|
|
Post by Colyton Gas on Jun 9, 2018 9:15:47 GMT
Great listening.Have to say in my long life I have been let down life changingly badly on only three occasions and relegation to the Conference was one of those.Club really rag -bag Rovers then and going to Alfreton and Braintree was as bad as it has ever been.Faith restored now under DC and the Lee brown winner against D&R was euphoric.On reflection our demise has proved a blessing in the long run and can't wait for the new season. What's with the random photo  Confirming the euphoria immediately after the late Browner winner v D & R. |
|
|
|
Post by Blueside on Jun 11, 2018 12:55:35 GMT
I know something about Nick Higgs that he didn't mention. I'm glad he has gone, as well as the thing I know he played his own 40year old record collection and he shouted in to a mic, not needed. Vince will be a lot better What's Nick Higgs got to do with it? |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jun 11, 2018 13:35:39 GMT
I know something about Nick Higgs that he didn't mention. I'm glad he has gone, as well as the thing I know he played his own 40year old record collection and he shouted in to a mic, not needed. Vince will be a lot better What's Nick Higgs got to do with it? Tina Turner. Ban. |
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 18,940 
|
Post by pirate on Jun 11, 2018 13:47:32 GMT
I know something about Nick Higgs that he didn't mention. I'm glad he has gone, as well as the thing I know he played his own 40year old record collection and he shouted in to a mic, not needed. Vince will be a lot better What's Nick Higgs got to do with it? ...got to do with it, what's Higgs but a second hand emotion. |
|
|
|
Post by disinterested on Jun 11, 2018 15:09:02 GMT
Enjoyed the Nick Day interview and noted his comment that the UWE deal was not good for Rovers. I know that view is shared by many Gasheads, however I am not entirely convinced that he is right. Whilst none of us know the exact terms of the deal we do know the various income streams would have been shared between UWE and Rovers (albeit ratio unknown). The terms of the lease and the income split seemed to have been acceptable to the previous board and it would have meant that we got our stadium. I referred to this on the "UWE/Restart" thread. This is where I get controversial. It's my belief that the deal fell through, not because it was bad for Rovers, but because it was bad for the Al Qadis. By this I mean that it would have been more difficult for them to get their money back when they decide to cut and run. As it stands all the money they have put in is covered by the charge on the Mem. The freehold of the Mem is worth a damn sight more that a lease of a football stadium. Had the stadium at UWE gone ahead we may not have had ALL the additional income but I believe higher crowds would have made our share much more than we are getting now. I do not think that the Al Qadis are prepared to put much more money into Rovers and if they sell up I hope the new board will resurrect the UWE plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by stigofthegas on Jun 12, 2018 6:33:21 GMT
Enjoyed the Nick Day interview and noted his comment that the UWE deal was not good for Rovers. I know that view is shared by many Gasheads, however I am not entirely convinced that he is right. Whilst none of us know the exact terms of the deal we do know the various income streams would have been shared between UWE and Rovers (albeit ratio unknown). The terms of the lease and the income split seemed to have been acceptable to the previous board and it would have meant that we got our stadium. I referred to this on the "UWE/Restart" thread. This is where I get controversial. It's my belief that the deal fell through, not because it was bad for Rovers, but because it was bad for the Al Qadis. By this I mean that it would have been more difficult for them to get their money back when they decide to cut and run. As it stands all the money they have put in is covered by the charge on the Mem. The freehold of the Mem is worth a damn sight more that a lease of a football stadium. Had the stadium at UWE gone ahead we may not have had ALL the additional income but I believe higher crowds would have made our share much more than we are getting now. I do not think that the Al Qadis are prepared to put much more money into Rovers and if they sell up I hope the new board will resurrect the UWE plan. I guess that took about 10 minutes to type. What a ware of 10 minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Jun 12, 2018 9:43:21 GMT
Solid interview. Top work!
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Jun 12, 2018 10:53:53 GMT
Enjoyed the Nick Day interview and noted his comment that the UWE deal was not good for Rovers. I know that view is shared by many Gasheads, however I am not entirely convinced that he is right. Whilst none of us know the exact terms of the deal we do know the various income streams would have been shared between UWE and Rovers (albeit ratio unknown). The terms of the lease and the income split seemed to have been acceptable to the previous board and it would have meant that we got our stadium. I referred to this on the "UWE/Restart" thread. This is where I get controversial. It's my belief that the deal fell through, not because it was bad for Rovers, but because it was bad for the Al Qadis. By this I mean that it would have been more difficult for them to get their money back when they decide to cut and run. As it stands all the money they have put in is covered by the charge on the Mem. The freehold of the Mem is worth a damn sight more that a lease of a football stadium. Had the stadium at UWE gone ahead we may not have had ALL the additional income but I believe higher crowds would have made our share much more than we are getting now. I do not think that the Al Qadis are prepared to put much more money into Rovers and if they sell up I hope the new board will resurrect the UWE plan. I guess that took about 10 minutes to type. What a ware of 10 minutes. Likewise with your post but 10 seconds wasted in your case. Does it matter? |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 12, 2018 11:00:03 GMT
Enjoyed the Nick Day interview and noted his comment that the UWE deal was not good for Rovers. I know that view is shared by many Gasheads, however I am not entirely convinced that he is right. Whilst none of us know the exact terms of the deal we do know the various income streams would have been shared between UWE and Rovers (albeit ratio unknown). The terms of the lease and the income split seemed to have been acceptable to the previous board and it would have meant that we got our stadium. I referred to this on the "UWE/Restart" thread. This is where I get controversial. It's my belief that the deal fell through, not because it was bad for Rovers, but because it was bad for the Al Qadis. By this I mean that it would have been more difficult for them to get their money back when they decide to cut and run. As it stands all the money they have put in is covered by the charge on the Mem. The freehold of the Mem is worth a damn sight more that a lease of a football stadium. Had the stadium at UWE gone ahead we may not have had ALL the additional income but I believe higher crowds would have made our share much more than we are getting now. I do not think that the Al Qadis are prepared to put much more money into Rovers and if they sell up I hope the new board will resurrect the UWE plan. I'd have thought Nick had his ear to the ground a lot more than those how think they are IKT on the forum? As far as getting their money out I doubt NH would have been happy to leave his money tied up any longer than the ALQ's, plus he didn't even have a contract in place so he's probably no idea what the UWE were going to eventually seek from us once Sainsbury's had ever paid up. |
|
|
|
Post by Blueside on Jun 12, 2018 12:55:13 GMT
What's Nick Higgs got to do with it? ...got to do with it, what's Higgs but a second hand emotion. Damn you beat me to it.... By nearly a day! You need to be on here 24/7 to get in there first. Not good for us part timers! |
|
