|
|
Post by LJG on Nov 1, 2017 14:16:26 GMT
So my info is "hearsay" and as you are one of the experts on here yours is all fact, provided by Ex directors or friends or other club sources. My info, again for what it's worth comes from a high level UWE source. I So your UWE source says it's all their fault , how did Michael Cunnah figure in all this uwe shambles , just a serious question No response to the fact your assertion about VAT was totally wrong then? If you're wrong about that what else have you got twisted? |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Nov 1, 2017 14:18:34 GMT
Which in itself is clearly a bullshit excuse.  By them or us? Does it matter? No one ends a multi million pound deal just because one person does send a bit of paper in on time. Deadlines are there for a reason, I get that, but if we wanted to we could have proceeded. |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Nov 1, 2017 14:24:49 GMT
Does it matter? No one ends a multi million pound deal just because one person does send a bit of paper in on time. Deadlines are there for a reason, I get that, but if we wanted to we could have proceeded. Even if not meeting that deadline was part of a pattern of behaviour which had pervaded the negotiations up until that point and indicative of how the relationship would continue throughout the purchase and for the next 125 years with them as our landlords? |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Nov 1, 2017 14:26:23 GMT
Does it matter? No one ends a multi million pound deal just because one person does send a bit of paper in on time. Deadlines are there for a reason, I get that, but if we wanted to we could have proceeded. Indeed. And this is what I don't get - I'm PERFECTLY happy not to proceed with UWE if the deal was as bad as is rumoured. But, if it was, why not just come out and tell everyone "look guys, the offer on the table is utter f**king sh*te. They want [insert ludicrous demand], [insert other ludicrous demand] ad infinitum. There's no way on Earth we're going for that. So, regrettably, we've told them to shove their stadium where the sun don't shine." Something doesn't add up IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Nov 1, 2017 14:32:52 GMT
Does it matter? No one ends a multi million pound deal just because one person does send a bit of paper in on time. Deadlines are there for a reason, I get that, but if we wanted to we could have proceeded. Indeed. And this is what I don't get - I'm PERFECTLY happy not to proceed with UWE if the deal was as bad as is rumoured. But, if it was, why not just come out and tell everyone "look guys, the offer on the table is utter f**king sh*te. They want [insert ludicrous demand], [insert other ludicrous demand] ad infinitum. There's no way on Earth we're going for that. So, regrettably, we've told them to shove their stadium where the sun don't shine." Something doesn't add up IMO. Because confidentiality agreements prevent that. The simple act of pulling the plug implies the deal on the table wasnt the right one or it would have been signed. The reasons why are rarely disclosed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 14:33:40 GMT
So when did it become a well known fact UWE were asking for a share of gate receipts? Point me in the direction of a newspaper article or an interview would you, I completely missed that when it came out. It’s not a fact and it’s unlikely to be a fact because the ALQs would not have bought the club if they’d known this to be a fact and if it was a fact that would have made UWE unviable. So in summary the chances of it being a fact are about the same as the ALQs doing little due diligence before acquisition or doing full due diligence knowing it to be a fact and thinking it was still viable. Oh dear, it cannot be a fact then. Life goes on but what I will say is that there are a number of people on this forum that do know people with the right connections within to know what ‘fact’ really is. Or is not! Are people really this short sighted? |
|
|
|
Post by toddy1953 on Nov 1, 2017 14:38:41 GMT
Yes i have ultimate faith in the current owner only because they are our only option at the moment. Until a better option comes along (if Ever) then what else can we be and.............. You can now get Hot Dogs at the mem, what more could you want ! Clarks Pies? |
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Nov 1, 2017 14:41:25 GMT
Yes i have ultimate faith in the current owner only because they are our only option at the moment. Until a better option comes along (if Ever) then what else can we be and.............. You can now get Hot Dogs at the mem, what more could you want ! Clarks Pies? oh i wish........ Got to be better than what's on offer at the moment.....  |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Nov 1, 2017 14:44:16 GMT
It’s not a fact and it’s unlikely to be a fact because the ALQs would not have bought the club if they’d known this to be a fact and if it was a fact that would have made UWE unviable. So in summary the chances of it being a fact are about the same as the ALQs doing little due diligence before acquisition or doing full due diligence knowing it to be a fact and thinking it was still viable. Oh dear, it cannot be a fact then. Life goes on but what I will say is that there are a number of people on this forum that do know people with the right connections within to know what ‘fact’ really is. Or is not! Are people really this short sighted? There were people with connections at board level in 2006 when Mike Turl's mates went round implying Geoff Dunford was on the take. Didn't make it true did it? |
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Nov 1, 2017 14:47:51 GMT
I'd like to know when the club said the UWE deal wasn't a good one? Can someone point me at the source? As I recall, the only actual reason given was that UWE didn't return a signed document by a deadline. I don't really understand the differentiation. Surely they were negotiating for a deal they thought was good, and the talks broke down. Talks wouldn't have broken down if they'd agreed a deal they wanted, ie one they defined as good. UWE didn't send a head of terms, ie a letter of intent as regards the negotiations, ie an attempt at common ground in which to look for a good deal. Istm pretty obvious if Dwane thought the original deal (the one Higgs made) was a good one, they would have agreed that. 'Good' in this context is pretty much 'one we would have wanted to sign,' surely. I see what you're saying, but the HOT's thing did sound like an excuse. If it wasn't a deal beneficial to the club then just say it! |
|
|
|
Post by gasforeverman on Nov 1, 2017 14:55:21 GMT
Alot of doubts... Redeveloping the mem isnt going to bring in the income streams their after so doubt theyll pump in the millions needed
|
|
|
|
Post by RD on Nov 1, 2017 15:21:38 GMT
Indeed. And this is what I don't get - I'm PERFECTLY happy not to proceed with UWE if the deal was as bad as is rumoured. But, if it was, why not just come out and tell everyone "look guys, the offer on the table is utter f**king sh*te. They want [insert ludicrous demand], [insert other ludicrous demand] ad infinitum. There's no way on Earth we're going for that. So, regrettably, we've told them to shove their stadium where the sun don't shine." Something doesn't add up IMO. Because confidentiality agreements prevent that. The simple act of pulling the plug implies the deal on the table wasnt the right one or it would have been signed. The reasons why are rarely disclosed. Fair enough and point taken; that explains why they couldn't perhaps list the reasons. I don't see why they couldn't at least just say "the deal being offered was an awful one. We can't discuss the specifics due to the confidentiality clauses we are bound by, but - please trust us - the offer on the table was appalling." Sure some would have chosen not to believe them - but, if it was the truth, it would have been fair enough. It certainly seems more believable that the reason we were given. |
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Nov 1, 2017 15:26:11 GMT
Because confidentiality agreements prevent that. The simple act of pulling the plug implies the deal on the table wasnt the right one or it would have been signed. The reasons why are rarely disclosed. Fair enough and point taken; that explains why they couldn't perhaps list the reasons. I don't see why they couldn't at least just say "the deal being offered was an awful one. We can't discuss the specifics due to the confidentiality clauses we are bound by, but - please trust us - the offer on the table was appalling." Sure some would have chosen not to believe them - but, if it was the truth, it would have been fair enough. It certainly seems more believable that the reason we were given. But surely that is what they did say - maybe not as colourful - but that is how I understood it. |
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Nov 1, 2017 15:27:18 GMT
Oh dear, it cannot be a fact then. Life goes on but what I will say is that there are a number of people on this forum that do know people with the right connections within to know what ‘fact’ really is. Or is not! Are people really this short sighted? There were people with connections at board level in 2006 when Mike Turl's mates went round implying Geoff Dunford was on the take. Didn't make it true did it? Be careful what you say |
|
|
|
Post by philbemmygas on Nov 1, 2017 15:31:55 GMT
There were people with connections at board level in 2006 when Mike Turl's mates went round implying Geoff Dunford was on the take. Didn't make it true did it? Be careful what you say Allegedly, - I had people trying to tell me it was gospel at the time  |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Nov 1, 2017 15:42:56 GMT
There were people with connections at board level in 2006 when Mike Turl's mates went round implying Geoff Dunford was on the take. Didn't make it true did it? Be careful what you say Why? It's common knowledge that the rejection of MT's investment meant that there was a split in the boardroom. It's also common knowledge that some of those people were critical of the board to an extensive degree on all fronts with the clear implication being that the board were ruining the club either through incompetence, recklessness or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Nov 1, 2017 15:47:05 GMT
Fair enough and point taken; that explains why they couldn't perhaps list the reasons. I don't see why they couldn't at least just say "the deal being offered was an awful one. We can't discuss the specifics due to the confidentiality clauses we are bound by, but - please trust us - the offer on the table was appalling." Sure some would have chosen not to believe them - but, if it was the truth, it would have been fair enough. It certainly seems more believable that the reason we were given. But surely that is what they did say - maybe not as colourful - but that is how I understood it. taking the clubs statement at face value, my interpretation was that we put a final offer on the table after extensive negotiations and UWE never accepted it
that implies that the deal UWE were offering wasn't to our/Dwane's satisfaction
|
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Nov 1, 2017 16:19:04 GMT
There were people with connections at board level in 2006 when Mike Turl's mates went round implying Geoff Dunford was on the take. Didn't make it true did it? Be careful what you say It was common knowledge that GD was charging Rovers for hotel stays for players at the beeches who were on loan or were transferred in and had no where to stay, use of the facilities for training etc. Another director found out and called him out on it. All of a sudden the club weren't at the beeches anymore...and players stopped staying there.. Allegedly... |
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on Nov 1, 2017 16:52:31 GMT
It was common knowledge that GD was charging Rovers for hotel stays for players at the beeches who were on loan or were transferred in and had no where to stay, use of the facilities for training etc. Another director found out and called him out on it. All of a sudden the club weren't at the beeches anymore...and players stopped staying there.. Allegedly... Timing of these posts mentioning GD are distasteful to the family, in my humble opinion, and as he is not sadly here to defend himself should be removed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 17:07:54 GMT
I very much still have faith.... 3 main reasons: 1. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that backs up the numerous disruptive stories and rumours that have been brought up on here - only hearsay and comments like 'my source' or a friend of a friend. That's not to say they are wrong but if they were true I would have expected parties to either go to press, court etc by now and even if notices of intent are issued then the press would have picked it up and the assumption that we aren't paying bills as we have no money is too far fetched for me especially as if staff and players etc weren't paid or paid late, again it would be lodged with PFA etc 2. Whilst it may not be as quick as some want, I've only seen the regime do what they said they would. Buy land for a training ground, invest in players, invest in the infrastructure by get a more professional back room set up in, start work in our commercial space, secure our best manager in years on a long term contract and make small and reasonable changes to an expensive to run, dated ground in the 2nd or 3rd most expensive place to live and run a business in the land. 3. There isn't anyone else knocking our door down saying I'll buy you and wipe out all your debts, invest multi-millions in the team and spend £50-60m building a new stadium and state of the art training complex. I respect everyone's opinion but I think sometimes we all have to get a bit more realistic with our expectations and how long things can take 1) Unpaid bills. Outstanding for months. 2) Training ground just growing grass. More staff employed but no income to cover costs: result bankruptcy. Only reason for giving DC a five year deal is to maximise compensation if he gets poached. He still only gets 1 years pay if we sack him. 3) Who knows. The Mem would be worth millions to a developer. 1. Says who? And what are the facts from both parties as to why and why hasn't this been in the press or more widely published as it seems it's only on here. 2. But we've still bought the ground? 3. Speculation - show me clear intent rather than rumours and I'll be more receptive to this view |
|
