|
Post by Gassy on Jun 17, 2019 19:28:49 GMT
Maybe 1981 is Wael and he was the ‘celebrity’...
After all, he did confirm Knowall isn’t Hamer 😳
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Jun 17, 2019 20:35:40 GMT
Maybe 1981 is Wael and he was the ‘celebrity’... After all, he did confirm Knowall isn’t Hamer 😳 I can confirm I am not Wael 😬
|
|
|
Post by Gasshole on Jun 17, 2019 20:40:05 GMT
Maybe 1981 is Wael and he was the ‘celebrity’... After all, he did confirm Knowall isn’t Hamer 😳 I can confirm I am not Wael 😬 Hope you get Wael soon
|
|
|
Post by tomylil on Jun 17, 2019 20:45:50 GMT
Appreciate your response. I was a massive supporter of the Al-Qadi's up to the initial UWE collapse (plus about another 6 months to see what their Plan B was. Still waiting). I would love to know what the "unorthodox, but completely astronomical" demands were from UWE in late 2018. If what you say is true, then this is the "Get out of jail free card" for Wael Al-Qadi. He did make some mumbled, vague references to UWE negotiations in his last interview (March 14th). If BRFC were shafted by UWE - then why doesn't Dwane Sports / Wael Al-Qadi come out and bloody say it? Just be honest. Please do not quote me NDA's - Wael already made some half-arsed references to it in the interview (referenced above), so he's already broken them. So Wael - just tell us what actually happened. Just be honest. Show the cynical b*stards like me some EVIDENCE that you were trying as hard as you can to make the UWE deal work. You might just get back a large percentage of the Supporters who are currently disenfranchised and looking at other ways to spend their time on a Saturday afternoon. Just how are season ticket sales going? Two words for Wael to contemplate. Honesty and Communication. As someone who has worked on multi million pound business deals previously in a different sphere, NDAs are massively important because deals have impacts on people and their lives and sometimes employment... it’s in the law on how things need to work and you put NDAs in place specifically to stop info getting out before you want it to (I.e. you control the release of information jointly after a deal is agreed and impacted people have been communicated with) or in the event a deal falls through or doesn’t happen, information doesn’t get released as that could have commercial or sensitivity impacts for a whole host of reasons. You never ‘slag’ off the other party publicly when things fall through as you never know when a) you may want to try to do business with them again, b) it ruins your professionalism in the commercial market and so may stop others or put others off, c) you never know where individuals may move on to and d) you don’t know what network or influence they have wider than just what you’re working on... so you remain tight lipped and professional as far as possible just in case..... In a business context aren't NDA's usually agreed for a prescribed period of time between the parties, the length of which depending upon the complexity and scale of the deal? I have worked on Mergers and acquisitions and whilst eye watering in terms of the loot involved they were definitely finite. That being the case, and bearing in mind the AQ's are hardly likely to need to deal with the parties on the other side of the fence again unless they wish to resurrect the deal, spilling the beans once any NDA has expired shouldn't hurt them whatsoever in my opinion provided of course "the beans" are a truthful account of what happened - if indeed such a provision was included into the transaction. If there was a NDA then Wael alluding to it doesn't create any breach of the agreement unless he mentioned specifics. I suspect (without any inside knowledge), that the reason the deal failed is because UWE thought they had a deal and then new terms were put to them that were fundamentally different to what had been on the table under the previous regime, and because unlike us they had alternative options we were told to f**k off.
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 17, 2019 21:11:33 GMT
It’s almost like you didn’t even read his post
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Jun 17, 2019 21:53:01 GMT
In a business context aren't NDA's usually agreed for a prescribed period of time between the parties, the length of which depending upon the complexity and scale of the deal? Most NDAs that I have been involved in are valid for a period of 10 years. Occasionally more.I have worked on Mergers and acquisitions and whilst eye watering in terms of the loot involved they were definitely finite. That being the case, and bearing in mind the AQ's are hardly likely to need to deal with the parties on the other side of the fence again unless they wish to resurrect the deal, spilling the beans once any NDA has expired shouldn't hurt them whatsoever in my opinion provided of course "the beans" are a truthful account of what happened - if indeed such a provision was included into the transaction. Following the answer above, we've got a fair wait, unless anyone chooses to breach the terms of the NDA and risk the pursuit of damages If there was a NDA then Wael alluding to it doesn't create any breach of the agreement unless he mentioned specifics. But the details that we are interested in would probably breach the NDAI suspect (without any inside knowledge), that the reason the deal failed is because UWE thought they had a deal and then new terms were put to them that were fundamentally different to what had been on the table under the previous regime, and because unlike us they had alternative options we were told to f**k off. Probably, unless something more sinister happened from UWE's side
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 21:58:14 GMT
Appreciate your response. I was a massive supporter of the Al-Qadi's up to the initial UWE collapse (plus about another 6 months to see what their Plan B was. Still waiting). I would love to know what the "unorthodox, but completely astronomical" demands were from UWE in late 2018. If what you say is true, then this is the "Get out of jail free card" for Wael Al-Qadi. He did make some mumbled, vague references to UWE negotiations in his last interview (March 14th). If BRFC were shafted by UWE - then why doesn't Dwane Sports / Wael Al-Qadi come out and bloody say it? Just be honest. Please do not quote me NDA's - Wael already made some half-arsed references to it in the interview (referenced above), so he's already broken them. So Wael - just tell us what actually happened. Just be honest. Show the cynical b*stards like me some EVIDENCE that you were trying as hard as you can to make the UWE deal work. You might just get back a large percentage of the Supporters who are currently disenfranchised and looking at other ways to spend their time on a Saturday afternoon. Just how are season ticket sales going? Two words for Wael to contemplate. Honesty and Communication. As someone who has worked on multi million pound business deals previously in a different sphere, NDAs are massively important because deals have impacts on people and their lives and sometimes employment... it’s in the law on how things need to work and you put NDAs in place specifically to stop info getting out before you want it to (I.e. you control the release of information jointly after a deal is agreed and impacted people have been communicated with) or in the event a deal falls through or doesn’t happen, information doesn’t get released as that could have commercial or sensitivity impacts for a whole host of reasons. You never ‘slag’ off the other party publicly when things fall through as you never know when a) you may want to try to do business with them again, b) it ruins your professionalism in the commercial market and so may stop others or put others off, c) you never know where individuals may move on to and d) you don’t know what network or influence they have wider than just what you’re working on... so you remain tight lipped and professional as far as possible just in case..... All of the above, plus you leave yourself open to legal action for potential breach of the NDA. An excellent post that many would do well to consider and try to understand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 22:45:06 GMT
In a business context aren't NDA's usually agreed for a prescribed period of time between the parties, the length of which depending upon the complexity and scale of the deal? Most NDAs that I have been involved in are valid for a period of 10 years. Occasionally more.I have worked on Mergers and acquisitions and whilst eye watering in terms of the loot involved they were definitely finite. That being the case, and bearing in mind the AQ's are hardly likely to need to deal with the parties on the other side of the fence again unless they wish to resurrect the deal, spilling the beans once any NDA has expired shouldn't hurt them whatsoever in my opinion provided of course "the beans" are a truthful account of what happened - if indeed such a provision was included into the transaction. Following the answer above, we've got a fair wait, unless anyone chooses to breach the terms of the NDA and risk the pursuit of damages If there was a NDA then Wael alluding to it doesn't create any breach of the agreement unless he mentioned specifics. But the details that we are interested in would probably breach the NDAI suspect (without any inside knowledge), that the reason the deal failed is because UWE thought they had a deal and then new terms were put to them that were fundamentally different to what had been on the table under the previous regime, and because unlike us they had alternative options we were told to f**k off. Probably, unless something more sinister happened from UWE's side Guess we'll just have to wait for Wael's book
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 5:39:03 GMT
Guess we'll just have to wait for Wael's book Moby Dick? Or is that Ken’s book? 😂
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jun 18, 2019 6:38:04 GMT
Maybe 1981 is Wael and he was the ‘celebrity’... After all, he did confirm Knowall isn’t Hamer 😳 I can confirm I am not Wael 😬 Blood test required for the ITK's please
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Jun 18, 2019 7:49:24 GMT
Maybe 1981 is Wael and he was the ‘celebrity’... After all, he did confirm Knowall isn’t Hamer 😳 I can confirm I am not Wael 😬 I can confirm that 1981 is not Wael. 1981 communicates clearly. Although I don't necessarily agree with what all he says, he makes sense. Therefore he is not Wael.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireGas on Jun 18, 2019 7:51:33 GMT
In a business context aren't NDA's usually agreed for a prescribed period of time between the parties, the length of which depending upon the complexity and scale of the deal? I have worked on Mergers and acquisitions and whilst eye watering in terms of the loot involved they were definitely finite. That being the case, and bearing in mind the AQ's are hardly likely to need to deal with the parties on the other side of the fence again unless they wish to resurrect the deal, spilling the beans once any NDA has expired shouldn't hurt them whatsoever in my opinion provided of course "the beans" are a truthful account of what happened - if indeed such a provision was included into the transaction. If there was a NDA then Wael alluding to it doesn't create any breach of the agreement unless he mentioned specifics. I suspect (without any inside knowledge), that the reason the deal failed is because UWE thought they had a deal and then new terms were put to them that were fundamentally different to what had been on the table under the previous regime, and because unlike us they had alternative options we were told to f**k off. NDAs can be finite with an expiry date, or they may continue 'in perpetuity' i.,e. information has been disclosed within the discussions that might have an impact on the company or companies involved and/or the market in which the parties operate such that information may never be disclosed, unless both parties agree. As BRFC is a private company with overseas owners they may wish to keep certain information private and UWE is a public owned institution which will be subject to Government legislation on disclosure of information. DS may have had to provide information to UWE with regard to its capability to meet its obligations or they may have revealed who the long term investors are and may want that information kept confidential. If Wael broke confidence it is unlikely that he would be sued (though he could be), it is more likely that UWE could reveal information as once the NDA was broken there would be no obligation on UWE to keep info secret. NDAs are about goodwill and trust as well as legal obligation. Bristol is a small city (not meant to be derogatory) with regard to business and most relevant business people know each other. If Wael and DS broke the NDA with UWE who would ever trust them again?
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Jun 18, 2019 7:55:44 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. 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. You've said that I accused Wael Al-Qadi of pocketing the money (20% of potential matchday takings) for himself. Could you point me to where this was please? Or apologise for stating a lie. "South Stand Ultra". Got to like self-deprecating humour in a username.
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Jun 18, 2019 8:12:03 GMT
In a business context aren't NDA's usually agreed for a prescribed period of time between the parties, the length of which depending upon the complexity and scale of the deal? I have worked on Mergers and acquisitions and whilst eye watering in terms of the loot involved they were definitely finite. That being the case, and bearing in mind the AQ's are hardly likely to need to deal with the parties on the other side of the fence again unless they wish to resurrect the deal, spilling the beans once any NDA has expired shouldn't hurt them whatsoever in my opinion provided of course "the beans" are a truthful account of what happened - if indeed such a provision was included into the transaction. If there was a NDA then Wael alluding to it doesn't create any breach of the agreement unless he mentioned specifics. I suspect (without any inside knowledge), that the reason the deal failed is because UWE thought they had a deal and then new terms were put to them that were fundamentally different to what had been on the table under the previous regime, and because unlike us they had alternative options we were told to f**k off. NDAs can be finite with an expiry date, or they may continue 'in perpetuity' i.,e. information has been disclosed within the discussions that might have an impact on the company or companies involved and/or the market in which the parties operate such that information may never be disclosed, unless both parties agree. As BRFC is a private company with overseas owners they may wish to keep certain information private and UWE is a public owned institution which will be subject to Government legislation on disclosure of information. DS may have had to provide information to UWE with regard to its capability to meet its obligations or they may have revealed who the long term investors are and may want that information kept confidential. If Wael broke confidence it is unlikely that he would be sued (though he could be), it is more likely that UWE could reveal information as once the NDA was broken there would be no obligation on UWE to keep info secret. NDAs are about goodwill and trust as well as legal obligation. Bristol is a small city (not meant to be derogatory) with regard to business and most relevant business people know each other. If Wael and DS broke the NDA with UWE who would ever trust them again? Fair enough (Cheshire, gashead 1981, bluestickgas others). I think we can politely agree to differ. I think (just my opinion) that Wael is hiding behind NDA's. I don't believe that anyone "working really hard behind the scenes". It's just talk and buzzwords, bluff and bluster. These things take time you know. Actions speak louder then words. Maybe my mistrust is down to previous owners use of NDA's in a Nick Higgs type stylee. As has been eloquently written - (bluestickgas) there may be very valid reasons for abiding by NDA's. Maybe something will happen on the stadium front. I hope so. I really do. But I don't believe. Now everyone have a super day.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jun 18, 2019 8:16:16 GMT
NDAs can be finite with an expiry date, or they may continue 'in perpetuity' i.,e. information has been disclosed within the discussions that might have an impact on the company or companies involved and/or the market in which the parties operate such that information may never be disclosed, unless both parties agree. As BRFC is a private company with overseas owners they may wish to keep certain information private and UWE is a public owned institution which will be subject to Government legislation on disclosure of information. DS may have had to provide information to UWE with regard to its capability to meet its obligations or they may have revealed who the long term investors are and may want that information kept confidential. If Wael broke confidence it is unlikely that he would be sued (though he could be), it is more likely that UWE could reveal information as once the NDA was broken there would be no obligation on UWE to keep info secret. NDAs are about goodwill and trust as well as legal obligation. Bristol is a small city (not meant to be derogatory) with regard to business and most relevant business people know each other. If Wael and DS broke the NDA with UWE who would ever trust them again? Fair enough (Cheshire, gashead 1981, bluestickgas others). I think we can politely agree to differ. I think (just my opinion) that Wael is hiding behind NDA's. I don't believe that anyone "working really hard behind the scenes". It's just talk and buzzwords, bluff and bluster. These things take time you know. Actions speak louder then words. Maybe my mistrust is down to previous owners use of NDA's in a Nick Higgs type stylee. As has been eloquently written - (bluestickgas) there may be very valid reasons for abiding by NDA's. Maybe something will happen on the stadium front. I hope so. I really do. But I don't believe.Now everyone have a super day. I'm of the opinion that a stadium complex will be built simply because its a good way for the family to get their investment back A club with Planning permission to build a stadium complex is a lot easier to sell than one without
|
|
|
Post by lastminutewinner on Jun 18, 2019 11:24:10 GMT
Fair enough (Cheshire, gashead 1981, bluestickgas others). I think we can politely agree to differ. I think (just my opinion) that Wael is hiding behind NDA's. I don't believe that anyone "working really hard behind the scenes". It's just talk and buzzwords, bluff and bluster. These things take time you know. Actions speak louder then words. Maybe my mistrust is down to previous owners use of NDA's in a Nick Higgs type stylee. As has been eloquently written - (bluestickgas) there may be very valid reasons for abiding by NDA's. Maybe something will happen on the stadium front. I hope so. I really do. But I don't believe.Now everyone have a super day. I'm of the opinion that a stadium complex will be built simply because its a good way for the family to get their investment backA club with Planning permission to build a stadium complex is a lot easier to sell than one without
You would think that would be the only way to get their investment back, unless someone else is silly enough to take it off their hands and cover the ever increasing debt.
I cannot see the Wael family continuing to cover the losses we are getting each year. Something will have to give...
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Jun 18, 2019 11:28:33 GMT
In a business context aren't NDA's usually agreed for a prescribed period of time between the parties, the length of which depending upon the complexity and scale of the deal? Most NDAs that I have been involved in are valid for a period of 10 years. Occasionally more.I have worked on Mergers and acquisitions and whilst eye watering in terms of the loot involved they were definitely finite. That being the case, and bearing in mind the AQ's are hardly likely to need to deal with the parties on the other side of the fence again unless they wish to resurrect the deal, spilling the beans once any NDA has expired shouldn't hurt them whatsoever in my opinion provided of course "the beans" are a truthful account of what happened - if indeed such a provision was included into the transaction. Following the answer above, we've got a fair wait, unless anyone chooses to breach the terms of the NDA and risk the pursuit of damages If there was a NDA then Wael alluding to it doesn't create any breach of the agreement unless he mentioned specifics. But the details that we are interested in would probably breach the NDAI suspect (without any inside knowledge), that the reason the deal failed is because UWE thought they had a deal and then new terms were put to them that were fundamentally different to what had been on the table under the previous regime, and because unlike us they had alternative options we were told to f**k off. Probably, unless something more sinister happened from UWE's side What I don’t understand is that after the deal fell through and for whatever reasons, WAQ then did confirm the talks were with UWE. My understanding of NDA agreements is that they continue, after the deal is done or not. That was how it was done when I was doing deals.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireGas on Jun 18, 2019 11:35:07 GMT
What I don’t understand is that after the deal fell through and for whatever reasons, WAQ then did confirm the talks were with UWE. My understanding of NDA agreements is that they continue, after the deal is done or not. That was how it was done when I was doing deals. I believe it was in the public sphere that the club were speaking to UWE. If something is in the public domain then it cannot be covered by an NDA as there would be no point. However details of the deal not made public would still be covered.
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Jun 18, 2019 11:40:54 GMT
What I don’t understand is that after the deal fell through and for whatever reasons, WAQ then did confirm the talks were with UWE. My understanding of NDA agreements is that they continue, after the deal is done or not. That was how it was done when I was doing deals. I believe it was in the public sphere that the club were speaking to UWE. If something is in the public domain then it cannot be covered by an NDA as there would be no point. However details of the deal not made public would still be covered. I thought it was mainly gossip that was in the public domain as Twentyman did ask can you confirm the talks were with UWE but thanks for the other information
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Jun 19, 2019 9:05:32 GMT
I believe it was in the public sphere that the club were speaking to UWE. If something is in the public domain then it cannot be covered by an NDA as there would be no point. However details of the deal not made public would still be covered. I thought it was mainly gossip that was in the public domain as Twentyman did ask can you confirm the talks were with UWE but thanks for the other information Interesting point KP. UWE v2 was not in the public domain. There had been rumours, but the last from Wael on the subject was that all talks with UWE were dead - he said this in August 2017. It was exactly the same time that Steve Hamer said that negotiations with UWE weren't dead and that in football "you never know". Anyway - that interview: GT: "A lot of people thought the problem was ownership, who owned the land, who had to pay this and that, and you thought you'd ironed it out". WAQ: "We had the best deal for the club which was, uh, freehold. However it's their right, they wanted better use of the land for their own purposes. That is their prerogative". WAQ was very "matter of fact" about it. I still can't get my head round why. So for me it's either: 1. Wael made reference to UWE negotiations, but not enough to break an NDA and he has done all he could legally to cover "what went wrong". Or, 2. Wael hid behind NDA's to cover up why the deal fell through. Perhaps because it was all around Dwane Sports / their investors were not able to make enough money out of the deal. What were the "astronomical last minute demands made by UWE that scuppered the deal"? Ah Catch 22 - see point 1. Take your pick. For me it all boils down to a lack of communication with the fan base which has led to divisions between those that trust Dwane Sports, and those that do not. For the sake of the Football Club it would obviously be healthy if these divisions could be healed. Concrete plans for a new Stadium and/or Training Facilities would do the job. I wait. But not as patiently as others.
|
|