|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Sept 24, 2015 14:15:04 GMT
If i was the Chancellor of UWE i'd be thinking "Who the f**k said anything about a supposed Plan B?" maybe us moving the goalposts of the agreement as it were is as bad as Sainsbury's backing out on us! Pretty sure UWE and South Glos Council for that matter want a 21700 capacity stadium - no more no less - UTG
|
|
|
Post by oldtoteender on Sept 24, 2015 19:28:38 GMT
Sorry but I cannot see how it would cost much more to build with the 22000 seats as opposed to 15000. UTG.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Sept 24, 2015 19:36:02 GMT
Sorry but I cannot see how it would cost much more to build with the 22000 seats as opposed to 15000. UTG. Those little plastic seats are really Dam expensive.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 24, 2015 19:40:34 GMT
I'm guessing we get just a bog standard stadium with no gym, creche, supermarket etc similar to Rotherham's which apparent cost only £20m to build, problem is if we lose the Sainsbury's case and the UWE still demand we're debt free what can we contribute once we've cleared our debts, certainly not more than the rumoured third ie £7m?
There's also the other issue of whether UWE & S Glos would want a 15,000 capacity stadium anyway, as JTS suggests what if they don't that would kill off Plan A & B?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2015 19:50:49 GMT
Genuine question. Why is the men not financial viable for a L2 club. Corporate boxes tick Supporters bar tick Not paying rent tick All match day profits to the club tick. With modest investment the club could increase its non match day activity. With a more major investment the club could slowly over the years develop the ground.
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Sept 24, 2015 19:54:11 GMT
Genuine question. Why is the men not financial viable for a L2 club. Corporate boxes tick Supporters bar tick Not paying rent tick All match day profits to the club tick. With modest investment the club could increase its non match day activity. With a more major investment the club could slowly over the years develop the ground. Good point, I guess because they are old and not used as much anymore? I would like to know from Higgs aswell
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 24, 2015 20:38:43 GMT
It's not a 7 days a week like Rotherham's as once the final fan has left on Saturday that's it really, income wise, for a fortnight if we don't have a mid week match.
We really need conference facilities and bars etc the club can use during the week but even a new Grandstand couldn't bring that due to the restrictive licensing rules.
Although how can NH pay off the Wonga loan clear his loans and develop the Mem?
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 24, 2015 21:34:05 GMT
Some fair points above. Hence why despite playing DA, I did actually vote to stay at the Mem.
That said, parts of my post do raise a point though - whilst it's like Plan B would be unappealing, it is fair to say we don't know much (or anything really) about it. So it could end up better than is being presumed (even if it's not MUCH better/good enough). But it might be a really good deal! Who knows; time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by bristolbluegas on Sept 24, 2015 21:39:09 GMT
It's got to be uwe all day long for me. Club will not progress at all if we stay at The Mem,we won't be able to attract decent players and we'll end up back in the Conference. No brainer for me.
|
|
|
Post by bristolbluegas on Sept 24, 2015 21:43:56 GMT
Genuine question. Why is the men not financial viable for a L2 club. Corporate boxes tick Supporters bar tick Not paying rent tick All match day profits to the club tick. With modest investment the club could increase its non match day activity. With a more major investment the club could slowly over the years develop the ground. Outdated facilities tick Revamped AG more attractive for conferences tick No proper disabled facilities tick Small bar- most people go to the pub pre match tick It's water poor for modern football. Christ, I saw better grounds when we were in the Conference!!
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Sept 24, 2015 23:31:52 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. Are there really only 4 of the 92 that are worse? Also, number of seats is approx 3000, 1000 above the league minimum, parking on site is better than many grounds I've been to and since the locals don't want a supermarket I'm sure they'd be ok with a multi-storey...
|
|
|
Post by gaslife on Sept 24, 2015 23:38:11 GMT
There is no money to 'develop' The Mem which can never be much more than a 1960's rugby ground with nowhere to park. BCFC have set a high standard at the upgraded AG and Rovers must compete or die a slow lingering death. I for one will not be buying any more season tickets at the grotty Mem. It's UWE or bust. btw I don't see why a low spec UWE would save much build money or be viable long term, where is the evidence that this is seriously being considered?
|
|
|
Post by Gastroenteritis on Sept 25, 2015 6:46:09 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?? i think that would be very attractive. And in some ways less of a gamble than going for plan A. Provided the board are savy and ensure REAL water tight contract are written up for our tenent agreement. The only problem I foresee is that clubs don't generally generate a surplus so increasing our stake in the stadium would me further investment and that's kinda the predicament e are in now. Really it's a catch 22.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Sept 25, 2015 8:03:28 GMT
I don't understand how going from owning our own ground to only owning a third of a ground is ever going to make things better.
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Sept 25, 2015 12:09:04 GMT
Swindon, Northampton and Swansea don't own their own ground
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Sept 25, 2015 12:11:32 GMT
Swindon, Northampton and Swansea don't own their own ground One is in perpetual financial ruin. One is in reported financial ruin. The last one makes so much money from TV and sponsorship that they put everyone else in financial ruin.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Sept 25, 2015 12:17:07 GMT
I'm surprised so many are (rightly) concerned that new owners would asset strip to get their money back but have no problem with that happening should we sell up 100% ownership for a 1/3rd of something else.
(For the record none of this has been confirmed or denied any more than take over rumours)
|
|
|
Post by justin blue on Sept 25, 2015 12:26:02 GMT
What if we were to offer to buy the UWE for 2m and if they went bust we could buy them out for 10k and vice versa. Reckon they'd go for that?
|
|
|
Post by thegasman on Sept 25, 2015 12:40:59 GMT
Someone asked earlier, what the UWE got out of any deal. Well, the original agreement provided for several part time jobs be available to students. The facilities in the original plan were available to students. The car park in the new ground was available to UWE, as they have an agreement to sell an existing car park for housing development (now at risk) The original plan also provided for hotel and conferencing facilities, also now at risk. And as someone already mentioned, Rovers would be sitting tenants on the ground, as UWE will never sell it. So UWE would get a fair bit out of the deal.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Sept 25, 2015 13:10:24 GMT
How about a more relevant vote on
A) a downsized UWE B) a Full sized UWE
the problem is you have put a condition on staying at the Mem.
at the New UWE we would have to pay rent on the additional £10 m investment by other parties. So basically we would be Coventry Mark 2.
the last time we rented was at Twerton. Before that it was Eastville. Not resounding successes were they.
|
|