|
Post by LJG on Dec 15, 2020 14:04:43 GMT
This doesn't make a massive amount of sense to me. What has the fact he's lost his job got to do with discussing what his achievements at the club were? It was Ben himself who claimed in his statement after leaving that his biggest achievement was the design of the training ground. On that basis it seems perfectly reasonable to consider whether that might be true. That's not really kicking a man when he's down - I don't see that a person becoming unemployed is an event that gives carte blanche to just outright lie about things. “Regardless the orphan was starving, he still stole the bread so 50 lashes and the workhouse for him!” :-) Just comes off a little uncharitable to actually care about it. Wasn't his terrible league performance the loaf of bread and his sacking the 50 lashes? The 50 lashes doesn't give the orphan the right to go and steal other stuff there are other consequences to that. Just like a sacking doesn't give someone the right to just lie about being an architect and civil engineer because they happened to be employed by a football club at a time when they built something. What supporters of the club should care about is that the people in the club who deserve credit for things getting that credit. It would be uncharitable to reward their work by saying "We don't care who did it, Ben has claimed it so that's good enough for me".
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 15, 2020 12:32:46 GMT
This thread has clearly gone totally off topic and as the debt has now been cleared, surely this thread should be confined to history. I thought at this time of year it was supposed to be peace and goodwill to all men. That is clearly not the case here and I find it very sad when certain individuals drag this forum down into the gutter for want of a better word. Is this true though?Our debt must be something of a moving target. At one point we were losing £65k per week and whilst we may have reduced operating costs, increased revenue etc (thanks to Mr Gorringe and co) .. the impact of COVID will mean we are losing even more.. Presumably, if we want to remain debt free, Wael will need to keep capitalising the debt into equity or injecting cash until such time as we are no longer operating at a loss (the dream ) Yes.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 15, 2020 12:26:22 GMT
He’s been fired from his first managerial job. He was always courteous with the fans, appeared to work hard and tried his best. I really don’t like this kicking a man when he’s down. Who cares if he designed the entire training complex or did nothing. He’s gone. He’s unemployed. What’s important for both Ben and Bristol Rovers is our futures. Our future is with Tisdale. I’ll allow Ben whatever he likes on his CV regardless of what he did or didn’t do. His record was awful. It costs us nothing to allow him to leave gracefully, salvage what’s left Of his career, and wish him well. We have a culture in football of lauding succesful managers as heroes and being revolting to managers who didn’t succeed. So many terrace dwellers just love getting the knives out. This doesn't make a massive amount of sense to me. What has the fact he's lost his job got to do with discussing what his achievements at the club were? It was Ben himself who claimed in his statement after leaving that his biggest achievement was the design of the training ground. On that basis it seems perfectly reasonable to consider whether that might be true. That's not really kicking a man when he's down - I don't see that a person becoming unemployed is an event that gives carte blanche to just outright lie about things.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 15, 2020 10:29:36 GMT
Hi, Sorry for a random thread but I have a colleague who is a big Yeovil FC fan and he is always teasing me about Bristol Rovers. I'm aware Bristol Rovers and Yeovil are rivals but do you know any good comebacks for Yeovil fans? Apologies I do not know enough about them so hopefully I will get some decent comebacks for my colleague who is always winding me up about Bristol Rovers. But I would like to know some weaknesses or brilliant comebacks for Yeovil Town FC? Thank you What the f**king hell is that?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 15, 2020 10:25:20 GMT
Has to take credit for being instrumental in the build of the training ground and leaving a legacy of bringing through players from our development squad. Seriously you have to explain this to me. The colony land was purchased in what? 2017? And plans submitted with planning application. Building started in June 2020. So with that being the case can you explain how, when Ben Garner was employed by the club on 23rd December 2019, nearly three years after planning and barely five months (including a national lockdown of three months) before work started did he have anything to do with the training ground? Are you saying Ben was acting in some consulting capacity before he joined when the plans were made for the planning application? Even if on his first day in the job Ben slapped the table and said "Here are my plans for the training ground" do you honestly think that works would have started in June (having just come out of lockdown)?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 15, 2020 9:16:26 GMT
Wow, I am surprised that question is even being asked. Of course he deserves a huge amount of credit. By all accounts he worked extremely hard whilst he was manager to get the right structures in place (staff, training ground etc). He improved the squad significantly from the one he inherited. We now have a group of players who can produce exciting football, and try and play rather than 'hoof'. Its amusing that some people put any positives in that era down to others (eg good recruitment was down to Widdrington) and any negatives are down to BG. Whilst I am sure TW did (and does) a fantastic job, it would be fanciful to think he was recruiting without the direction of the manager. Its hard to think of any area where BG did not improve the playing personnel. Now Tisdale is giving them the confidence to express themselves. Happy days I can't believe we've already Gaschat FACTed "Ben Garner built the training ground". A thing that had been purchased and planned several years before he was recruited.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 14, 2020 15:25:10 GMT
So you're saying Higgs chose to finance via high interest bridging loan at, from memory, something like 17.5% - I accept that figure could be wrong I can't be bothered to trawl back and check - instead of looking at other options just because ... what? He decided £350,000 a year in interest was something he was prepared to chuck out the window rather than fund it himself at 0%? We don't have to be mindreaders to look at the facts and arrive at a conclusion. If he had the money or could've found high-street borrowing why didn't he? Even if a bank rate was 5% lower (a conservative estimate in my opinion) you're saying he just decided that £100,000 a year could just fly into the wind just because? And you're saying he was prepared to do this indefinitely if a buyer hadn't been found? As regards the club being debt free because of UWE - at the point of sale the debt free part of the plan had already been publicly dropped. We had been strangled firstly by the Judicial Review delay and secondly by the "all reasonable endeavours" court case which spanned 15/16. The Al Qadi takeover was Feb 16 and the High Court judgement (telling us we'd lost and couldn't force Sainsbury's to buy the mem) was released about 3 weeks later in March 16. By the time the sale of the club went through it was obvious the Sainsbury's money was off the table so at that point not only did Higgs have a football club he couldn't afford he had a stadium plan he couldn't afford either. And you're saying there was no chance we were about to go bust? What we're saying is we've no idea what Plan B was if the sale to the ALQs had fallen though, it could have been agree a deal with one of the other apparently 10 potential buyers, continue to fund the club/seek external assistance or put us into Admin. Although this is a bit like arguing in the past if PT or DC would have kept us if they hadn't been sacked, none of us know the answer and I doubt many posters are that interested. Why do you keep talking about "Plan B"? How can you not have accepted by now there wasn't a Plan A? That's my point. Nick Higgs didn't think to himself "I've got a vision for the club and that's to have to rely on debt financing at a rate above 15% per annum until I can think of something else". Higgs found himself in a cul de sac and he couldn't go on. It was literally sell or bust. Whether he sold to the Al Qadis or anyone else he had to sell. The fact there might have been other buyers is irrelevant. Simple question: If there was a Plan B like you keep saying, why were we borrowing money which was racking up interest of over £300k a year?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 14, 2020 15:06:41 GMT
So you're saying Higgs chose to finance via high interest bridging loan at, from memory, something like 17.5% - I accept that figure could be wrong I can't be bothered to trawl back and check - instead of looking at other options just because ... what? He decided £350,000 a year in interest was something he was prepared to chuck out the window rather than fund it himself at 0%? We don't have to be mindreaders to look at the facts and arrive at a conclusion. If he had the money or could've found high-street borrowing why didn't he? Even if a bank rate was 5% lower (a conservative estimate in my opinion) you're saying he just decided that £100,000 a year could just fly into the wind just because? And you're saying he was prepared to do this indefinitely if a buyer hadn't been found? As regards the club being debt free because of UWE - at the point of sale the debt free part of the plan had already been publicly dropped. We had been strangled firstly by the Judicial Review delay and secondly by the "all reasonable endeavours" court case which spanned 15/16. The Al Qadi takeover was Feb 16 and the High Court judgement (telling us we'd lost and couldn't force Sainsbury's to buy the mem) was released about 3 weeks later in March 16. By the time the sale of the club went through it was obvious the Sainsbury's money was off the table so at that point not only did Higgs have a football club he couldn't afford he had a stadium plan he couldn't afford either. And you're saying there was no chance we were about to go bust? 1.2% per month iirc. So just under 15.5%ish annually when accounting for compounding probably.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 14, 2020 13:36:35 GMT
But, again, it's not true that we don't know why MSP was used. We do know exactly. The bank refused to continue to extend credit to the club. I meant why MSP were chosen over another financial house. Our bank at the time certainly refused to extend the credit, doesn't mean to say all other banks would have done the same. But a credit extension to the club doesn't mean that it was a refusal of Higgs himself. He sold Cowlin for £52m in 2007 so a fairly sizeable net worth and im sure he also has collateral the banks would execute on. That said, if he was unwilling to personally offer it then someone like MSP would have been the only alternative for a short term solution. But that still doesn't mean that administration was a certainty. You have to remember that this was all done with UWE going on in the background with the view that had it come off then Rovers would have been debt free with a shiny new stadium. So you're saying Higgs chose to finance via high interest bridging loan at, from memory, something like 17.5% - I accept that figure could be wrong I can't be bothered to trawl back and check - instead of looking at other options just because ... what? He decided £350,000 a year in interest was something he was prepared to chuck out the window rather than fund it himself at 0%? We don't have to be mindreaders to look at the facts and arrive at a conclusion. If he had the money or could've found high-street borrowing why didn't he? Even if a bank rate was 5% lower (a conservative estimate in my opinion) you're saying he just decided that £100,000 a year could just fly into the wind just because? And you're saying he was prepared to do this indefinitely if a buyer hadn't been found? As regards the club being debt free because of UWE - at the point of sale the debt free part of the plan had already been publicly dropped. We had been strangled firstly by the Judicial Review delay and secondly by the "all reasonable endeavours" court case which spanned 15/16. The Al Qadi takeover was Feb 16 and the High Court judgement (telling us we'd lost and couldn't force Sainsbury's to buy the mem) was released about 3 weeks later in March 16. By the time the sale of the club went through it was obvious the Sainsbury's money was off the table so at that point not only did Higgs have a football club he couldn't afford he had a stadium plan he couldn't afford either. And you're saying there was no chance we were about to go bust?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 14, 2020 10:36:22 GMT
Where have I said anything about turning down an offer from the Al Qadis? It isn't guesswork at all. In fact the first sentence of your own post illustrates perfectly why it's not. We've simply no idea what NH's plans were in the absence of the ALQ's offer. It's just guess work that he'd have put us into administration and so lose the £m's he'd invested. So your logic is that someone concerned with recovering the millions they'd put into the club would continue to put more millions in each year while they wait for a purchaser? At the same time as paying around £350,000 in interest alone to a high rate creditor. Which you think Higgs chose to use instead of his own money? Why would someone willing to finance something choose to incur credit interest unnecessarily? Toppernomics.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 14, 2020 10:27:55 GMT
But it's not speculative. There are facts to support it as a likely if not probable: 1. Financing with MSP in the first place. If there were other options open they would have been taken. 2. The club was sold. Again, if there were other avenues available they would have been taken. It is speculative because there is not one shred of evidence to support the supposition that administration was a nailed on certainty if the ALQ offer fell through. I don’t know the full reasons behind using MSP to begin with and neither do you know it was the only or most competitive option, it could be that it just satisfied the terms and requirements we needed at the time. Either way to enter into administration the majority shareholder has to state that he is no longer willing to guarantee the losses/debt or inject capital into the business. Nick never said, as did any of the other directors suggest that they were no longer willing to do so. The club was sold after Micheal Cunnah came to look at the UWE project as an advisor and was so impressed at the plans for the club that he asked if there was room for investment or purchase of the club. He knew Hamer who knew the ALQs were looking for something. That’s how he ended up on the board at the very beginning of the ownership. It all started with a chance meeting. We all knew the club was unofficially for sale as Nick had basically put an advert in a Far Eastern magazine saying so and stated very publicly that if someone could come in that could take the club further he would sell. But, again, it's not true that we don't know why MSP was used. We do know exactly. The bank refused to continue to extend credit to the club.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 13, 2020 20:07:46 GMT
But it's not speculative. There are facts to support it as a likely if not probable: 1. Financing with MSP in the first place. If there were other options open they would have been taken. 2. The club was sold. Again, if there were other avenues available they would have been taken. Why would NH turn down the offer from the ALQ's when they were apparently prepared to repay him all the money he had invested in the club? I doubt he could believe his luck! What Plan B was in the event of the club not selling his just now all guess work, something GI usually gets stick for should he posts anything making similar suggestions. Where have I said anything about turning down an offer from the Al Qadis? It isn't guesswork at all. In fact the first sentence of your own post illustrates perfectly why it's not.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 13, 2020 18:32:05 GMT
Sorry, but I think that actually reinforces my point. Your post as I understand it presupposes a sale going through within a time frame that Higgs could have coped with. Cheshire has also made the point pretty succinctly. If new owners weren't found, or held out long enough, Higgs would have been choked to death by the MSP financing and that would have been that. I can see yours and Cheshire’s point of view, but it’s purely speculative based on what you think could have happened. There is no proof that Higgs would have choked or refinanced us again without MSP. I’m pretty sure Higgs wouldn’t have let us go into admin when we were pushing on for promotion with UWE still very much on the go at the time. But it's not speculative. There are facts to support it as a likely if not probable: 1. Financing with MSP in the first place. If there were other options open they would have been taken. 2. The club was sold. Again, if there were other avenues available they would have been taken.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 13, 2020 14:46:05 GMT
Regardless of what they say the facts are what they are. The previous board were putting no more money in - if they were, why lose even more money financing through high interest bridging loan? So it was either sale or bust. We were sold. You kind of answered your own question. It was clear that Nick no longer wanted to underpin the club as a majority shareholder and moved the way of financing the club in the short term whilst negotiating a sale, that obviously comes at a cost by way of higher interest, but it was relatively short term and the additional losses against £7m in the terms of the deal would be negligible, it actually gives greater negotiation power to the purchaser. But that also doesn’t indicate that administration was just around the corner. If he was constantly renegotiating the debt year on year and adding millions of losses then perhaps I would agree with the theory, but that wasn’t the case. If you’re in discussions with bankers with access to all sorts of finance then whomever takes on the debt of the sale of the club will restructure the club financially anyway to suit their own financial situation. Sorry, but I think that actually reinforces my point. Your post as I understand it presupposes a sale going through within a time frame that Higgs could have coped with. Cheshire has also made the point pretty succinctly. If new owners weren't found, or held out long enough, Higgs would have been choked to death by the MSP financing and that would have been that.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2020 11:26:31 GMT
Jester sacked by the King? Two one to Tisdales Torpedos. Yeah but it’s only a match day thread isn’t it. Yeah shut up you wetter(?)
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2020 11:24:06 GMT
I dont understand this competition about starting the match day thread?? is there some joke I'm missing? I cant believe grown assed men can be bickering about it, so I must have missed something... For about the 400th time. What has anyone's age got to do with the enjoyment of something? If you're in a pub and playing spoof do people come over to you and say "I can't believe grown assed men playing an inconsequential game - I'm deliberately going to mess this up to stop you grown men playing that game and don't you dare say anything because you're grown men". You'd think that person was a prick. What's the difference? So what has anyone's age got to do with the fact it's a bit of fun to see who can go on a lucky run when starting the matchday thread? As I've said before it's a bit of fun which is why one person wants to play the bully boy to ruin that tiny bit of harmless fun. Because like the guy in the pub, that person is a prick.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 11, 2020 17:02:58 GMT
I can't see how we wouldn't believe it. It was clear the directors at the time wouldn't or couldn't commit any more funds (hence debt financing via MSP) and ordinary bank lending was unobtainable. MSP was clearly unsustainable so I don't see how there can be any doubt the only options were a sale or administration. I know Topper likes to bang on about how they wouldn't have let the club go into admin for "only" £2m (in it's own right ridiculous when you consider Macclesfield wound up for £500k). But it seems almost undeniable that that decision had already been made when that debt was moved to MSP following the bank refusing credit. I think topper would be right to say that. I think one of the reasons that the previous board chose to move the loan to MSP was to protect the previous owners own liability whilst looking for the correct buyer. Knowing all of the previous board as well as I do I’ve never heard any of them say or suggest that we were about to enter administration. Regardless of what they say the facts are what they are. The previous board were putting no more money in - if they were, why lose even more money financing through high interest bridging loan? So it was either sale or bust. We were sold.
|
|
|
Forums
Dec 11, 2020 11:53:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by LJG on Dec 11, 2020 11:53:13 GMT
I’ve noticed football forums are way lighter in numbers than they used to be. There used to be thousands of users. This is probably the biggest forum, and it’s nowhere near the traffic it used to be say 5 or 10 years ago. I may be remembering wrong. Is it the use of social media? I dislike it because in football matters, Facebook, everyone can see my witterings and I like the anon nature of forums. I’m not bragging, my wife is 10 years younger and firmly a millennial and she is gobsmacked I use a forum “they’re for old people” Most of this forum seems to be dad jokes. Am I right in thinking the forum heyday is over and it’s only those in advancing years using them? Not sure any Rovers forum was that big 5 or 10 years ago? Not606 and the old OF had tons of use. I used to spend as much time on those two as you do on here.
|
|
|
Forums
Dec 11, 2020 11:49:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by LJG on Dec 11, 2020 11:49:18 GMT
I'm probably middle aged rather than old though that depends on who you ask - son, nieces and nephews would say old, wife would kill me for saying middle aged which she considers to be a state of mind.
I've gone through social media saturation and can barely bring myself to check FB once a week now. I haven't gone anywhere near Twitter for nearly a decade.
In general, forum life has died off a bit. Some of the other forums I used to post on (gundog training interests) are literally dead and all transferred to FB.
I stopped using Gas Guzzler when it became the Kevin Spencer love in. When I checked back on it recently I was surprised at the library it's become.
This place has got much quieter and lost some good uns - where's Scooby for example?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Dec 11, 2020 9:19:28 GMT
Just after the takeover had been completed i attended a talk given by Hamer and he suggested that Wael's advisers had told him that he should not do the deal as Rovers would amost certainly go into administration and he would get a much better deal. Wael over-0ruled them and chose to go ahead with the purchase. I wouldn’t believe anything that comes from the mouth of Hamer. I’m glad wael did press ahead, because even if we were to enter into admin, that would have meant a 10 point deduction and no last minute promotion against Accrington. That’s if of course, you believe that we were going to enter administration to begin with. I can't see how we wouldn't believe it. It was clear the directors at the time wouldn't or couldn't commit any more funds (hence debt financing via MSP) and ordinary bank lending was unobtainable. MSP was clearly unsustainable so I don't see how there can be any doubt the only options were a sale or administration. I know Topper likes to bang on about how they wouldn't have let the club go into admin for "only" £2m (in it's own right ridiculous when you consider Macclesfield wound up for £500k). But it seems almost undeniable that that decision had already been made when that debt was moved to MSP following the bank refusing credit.
|
|