|
Post by burnthewitch on Jun 16, 2019 11:42:36 GMT
100% this. Bristol Rovers wanted a 20,000 stadium, to make (one would hope) a small amount of money on an annual basis and to be a sustainable entity in the 21c. Maybe even get to sustainability in the Championship, who knows. Dwane Sports had to find funding, because they can't pay for it themselves. So their investors will have required a return on their investment. The numbers didn't work. In fact I think I've just answered the question I posed to gashead1981 earlier. The reason that we are denied the truth about the UWE collapse - is because the deal was doable. But it didn't give the investors the return they required in the time they wanted it. If supporters realised how close we were to a once in a generation opportunity to acquire a permanent home that was fit for purpose - they would go ballistic - because it failed because bankers weren't able to screw enough money out of the deal.Other versions of events are, I'm sure available. But that one looks good to me. You know this? Or you are speculating? Pure speculation on my part. But I can't think of another narrative that fits. Feel free to speculate. It's what Forums are for...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 11:49:55 GMT
Maybe it was a good deal for us but not for DS? Maybe they didn’t have access to the finance needed- as Swissgas has pointed out they are relative paupers in football terms. The funding of a stadium would comprise an absolutely massive chunk of their worth. They found an 8 million training ground to be too expensive don’t forget. 100% this. Bristol Rovers wanted a 20,000 stadium, to make (one would hope) a small amount of money on an annual basis and to be a sustainable entity in the 21c. Maybe even get to sustainability in the Championship, who knows. Dwane Sports had to find funding, because they can't pay for it themselves. So their investors will have required a return on their investment. The numbers didn't work. In fact I think I've just answered the question I posed to gashead1981 earlier. The reason that we are denied the truth about the UWE collapse - is because the deal was doable. But it didn't give the investors the return they required in the time they wanted it. If supporters realised how close we were to a once in a generation opportunity to acquire a permanent home that was fit for purpose - they would go ballistic - because it failed because bankers weren't able to screw enough money out of the deal. Other versions of events are, I'm sure available. But that one looks good to me. If you would have been happy to hand over 20% of all match day takings plus other bits and pieces, fair enough. I would not have been, but I am just a gashead who is not ITK about a lot, but have known this for a very long time. My source? Someone on high within the other party involved.
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Jun 16, 2019 11:53:57 GMT
100% this. Bristol Rovers wanted a 20,000 stadium, to make (one would hope) a small amount of money on an annual basis and to be a sustainable entity in the 21c. Maybe even get to sustainability in the Championship, who knows. Dwane Sports had to find funding, because they can't pay for it themselves. So their investors will have required a return on their investment. The numbers didn't work. In fact I think I've just answered the question I posed to gashead1981 earlier. The reason that we are denied the truth about the UWE collapse - is because the deal was doable. But it didn't give the investors the return they required in the time they wanted it. If supporters realised how close we were to a once in a generation opportunity to acquire a permanent home that was fit for purpose - they would go ballistic - because it failed because bankers weren't able to screw enough money out of the deal. Other versions of events are, I'm sure available. But that one looks good to me. Lol and this is based on? Purely based on speculation gassy. I have followed the Dwane Sports and UWE saga and their words and (in)actions over the last 3 years. I'm sure you have as well. What's your theory as to why Wael won't come clean and discuss why UWE collapsed? Twice. When it wasn't 'his fault'. Honesty and communication.
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Jun 16, 2019 11:59:26 GMT
100% this. Bristol Rovers wanted a 20,000 stadium, to make (one would hope) a small amount of money on an annual basis and to be a sustainable entity in the 21c. Maybe even get to sustainability in the Championship, who knows. Dwane Sports had to find funding, because they can't pay for it themselves. So their investors will have required a return on their investment. The numbers didn't work. In fact I think I've just answered the question I posed to gashead1981 earlier. The reason that we are denied the truth about the UWE collapse - is because the deal was doable. But it didn't give the investors the return they required in the time they wanted it. If supporters realised how close we were to a once in a generation opportunity to acquire a permanent home that was fit for purpose - they would go ballistic - because it failed because bankers weren't able to screw enough money out of the deal. Other versions of events are, I'm sure available. But that one looks good to me. If you would have been happy to hand over 20% of all match day takings plus other bits and pieces, fair enough. I would not have been, but I am just a gashead who is not ITK about a lot, but have known this for a very long time. My source? Someone on high within the other party involved. I'm not privy to the "20% of all match day takings plus other bits and pieces". Sounds a little bit vague... but I get your drift. Sounds like a deal that would have been great for Bristol Rovers and a bit sh*t for Dwane Sports and their investors. Hence why it didn't happen. QED.
|
|
|
Post by South Stand Ultra on Jun 16, 2019 12:00:55 GMT
100% this. Bristol Rovers wanted a 20,000 stadium, to make (one would hope) a small amount of money on an annual basis and to be a sustainable entity in the 21c. Maybe even get to sustainability in the Championship, who knows. Dwane Sports had to find funding, because they can't pay for it themselves. So their investors will have required a return on their investment. The numbers didn't work. In fact I think I've just answered the question I posed to gashead1981 earlier. The reason that we are denied the truth about the UWE collapse - is because the deal was doable. But it didn't give the investors the return they required in the time they wanted it. If supporters realised how close we were to a once in a generation opportunity to acquire a permanent home that was fit for purpose - they would go ballistic - because it failed because bankers weren't able to screw enough money out of the deal. Other versions of events are, I'm sure available. But that one looks good to me. Lol and this is based on? Have a look at his posts, you will see something funny about them......
|
|
|
Post by South Stand Ultra on Jun 16, 2019 12:03:07 GMT
If you would have been happy to hand over 20% of all match day takings plus other bits and pieces, fair enough. I would not have been, but I am just a gashead who is not ITK about a lot, but have known this for a very long time. My source? Someone on high within the other party involved. I'm not privy to the "20% of all match day takings plus other bits and pieces". Sounds a little bit vague... but I get your drift. Sounds like a deal that would have been great for Bristol Rovers and a bit sh*t for Dwane Sports and their investors. Hence why it didn't happen. QED. Nice try, it wouldn't have been handed over to BRFC, but UWE.
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Jun 16, 2019 12:14:11 GMT
I'm not privy to the "20% of all match day takings plus other bits and pieces". Sounds a little bit vague... but I get your drift. Sounds like a deal that would have been great for Bristol Rovers and a bit sh*t for Dwane Sports and their investors. Hence why it didn't happen. QED. Nice try, it wouldn't have been handed over to BRFC, but UWE. Obviously. What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by South Stand Ultra on Jun 16, 2019 12:18:15 GMT
Nice try, it wouldn't have been handed over to BRFC, but UWE. Obviously. What's your point? Well not that obvious it seems...... You tried telling everyone Wael would have pocketed the money for himself, and not have been given to BRFC. When infact, it would have gone to UWE.
|
|
nsgas
Reserve Team
Posts: 212
|
Post by nsgas on Jun 16, 2019 12:19:27 GMT
I might be prepared to believe that the UWE wanted 20% of matchday profits, but 20% of matchday takings is not plausible. That might have been all of the profit depending on margins.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 16, 2019 12:25:27 GMT
100% this. Bristol Rovers wanted a 20,000 stadium, to make (one would hope) a small amount of money on an annual basis and to be a sustainable entity in the 21c. Maybe even get to sustainability in the Championship, who knows. Dwane Sports had to find funding, because they can't pay for it themselves. So their investors will have required a return on their investment. The numbers didn't work. In fact I think I've just answered the question I posed to gashead1981 earlier. The reason that we are denied the truth about the UWE collapse - is because the deal was doable. But it didn't give the investors the return they required in the time they wanted it. If supporters realised how close we were to a once in a generation opportunity to acquire a permanent home that was fit for purpose - they would go ballistic - because it failed because bankers weren't able to screw enough money out of the deal. Other versions of events are, I'm sure available. But that one looks good to me. If you would have been happy to hand over 20% of all match day takings plus other bits and pieces, fair enough. I would not have been, but I am just a gashead who is not ITK about a lot, but have known this for a very long time. My source? Someone on high within the other party involved. As I posted early it didn't take 3 years for the ALQ's to decide that wasn't viable, there must be another reason the deal finally fell though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 12:52:28 GMT
I might be prepared to believe that the UWE wanted 20% of matchday profits, but 20% of matchday takings is not plausible. That might have been all of the profit depending on margins. Exactly. I wonder why the deal fell through? I'm led to believe what UWE wanted changed considerably once we wanted the freehold rather than the previous leasehold deal.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Jun 16, 2019 12:54:01 GMT
Obviously. What's your point? Well not that obvious it seems...... You tried telling everyone Wael would have pocketed the money for himself, and not have been given to BRFC. When infact, it would have gone to UWE. What are you talking about? It’s clear that the 20% referred to is a fee UWE would want from Rovers not that UWE would give Wael or BRFC! It’s only speculation anyway but the person you are arguing with said that if it was true it still might not have been too bad a deal for the FC who’s motivation is less profit oriented than any investors would be.
|
|
|
Post by South Stand Ultra on Jun 16, 2019 13:15:31 GMT
Well not that obvious it seems...... You tried telling everyone Wael would have pocketed the money for himself, and not have been given to BRFC. When infact, it would have gone to UWE. What are you talking about? It’s clear that the 20% referred to is a fee UWE would want from Rovers not that UWE would give Wael or BRFC! It’s only speculation anyway but the person you are arguing with said that if it was true it still might not have been too bad a deal for the FC who’s motivation is less profit oriented than any investors would be. Re-read my posts.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Jun 16, 2019 13:44:37 GMT
You know this? Or you are speculating? Pure speculation on my part. But I can't think of another narrative that fits. Feel free to speculate. It's what Forums are for... It was nothing to do with how much the ALQs, or any other part were going to get out of the deal. As I said previously, the unorthodox behaviour of he UWE with their take it or leave it terms meant we had to leave it having previously agreed all the terms to move forward, thus wasting months and months of talks and negotiations and the time of many individuals. Not to mention money of those involved.
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Jun 16, 2019 13:45:14 GMT
Obviously. What's your point? Well not that obvious it seems...... You tried telling everyone Wael would have pocketed the money for himself, and not have been given to BRFC. When infact, it would have gone to UWE. Where exactly did I say Wael was pocketing the money for himself? I never suggested that, or anything like that. What a very strange comment to make. The 20% (if that figure is correct - I can't verify that) was to be paid to UWE. Re-read what I have written.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Jun 16, 2019 13:54:13 GMT
Pure speculation on my part. But I can't think of another narrative that fits. Feel free to speculate. It's what Forums are for... It was nothing to do with how much the ALQs, or any other part were going to get out of the deal. As I said previously, the unorthodox behaviour of he UWE with their take it or leave it terms meant we had to leave it having previously agreed all the terms to move forward, thus wasting months and months of talks and negotiations and the time of many individuals. Not to mention money of those involved. This is why I was 99.9% confident that UWE would be built. However, there comes a point when you have to walk away from a bad deal. No-one on this thread knows the REAL reason this fell through, not even me. I have accepted it is dead and we now move on to a more fruitful site.
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Jun 16, 2019 13:57:13 GMT
It was nothing to do with how much the ALQs, or any other part were going to get out of the deal. As I said previously, the unorthodox behaviour of he UWE with their take it or leave it terms meant we had to leave it having previously agreed all the terms to move forward, thus wasting months and months of talks and negotiations and the time of many individuals. Not to mention money of those involved. This is why I was 99.9% confident that UWE would be built. However, there comes a point when you have to walk away from a bad deal. No-one on this thread knows the REAL reason this fell through, not even me. I have accepted it is dead and we now move on to a more fruitful site. Would you admit that stating 99.9% confidence that it will be built, on a public forum, was a tad naive? This club have had more than enough kicks in the teeth to know that no matter how certain a project might seem, it's not done until its done.
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Jun 16, 2019 14:00:43 GMT
Pure speculation on my part. But I can't think of another narrative that fits. Feel free to speculate. It's what Forums are for... It was nothing to do with how much the ALQs, or any other part were going to get out of the deal. As I said previously, the unorthodox behaviour of he UWE with their take it or leave it terms meant we had to leave it having previously agreed all the terms to move forward, thus wasting months and months of talks and negotiations and the time of many individuals. Not to mention money of those involved. So without going all Jeremy Paxman vs Michael Howard on you... if it was UWE who ultimately screwed us late last year - why have we not been told? This is Wael's "Get out of jail free" card. Why hasn't he playing it? If I was in his shoes I'd be shouting from the rooftops that UWE f*cked us over. He would get his credibility back. And in turn this would get the supporters back on side. If your version of events is true - then that's great. But I don't believe it.
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 16, 2019 14:10:12 GMT
It was nothing to do with how much the ALQs, or any other part were going to get out of the deal. As I said previously, the unorthodox behaviour of he UWE with their take it or leave it terms meant we had to leave it having previously agreed all the terms to move forward, thus wasting months and months of talks and negotiations and the time of many individuals. Not to mention money of those involved. This is why I was 99.9% confident that UWE would be built. However, there comes a point when you have to walk away from a bad deal. No-one on this thread knows the REAL reason this fell through, not even me. I have accepted it is dead and we now move on to a more fruitful site. You tease
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Jun 16, 2019 14:14:23 GMT
I lost hope of the UWE stadium happening years ago when Wael said it required funding by investors. How on earth would investors get a return on their investment given that virtually all clubs lose money every year? I know that a new stadium would bring bigger crowds and greater other revenue streams but plenty of other clubs have this and still lose money. You only have to look at Bristol City and their massive losses to see that. There’s a difference between a stadium turning a profit and a football club turning a profit. There are many ways a deal could be structured to accommodate this. Additionally, new stadiums can be very profitable in their own right and generate wealth in ways beyond holding football matches. Look at Ashton Gate for instance, 3 big headliner events I can think of off the top of my head, ample conferencing going on all the time. They’re getting a huge return on investment. if the 20% profit / revenue conditions are true on the UWE deal, then they would have had a decent whack of anything similar we can generate. It’s fine to say well that’s ok I’ll take that on the chin but over the lifetime of the stadium that share stacks up considerably and would be far in excess of return an investor would expect to receive on a stadium development. Singing that much away signs away our ability to compete at a higher level indefinitely. Many teams, think Coventry and Oxford (fun club to be in) who don’t have full ownership of their stadiums and profits are having to rethink their ‘new’ stadium plans and build another new stadium to keep their club afloat. Do you want to hear excuses like ‘we can’t generate revenue like our competitors can therefore we lost out on player x’ for the next 50 years or do you want to wait another 3 years and get it right and possibly something that could push us on beyond our wildest dreams? I’ll wait those extra 3 years.
|
|