|
Post by CheshireGas on Aug 21, 2021 12:55:57 GMT
Here's a question.... Do the SC still own any assets of BRFC that they previously raised funds for before Wael was the owner? If not then why do they feel the need to retain control of the £50k? Yes, they own approx 4% of the shares so own approx 4% of the assets of Bristol Rovers 1883 ltd Are you referring to the Share Scheme shares or do BRSC own shares in their own right? If the former the BRSC do not own them, they can't. They are held by committee members as I understand it on behalf of share scheme members.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2021 13:46:30 GMT
Get your point but isn’t the SC meant to be a non-profit organisation (or have I got that totally wrong?) Also if they physically own an asset then they will have to account for it and depreciation etc in their accounts and then any maintenance and upkeep as an ongoing concern. Also they will have to grant legal rights of use to the club in order to use it and due to the legalities around the covenants at the training ground then certain additional permissions may be required re fans being able to attend and watch youth games etc as currently no paying customer is allowed at present. Also process will be required to make sure fans admission and health & safety are met etc…. Something that sounds as innocuous as what the SC is proposing has significant knock on implications and potential additional costs… For me I agree something at the Quarters that is independent or unique should be found and then it could be ‘sponsored’ by the SC….in that way the SC know what their money has funded yet the club owns it and the club has the asset and liability etc stuff to account for like they do with every else. The SC could have their name and logo on whatever it is too…. Then going forward the SC could decide what and whether they want to ‘sponsor’ anything else on an annual basis working with the club and seeking the views of its membership I think you are maybe over thinking it (or I am under thinking it). If they gave the money to Wael to spend on say dugouts (something that has been mentioned) then there is no reason why there cannot be a charge put on that asset, so if anything happens then the SC would still own it. To be honest, I thought closing the Kingswood shop was a mistake. I am a Kingswood boy born and bred and I saw having that shop in Two Mile Hill as a stamp on the fact Kingswood was a Rovers heartland. I used to get tickets and merchandise there all the time. My mum used to get the calendar there for my Christmas present each year. It was a sad day when that closed. Could well be mate..... I used to always use the kingswood shop too - same as you for tickets, shirts and other merchandise etc....
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Aug 21, 2021 15:12:30 GMT
I think you are maybe over thinking it (or I am under thinking it). If they gave the money to Wael to spend on say dugouts (something that has been mentioned) then there is no reason why there cannot be a charge put on that asset, so if anything happens then the SC would still own it. To be honest, I thought closing the Kingswood shop was a mistake. I am a Kingswood boy born and bred and I saw having that shop in Two Mile Hill as a stamp on the fact Kingswood was a Rovers heartland. I used to get tickets and merchandise there all the time. My mum used to get the calendar there for my Christmas present each year. It was a sad day when that closed. Could well be mate..... I used to always use the kingswood shop too - same as you for tickets, shirts and other merchandise etc.... Thing is, the SC relied upon discounted merchandise from the club and those profits weren’t going to the club or to boost the coffers of the SC, it was going on the shop which was making a huge loss. Plus the fact that the actual building was going to rack and ruin apart from a bit of convenience for a small percentage of fans to buy tickets it made total sense to close it. If the SC could come up with a way from their own initiatives to make it pay then it would be worthwhile, but they couldn’t and the football club was subsidising it. Just another example of the lack of creativity around the SC that they couldn’t even make their own assets viable.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 21, 2021 15:14:39 GMT
But the issue seems to be that the SC has proposed originally to provide funds for spectator facilities for SUPPORTERS to be able to watch u18 and u23 games not for the club to spend as they choose. Personally I used to watch the u23s more than the first team due to family commitments etc and can understand the rationale for providing facilities You are correct. The problem as I understand it is that when we put in planning permission for The Colony it was specified that spectators weren't allowed (aparently) which means unless the u18s and u23s play elsewhere (or the planning permission gets changed) then this just cannot happen. It's a weird situation to be in and that's why I can see both sides. I'm hoping that there is a solution that is in the best interests of Bristol Rovers. Pretty sure the planning permission suggested we couldn't have paying spectators not no spectators, but what club builds stands for non paying spectators on their training grounds? You just sense the SC are being awkward when it comes to handing over the money, although not sure why Wael's so desperate for the £50K given it's hardly make or break for the club's finances.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Aug 21, 2021 15:22:35 GMT
You are correct. The problem as I understand it is that when we put in planning permission for The Colony it was specified that spectators weren't allowed (aparently) which means unless the u18s and u23s play elsewhere (or the planning permission gets changed) then this just cannot happen. It's a weird situation to be in and that's why I can see both sides. I'm hoping that there is a solution that is in the best interests of Bristol Rovers. Pretty sure the planning permission suggested we couldn't have paying spectators not no spectators, but what club builds stands for non paying spectators on their training grounds? You just sense the SC are being awkward when it comes to handing over the money, although not sure why Wael's so desperate for the £50K given it's hardly make or break for the club's finances. I don't think it's about 50k.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2021 16:55:24 GMT
Yes, they own approx 4% of the shares so own approx 4% of the assets of Bristol Rovers 1883 ltd Are you referring to the Share Scheme shares or do BRSC own shares in their own right? If the former the BRSC do not own them, they can't. They are held by committee members as I understand it on behalf of share scheme members. Correct, held in trust.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 21, 2021 16:55:26 GMT
Pretty sure the planning permission suggested we couldn't have paying spectators not no spectators, but what club builds stands for non paying spectators on their training grounds? You just sense the SC are being awkward when it comes to handing over the money, although not sure why Wael's so desperate for the £50K given it's hardly make or break for the club's finances. I don't think it's about 50k. Then why make it appear as though it is and not just highlight it as an example of the way the SC is behaving, although after today's farce of a game Wael seems to be no better at running a football club than JC does the SC.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Aug 22, 2021 10:57:30 GMT
I don't think it's about 50k. Then why make it appear as though it is and not just highlight it as an example of the way the SC is behaving, although after today's farce of a game Wael seems to be no better at running a football club than JC does the SC. The £50k issue was raised by the SC in their news item. Choosing to use the emotive description of it being a demand. Wael has just responded by providing an explanation in his open letter.
It would be useful to see a copy of the minutes of the SC meeting of 2nd November 2017 - unfortunately you have to write to the secretary to obtain a copy as they're not published on the SC website.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 22, 2021 11:51:28 GMT
I don't think it's about 50k. Then why make it appear as though it is and not just highlight it as an example of the way the SC is behaving, although after today's farce of a game Wael seems to be no better at running a football club than JC does the SC. You're not seriously blaming Wael for yesterdays performance?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 22, 2021 12:11:44 GMT
Then why make it appear as though it is and not just highlight it as an example of the way the SC is behaving, although after today's farce of a game Wael seems to be no better at running a football club than JC does the SC. You're not seriously blaming Wael for yesterdays performance? The buck usually stops at the top, if we finish back in the National League next May then are you suggesting that Wael should escape any blame?
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 22, 2021 12:15:43 GMT
You're not seriously blaming Wael for yesterdays performance? The buck usually stops at the top, if we finish back in the National League next May then are you suggesting that Wael should escape any blame? Why should he? He employes people to ensure that doesn't happen. At great cost. Would you blame the CEO of Tesco for the tills not working at Eastville?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2021 12:21:30 GMT
The buck usually stops at the top, if we finish back in the National League next May then are you suggesting that Wael should escape any blame? Why should he? He employes people to ensure that doesn't happen. At great cost. Would you blame the CEO of Tesco for the tills not working at Eastville? No but I would blame the CEO from Tesco if profits fell due to the way the store was run.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 22, 2021 12:23:56 GMT
Why should he? He employes people to ensure that doesn't happen. At great cost. Would you blame the CEO of Tesco for the tills not working at Eastville? No but I would blame the CEO from Tesco if profits fell due to the way the store was run. Not the Manager of the Store then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2021 12:25:58 GMT
Open letter to wael... throw money at a striker or f**k off
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 22, 2021 12:29:09 GMT
Open letter to wael... throw money at a striker or f**k off Grow up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2021 12:29:34 GMT
No but I would blame the CEO from Tesco if profits fell due to the way the store was run. Not the Manager of the Store then? No not if he was directly following company policy which I'm sure Barton is.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 22, 2021 12:38:38 GMT
Not the Manager of the Store then? No not if he was directly following company policy which I'm sure Barton is. Not sure we actually have any sort of policy that covers awful performances.
|
|
|
Post by playtowin on Aug 22, 2021 14:16:46 GMT
But the issue seems to be that the SC has proposed originally to provide funds for spectator facilities for SUPPORTERS to be able to watch u18 and u23 games not for the club to spend as they choose. Personally I used to watch the u23s more than the first team due to family commitments etc and can understand the rationale for providing facilities You are correct. The problem as I understand it is that when we put in planning permission for The Colony it was specified that spectators weren't allowed (aparently) which means unless the u18s and u23s play elsewhere (or the planning permission gets changed) then this just cannot happen. It's a weird situation to be in and that's why I can see both sides. I'm hoping that there is a solution that is in the best interests of Bristol Rovers. I am most likely incorrect but... I seem to recall the quarters could have no paying spectators. Which i guess was a guard against the site becoming a new stadium.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 22, 2021 14:58:42 GMT
Why should he? He employes people to ensure that doesn't happen. At great cost. Would you blame the CEO of Tesco for the tills not working at Eastville? No but I would blame the CEO from Tesco if profits fell due to the way the store was run. Slightly different as Tesco are a multi billion pound business not a million pound business. I doubt their CEO as any direct involvement in employing store managers?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2021 15:06:48 GMT
No but I would blame the CEO from Tesco if profits fell due to the way the store was run. Slightly different as Tesco are a multi billion pound business not a million pound business. I doubt their CEO as any direct involvement in employing store managers? It was a crap scenario to start with, I was just playing along.
|
|