|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 24, 2018 9:56:25 GMT
Hhmm, the Bengali Bantams, the Pakistani Pirates, the Gay Pirates..............Can't anyone see that by suggesting/supporting these organised groupings that you are actually encouraging the very same problems that you claim to be addressing? Some people never will and some people will believe that 2 wrongs make a right. Sad. Laws exist to deal with racism but those laws require people to stand up and report the offences. Perhaps it's the attitude of people like peterparker that need to change and report racism. The other way is to do nothing and hope someone else reports it.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 24, 2018 8:08:08 GMT
I was also there and one point that was made is that older BAME people remember the dark days of the 70s when they wouldn't dare set foot in a football stadium. Fast forward and their kids aren't taken to football and so a major route for why kids get hooked on their local team is taken away. The Bengali bantams was a highlight too. Maybe we could get a Pakistani Pirates or something similar? Obviously it would need to be someone in the community which is the struggle. Oh dear let's encourage diversity by openly encouraging segregated groups of fans. Perhaps we can have segregated areas of the ground as well? I mean it's only racial equality laws that stop that sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 20, 2018 15:28:46 GMT
Sorry you should've said earlier that a charge for circa £15m was trivial to you. Looks like your the type of investor we need. well that isn't quite what I said is it.
I thought the charge was £10m? The credit facility is now £15m and The Mem is valued at £11.1m if I recall the accounts/documents correctly on companies house
I though we have established/agreed that they don't need a charge to sell the ground, and get there money if they really wanted to haven't we? In that respect yes the charge is trivial.
It wouldn't be trivial that we lost the ground, but the charge wouldn't matter one bit
you went on to say any new owners would want the charge gone, so if someone else took over and paid/agreed to pay off the Al-Qadi's the charge would be gone wouldn't it, so again what real difference does the charge make?
what is the alternative scenario where the charge itself will f**k us over bearing in mind the conversation we have had and if we are tentatively agreeing on the two points above.
Meanwhile I will continue to listen the sky falling in theories whilst they continue to spend money on something they apparently have no appetite for anymore according to some (not necessarily by yourself)
You're agreeing that you don't know why there is a charge and we're agreeing there must be a reason. The reason that evades everyone even though you say they don't need it. Strange why people trivialise things they can't answer. To f'all yes there has always been a charge usually a lot smaller and linked to a loan from an external party. My best guess for the charge is Dwane Sports borrowing the money and having to offer security. So I imagine that we are hostage to some other parties whim, or contract interpretation, and not just the owners. Of course just my guess and it doesn't matter to most anyway for such a trivial amount.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 20, 2018 14:21:29 GMT
Well if your view is we can't do anything about it so don't discuss it then we may as well stop discussing DCs team selection or tactics as we have as much input into that as we do the financing of the club. Best just to be good obedient customers handing over our money on a Saturday and clapping politely when allowed. Of course I am not saying we shouldn’t talk about how the club is run. Crikey I have spent years doing it. I just don’t get the question regarding the charge if a) we are agreed they don’t necessarily need it to get their money back, b) any new owners would want it gone because…, so c) the answer is probably trivial to make no difference
otherwise as I said earlier the club is funded as it has been in the past via loans from the owners, and the current owners seem to be spending to improve things on the face of it
Sorry you should've said earlier that a charge for circa £15m was trivial to you. Looks like your the type of investor we need.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 20, 2018 13:35:14 GMT
Why do you keep calling them asset strippers? Asset strippers buy a company for less than the value of its parts, invest nothing, sell those parts at a premium/profit and then disappear. Not seen anyone on here apart from you suggesting a scenario where that will happen. The charge on the Mem just allows them to recover a large chunk of money they have committed to buying and underwriting the costs of the club. I see no way short of 2 promotions that the Al Qs could depart in profit. But I can see a way they could minimise their losses if they depart and that would effectively leave us homeless without a pot for the new CEO to water in. As to a charge as you point out they don't need it which doesn't answer the question of why they have it does it? I understand people wondering or worrying about how the club is funded but there ain’t a lot any of us can do about that now. That ship sailed a long time okay well before The Al-Qadi’s ever rocked up. I only mention ‘asset stripping’ as I am at a loss as to what people are expecting of the Al-Qadi’s. If they were going to run away and recoup all/most of their money they are going a funny way about it as far as I can do as they seem to be spending an awful lot of money even if it isn’t on the shiny new stadium we would all love to see. We can keep coming back to the charge and whether they need it or not, and we know they don’t necessarily need it if they want to bail, so why do we even need to try and answer that question when it essentially makes no difference? It’s like trying to answer the meaning of life, even if we know the answer is 42 Well if your view is we can't do anything about it so don't discuss it then we may as well stop discussing DCs team selection or tactics as we have as much input into that as we do the financing of the club. Best just to be good obedient customers handing over our money on a Saturday and clapping politely when allowed.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 20, 2018 12:53:12 GMT
Do they need a charge to sell The Mem (that they own) and pocket the cash? No So what’s the big deal/fuss with the charge. Nasty, evil football hating Hani will just sell up won’t he? And there won’t be anything we can do about it anyway. If new owners came in and wanted the charge removed, I am sure 1883ltd would be repaying The Al-Qadi’s for a long time for all the money 1883ltd has spent. I don’t know how they intend to be here or not, but currently they are the worst asset strippers I have ever seen, judging by how some seem to perceive them for protecting their loans Why do you keep calling them asset strippers? Asset strippers buy a company for less than the value of its parts, invest nothing, sell those parts at a premium/profit and then disappear. Not seen anyone on here apart from you suggesting a scenario where that will happen. The charge on the Mem just allows them to recover a large chunk of money they have committed to buying and underwriting the costs of the club. I see no way short of 2 promotions that the Al Qs could depart in profit. But I can see a way they could minimise their losses if they depart and that would effectively leave us homeless without a pot for the new CEO to water in. As to a charge as you point out they don't need it which doesn't answer the question of why they have it does it?
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 20, 2018 12:42:52 GMT
There are a number of ways a proprietor can invest in a company, normally through shares or by loans/debentures. The former is secured by the very nature of them while the loans are not, so in pure accounting terms they will make it secure by taking out a charge. Also there has rarely been a time we have not had a charge on the Mem. We are not alone in having a charge on our ground, the majority of L1 for example have or until recently have had a charge on their ground. A quck check of Companies House will show them. There would be no reason to have the OP if people were willing to stop using derogatory terms like asset strippers, happy clappers, rose tinters, Wael has no money and indeed the others being labelled City fans just because they take a contrary view. We all want us to do well and get our new stadium. Petty point scoring helps no-one. Agree with the last paragraph but it appears to me that it is only the happy clappers calling them asset strippers. Hey ho why worry about how your club is financed, what's the worse that can happen....
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 20, 2018 10:49:35 GMT
What a load of hogwash. The charge will have nothing to do with any future owners (and I guess from that comment you don't believe the Al Qs are here for the long term) as new owners insist on the charge being removed, unless the club is sold separately to the ground. Ignorance of everything else is where we are all at as the current owners share very little with us and we only learn limited information from the annual accounts. And those annual accounts so us we have one secured credit or who happens to be the majority shareholder. If there are here for the long term with the financial wherewithal why do they need to make themselves a secured creditor? A question a number of us humble pie eaters keep asking that you lot in the happy clappy ignorance is bliss camp fail to answer everytime Because it's common business practice when lending money and it also stops another debtor getting a charge on the ground? If the ALQ's are just here for the short term why are they bothering to now employ a CEO as I doubt he will come cheap? Oh god the thinking hats are on today. Other people could only get a charge over the ground if the owners agreed or if they went to court most likely for non payment of something. So the Al Qs have taken a charge over the ground in case they can't pay bills? Standard practice or sharp practice? Go put a charge on your own property and then try to use it as any form of security. It's good business practice to limit your financial exposure hence people setup limited companies instead of being a sole trader. I certainly hope its the likes of me that have to eat humble pie and not you happy clappers
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 20, 2018 10:22:43 GMT
It's not some arcane tax beneficial move. It's a move to make them a secured creditor if the unfortunate outcome is administration thus putting them ahead of all the unsecured creditors when it comes to recovering debt. As Holmes says ignorance is bliss. As to humble pie I'd be very happy to eat it if its served in a shiny new or redeveloped ground generating revenue to the football club throughout the week. all very true, but as people are keen to tell us Hani is the big boss, doesn't like football, so no doubt he wouldn't care in just flogging The Mem for housing, and trousering the cash.
and he doesn't need a charge to do that does he.
also it doesn't mean if the Al-Qadi's leave they will call in all their money either as they could just do the above, but it does secures them the right to get a chunk of money if new owners sold us down the river
Ignorance may well be bliss, but ignorance of everything else is still ignorance
What a load of hogwash. The charge will have nothing to do with any future owners (and I guess from that comment you don't believe the Al Qs are here for the long term) as new owners insist on the charge being removed, unless the club is sold separately to the ground. Ignorance of everything else is where we are all at as the current owners share very little with us and we only learn limited information from the annual accounts. And those annual accounts so us we have one secured credit or who happens to be the majority shareholder. If there are here for the long term with the financial wherewithal why do they need to make themselves a secured creditor? A question a number of us humble pie eaters keep asking that you lot in the happy clappy ignorance is bliss camp fail to answer everytime
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 20, 2018 7:52:49 GMT
I don’t think the value of the loans currently exceed the value of the asset. So what, if they decide to bail out when the value of th assets exceeding the debt by £1.00, they'd get,er, £1.00. I reckon securing their debt against something they own is just some arcane tax beneficial move. Nothing more or less. It's not the sort of thing the average fan, operating on PAYE knows, or necssarily needs to know. Myself included. It's not some arcane tax beneficial move. It's a move to make them a secured creditor if the unfortunate outcome is administration thus putting them ahead of all the unsecured creditors when it comes to recovering debt. As Holmes says ignorance is bliss. As to humble pie I'd be very happy to eat it if its served in a shiny new or redeveloped ground generating revenue to the football club throughout the week.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 10, 2018 13:25:03 GMT
I think the way to go is to build the main stand on the car park, then bit by bit move the ground over. If you have 7k in the main stand, along with 5k at a new north stand, 6k in a new west stand an 1600 in the south stand. It gives to 19500. Yes you lose the half car park but you gain vehicle access on the other side. beneath the West and North stands you could have shops or perhaps community things Didn't NH have that plan in between moving to Cheltenham and signing a contract with Sainsbury?
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 9, 2018 8:05:38 GMT
Whatever it would only be for a season or two until another rugby league franchise fails outside of its "heartland'. No demand equals no future.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 5, 2018 10:35:11 GMT
If they have been trying to attract stadium finance by offering a 40% stake it's hardly surprising there have been no takers since May 2017. My guess is that anyone risking £20+ million to pay for the redevelopment would certainly want control of the company and the Dwane Sports charge removed. But why offer 40% as new shares when they already own 92% if the existing shares, why not just sell them 40% of the existing shares? At best doing it this way will raise £m's not the £10m's required for a new stadium, perhaps it's a way to fund the training ground development? The obvious difference is that if they sell shares they already own the cash will go to Dwane Sports. If it's new shares issued in BRFC 1883 then the cash will go into club coffers, of course this then maybe used to repay the revolving credit facility. Or perhaps its a debt write off and the new shares will be taken up by Dwane Sports and the revolving credit facility cleared. I wouldn't hold your breathe on that last one though.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Apr 4, 2018 14:39:51 GMT
Bristol Rovers paid out £62,353 in agent fees for the period February 1, 2017 to January 31, 2018. The Football Association have today released figures which show that the Gas have one of the lowest fees in League One. Rovers rank at 15th in the third tier in terms of money paid out to agents, with many clubs spending way in excess of six figures. Last season Rovers spent £51,489 on agent fees, meaning a slight increase this year. But Rovers are still one of the financial lightweights in the division when you look at the money spent by some clubs. Good work by our chairman there who didnt hold back on his opinion on football agents in a talk at the Mem last year, quitely winning the battle against negativity and bullsh1t by fans Mr Hamer, fair play, actions always speak louder than words. You're right when I'm coming into land at Lulsgate I'm always more reassured when I see the landing lights on rather than hearing they're on from the pilot.....
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Mar 29, 2018 13:58:32 GMT
The history of 'our' Club is one of being run by amateurs with the support of local business and others. We are now in a different era where the main people are professionals at what they do and being paid accordingly. That is not a case of shutting people out but plain fact. As someone who has apparently embraced the policy of supporting through your business, perhaps this will give you a different opportunity and any spend you make towards the Football Club could give you and your business a reward rather than an expense. Looking across to the other side of Bristol they have not relied on local business for quite some time and the business who do support do so to enhance their own business, staff, and customers. My advice to everyone is to sit back and enjoy the ride and let the professionals do their job. If they fail, as many who post on this forum seem to want, then business like yours will be needed as never before but if they succeed, as I hope they do, then we will all gain. You keep throwing this up Knowall about our history and owners etc etc and how they were amateurs etc but that is kind of insulting to all with previous at BRFC. Our previous directors were businessman and good ones at that, multi millionaires with more financial clout than this forum put together, regardless of your opinion of the personalities behind the fortunes, they were proper businessman who earned the money honestly, that doesnt make them daft or amateurish in the slightest, the Dunfords were millionaires a good few times over from multiple businesses, Geoff especially was an incredibly shrewed businessman. Higgs sold Cowlin for £52m to Balfour Beatty no less and was a millionaire a good few times over before that happened. That doesnt happen by chance, but good business practice, so it is insulting to their achievements to call them amateur. Ah, but they never had experience of running a football club some crow! Well that is true, but neither have the Al'qadi's. They just have a higher net worth, meaning that they can do more with their wealth than the previous board, should they choose to. But like I said earlier, that high net worth status won't guarantee a greater commercial opportunity from a commercial or retail brand than before. Look at the club and the stadium around it and then compare it to other teams in L1. Its a limited commercial opportunity which would garner little interest for a big national company. A established local company like Dribuild or Poplar Insulations is the kind of companies that would be interested. Why do you think football clubs sell naming rights to stadiums? Because grounds become known as the Emirates, the Amex etc etc. You say the brand name to identify. But to maximise you would have to be in a position where that gets weekly TV coverage or internet exposure. Your perception is we are more professional but on what basis are you saying it is, because we have more staff doing more than ever before, paid for by someone who can afford it? That doesnt make us extra professional. Why couldn't we lay a proper pitch and get enough kit for the open day? Would I class Steve Hamer as a very experienced football professional? Not really, he left Swansea 16 years previously and had little to do with running a club since. Tom Gorringe had 2 years previous at Brighton, and is Hamer's sons best mate..all the previous directors the ALQ's bought in left or resigned inside a year. Martin Starnes is the first experienced football board level appointment they have made. So it isn't as if we have poached people from the Championship or Premier League to drive us up. Having said all of that I do think we are in better shape than we have ever been, providing the ALQ's will continue to support it. The reason I sponsor the club, and not to sound too "look at me" about it is because I can afford it and its another way of supporting the club on top of my season tickets and other hospitality packages I have, to date, there is no other reward/spend available at BRFC. Its nothing to do with embracing a business decision at all, in fact, in terms of spend verses return, it would be a poor decision and I am sure Bob at AB Power would say the same. Bristol City have always been supported by local business. They always have had and continue to be! DAS insurance, Lancer Scott, Dribuild, Poplar, Hirerite, Sanderson, Arthur J Gallagher, Thatchers, Wessex Garages - just to name a few, and all of these are locally based businesses. I have had 3 cold calls from Bristol Sport in the last year asking for meetings with me regards sponsorship, so its something they definitely target. Their rate card is massive too, but they can charge that because of the facility, league status, rugby games and corporate gigs they can offer. It pains me to say it but it is a much better venue. No one wants the ALQ's to fail, but BRFC is still a community club and the board need to do more to engage with fans. Excellenty put. I expect F'all will ignore it
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Mar 28, 2018 15:25:32 GMT
Admirable idea but reading the link Norwich have detailed the returns that investors will receive. So the club would need to kick something like this off and with no plans to develop a new stadium I couldn't see anyway that they could pay a return to investors. As the land appears to be owned by Dwane Sports and not the club then I certainly wouldn't be giving money to them to develop an asset for themselves.
Still good luck with this but I'd suggest a snappy title for it, um perhaps the Sharescheme.
PS appreciate this isn't the response you want but it is a very truthful response
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Mar 24, 2018 20:05:05 GMT
Perhaps there could be court proceedings to follow between both party's? so therefore the club would want to keep there hand close to the chest, and keep information to a minimum? It's been announced as a compromise agreement has been signed, no court action to follow as that is what the compromise agreement stops. Keep believing otherwise if you want
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Mar 24, 2018 16:30:20 GMT
I heard he was partly the reason for the pitch, and maybe conflict of interest was involved around the contractor.Along with this, doing it on the cheap so the contractor pocketed more money, thus leaving us with a sh**e pitch because they basically used gravy granules to bind the grass (as well as under seeding the pitch). So all in all...Don’t let the door hit you on the way out 👍🏼😉 Ah yes but let's not let facts get in the way of a another reason to slate the club that some claim to love, as KP has spearheaded the blame towards Steve Hamer without giving a thought about certain information being discovered after his initial statement, but that's how it is these days, blame the club, were looking and sounding more and more like 1982 Ltd every day. The true facts are far too sensitive to release on a public forum, suffice to say the club IMO have dealt with this professionally, legally and in just the right way, huge improvements off the field and certainly no reason to make any apology or best wishes given the circumstances around the departure of IH I think the truth is that facts can't be realeased into the public domain as both parties will have signed a compromise agreement legally preventing the release of the facts. I'm sure both parties are happy with that fact as well.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Mar 24, 2018 7:18:42 GMT
You are right it's all about opinions and all should be respected. For me I suppose I saw him as the replacement for Luke James, well actually I've since wondered if he was brought on the assumption Bodin was going. I see so much more in him than Luke James and thought early season his close control cutting in from wide could replicate what Bodin did. Obviously now his confidence is shot but it comes down to management to get that going again, hence why I made the comparison with Andy Williams because frankly when Trollope and Mr Burns perceived they had an awkward player they shat themselves. As I remember it Williams was having a nightmare week on week and needed to be dropped to take the pressure off as he was very young at the time and clearly feeling the pressure but Trollop stuck with him when he probably shouldn’t have. Could be wrong ? Long time ago now but I think DC has fine the right thing in dropping Nichols. I was referring to him being sent back on loan to Hereford for a season
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Mar 23, 2018 22:12:40 GMT
Early season I did think he looked a player with a threat on goal, as the season has gone on he has looked worse and worse. Goals make a player and 3 or 4 early in the season and I think he would've come good. Who would take him now for anything like we paid? Personally hope we stick with him. I'm still disgusted at the treatment of Andy Williams in his second season by Trollope and Mr Burns and I hope DC is a better man manager. When a players not scoring but his body language says he’s giving it all but it’s just not happening for him I tend to have a bit more patience as a supporter. I don’t feel that with Nichols. I’ve never shouted abuse at him at a game I support any player in the quarters because I want them to do well because if they do well it makes my weekend all the better. But I’ve got to say ,and this is what football club forums are or at least should be about , opinions on things we see first hand ( not rumours and guess work about behind the scenes stuff) Nichols hasn’t impressed me at all and doesn’t look like a player who wants it either. Posh got a good deal and they seem to from selling their players on a regular basis although from what I gather they paid a million quid for Luke James so they obviously got that one wrong. You are right it's all about opinions and all should be respected. For me I suppose I saw him as the replacement for Luke James, well actually I've since wondered if he was brought on the assumption Bodin was going. I see so much more in him than Luke James and thought early season his close control cutting in from wide could replicate what Bodin did. Obviously now his confidence is shot but it comes down to management to get that going again, hence why I made the comparison with Andy Williams because frankly when Trollope and Mr Burns perceived they had an awkward player they shat themselves.
|
|