|
Post by gregsy on Jun 19, 2019 22:26:53 GMT
No one knows the truth but I always think it's best to take the opportunity to slag our owners off and assume they are to blame rather than supporting them and trying to help take the club forward in whatever way that is. I try to remain as objective as possible so I won’t support the AQ’s just because. All I know is we had a deal on the table that was considered good for the club by the old board and the UWE were happy. The Al Qadi’s rock up and it all goes to s*** so for me the onus is on them first and foremost to explain what went wrong. We’ll never be given a categorical reason that the UWE can then have right of reply on because confidentiality, so in the absence of that explanation exists a vacuum which is filled by speculation, trying to stop speculation is like trying to catch the rain. That’s kind of how it will always be, until a Wael releases his book anyway.... You make it sound as if the previous owners would have actually got the UWE built? I take it you've forgotten about the legal battle with Sainsbury's and the wonga loan?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2019 22:38:08 GMT
I try to remain as objective as possible so I won’t support the AQ’s just because. All I know is we had a deal on the table that was considered good for the club by the old board and the UWE were happy. The Al Qadi’s rock up and it all goes to s*** so for me the onus is on them first and foremost to explain what went wrong. We’ll never be given a categorical reason that the UWE can then have right of reply on because confidentiality, so in the absence of that explanation exists a vacuum which is filled by speculation, trying to stop speculation is like trying to catch the rain. That’s kind of how it will always be, until a Wael releases his book anyway.... You make it sound as if the previous owners would have actually got the UWE built? I take it you've forgotten about the legal battle with Sainsbury's and the wonga loan? When I say it all went to s*** I was referring to the plan for the stadium with UWE. Of course there was no guarantee the old board would have got it built- and that was how it turned out although I have some sympathy in that Higgs went into a deal with a pack of bastards in good faith. But, crucially, they did leave us with an agreement to build the stadium and one thing the Al Qadi's didn't do on the day of the takeover was tell us that they had no intention of building it. So somewhere beyond the takeover it went tits up and the Al Qadi's should be the first to go on the record about why it did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2019 22:42:18 GMT
Yes, a restrictive covenant. How long did it take the Al Qadi's to figure this out? Surely they should have known a covenant was in place as part of their due diligence as it had been mentioned by the media when Higgs brokered the original deal. It beggars belief that Wael thought he could negotiate. Restrictive covenant's are legally binding but they can be challenged and sometimes overturned through the courts or removed by way of a financial agreement. The AQ's would gone into this with some reasonable degree of speculative optimism in my opinion. Sadly they were disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jun 20, 2019 5:22:56 GMT
No one knows the truth but I always think it's best to take the opportunity to slag our owners off and assume they are to blame rather than supporting them and trying to help take the club forward in whatever way that is. I try to remain as objective as possible so I won’t support the AQ’s just because. All I know is we had a deal on the table that was considered good for the club by the old board and the UWE were happy. The Al Qadi’s rock up and it all goes to s*** so for me the onus is on them first and foremost to explain what went wrong. We’ll never be given a categorical reason that the UWE can then have right of reply on because confidentiality, so in the absence of that explanation exists a vacuum which is filled by speculation, trying to stop speculation is like trying to catch the rain. That’s kind of how it will always be, until a Wael releases his book anyway.... Yeah, I also try to remain objective too but my default position is to support them until I have good reason and evidence not to. They have explained that the UWE deal was not good for the football club. It may have been good for the old board, but frankly they were more desperate than our new owners. I will support them just because. Because they are our owners. We should all be working together to help the club, not constantly sniping from the wings with absolutely no proof that they are bad owners.
|
|
|
Post by tomylil on Jun 20, 2019 8:04:05 GMT
It's a matter of record what the AQ's have which in terms of building a stadium is unrealistic, and they aren't really spending that much are they. The only way anything happens is if they get funding from a third party, or sell. In my opinion, third party funding (at least in part) was always the plan but only for the right project and rate of return. For whatever reason, UWE would not provide the return to release the funds. Not their obligation to bend over to the extent that we are able to broker a deal that works for us. Their asset so it needed to be acceptable to what is after all a public body.
|
|
|
Post by tomylil on Jun 20, 2019 8:08:18 GMT
Yes, a restrictive covenant. How long did it take the Al Qadi's to figure this out? Surely they should have known a covenant was in place as part of their due diligence as it had been mentioned by the media when Higgs brokered the original deal. It beggars belief that Wael thought he could negotiate. A restrictive covenant can be "bought out" if all relevant parties agree - that would include HP and would have involved handing over cash for the increase in land value arising out of the release.
|
|
|
Post by tomylil on Jun 20, 2019 8:13:17 GMT
I try to remain as objective as possible so I won’t support the AQ’s just because. All I know is we had a deal on the table that was considered good for the club by the old board and the UWE were happy. The Al Qadi’s rock up and it all goes to s*** so for me the onus is on them first and foremost to explain what went wrong. We’ll never be given a categorical reason that the UWE can then have right of reply on because confidentiality, so in the absence of that explanation exists a vacuum which is filled by speculation, trying to stop speculation is like trying to catch the rain. That’s kind of how it will always be, until a Wael releases his book anyway.... You make it sound as if the previous owners would have actually got the UWE built? I take it you've forgotten about the legal battle with Sainsbury's and the wonga loan? I think you're right. However, the previous regime did create a situation whereby a stadium could have been built, albeit on a long lease with some other benefits for UWE, and I would wager that had that deal been taken by someone we would be in a much better situation now. The fact that Higgs appears to have gone with the first people willing to buy him out is the issue. At that time, we had no debt on the Mem so could have contributed substantially to the deal.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireGas on Jun 20, 2019 8:18:05 GMT
You make it sound as if the previous owners would have actually got the UWE built? I take it you've forgotten about the legal battle with Sainsbury's and the wonga loan? I think you're right. However, the previous regime did create a situation whereby a stadium could have been built, albeit on a long lease with some other benefits for UWE, and I would wager that had that deal been taken by someone we would be in a much better situation now. The fact that Higgs appears to have gone with the first people willing to buy him out is the issue. At that time, we had no debt on the Mem so could have contributed substantially to the deal.What do you mean that we had 'no debt on the Mem'? The Wonga loan was charged on the Mem the same as DS have a charge now. Had Higgs failed to make the interest or loan repayments the Mem could have been taken exactly the same as now.... And a loan shark is more likely to call on his charge than our current owners. Doesn't make them right but it is incorrect to say there was no debt on the Mem at that time.
|
|
|
Post by tomylil on Jun 20, 2019 8:18:26 GMT
I try to remain as objective as possible so I won’t support the AQ’s just because. All I know is we had a deal on the table that was considered good for the club by the old board and the UWE were happy. The Al Qadi’s rock up and it all goes to s*** so for me the onus is on them first and foremost to explain what went wrong. We’ll never be given a categorical reason that the UWE can then have right of reply on because confidentiality, so in the absence of that explanation exists a vacuum which is filled by speculation, trying to stop speculation is like trying to catch the rain. That’s kind of how it will always be, until a Wael releases his book anyway.... Yeah, I also try to remain objective too but my default position is to support them until I have good reason and evidence not to. They have explained that the UWE deal was not good for the football club. It may have been good for the old board, but frankly they were more desperate than our new owners.I will support them just because. Because they are our owners. We should all be working together to help the club, not constantly sniping from the wings with absolutely no proof that they are bad owners. Here is the distinction Hugo. Good for the club but not good for the new board. I think personally that the club is in a worse position now than it was when they came in. That is evident surely and not conjecture or sniping ?
|
|
|
Post by burnthewitch on Jun 20, 2019 8:43:43 GMT
I try to remain as objective as possible so I won’t support the AQ’s just because. All I know is we had a deal on the table that was considered good for the club by the old board and the UWE were happy. The Al Qadi’s rock up and it all goes to s*** so for me the onus is on them first and foremost to explain what went wrong. We’ll never be given a categorical reason that the UWE can then have right of reply on because confidentiality, so in the absence of that explanation exists a vacuum which is filled by speculation, trying to stop speculation is like trying to catch the rain. That’s kind of how it will always be, until a Wael releases his book anyway.... Yeah, I also try to remain objective too but my default position is to support them until I have good reason and evidence not to. They have explained that the UWE deal was not good for the football club. It may have been good for the old board, but frankly they were more desperate than our new owners. I will support them just because. Because they are our owners. We should all be working together to help the club, not constantly sniping from the wings with absolutely no proof that they are bad owners. My default position was to support them - but that lapsed after UWE collapse v1 + 6 months. In the absence of any infrastructure improvements over the last 3 years 4 months, I am cynical. I don't think they are 'bad' owners in a Becchetti / Oysten / SISU type stylee. But they haven't 'done' anything to move the Club forward. Debt is accumulating at an alarming rate. The lack of communication from the Board is sub-optimal, and to be fair they acknowledge that. But it doesn't improve. My cynicism (and those of others) goes away when the training facility or new stadium is built. Barring that, the production of a believable medium term strategy for the Club would be 'nice'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2019 9:30:04 GMT
I think you're right. However, the previous regime did create a situation whereby a stadium could have been built, albeit on a long lease with some other benefits for UWE, and I would wager that had that deal been taken by someone we would be in a much better situation now. The fact that Higgs appears to have gone with the first people willing to buy him out is the issue. At that time, we had no debt on the Mem so could have contributed substantially to the deal.What do you mean that we had 'no debt on the Mem'? The Wonga loan was charged on the Mem the same as DS have a charge now. Had Higgs failed to make the interest or loan repayments the Mem could have been taken exactly the same as now.... And a loan shark is more likely to call on his charge than our current owners. Doesn't make them right but it is incorrect to say there was no debt on the Mem at that time. How much of the value of the mem site set off against the so called Wonga loan and how much of the value of the mem is set off against the amount loaned to the club by Dwayne sports?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jun 20, 2019 9:34:38 GMT
What do you mean that we had 'no debt on the Mem'? The Wonga loan was charged on the Mem the same as DS have a charge now. Had Higgs failed to make the interest or loan repayments the Mem could have been taken exactly the same as now.... And a loan shark is more likely to call on his charge than our current owners. Doesn't make them right but it is incorrect to say there was no debt on the Mem at that time. How much of the value of the mem site set off against the so called Wonga loan and how much of the value of the mem is set off against the amount loaned to the club by Dwayne sports? £2.50 and a packet of Fags
|
|
|
Post by CheshireGas on Jun 20, 2019 9:54:12 GMT
What do you mean that we had 'no debt on the Mem'? The Wonga loan was charged on the Mem the same as DS have a charge now. Had Higgs failed to make the interest or loan repayments the Mem could have been taken exactly the same as now.... And a loan shark is more likely to call on his charge than our current owners. Doesn't make them right but it is incorrect to say there was no debt on the Mem at that time. How much of the value of the mem site set off against the so called Wonga loan and how much of the value of the mem is set off against the amount loaned to the club by Dwayne sports? Must admit my memory vague now but I think it was around £8m on the Wonga and no one knows how much now.... Bearing in mind none of the other directors would put in any more money to support Higgs at the time as repayment of the loan approached. Don't know how much further the AQs are prepared to go. As Toyah used to say, It's a mystewy....
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Jun 20, 2019 10:15:15 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. It depends on the terms of any NDA that was agreed, and indeed how closely either party observes the terms of the agreement.Often the terms of a non-discosure agreement do not prevent either party from revealing that they are subject to an NDA or who that is with, but it does prevent the detail of the discussions or activities.
I'm still trusting that there were negotiations in good faith, but that agreement couldn't be reached. But then I'm a gullible sort of chap!
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Jun 20, 2019 10:34:40 GMT
On another note, is this the longest running match day thread we've ever had?
|
|
|
Post by tomylil on Jun 20, 2019 10:57:17 GMT
I think you're right. However, the previous regime did create a situation whereby a stadium could have been built, albeit on a long lease with some other benefits for UWE, and I would wager that had that deal been taken by someone we would be in a much better situation now. The fact that Higgs appears to have gone with the first people willing to buy him out is the issue. At that time, we had no debt on the Mem so could have contributed substantially to the deal.What do you mean that we had 'no debt on the Mem'? The Wonga loan was charged on the Mem the same as DS have a charge now. Had Higgs failed to make the interest or loan repayments the Mem could have been taken exactly the same as now.... And a loan shark is more likely to call on his charge than our current owners. Doesn't make them right but it is incorrect to say there was no debt on the Mem at that time. OK stand corrected, but the debt was nothing compared to where we are now. A sale of the Mem would have wiped that out and still enabled us to put a meaningful sum into the mixer.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jun 20, 2019 10:59:55 GMT
Yeah, I also try to remain objective too but my default position is to support them until I have good reason and evidence not to. They have explained that the UWE deal was not good for the football club. It may have been good for the old board, but frankly they were more desperate than our new owners.I will support them just because. Because they are our owners. We should all be working together to help the club, not constantly sniping from the wings with absolutely no proof that they are bad owners. Here is the distinction Hugo. Good for the club but not good for the new board. I think personally that the club is in a worse position now than it was when they came in. That is evident surely and not conjecture or sniping ? But that's the problem, we don't know if it was good for the club either. I understand and support the need to hold the owners accountable. I have no issues with most people who are having doubts. My issue is with the people who come on here and spread malicious half truths with what appears to be no basis and with no evidence to back up their claims. I've said it before, if the club is going to sh** then I look to the Supporters Club etc as the people who should be bringing this to the Fans in an open and honest way, not by leaking titbits and slagging Wael off outside the clubhouse on a match day.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jun 20, 2019 11:06:54 GMT
Yeah, I also try to remain objective too but my default position is to support them until I have good reason and evidence not to. They have explained that the UWE deal was not good for the football club. It may have been good for the old board, but frankly they were more desperate than our new owners. I will support them just because. Because they are our owners. We should all be working together to help the club, not constantly sniping from the wings with absolutely no proof that they are bad owners. My default position was to support them - but that lapsed after UWE collapse v1 + 6 months. In the absence of any infrastructure improvements over the last 3 years 4 months, I am cynical. I don't think they are 'bad' owners in a Becchetti / Oysten / SISU type stylee. But they haven't 'done' anything to move the Club forward. Debt is accumulating at an alarming rate. The lack of communication from the Board is sub-optimal, and to be fair they acknowledge that. But it doesn't improve. My cynicism (and those of others) goes away when the training facility or new stadium is built. Barring that, the production of a believable medium term strategy for the Club would be 'nice'. I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say here. It should be fairly obvious to anyone that communication has been poor and I understand how trust has been lost. I've said before that you and I are probably in almost total agreement with the state of play as it stands currently. We need direction and leadership, be that from WAQ or from someone who is able to back up and prove the "reality" that things are bad. Both of us recognize this is missing.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 20, 2019 11:29:06 GMT
My default position was to support them - but that lapsed after UWE collapse v1 + 6 months. In the absence of any infrastructure improvements over the last 3 years 4 months, I am cynical. I don't think they are 'bad' owners in a Becchetti / Oysten / SISU type stylee. But they haven't 'done' anything to move the Club forward. Debt is accumulating at an alarming rate. The lack of communication from the Board is sub-optimal, and to be fair they acknowledge that. But it doesn't improve. My cynicism (and those of others) goes away when the training facility or new stadium is built. Barring that, the production of a believable medium term strategy for the Club would be 'nice'. I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say here. It should be fairly obvious to anyone that communication has been poor and I understand how trust has been lost.I've said before that you and I are probably in almost total agreement with the state of play as it stands currently. We need direction and leadership, be that from WAQ or from someone who is able to back up and prove the "reality" that things are bad. Both of us recognize this is missing. It'll be interesting to see if the "Fans forums" promised with the season tickets renewals ever take place any time soon, once the new season gets under way.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Jun 20, 2019 11:32:36 GMT
What do you mean that we had 'no debt on the Mem'? The Wonga loan was charged on the Mem the same as DS have a charge now. Had Higgs failed to make the interest or loan repayments the Mem could have been taken exactly the same as now.... And a loan shark is more likely to call on his charge than our current owners. Doesn't make them right but it is incorrect to say there was no debts on the Mem at that time. OK stand corrected, but the debt was nothing compared to where we are now. A sale of the Mem would have wiped that out and still enabled us to put a meaningful sum into the mixer. That debt was to other people though. This debt is to the owners anyway.
|
|