actually be to reality: - Think about it; sale of Mem circa £15m - Ground cost decreased due to smaller capacity but increased due to rise in building materials etc £25m(??!) - Diluted share due to UWE having to stump up far more money than they ever intended to That could see us given ownership of about 1/3 of the ground - it's at least plausible IMO. I can't remember what % we were meant to own initially - was it 100%? Even if so, the deal may be that if Rovers ever do stump up the full amount (so circa £25m), we'd own the stadium in full as originally planned. And as we stump up more over the coming years etc, our ownership would increase in line. So in my example, a further £5 million or so might see us own 50% etc. Thinking about it, it's quite a sensible solution. Especially if the ground is built in such a way that the capacity can be easily extended if the additional funds required ever come to being. So, we would flog the Mem and half of the money would go to clearing the clubs debts? See GD's second tweet below We would of gone from (NH's words) owning our own 22k stadium outright and being debt free, to part owning a smaller stadium, debt free. Anyway, here's Geoff Dunfords tweets on the subject... Geoff Dunford @geoffdunford Sep 21 Rumours that we may only own 1/3 of a watered down stadium at UWE seems less attractive than owning 100% of the £15m Memorial Stadium? #UTG Geoff Dunford @geoffdunford Sep 22 @nickturner1883 Nick, it is not about the future of the Mem but the value of it being used in a future project to the club's advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 24, 2015 11:50:59 GMT
The more I think about it, the closer I think my example could actually be to reality: - Think about it; sale of Mem circa £15m - Ground cost decreased due to smaller capacity but increased due to rise in building materials etc £25m(??!) - Diluted share due to UWE having to stump up far more money than they ever intended to That could see us given ownership of about 1/3 of the ground - it's at least plausible IMO. I can't remember what % we were meant to own initially - was it 100%? Even if so, the deal may be that if Rovers ever do stump up the full amount (so circa £25m), we'd own the stadium in full as originally planned. And as we stump up more over the coming years etc, our ownership would increase in line. So in my example, a further £5 million or so might see us own 50% etc. Thinking about it, it's quite a sensible solution. Especially if the ground is built in such a way that the capacity can be easily extended if the additional funds required ever come to being. So, we would flog the Mem and half of the money would go to clearing the clubs debts? See GD's second tweet below We would of gone from (NH's words) owning our own 22k stadium outright and being debt free, to part owning a smaller stadium, debt free. Anyway, here's Geoff Dunfords tweets on the subject... Geoff Dunford @geoffdunford Sep 21 Rumours that we may only own 1/3 of a watered down stadium at UWE seems less attractive than owning 100% of the £15m Memorial Stadium? #UTG Geoff Dunford @geoffdunford Sep 22 @nickturner1883 Nick, it is not about the future of the Mem but the value of it being used in a future project to the club's advantage. Personally if my theory is correct, I like the deal. We go from playing in an absolute dog-sh** 11,000 ground to a brand new 15,000 stadium with additional facilities that can bring in more revenue for the club. If we can increase our "stake" in the stadium at a later date, therefore increasing our ownership, I don't really see what the problem is? Especially if the capacity can be extended too (but I'm sure 15,000 will be ample for the foreseeable future). For all we know, the deal ("Plan B") still even allows for us to take all of the revenue we previously agreed? I.e. just because UWE officially own 66.66% of the stadium, the deal still may see us take 100% of the revenue that was previously agreed in the deal. In my mind, that deal is a winner. We get the same revenue, the club becomes debt free, we get a brand new state-of-the-art stadium with a perfectly reasonable/realistic capacity AND yet we can still increase our ownership and even the capacity if/when more money becomes available. All conjecture of course, but then not a single post in this thread - or indeed the thread itself - is any different; none of us know what "Plan B" actually is. |
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Sept 24, 2015 11:57:40 GMT
The Mem is a non starter. It is a dump and one of the worst 5 league grounds in the country. 21st century and people are still getting wet, and the number of seats just reach the league minimum. No parking to speak of and even less if we develop the ground. We need a new ground somewhere away from Trash who will no doubt block any decent redevelopment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 24, 2015 12:24:34 GMT
Just playing DA here (and for the record I voted for us to stay at the Mem). But without knowing all the details, what if the actual deal is for us to: 1) Move to the UWE with a smaller capacity 2) In doing so earn more money through the new (and let's face it, far superior) facilities 3) Have the right to extend the capacity and % of our ownership if/when more money becomes available So, for instance, we might only own 1/3 of a 15,000 stadium to start with, but over time, if we did happen to have money to spare (through investment or increased turnover due to the new stadium etc), we were able to increase our ownership and the capacity if required. That might not be so unattractive then?? Assuming this plan actually exsists I assume it will be a stripped out staduim compared to the original plans, so the only income will come from football plus perhaps the odd concert etc and a possible conference suite. So at the Mem we average aroung 6,500(?) gates, at the UWE it could be 10,000 gates if we are succesful, however I can't see ticket prices going up so instead of £6,500 x £20 = £130,000 per home game it will be £10,000 x £20 = £200,000 less two third's = £66,666. Whilst there will be further income streams are they really going to make up such a deficit to make the millions needed to eventually buy out the UWE/expand the ground? Plus what happens if the UWE decide to up the rates any time in the future? The only way it would look attractive to me is for the UWE to agree to rent the staduim to Rovers at a low rate and over a lenghty period with perhaps the rates only increasing by inflation. Unfortunately I don't get the impression the UWE are a charity! |
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Sept 24, 2015 12:38:03 GMT
Personally if my theory is correct, I like the deal. We go from playing in an absolute dog-sh** 11,000 ground to a brand new 15,000 stadium with additional facilities that can bring in more revenue for the club. If we can increase our "stake" in the stadium at a later date, therefore increasing our ownership, I don't really see what the problem is? Especially if the capacity can be extended too (but I'm sure 15,000 will be ample for the foreseeable future). For all we know, the deal ("Plan B") still even allows for us to take all of the revenue we previously agreed? I.e. just because UWE officially own 66.66% of the stadium, the deal still may see us take 100% of the revenue that was previously agreed in the deal. In my mind, that deal is a winner. We get the same revenue, the club becomes debt free, we get a brand new state-of-the-art stadium with a perfectly reasonable/realistic capacity AND yet we can still increase our ownership and even the capacity if/when more money becomes available. All conjecture of course, but then not a single post in this thread - or indeed the thread itself - is any different; none of us know what "Plan B" actually is. So now the UWE give us all the revenue from a part owned stadium, and we don't have to pay interest on the money they lend to us to build it. The Vice Chancellor will be looking for a new job next week. That's if he isn't in prison for fraud. I believe the UWE is a registered charity, and you can't do any such scheme with charitable status attached anyway. Hence why we won't own the land it's on anyway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2015 12:40:31 GMT
What do UWE get out of your deal RD?
As far as I can see it is lose lose for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Centenary Gas on Sept 24, 2015 12:56:10 GMT
Just playing DA here (and for the record I voted for us to stay at the Mem). But without knowing all the details, what if the actual deal is for us to: 1) Move to the UWE with a smaller capacity 2) In doing so earn more money through the new (and let's face it, far superior) facilities 3) Have the right to extend the capacity and % of our ownership if/when more money becomes available So, for instance, we might only own 1/3 of a 15,000 stadium to start with, but over time, if we did happen to have money to spare (through investment or increased turnover due to the new stadium etc), we were able to increase our ownership and the capacity if required. That might not be so unattractive then?? Assuming this plan actually exsists I assume it will be a stripped out staduim compared to the original plans, so the only income will come from football plus perhaps the odd concert etc and a possible conference suite. So at the Mem we average aroung 6,500(?) gates, at the UWE it could be 10,000 gates if we are succesful, however I can't see ticket prices going up so instead of £6,500 x £20 = £130,000 per home game it will be £10,000 x £20 = £200,000 less two third's = £66,666. Whilst there will be further income streams are they really going to make up such a deficit to make the millions needed to eventually buy out the UWE/expand the ground? Plus what happens if the UWE decide to up the rates any time in the future? The only way it would look attractive to me is for the UWE to agree to rent the staduim to Rovers at a low rate and over a lenghty period with perhaps the rates only increasing by inflation. Unfortunately I don't get the impression the UWE are a charity! Even then you are over estimating match day income. Plenty of the attendees are season ticket holders Plenty of the pay on the day are concessions. Of the ticket money left, 20% is swallowed up by VAT |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 24, 2015 13:09:49 GMT
What do UWE get out of your deal RD? As far as I can see it is lose lose for them. Why is it any different to the original deal? My posts states 100% of the revenue that we previously agreed upon. In others, if we agreed to take 55% of the revenue originally (that's a made up figure by the way for the purpose of my argument) then 100% of the previously agreed revenue would be 55%. What did they ever gain anyway? Answer: a brand new sports complex that their students can use - which they still get. The capacity would have never been important them either. Not only that, but by earning 66% of the stadium, if heaven forbid it was a white elephant, they can still sell it on and recoup their investment. But by offering them the deal I've listed, they may not recoup their investment/liability as/when Rovers want to own more further down the line anyway. Nothing gained maybe, but nothing lost either IMO? I.e. no better or worse; so why would they have a problem with it? |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 24, 2015 13:13:13 GMT
Just playing DA here (and for the record I voted for us to stay at the Mem). But without knowing all the details, what if the actual deal is for us to: 1) Move to the UWE with a smaller capacity 2) In doing so earn more money through the new (and let's face it, far superior) facilities 3) Have the right to extend the capacity and % of our ownership if/when more money becomes available So, for instance, we might only own 1/3 of a 15,000 stadium to start with, but over time, if we did happen to have money to spare (through investment or increased turnover due to the new stadium etc), we were able to increase our ownership and the capacity if required. That might not be so unattractive then?? Assuming this plan actually exsists I assume it will be a stripped out staduim compared to the original plans, so the only income will come from football plus perhaps the odd concert etc and a possible conference suite. So at the Mem we average aroung 6,500(?) gates, at the UWE it could be 10,000 gates if we are succesful, however I can't see ticket prices going up so instead of £6,500 x £20 = £130,000 per home game it will be £10,000 x £20 = £200,000 less two third's = £66,666. Whilst there will be further income streams are they really going to make up such a deficit to make the millions needed to eventually buy out the UWE/expand the ground? Plus what happens if the UWE decide to up the rates any time in the future? The only way it would look attractive to me is for the UWE to agree to rent the staduim to Rovers at a low rate and over a lenghty period with perhaps the rates only increasing by inflation. Unfortunately I don't get the impression the UWE are a charity! Well that was the original plan anyway? The deficit would be based on getting further investment in the future or indeed selling the club. Granted we may never raise such funds, but then how is that any different to not having the money to get the ground in the first place? Also, my latter posts said perhaps the deal would still see us take 100% of the previously agreed income %. Hence we would actually make more money. See my latter post to TwertonKid about why such a deal would still potentially be of interest to the UWE. |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 24, 2015 13:17:21 GMT
Personally if my theory is correct, I like the deal. We go from playing in an absolute dog-sh** 11,000 ground to a brand new 15,000 stadium with additional facilities that can bring in more revenue for the club. If we can increase our "stake" in the stadium at a later date, therefore increasing our ownership, I don't really see what the problem is? Especially if the capacity can be extended too (but I'm sure 15,000 will be ample for the foreseeable future). For all we know, the deal ("Plan B") still even allows for us to take all of the revenue we previously agreed? I.e. just because UWE officially own 66.66% of the stadium, the deal still may see us take 100% of the revenue that was previously agreed in the deal. In my mind, that deal is a winner. We get the same revenue, the club becomes debt free, we get a brand new state-of-the-art stadium with a perfectly reasonable/realistic capacity AND yet we can still increase our ownership and even the capacity if/when more money becomes available. All conjecture of course, but then not a single post in this thread - or indeed the thread itself - is any different; none of us know what "Plan B" actually is. So now the UWE give us all the revenue from a part owned stadium, and we don't have to pay interest on the money they lend to us to build it. The Vice Chancellor will be looking for a new job next week. That's if he isn't in prison for fraud. I believe the UWE is a registered charity, and you can't do any such scheme with charitable status attached anyway. Hence why we won't own the land it's on anyway. Well you can cut out your condescending tone if you're not going to bother reading my post properly. I stated 100% of the previously agreed income - that may have originally been 55% of the revenue (I don't know) - so that would be 55% - not 100%. I don't see how that's fraudulent. As far as I'm aware, contractual deals related to revenue are not linked to % of ownership; it's entirely down to what the purchaser/owner and other parties agree on and the applicable contract stipulates. As long as the UWE want a stadium, they'll have a figure in mind in respect of what they are prepared to pay. Therefore, if Rovers £15 million were to make up that shortfall, they may be prepared to take the jump. They then get a stadium within their budget, which they may even accrue further contribution towards in the future. Regarding interest - this may be why we're getting a watered down share. If the value of the Mem was £15m, that were our contribution to the stadium and that was only enough to get us 1/3 ownership of the stadium, in real terms that would suggest the new - significantly reduced capacity - stadium was costing £45m; significantly higher than the original cost for a stadium with an extra 7,000 seats. Considering the new stadium is more likely to be around £30m, given our £15m investment, that should have seen us with a 50% share. So in my opinion, that would more than cover interest! As I say, all supposition at the moment, but then absolutely nothing in this thread is anything other than that. Again, I was only playing DA anyway. |
|
