|
Post by garystash on Mar 13, 2018 21:34:00 GMT
So do you honestly think, that the current owners should have pushed on with the UWE deal that NH had negotiated? Not Nicke deal. That was patently flawed. Then the AQ's renegotiated the whole thing, and the feasibility study confirmed it was then viable. After that it failed. I don't know why because the reasons were never disclosed. But I've wondered why the two sides couldn't come together just to disclose this element of what happened. It would hardly be earth shattering, but the blame could then be fairly apportioned. RE - the bit in bold... Wael gave an interview after the uwe announcement saying that they (uwe) kept revisiting points that had already been agreed. This was proving to be very costly for the club (as I understand is now evidenced in the accounts). He said a dealine was given to the uwe to sign an agreement. It was hoped this would stop the continual and costly re-negotiations by the uwe. They were reminded of said deadline. They chose to not sign the agreement and to ignore the deadline. What more do you need to know?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 13, 2018 22:33:21 GMT
I've probably forgotten more about company accounts over a thirty year career than you ever learnt pal. So take your condescension elsewhere. The losses occurred under the Al Qadi regime when the stadium failed. It failed on their watch, and even now the truth about why has never been disclosed. Remember that old chestnut 'secrecy agreement'. May have occurred recently but were incurred under NH realm Wonga (2.8) and stadium legal and planning costs (7?) were surely incurred by the NH BOD?? (Definition of incurred: A charge for a product or service received or delivered.) The Wonga loan was apparently "cleared" by the ALQ's so that can't keep on appearing as a loss, it's clearly the ALQ's decision to continue to charge interest at 5% on that figure, they could just as easy make it an interest free loan as the chances of them ever getting paid back those interest charges are looking slimmer each year. As far as the UWE, if it was such a bad deal why did the ALQ's continue to pour £100K's into the plans rather than scrap it as soon as they took over? Why, when we're already making massive losses, we need an office in London costing £250K p.a. is beyond belief, that's the cost of a 1,000 season tickets at £250 each, or most of Taylor's transfer fee gone on a plush office for the odd meeting, why couldn't the ALQ's just rent an office on the days when it's needed, what two employees use it when Wael's out of the country so much? That's £750K+ gone on interest charges and office rental (who owns the office building?) before the season even starts, I dread to think how much they'll charge the club for using The Colony if it's ever built. It sounds to me the ALQ's are taking as much money out of the club as they can but still the tinters will say they've got the club's best interests at heart.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Mar 13, 2018 23:39:05 GMT
The two employees are Karim, he of the failed to materialise kit, and our old favourite Mr Dubery our dietary expert.
As for the reasons tentatively given that UWE kept revisiting previously agreed items, why then did the vice chancellor the morning after it was called off say he was amazed it had been cancelled, and he was in fact awaiting heads of terms from us?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 1:32:28 GMT
The two employees are Karim, he of the failed to materialise kit, and our old favourite Mr Dubery our dietary expert. As for the reasons tentatively given that UWE kept revisiting previously agreed items, why then did the vice chancellor the morning after it was called off say he was amazed it had been cancelled, and he was in fact awaiting heads of terms from us? Why havnt UWE emphatically denied that they kept revisiting previously agreed items? I mean its a massive slur on them from wael which would surely be vigorously denied if untrue?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Mar 14, 2018 5:54:09 GMT
The two employees are Karim, he of the failed to materialise kit, and our old favourite Mr Dubery our dietary expert. As for the reasons tentatively given that UWE kept revisiting previously agreed items, why then did the vice chancellor the morning after it was called off say he was amazed it had been cancelled, and he was in fact awaiting heads of terms from us? Why havnt UWE emphatically denied that they kept revisiting previously agreed items? I mean its a massive slur on them from wael which would surely be vigorously denied if untrue? It's hardly a massive slur. No more than UWE claiming that heads of terms were awaited from our end and failed to be completed. You can choose to believe whoever you like - not sure I believe either of them personally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 6:12:13 GMT
The two employees are Karim, he of the failed to materialise kit, and our old favourite Mr Dubery our dietary expert. As for the reasons tentatively given that UWE kept revisiting previously agreed items, why then did the vice chancellor the morning after it was called off say he was amazed it had been cancelled, and he was in fact awaiting heads of terms from us? Will Dubey is the New Player Recruitment Analyst/Scout - nothing to do with diets!
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 14, 2018 6:27:32 GMT
May have occurred recently but were incurred under NH realm Wonga (2.8) and stadium legal and planning costs (7?) were surely incurred by the NH BOD?? (Definition of incurred: A charge for a product or service received or delivered.) The Wonga loan was apparently "cleared" by the ALQ's so that can't keep on appearing as a loss, it's clearly the ALQ's decision to continue to charge interest at 5% on that figure, they could just as easy make it an interest free loan as the chances of them ever getting paid back those interest charges are looking slimmer each year. As far as the UWE, if it was such a bad deal why did the ALQ's continue to pour £100K's into the plans rather than scrap it as soon as they took over? Why, when we're already making massive losses, we need an office in London costing £250K p.a. is beyond belief, that's the cost of a 1,000 season tickets at £250 each, or most of Taylor's transfer fee gone on a plush office for the odd meeting, why couldn't the ALQ's just rent an office on the days when it's needed, what two employees use it when Wael's out of the country so much? That's £750K+ gone on interest charges and office rental (who owns the office building?) before the season even starts, I dread to think how much they'll charge the club for using The Colony if it's ever built. It sounds to me the ALQ's are taking as much money out of the club as they can but still the tinters will say they've got the club's best interests at heart. Have they paid themselves any interest or just accrued it?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 14, 2018 6:39:24 GMT
The Wonga loan was apparently "cleared" by the ALQ's so that can't keep on appearing as a loss, it's clearly the ALQ's decision to continue to charge interest at 5% on that figure, they could just as easy make it an interest free loan as the chances of them ever getting paid back those interest charges are looking slimmer each year. As far as the UWE, if it was such a bad deal why did the ALQ's continue to pour £100K's into the plans rather than scrap it as soon as they took over? Why, when we're already making massive losses, we need an office in London costing £250K p.a. is beyond belief, that's the cost of a 1,000 season tickets at £250 each, or most of Taylor's transfer fee gone on a plush office for the odd meeting, why couldn't the ALQ's just rent an office on the days when it's needed, what two employees use it when Wael's out of the country so much? That's £750K+ gone on interest charges and office rental (who owns the office building?) before the season even starts, I dread to think how much they'll charge the club for using The Colony if it's ever built. It sounds to me the ALQ's are taking as much money out of the club as they can but still the tinters will say they've got the club's best interests at heart. Have they paid themselves any interest or just accrued it? As I said "charge interest" hopefully they are not paying it to themselves and it's all just a paper exercise. Although it seems the rent is clearly being paid, unless we're renting an office at AJIB towers and that's also not actually being paid. Who knows, what is clear big debts are being run up by BRFC1883 for seemingly little gain as far as fans are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 14, 2018 6:45:27 GMT
The two employees are Karim, he of the failed to materialise kit, and our old favourite Mr Dubery our dietary expert. As for the reasons tentatively given that UWE kept revisiting previously agreed items, why then did the vice chancellor the morning after it was called off say he was amazed it had been cancelled, and he was in fact awaiting heads of terms from us? Will Dubey is the New Player Recruitment Analyst/Scout - nothing to do with diets! Surprised anybody can say for certain what the man of mystery at Rovers actually does, as there's been no mention of him since he gave a couple of interviews after he joined us in 2016
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 14, 2018 7:55:40 GMT
Have they paid themselves any interest or just accrued it? As I said "charge interest" hopefully they are not paying it to themselves and it's all just a paper exercise. Although it seems the rent is clearly being paid, unless we're renting an office at AJIB towers and that's also not actually being paid. Who knows, what is clear big debts are being run up by BRFC1883 for seemingly little gain as far as fans are concerned. well there is a difference between paying themselves the interest on any loans and accruing it which they may or may not take later on. They are not the only owners that charge or have charged interest on loans. It's whether it is written off or not in the future.
As for the rent of a London office, at the end of the day it is part of the operating losses that Dwane Sports have to cover with there money
oh and for the purpose of illustration notes to the 2012 accounts state:
interest was charged on theses loans between 2.5 and 4%
these are relating to Nick Higgs, Geoff Dunford etc, etc
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 14, 2018 7:57:32 GMT
here is someone elses view of things and perhaps a bit clearer explains some of the points raised
I have been attending AGMs for the best part of 22 years. I was allowed to go in a journalistic capacity whilst writing for The Pirate even before I became a shareholder in the early part of this century.
I think that the posts I have read are a fair reflection of the meeting last night. There are some that seem fixated upon the role of Dwane Sports and it's relationship with Bristol Rovers 1883("1883"). The Al Qadi family own 92% of 1883 and have created Dwane Sports as the holding company. I view them as one and the same. Two years ago they purchased Bristol Rovers Football Club and that was the arrangement they put in place.
One shareholder asked a question about the initial investment against the value of the Mem - in other words what would happen when the "debt" exceeded the value of the stadium. The president pointed out that the arrangement was no different from how other investors had purchased other clubs. In my view he gave a very clear indication that the family were committed to a long term future with Bristol Rovers.
One shareholder probed on the question of a "conflict of interests" with director Mike Turner's company taking legal fees of £97k and then the "London office" expenses. I thought that they were fair questions and I found the answers given entirely acceptable and may I add, convincing. Remember the family own the Football Club and if they think that they need an office in London then that is good enough for me. The point was made by the finance director that these expenses did not impact upon playing budgets. As the evening developed clear explanations were given about turnover and the impact upon the playing budgets (and what could be spent on over 21 players), there seemed to be clear unity between the manager and the Board in terms of understanding the issues.
I also have confidence that if the current owners felt that the UWE deal wasn't right for them as an investment, then so be it. There are some who seem to think that somehow that project should never have been given up and don't seem to understand that the reasons should remain confidential for the possible benefit of both parties in the future. UWE may wish to attract an alternative partner and IF (and I stress IF) Bristol Rovers found an alternative site for another project they wouldn't want their hand to be shown in the public domain.
I do believe that some people have been so used to having information leaked to them they cannot get over the fact that it is no longer available, it is hard to believe that the "fence gate" brigade were not represented in some form last night, there was a brief discussion about the pitch.....but that was it.
So the acid test for me as a shareholder is this, do I have confidence in the current Board to run Bristol Rovers Football Club?
My answer is "yes", certainly far more confidence than I did in attending AGMs between 2007 and 2015.
Before anyone accuses me of being a soft touch, I frequently asked the "difficult" questions of the previous regimes (which they didn't like) and got the new president last night into the meeting by asking him to tell us what he had learned over the last two years - "no day is the same and always a new challenge", and would he do it again to which he responded "we are here to stay."
There are still question marks but I do not subscribe to the doom and gloom view of things.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Mar 14, 2018 8:13:52 GMT
Well this is quite the turn up for the books. Positivity on gasheads.org and negativity on gaschat...
Seemingly against all odds Wael has achieved the impossible!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 8:18:18 GMT
here is someone elses view of things and perhaps a bit clearer explains some of the points raised
I have been attending AGMs for the best part of 22 years. I was allowed to go in a journalistic capacity whilst writing for The Pirate even before I became a shareholder in the early part of this century.
I think that the posts I have read are a fair reflection of the meeting last night. There are some that seem fixated upon the role of Dwane Sports and it's relationship with Bristol Rovers 1883("1883"). The Al Qadi family own 92% of 1883 and have created Dwane Sports as the holding company. I view them as one and the same. Two years ago they purchased Bristol Rovers Football Club and that was the arrangement they put in place.
One shareholder asked a question about the initial investment against the value of the Mem - in other words what would happen when the "debt" exceeded the value of the stadium. The president pointed out that the arrangement was no different from how other investors had purchased other clubs. In my view he gave a very clear indication that the family were committed to a long term future with Bristol Rovers.
One shareholder probed on the question of a "conflict of interests" with director Mike Turner's company taking legal fees of £97k and then the "London office" expenses. I thought that they were fair questions and I found the answers given entirely acceptable and may I add, convincing. Remember the family own the Football Club and if they think that they need an office in London then that is good enough for me. The point was made by the finance director that these expenses did not impact upon playing budgets. As the evening developed clear explanations were given about turnover and the impact upon the playing budgets (and what could be spent on over 21 players), there seemed to be clear unity between the manager and the Board in terms of understanding the issues.
I also have confidence that if the current owners felt that the UWE deal wasn't right for them as an investment, then so be it. There are some who seem to think that somehow that project should never have been given up and don't seem to understand that the reasons should remain confidential for the possible benefit of both parties in the future. UWE may wish to attract an alternative partner and IF (and I stress IF) Bristol Rovers found an alternative site for another project they wouldn't want their hand to be shown in the public domain.
I do believe that some people have been so used to having information leaked to them they cannot get over the fact that it is no longer available, it is hard to believe that the "fence gate" brigade were not represented in some form last night, there was a brief discussion about the pitch.....but that was it.
So the acid test for me as a shareholder is this, do I have confidence in the current Board to run Bristol Rovers Football Club?
My answer is "yes", certainly far more confidence than I did in attending AGMs between 2007 and 2015.
Before anyone accuses me of being a soft touch, I frequently asked the "difficult" questions of the previous regimes (which they didn't like) and got the new president last night into the meeting by asking him to tell us what he had learned over the last two years - "no day is the same and always a new challenge", and would he do it again to which he responded "we are here to stay."
There are still question marks but I do not subscribe to the doom and gloom view of things.
Who wrote this?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 14, 2018 8:24:23 GMT
here is someone elses view of things and perhaps a bit clearer explains some of the points raised
I have been attending AGMs for the best part of 22 years. I was allowed to go in a journalistic capacity whilst writing for The Pirate even before I became a shareholder in the early part of this century.
I think that the posts I have read are a fair reflection of the meeting last night. There are some that seem fixated upon the role of Dwane Sports and it's relationship with Bristol Rovers 1883("1883"). The Al Qadi family own 92% of 1883 and have created Dwane Sports as the holding company. I view them as one and the same. Two years ago they purchased Bristol Rovers Football Club and that was the arrangement they put in place.
One shareholder asked a question about the initial investment against the value of the Mem - in other words what would happen when the "debt" exceeded the value of the stadium. The president pointed out that the arrangement was no different from how other investors had purchased other clubs. In my view he gave a very clear indication that the family were committed to a long term future with Bristol Rovers.
One shareholder probed on the question of a "conflict of interests" with director Mike Turner's company taking legal fees of £97k and then the "London office" expenses. I thought that they were fair questions and I found the answers given entirely acceptable and may I add, convincing. Remember the family own the Football Club and if they think that they need an office in London then that is good enough for me. The point was made by the finance director that these expenses did not impact upon playing budgets. As the evening developed clear explanations were given about turnover and the impact upon the playing budgets (and what could be spent on over 21 players), there seemed to be clear unity between the manager and the Board in terms of understanding the issues.
I also have confidence that if the current owners felt that the UWE deal wasn't right for them as an investment, then so be it. There are some who seem to think that somehow that project should never have been given up and don't seem to understand that the reasons should remain confidential for the possible benefit of both parties in the future. UWE may wish to attract an alternative partner and IF (and I stress IF) Bristol Rovers found an alternative site for another project they wouldn't want their hand to be shown in the public domain.
I do believe that some people have been so used to having information leaked to them they cannot get over the fact that it is no longer available, it is hard to believe that the "fence gate" brigade were not represented in some form last night, there was a brief discussion about the pitch.....but that was it.
So the acid test for me as a shareholder is this, do I have confidence in the current Board to run Bristol Rovers Football Club?
My answer is "yes", certainly far more confidence than I did in attending AGMs between 2007 and 2015.
Before anyone accuses me of being a soft touch, I frequently asked the "difficult" questions of the previous regimes (which they didn't like) and got the new president last night into the meeting by asking him to tell us what he had learned over the last two years - "no day is the same and always a new challenge", and would he do it again to which he responded "we are here to stay."
There are still question marks but I do not subscribe to the doom and gloom view of things.
Who wrote this? John Malyckyj
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 14, 2018 8:27:50 GMT
Have they paid themselves any interest or just accrued it? As I said "charge interest" hopefully they are not paying it to themselves and it's all just a paper exercise. Although it seems the rent is clearly being paid, unless we're renting an office at AJIB towers and that's also not actually being paid. Who knows, what is clear big debts are being run up by BRFC1883 for seemingly little gain as far as fans are concerned. Has the actual rate been confirmed now? I guess it depends on how it is accounted for, under what terms it is taken and whether 'we' feel it is a reasonable amount for the investment it brings in.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Mar 14, 2018 8:44:15 GMT
Well this is quite the turn up for the books. Positivity on gasheads.org and negativity on gaschat... Seemingly against all odds Wael has achieved the impossible! In fairness it's only the same handful of the usual suspects being negative amd I'm sure they would say they are justified in asking questions.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 14, 2018 8:55:58 GMT
As I said "charge interest" hopefully they are not paying it to themselves and it's all just a paper exercise. Although it seems the rent is clearly being paid, unless we're renting an office at AJIB towers and that's also not actually being paid. Who knows, what is clear big debts are being run up by BRFC1883 for seemingly little gain as far as fans are concerned. Has the actual rate been confirmed now? I guess it depends on how it is accounted for, under what terms it is taken and whether 'we' feel it is a reasonable amount for the investment it brings in. Just emphasize the point I was making is why charge the club 5% or whatever interest rate, as they've little chance of getting that back anytime soon, not whether it's a reasonable rate or bring paid.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 14, 2018 9:09:29 GMT
Well this is quite the turn up for the books. Positivity on gasheads.org and negativity on gaschat... Seemingly against all odds Wael has achieved the impossible! In fairness it's only the same handful of the usual suspects being negative amd I'm sure they would say they are justified in asking questions. If you can't challenge why we're running up £3m annual debts Inc £250K wasted on an office in London whilst being told we have a bottom half budget but a top 6 average home attendance, we may as well all become nodding dogs.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Mar 14, 2018 9:10:44 GMT
In fairness it's only the same handful of the usual suspects being negative amd I'm sure they would say they are justified in asking questions. If you can't challenge why we're running up £3m annual debts Inc £250K wasted on an office in London whilst being told we have a bottom half budget but a top 6 average home attendance, we may as well all become nodding dogs. Yes I agree. And if you can't challenge the people asking the questions..... And so on and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 14, 2018 9:22:41 GMT
In fairness it's only the same handful of the usual suspects being negative amd I'm sure they would say they are justified in asking questions. If you can't challenge why we're running up £3m annual debts Inc £250K wasted on an office in London whilst being told we have a bottom half budget but a top 6 average home attendance, we may as well all become nodding dogs. there are justifiable questions to be asked and I would never want anyone to stop asking them or asking them myself.
The issue I have is people trying to pick holes in something, and what seems like desperately trying to find something wrong (and that isn't necessarily aimed at you Topper)
Interest charges on directors loans have been in the accounts for years. Not exactly a stick to beat the new owners with as if this is something new and unheard of
the office. the cost is coming out of 1883Ltd, but 1883Ltd is Dwane Sports, so whom is losing out over whom exactly? Likewise Mike Turner's expenses
The charge on The Mem again isn't exactly an odd business practice.
I get that some of these things will look odd, or not make any sense, but it is about asking the right questions and being able to understand the answers and how the Group of Companies is structured.
|
|