|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 11, 2024 9:53:11 GMT
Going off piste here but how are you pronouncing Badengas? Would help in the dispute over how to pronounce the new Conservative leaders name Bay - dun..... after my local pub the Baden Powell, named after the soldier/scout leader. Ties in with the pronunciation of the politician, Bay-dun-ock |
|
|
|
Post by piratesfchhh on Nov 11, 2024 9:55:03 GMT
Hearing that the Dutchman bankrolling this potential takeover loves gooooooold.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Nov 11, 2024 10:09:50 GMT
Yes UWE and Fruit Market. I agree that the latter was probably never really much more than Wael’s fantasy but my point is that Daniel just swallows verbatim whatever the owner tells him including that it was ever a goer in the first place. UWE was the best opportunity this club has ever had or probably ever will have to move to a higher plain. Everything was in place except Higgs didn’t have the money to push it over the line once Sainsbury’s collapsed. Yet too many of our supporters fall for the Al Qadi line that the deal wasn’t in the best interests of the FC when in reality they just didn’t want to or were unable to commit the required capital. Beat deal for the club. Even though we were giving away naming rights, it was having lecture halls, uni gyms, uni bars, jogging track for the uni. Anyone that read the plans, could see that or wasn't what was best for us. If it was what was best for us, we would have signed it. There you go again, unable to separate the best interests of the owners from the best interests of the FC. Who is we? Dunford was the ‘we’ once, then the ‘we’ was Higgs, then the ‘we’ was AQs, now the ‘we’ is the invisible men. The first two of those ‘we’s” would have signed it, they just didn’t have the capital to do so. Probably the same reason that AQs didn’t sign it. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Nov 11, 2024 10:13:34 GMT
So the deal that was bad for the club was made up, but the fact that UWE was the best deal the club has ever had (that you've just made up) is true. Makes sense. The only facts around UWE is that no one knows what the deal was, or whether it was good or bad for the club. I understand your view point but the club tried to revisit UWE at least once. Yeah you are probably correct. I'm not claiming the deal was good or bad for the club as others seem to be. My point was that you can't say someone is making stuff up and using something else that's made up as evidence! |
|
|
|
Post by fanboy on Nov 11, 2024 10:41:13 GMT
It’s pretty hilarious how much nonsense people believe from randoms on a forum 😂
|
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Nov 11, 2024 10:48:19 GMT
Beat deal for the club. Even though we were giving away naming rights, it was having lecture halls, uni gyms, uni bars, jogging track for the uni. Anyone that read the plans, could see that or wasn't what was best for us. If it was what was best for us, we would have signed it. There you go again, unable to separate the best interests of the owners from the best interests of the FC. Who is we? Dunford was the ‘we’ once, then the ‘we’ was Higgs, then the ‘we’ was AQs, now the ‘we’ is the invisible men. The first two of those ‘we’s” would have signed it, they just didn’t have the capital to do so. Probably the same reason that AQs didn’t sign it. They you go again, not realizing that if it's a good deal for the club, it would be for the people that own it! In what circumstances could it be good for the club and not the owners? If it was to add value to the club, it would be good for the owners. If it was to bring more money to the club, it would bring them more money. I've asked this name times and never received an answer. Do you think giving away naming rights and the majority of space in the stadium was a good idea? You want a jogging track to put the fans further away from the pitch? Because fans are desperate for a stadium, I think they ignored all the bad points. |
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Nov 11, 2024 10:57:25 GMT
There you go again, unable to separate the best interests of the owners from the best interests of the FC. Who is we? Dunford was the ‘we’ once, then the ‘we’ was Higgs, then the ‘we’ was AQs, now the ‘we’ is the invisible men. The first two of those ‘we’s” would have signed it, they just didn’t have the capital to do so. Probably the same reason that AQs didn’t sign it. They you go again, not realizing that if it's a good deal for the club, it would be for the people that own it! In what circumstances could it be good for the club and not the owners? If it was to add value to the club, it would be good for the owners. If it was to bring more money to the club, it would bring them more money. I've asked this name times and never received an answer. Do you think giving away naming rights and the majority of space in the stadium was a good idea? You want a jogging track to put the fans further away from the pitch? Because fans are desperate for a stadium, I think they ignored all the bad points. The best example there is of an owner doing a good thing financially for himself and a bad thing for the FC he owned is Bill Archer. Bill bought Brighton and Hove Albion for £1, sold the ground, sent the club to play in Gillingham and pocketed the profit. I have told you this before but maybe it’s beyond your comprehension? Anyway, using your analogy Higgs did sign an agreement with UWE and another with Sainsbury’s and then another with a corporate pay day loan company to fight a court case he was odds on to lose all in the name of ‘we’. Does this mean all of this was great for the FC? |
|
|
|
Post by peterhooper57 on Nov 11, 2024 11:08:40 GMT
What on earth is going on here, I just cannot pick up on the context of the narrative, everybody piling in about what ? "Monday, Monday" hmm. exit stage left.
|
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 11, 2024 11:18:24 GMT
Hearing that the Dutchman bankrolling this potential takeover loves gooooooold. Solid gooooooold? |
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Nov 11, 2024 11:22:06 GMT
Going to be a whole lot of disappointment when Wael leaves and we find out it’s the Kuwaitis who have taken his share on. Not really as surely that'll mean they are still intending with redeveloping the Mem etc, as at the moment it's not really clear what they intend doing given the silence. All very quiet in the planning dept as well since the Tree Huggers took over |
|
|
|
Post by gasheadowen on Nov 11, 2024 11:50:58 GMT
It’s pretty hilarious how much nonsense people believe from randoms on a forum 😂 To be fair to Doc he was posting on Rovers forums when you were still in your old man's ballsack and he's pretty much said he expects the rumour is nonsese. |
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Nov 11, 2024 11:51:29 GMT
They you go again, not realizing that if it's a good deal for the club, it would be for the people that own it! In what circumstances could it be good for the club and not the owners? If it was to add value to the club, it would be good for the owners. If it was to bring more money to the club, it would bring them more money. I've asked this name times and never received an answer. Do you think giving away naming rights and the majority of space in the stadium was a good idea? You want a jogging track to put the fans further away from the pitch? Because fans are desperate for a stadium, I think they ignored all the bad points. The best example there is of an owner doing a good thing financially for himself and a bad thing for the FC he owned is Bill Archer. Bill bought Brighton and Hove Albion for £1, sold the ground, sent the club to play in Gillingham and pocketed the profit. I have told you this before but maybe it’s beyond your comprehension? Anyway, using your analogy Higgs did sign an agreement with UWE and another with Sainsbury’s and then another with a corporate pay day loan company to fight a court case he was odds on to lose all in the name of ‘we’. Does this mean all of this was great for the FC? That's why Higgs left. That situation has no bearing on ours. I can't think of any reason, how Uwe would have been a good deal for the club and not the owners. You didn't answer if you were happy giving all that stuff away? When Higgs was in charge, I was worried about the plans before sainsburys changed their minds. I didn't want half of the stuff that was in the plans and I didn't want you give away naming rights. As I said, I'm not for or against the new owners, as they have not had the time needed to complete the plans. It's bad that Wael and the owners seem on separate pages and that that don't seem to be working together etc. I've only heard one side of the argument. But, I think it's true that Wael wishes he went with other investors etc. If someone can deliver stadium upgrades and delivery the training ground improvements, I'm all for them taking over. We all want what is best for the club in the long run. We don't want to sign a deal to get a ground, if the terms are not right for the club. I can only go from what I saw myself and I wasn't happy with the plans. Unless Uwe were paying us, for all that they were getting and I very much doubt that was going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by poorblue on Nov 11, 2024 11:53:03 GMT
Yes UWE and Fruit Market. I agree that the latter was probably never really much more than Wael’s fantasy but my point is that Daniel just swallows verbatim whatever the owner tells him including that it was ever a goer in the first place. UWE was the best opportunity this club has ever had or probably ever will have to move to a higher plain. Everything was in place except Higgs didn’t have the money to push it over the line once Sainsbury’s collapsed. Yet too many of our supporters fall for the Al Qadi line that the deal wasn’t in the best interests of the FC when in reality they just didn’t want to or were unable to commit the required capital. Beat deal for the club. Even though we were giving away naming rights, it was having lecture halls, uni gyms, uni bars, jogging track for the uni. Anyone that read the plans, could see that or wasn't what was best for us. If it was what was best for us, we would have signed it. It seems obvious to me that there is a fan generational gap in the memories and comments regarding stadium developments. The best site was owned by Rovers at Eastville, an large inner city site next to a motorway, on bus routes and next to a railway station. There was also income from dog racing and speedway. All substantially better than Ashton Gate Whilst at Eastville the club borrowed money and actually built a new stand and within a few years World War Two broke out. All games were stopped for the duration of the war and with no income the stadium was sold to the greyhound people to save the club from going bust. The new stadium owners many years later threw us out as tenants making a killing with Tesco and Ikea lining their pockets. Pre and post war owners of Rovers have never been in the bracket of mega rich so we have always been in the middle of the leagues (we know our place) Up and down few times with only one time into the abyss. The club went from a "no buy no sell" club to sell sell sell. Over the last 40 years the Rovers had multiple interest in new sites all without success presumably due to lack of funds but NOT for the lack of trying. The Dunfords were the most successful on this issue in the last decades by buying back into Bristol at the Men. Now for the first time ever the new owners seem to be in "the money" but so is every other club it seems! Those who watched at Eastville are rapidly dwindling away with the passage of time so will the Men be redeveloped soon or not? |
|
|
|
Post by chewbacca on Nov 11, 2024 12:03:52 GMT
It’s pretty hilarious how much nonsense people believe from randoms on a forum 😂 You wait to see what they believe in real life! |
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Nov 11, 2024 12:10:02 GMT
He's referring to "stay calm and pass me the ball" which has been there for ages.
What Wael did post of significance was a song by The Cure "Nothing is forever"indicating his potential exit and farewell tour as Paul has written it.
|
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Nov 11, 2024 12:16:00 GMT
One thing I will say in all of this, which IF the rumours of Bergkamp, Kuyt and Larsson being the front of an investor and wanting to come into the club to assist in footballing matters, why wouldn't you allow them in?
As fans we should be on this because we are clearly going nowhere under the current split regime of AS and ALQ.
If either one of these owners/shareholders has batted them away then we deserve to know why at least.
Let's be fair, it's clear Wael wants out and at some point this unharmonious union between him and the AS is going to come to an end, we also haven't seen much in the way of plans from the AS other than a lot of talk a year ago and a lot of speculative movement of development plans for the 1/4s.
If there is an opportunity to have something better, we as fans need to know about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Nov 11, 2024 12:39:35 GMT
The best example there is of an owner doing a good thing financially for himself and a bad thing for the FC he owned is Bill Archer. Bill bought Brighton and Hove Albion for £1, sold the ground, sent the club to play in Gillingham and pocketed the profit. I have told you this before but maybe it’s beyond your comprehension? Anyway, using your analogy Higgs did sign an agreement with UWE and another with Sainsbury’s and then another with a corporate pay day loan company to fight a court case he was odds on to lose all in the name of ‘we’. Does this mean all of this was great for the FC? That's why Higgs left. That situation has no bearing on ours. I can't think of any reason, how Uwe would have been a good deal for the club and not the owners. You didn't answer if you were happy giving all that stuff away? When Higgs was in charge, I was worried about the plans before sainsburys changed their minds. I didn't want half of the stuff that was in the plans and I didn't want you give away naming rights. As I said, I'm not for or against the new owners, as they have not had the time needed to complete the plans. It's bad that Wael and the owners seem on separate pages and that that don't seem to be working together etc. I've only heard one side of the argument. But, I think it's true that Wael wishes he went with other investors etc. If someone can deliver stadium upgrades and delivery the training ground improvements, I'm all for them taking over. We all want what is best for the club in the long run. We don't want to sign a deal to get a ground, if the terms are not right for the club. I can only go from what I saw myself and I wasn't happy with the plans. Unless Uwe were paying us, for all that they were getting and I very much doubt that was going to happen. Higgs left because he chose to sell. If he had his time again he probably wouldn't have mortgaged the club to a pay day loan co and would have then been able to take his time to sell, but the actions he took in the name of 'we' jeopardized the existence of the FC. In answer to your unanswered question then, yes I was happy that we had a mutually beneficial arrangement with UWE. No one knows the finer detail about what they were getting and what the FC were getting but at a high level they were GIVING us land to build a stadium for a peppercorn rent for 125 years. Of course there had to be some benefit going back the other way! The reason that UWE could have been a good deal for the club but not the owners is simply about whether the owners had sufficient enough capital to build it and sufficient financial strength or desire to wait for a return on investment. If the answer to any of those questions is no, the project doesn't go ahead, no matter that it would have been great for the long term future of the FC if it had. Finally, you asked for an example of a situation where the owner's interests and the FC's interest are not the same. I gave it to you. It might not have a baring on our situation right now but these things do happen. Not everyone who buys a football club does so because they love the football club or even love football. Equally a FC could be owned by someone who sinks money in they will never get back because they do love their football club, maybe we only need to look over the river to see such a situation? Again, this is an example of the interests of the FC conflicting with the personal financial wealth of the owner of the FC, only when it is this way around it is better for the FC than the owner of the FC. |
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Nov 11, 2024 12:44:46 GMT
Beat deal for the club. Even though we were giving away naming rights, it was having lecture halls, uni gyms, uni bars, jogging track for the uni. Anyone that read the plans, could see that or wasn't what was best for us. If it was what was best for us, we would have signed it. It seems obvious to me that there is a fan generational gap in the memories and comments regarding stadium developments. The best site was owned by Rovers at Eastville, an large inner city site next to a motorway, on bus routes and next to a railway station. There was also income from dog racing and speedway. All substantially better than Ashton Gate Whilst at Eastville the club borrowed money and actually built a new stand and within a few years World War Two broke out. All games were stopped for the duration of the war and with no income the stadium was sold to the greyhound people to save the club from going bust. The new stadium owners many years later threw us out as tenants making a killing with Tesco and Ikea lining their pockets. Pre and post war owners of Rovers have never been in the bracket of mega rich so we have always been in the middle of the leagues (we know our place) Up and down few times with only one time into the abyss. The club went from a "no buy no sell" club to sell sell sell. Over the last 40 years the Rovers had multiple interest in new sites all without success presumably due to lack of funds but NOT for the lack of trying. The Dunfords were the most successful on this issue in the last decades by buying back into Bristol at the Men. Now for the first time ever the new owners seem to be in "the money" but so is every other club it seems! Those who watched at Eastville are rapidly dwindling away with the passage of time so will the Men be redeveloped soon or not? Unfortunately,I never got to see Rovers at Eastville. The first time I watched us, was around 88. I still like a packed terrace, but now I'm 44, that might start to change. |
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Nov 11, 2024 12:51:23 GMT
That's why Higgs left. That situation has no bearing on ours. I can't think of any reason, how Uwe would have been a good deal for the club and not the owners. You didn't answer if you were happy giving all that stuff away? When Higgs was in charge, I was worried about the plans before sainsburys changed their minds. I didn't want half of the stuff that was in the plans and I didn't want you give away naming rights. As I said, I'm not for or against the new owners, as they have not had the time needed to complete the plans. It's bad that Wael and the owners seem on separate pages and that that don't seem to be working together etc. I've only heard one side of the argument. But, I think it's true that Wael wishes he went with other investors etc. If someone can deliver stadium upgrades and delivery the training ground improvements, I'm all for them taking over. We all want what is best for the club in the long run. We don't want to sign a deal to get a ground, if the terms are not right for the club. I can only go from what I saw myself and I wasn't happy with the plans. Unless Uwe were paying us, for all that they were getting and I very much doubt that was going to happen. Higgs left because he chose to sell. If he had his time again he probably wouldn't have mortgaged the club to a pay day loan co and would have then been able to take his time to sell, but the actions he took in the name of 'we' jeopardized the existence of the FC. In answer to your unanswered question then, yes I was happy that we had a mutually beneficial arrangement with UWE. No one knows the finer detail about what they were getting and what the FC were getting but at a high level they were GIVING us land to build a stadium for a peppercorn rent for 125 years. Of course there had to be some benefit going back the other way! The reason that UWE could have been a good deal for the club but not the owners is simply about whether the owners had sufficient enough capital to build it and sufficient financial strength or desire to wait for a return on investment. If the answer to any of those questions is no, the project doesn't go ahead, no matter that it would have been great for the long term future of the FC if it had. Finally, you asked for an example of a situation where the owner's interests and the FC's interest are not the same. I gave it to you. It might not have a baring on our situation right now but these things do happen. Not everyone who buys a football club does so because they love the football club or even love football. Equally a FC could be owned by someone who sinks money in they will never get back because they do love their football club, maybe we only need to look over the river to see such a situation? Again, this is an example of the interests of the FC conflicting with the personal financial wealth of the owner of the FC, only when it is this way around it is better for the FC than the owner of the FC. The club didn't have the money to fund the stadium. So it wasn't a good deal for us then? How were the club going to fund it? I'm surprised you were happy to give away having rights and the majority of stuff inside the stadium. How were we ever going to make enough money, even if the rent was free? How would we ever cover the build costs? We could see it included everything for Uwe and little for Rovers. Anyway, we've all had this debate many times before. My original point was, how different people are saying the opposite about the owners. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 11, 2024 12:52:33 GMT
One thing I will say in all of this, which IF the rumours of Bergkamp, Kuyt and Larsson being the front of an investor and wanting to come into the club to assist in footballing matters, why wouldn't you allow them in? As fans we should be on this because we are clearly going nowhere under the current split regime of AS and ALQ. If either one of these owners/shareholders has batted them away then we deserve to know why at least. Let's be fair, it's clear Wael wants out and at some point this unharmonious union between him and the AS is going to come to an end, we also haven't seen much in the way of plans from the AS other than a lot of talk a year ago and a lot of speculative movement of development plans for the 1/4s. If there is an opportunity to have something better, we as fans need to know about it. Not sure as Fans we really have an entitlement to be told anything, but, if Investors want to come in, spend money on keeping the Club alive, I'm all for it, whoever they are. |
|
