|
Post by swissgas on Nov 16, 2019 18:37:34 GMT
Marvin would be frustrated if he has facilitated the maximization of the land value at the Mem, expecting Rovers owners to jump at the chance of rolling over their capital into a new stadium, and then finds they turn down this chance to make the club flourish. It may be that Dwane Sports want to have their high density housing approval cake, to eat it, and then expect the Council to provide Rovers with a new stadium so that Wael can continue his charade. Once the Mem is sold and the owners have their debt safely covered, I wouldn't expect to see any more investment from them, least of all a new stadium. I don't think any of us expect that any longer. So, assuming the Council are not going to build and fund a stadium for us, which I think is a safe assumption, then there must be outside investors involved. Very very quiet outside investors, but investors nonetheless. Unless it's all nonsense and it'll never happen. What would Gasheads say if it was revealed that Dwane Sports were willing to sell the Mem to these outside investors and keep the profit but wanted to maintain control of the football club and expected others to put cash in as well as subsidizing rent at the new stadium ? Would they say “ good on you, you’re quite within your rights to do this, way to go Wael” ? Or would they say “ F me, the only chance we are ever likely to get of competing with City again and this clown is cocking it up” ?
|
|
|
Post by casey12a on Nov 16, 2019 18:57:58 GMT
Sounds like a loaded question. Do you actually know this or is it purely hypothetical?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Nov 16, 2019 19:19:31 GMT
Sounds like a loaded question. Do you actually know this or is it purely hypothetical? In my considered opinion it is a likely scenario. But before anyone jumps in and says I’m making things up and I’m anti owners please think about it, think about what Wael has said and done, what has been reported by credible journalists ,what the published accounts show and also consider the demeanor of Marvin Rees in this latest interview. It won’t be long before someone breaks ranks and we learn what is actually happening and when we do I think all Gasheads should be ready to demonstrate that our first priority is not any particular faction or ownership group but BRFC.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 16, 2019 23:04:15 GMT
Sounds like a loaded question. Do you actually know this or is it purely hypothetical? No, he's just repeating what the ITK'ers are also trying to infer. Whether there's a shred of truth in it is anybody's guess, I assume Swissgas is making assumptions from afar? Personally I didn't get the impression from Marvin Rees interview that the ALQ's were standing in the way of a deal being agreed, just talks seem to be at a delicate stage.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Nov 17, 2019 8:32:22 GMT
Sounds like a loaded question. Do you actually know this or is it purely hypothetical? No, he's just repeating what the ITK'ers are also trying to infer. Whether there's a shred of truth in it is anybody's guess, I assume Swissgas is making assumptions from afar? Personally I didn't get the impression from Marvin Rees interview that the ALQ's were standing in the way of a deal being agreed, just talks seem to be at a delicate stage. Like I said in an earlier post, it was a strange question to be asked if he wanted to see Rovers have new ownership wasn’t it? Why was the question asked? It certainly isn’t a normal question you’d expect when talking about a new stadium that council and FC are supposedly working TOGETHER on.
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Nov 17, 2019 9:26:43 GMT
People slate BCC for us not having a new ground but they have approved everything we have given them. Do we expect BCC to pay for all or part of a stadium in a 2 team City?
Lack of fund's is the reason nothings gets built. As the teds (rightly) say, we expect a new ground but want someone else to pay for it.
Not surprising really considering the training ground fiasco. Manchester City Council funded the majority of the City Of Manchester Stadium(Etihad). A 2 team City. It has been done. Do you mean the funds to convert it from an althetics stadium into a football stadium after the 2002 commonweath games?
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Nov 17, 2019 9:38:47 GMT
Manchester City Council funded the majority of the City Of Manchester Stadium(Etihad). A 2 team City. It has been done. Do you mean the funds to convert it from an althetics stadium into a football stadium after the 2002 commonweath games? It always seemed odd to me that Manchester City Council forked out another £20m (on top of original construction costs) to help pay for conversion to a football stadium. You would have thought Man City could just about afford that. It's hardly big money when they pay far more than that for their top players.
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Nov 17, 2019 9:58:45 GMT
Do you mean the funds to convert it from an althetics stadium into a football stadium after the 2002 commonweath games? It always seemed odd to me that Manchester City Council forked out another £20m (on top of original construction costs) to help pay for conversion to a football stadium. You would have thought Man City could just about afford that. It's hardly big money when they pay far more than that for their top players. This was 2002 remember. When they were the noisy neighbours
|
|
|
Post by gas2 on Nov 17, 2019 10:29:33 GMT
I think newham council own the stadium where west ham play that cost local tax payers millions to convert ?
|
|
|
Post by purdownpoacher1 on Nov 17, 2019 10:57:27 GMT
It’s all getting to be such a yawn ‘
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 17, 2019 11:05:51 GMT
No, he's just repeating what the ITK'ers are also trying to infer. Whether there's a shred of truth in it is anybody's guess, I assume Swissgas is making assumptions from afar? Personally I didn't get the impression from Marvin Rees interview that the ALQ's were standing in the way of a deal being agreed, just talks seem to be at a delicate stage. Like I said in an earlier post, it was a strange question to be asked if he wanted to see Rovers have new ownership wasn’t it? Why was the question asked? It certainly isn’t a normal question you’d expect when talking about a new stadium that council and FC are supposedly working TOGETHER on. There must be another third party involved in developing the site, whether they are interested in taking over the ownership of the club, or have another party lined up is anybody's guess.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Nov 17, 2019 11:20:48 GMT
Sounds like a loaded question. Do you actually know this or is it purely hypothetical? In my considered opinion it is a likely scenario. But before anyone jumps in and says I’m making things up and I’m anti owners please think about it, think about what Wael has said and done, what has been reported by credible journalists ,what the published accounts show and also consider the demeanor of Marvin Rees in this latest interview. It won’t be long before someone breaks ranks and we learn what is actually happening and when we do I think all Gasheads should be ready to demonstrate that our first priority is not any particular faction or ownership group but BRFC. None of what you have said as shown that it's a likely scenario. The account's don't show that they are in it for profit. The clubs cents probably are not far off the value of the mem anyway. By the time a new stadium was built, the debts will definitely be bigger than the mem value, so I struggle to see how it's likely that they will make a profit and keep it??? Plus they have reinvested transfer fees back into the club and kept the budget to the maximum allowed amount, within the rules. Even though we are losing millions every season. There was over a million in the first years accounts, to do with Uwe. Then there was over a million invested in last year's accounts, for other costs. So they have always invested a fair amount and have never looked to take money out. So I wonder what suggests that they will now take money out of the club?? Can you show what suggests that in the accounts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2019 11:28:29 GMT
No, he's just repeating what the ITK'ers are also trying to infer. Whether there's a shred of truth in it is anybody's guess, I assume Swissgas is making assumptions from afar? Personally I didn't get the impression from Marvin Rees interview that the ALQ's were standing in the way of a deal being agreed, just talks seem to be at a delicate stage. Like I said in an earlier post, it was a strange question to be asked if he wanted to see Rovers have new ownership wasn’t it? Why was the question asked? It certainly isn’t a normal question you’d expect when talking about a new stadium that council and FC are supposedly working TOGETHER on. It was asked because the interviewer knows that any proposed development involves new owners not the current ones.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Nov 17, 2019 12:20:40 GMT
Like I said in an earlier post, it was a strange question to be asked if he wanted to see Rovers have new ownership wasn’t it? Why was the question asked? It certainly isn’t a normal question you’d expect when talking about a new stadium that council and FC are supposedly working TOGETHER on. It was asked because the interviewer knows that any proposed development involves new owners not the current ones. Well that’s a good logical explanation and I’m struggling to think of another reason. So perhaps the presenter was trying to draw out if the frustrations with lack of progress are down to current ownership of the FC because ‘off the record’ they know that is the situation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2019 12:22:07 GMT
It was asked because the interviewer knows that any proposed development involves new owners not the current ones. Well that’s a good logical explanation and I’m struggling to think of another reason. So perhaps the presenter was trying to draw out if the frustrations with lack of progress are down to current ownership of the FC because ‘off the record’ they know that is the situation? Exactly this.
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Nov 17, 2019 20:53:11 GMT
Manchester City Council funded the majority of the City Of Manchester Stadium(Etihad). A 2 team City. It has been done. Do you mean the funds to convert it from an althetics stadium into a football stadium after the 2002 commonweath games? Yes. The City Council put in £50M to get it built in the first place, and then circa £20-£25M to convert it into a Football Stadium. So, Manchester City Council chucked in the region of £75M to get it built to how it looks now, while Man City only put in about £20M. So City Councils do fund the majority or part of the amounts needed to build stadiums. Certainly in forward thinking ones anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Nov 18, 2019 6:34:55 GMT
Do you mean the funds to convert it from an althetics stadium into a football stadium after the 2002 commonweath games? Yes. The City Council put in £50M to get it built in the first place, and then circa £20-£25M to convert it into a Football Stadium. So, Manchester City Council chucked in the region of £75M to get it built to how it looks now, while Man City only put in about £20M. So City Councils do fund the majority or part of the amounts needed to build stadiums. Certainly in forward thinking ones anyway. and why did they build it ? To get the commonwealth Games in Manchester with all the other money that will bring into the city, Much the same way our red friends wanted funding to help them get some world cup games....
|
|
|
Post by Congas on Nov 18, 2019 7:32:14 GMT
Successful football clubs like City and Utd generate millions in tourism earnings for the city of Manchester, not only through the football but also conferences, congresses and other meetings events. It's a no-brainer for local councils. Fans deride what they call prawn sandwich supporters, but these people fly in from far and wide and don't just fly out again immediately. They stay at hotels, eat at restaurants and shop. Manchester airport is one of busiest in the UK mainly thanks to its football clubs. I would imagine that many of these fans buy a weekend package of flight, hotel, match ticket and tickets to concerts and other events. As far as I know, Marvin Reece is the first Bristol mayor to understand the potential revenues to be generated from backing a venture like this. But then he would, he's a sportsman himself.
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Nov 18, 2019 9:41:46 GMT
Do you mean the funds to convert it from an althetics stadium into a football stadium after the 2002 commonweath games? Yes. The City Council put in £50M to get it built in the first place, and then circa £20-£25M to convert it into a Football Stadium. So, Manchester City Council chucked in the region of £75M to get it built to how it looks now, while Man City only put in about £20M. So City Councils do fund the majority or part of the amounts needed to build stadiums. Certainly in forward thinking ones anyway. Just for the complete maths Sport England put in £77m for the initial build. Interestingly the stadium was part of a wider regeneration of Eastlands which has parallels with the councils regeneration of St Phillips. Hopefully a good omen!
|
|
|
Post by tomylil on Nov 18, 2019 15:14:57 GMT
Do you mean the funds to convert it from an althetics stadium into a football stadium after the 2002 commonweath games? Yes. The City Council put in £50M to get it built in the first place, and then circa £20-£25M to convert it into a Football Stadium. So, Manchester City Council chucked in the region of £75M to get it built to how it looks now, while Man City only put in about £20M. So City Councils do fund the majority or part of the amounts needed to build stadiums. Certainly in forward thinking ones anyway. This would be fought tooth and nail by Lansdown and ratepayers who think the Council should spend money on better things than underpinning a commercial enterprise that is supported by less than 1% of the population of greater Bristol. Manchester is forward thinking, they have a joined up public transport system, Arenas, and everything a modern major city should have. Btristol does not, so if Rees tries to pull this stroke he will commit the Council to millions in legal fees and have the Ombudsman making him bend over to carefully check every cavity of his.
|
|