|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 2, 2015 13:16:39 GMT
Why would the UWE allow Rovers to make an income from a stadium owned by the university that would be bonkers. IMO if rovers were a tenant they would be required to pay a rent and receive nothing from the bars, shops etc. .... IMO Rovers would be *******, higgs and co would sell the MEM take all the money and disappear, and leave the club and its supporters with nothing = Eastville, I do not recall seeing Boycie at Twerton. Aaaaaaaa....... Aren't you forgetting something in your little rant ..... Higgs and co would sell the MEM take all the money and disappear...... Seems to me that would please many and most on the other forum ....and it would leave Rovers with new owners to progress the club - isn't that what all the board haters are desiring ? Well the other option is they stay and then have to somehow find the £3m plus to pay off the Wonga loan, which we didn't really need as NH could have just accepted the Sainsbury's £1.5m pretty trial offer. Once they've gone that they then have to clear some of the existing circa £4m debts/loans and also find money to modernise the Mem. Meanwhile we have to put up with more replica shirt/physio farces is that really more appealing to the board lovers? I'm a middle of the road fan when it comes to the BoD but at the moment I can't see where they are taking the club in the next 5/10 years should the Sainsbury's appeal fail.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 2, 2015 13:21:25 GMT
I enjoy chatting bollox but some of the stuff on this thread is off the radar! It's amazing what peoples minds can do with a vague single paragraph press release which doesn't even involve us as far as we know! ha! I'm partial to a dabble of bullsh1t as well! Needs to asked, is Vitalgas the only source of this story? If so that seems rather dubious. Vital broke the news above move to Cheltenham being off before anybody else so I wouldn't say it's dubious, just not confirmed by anybody yet. Assuming there's no quick denial on the OS today I sense there's some truth in the story. Given UWE were committed to the original plans and are apparently cash rich, plus HG suggests there was a Plan B with outside investors all adds weight to the rumour.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Aug 2, 2015 15:30:37 GMT
I can't agree with the argument that by selling our only asset - the Mem - we'd then end up with nothing. There is another argument that unless we sold the Mem we'd be left with nothing
Assuming all the information on the forums and in the press can be trusted (ha ha), then our assets are close to being matched by our liabilities - NH's and other loans, legal fees for both sides, and the Wonga loan. We have no way of paying those liabilities back unless NH funds them, so we're back where we started. Pay off the Legal Fees debt of £750k and we just add £750k to the Nick Higgs debt. Unless we can increase income through matchday receipts, we're stuck. And when since 1996 have we ever been able to attract new support to the dump we call home?
Of course we could hang around at the Mem and hope the value of the site for housing will soar, but it could also plummet if house prices fall again, and meanwhile our debts will continue to rise.
If the appeal loses, we have nothing on the balance sheet. The Mem would have to be sold at any time if NH decided to walk, and without a plan like this, what would we do? Groundshare at FGR for 10 years?
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Aug 2, 2015 15:53:22 GMT
' aha i see whats happening here - You can't reply!!! This could be interesting - now who shall i insult first!!!
|
|
|
Post by lympstonegas on Aug 2, 2015 16:41:33 GMT
Aaaaaaaa....... Aren't you forgetting something in your little rant ..... Higgs and co would sell the MEM take all the money and disappear...... Seems to me that would please many and most on the other forum ....and it would leave Rovers with new owners to progress the club - isn't that what all the board haters are desiring ? Well the other option is they stay and then have to somehow find the £3m plus to pay off the Wonga loan, which we didn't really need as NH could have just accepted the Sainsbury's £1.5m pretty trial offer. Once they've gone that they then have to clear some of the existing circa £4m debts/loans and also find money to modernise the Mem. Meanwhile we have to put up with more replica shirt/physio farces is that really more appealing to the board lovers? I'm a middle of the road fan when it comes to the BoD but at the moment I can't see where they are taking the club in the next 5/10 years should the Sainsbury's appeal fail. Aaaaaaaa....... Aren't you forgetting something in your little rant ..... Higgs and co would sell the MEM take all the money and disappear...... Seems to me that would please many and most on the other forum ....and it would leave Rovers with new owners to progress the club - isn't that what all the board haters are desiring ? Well the other option is they stay and then have to somehow find the £3m plus to pay off the Wonga loan, which we didn't really need as NH could have just accepted the Sainsbury's £1.5m pretty trial offer.........,,,,,,,,,,,,, Yes but that actual quote you seem to be hanging on to was clearly stated on the OS as untrue. Which leads me to believe that you think that they have lied again. I would class myself as a middle of the road fan - been through a lot supporting Rovers since the 66/67 season..And for a matter of interest grew up with KS. I don't know what the answers are but prepared to wait and see how things pan out. Love him or hate him the fact is Higgs has got us back into the league at the first attempt under DC. Common sense tells me I'm sure there is a plan B if the appeal now fails but some just don't want to remain optimistic or look forward to the season starting with any hope. Sorry but I'm not in that camp.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 2, 2015 17:22:55 GMT
Didn't DC and the players get us promoted?
As far as the OS I read it that it was incorrect for Sainsbury's lawyers to say the £1.5m should have been accepted (as it wouldn't cleared all our expenses) not that no such offer was made.
Although a few months ago NH told us the contracts were watertight!
Away from the UWE I'm another fan looking forward to Saturday.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2015 19:48:52 GMT
...and the Bristol Sport franchises are doing ok as tenants in the duke of guernsey's stadium! Because it is all owned by one man and not at the whim of an external owner or managment.company As is BRFC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 9:25:13 GMT
I wonder what else will be dropped from the plans? 7000 seats gone, do UWE even need an all seater for a mixed use stadium? Do they need a bar? Public transport links? There's bound to be a full running track and sand pits etc. A roof? Concourses with facilities? It will be interesting to see the drafts if their plan for sure. If they are doing their own thing it doesn't need to meet FA regs.
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on Aug 3, 2015 10:49:28 GMT
A UWE led stadium scheme would perhaps be a much more attractive proposition to Bath RFC! UWE would also be in a much better position to coordinate a mix of uses that we have previously discussed: - Student Residential Accommodation - a Local Convenience Store (not Sainsbury's) - a Hotel - Health & Fitness suites - other social and leisure facilities gaschat.co.uk/thread/4031/plan-fowardA smaller stadium would be fine providing that it has the potential for further expansion at a later date.
|
|
|
Post by xplosivgas on Aug 3, 2015 12:31:25 GMT
If we could sell the Mem and raise enough £££ (10-12 million?) to go halves with UWE and pay off the debts it'd be job done. Both use the facilities with no rent changing hands and everyone's (probably) happy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 14:11:09 GMT
Didn't DC and the players get us promoted? As far as the OS I read it that it was incorrect for Sainsbury's lawyers to say the £1.5m should have been accepted (as it wouldn't cleared all our expenses) not that no such offer was made. Although a few months ago NH told us the contracts were watertight! Away from the UWE I'm another fan looking forward to Saturday. Rewind 12 months and you were one of those saying the board got us relegated,you cannot now move the goalposts when it suits you,its either blame and congratulations to the board or to the players and management,they take both or none
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 3, 2015 14:20:12 GMT
Why what's going to happen to me, I get banned from the forum for a spell in order to teach me a lesson?
Regadless there's no way NH could judged it so well we got promoted with literally the last kick of the season. The fact PB/MM/JW were so uselss suggests our promotion had far more to do with the manager than the Chairman. Although at least NH stood by him when he was struggling and backed him by signing Easter & Lines etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 14:54:03 GMT
A UWE led stadium scheme would perhaps be a much more attractive proposition to Bath RFC! UWE would also be in a much better position to coordinate a mix of uses that we have previously discussed: - Student Residential Accommodation - a Local Convenience Store (not Sainsbury's) - a Hotel - Health & Fitness suites - other social and leisure facilities gaschat.co.uk/thread/4031/plan-fowardA smaller stadium would be fine providing that it has the potential for further expansion at a later date. Bath Rugby have just won their appeal to expand at The Rec, so I would imagine that they will stay put now. I know that beggars can't be choosers, but I don't like the idea of becoming tenants yet again.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Aug 3, 2015 16:25:11 GMT
Not sure where this story originated but lets have a look at it closely.
Are UWE in a financial positon to spank £20m on a new stadium. If they are, why would they need us? They have either already got a plan in place to have us as tenants (which we havent been told about) or they feel it would be a sound investment for them and the future of the Uninversity to go on their own. Makes the university much more attractive to future students, expansion of the sports faculty etc if its theirs.
If they dont need our input financially why would they want to give away any part of the future earnings of the stadium. I know our being there would genereate more income but I dont think our plan would be to give them any of our income. We arent going to want to pay them more than the minimum of rent or what would be the point of us moving there if its costing us to much.
We are supposed to be moving somewhere so that we can generate extra revenue to help cover the bills not cost us more. I like the idea of having a shiny new stadium but not if its not on the terms or for the reasons put forward by BoD. They got us into this mess they need to react now and get us out of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 16:54:44 GMT
Not sure where this story originated but lets have a look at it closely. Are UWE in a financial positon to spank £20m on a new stadium. If they are, why would they need us? They have either already got a plan in place to have us as tenants (which we havent been told about) or they feel it would be a sound investment for them and the future of the Uninversity to go on their own. Makes the university much more attractive to future students, expansion of the sports faculty etc if its theirs. If they dont need our input financially why would they want to give away any part of the future earnings of the stadium. I know our being there would genereate more income but I dont think our plan would be to give them any of our income. We arent going to want to pay them more than the minimum of rent or what would be the point of us moving there if its costing us to much. We are supposed to be moving somewhere so that we can generate extra revenue to help cover the bills not cost us more. I like the idea of having a shiny new stadium but not if its not on the terms or for the reasons put forward by BoD. They got us into this mess they need to react now and get us out of it. I don't trust them to get us out of this mess. I'd rather UWE just ran us.
|
|
|
Post by Big Jock on Aug 3, 2015 16:58:32 GMT
Not sure where this story originated but lets have a look at it closely. Are UWE in a financial positon to spank £20m on a new stadium. If they are, why would they need us? They have either already got a plan in place to have us as tenants (which we havent been told about) or they feel it would be a sound investment for them and the future of the Uninversity to go on their own. Makes the university much more attractive to future students, expansion of the sports faculty etc if its theirs. If they dont need our input financially why would they want to give away any part of the future earnings of the stadium. I know our being there would genereate more income but I dont think our plan would be to give them any of our income. We arent going to want to pay them more than the minimum of rent or what would be the point of us moving there if its costing us to much. We are supposed to be moving somewhere so that we can generate extra revenue to help cover the bills not cost us more. I like the idea of having a shiny new stadium but not if its not on the terms or for the reasons put forward by BoD. They got us into this mess they need to react now and get us out of it. I don't trust them to get us out of this mess. I'd rather UWE just ran us. Now that would be what yous call "University Challenge" pal?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 3, 2015 19:51:38 GMT
Not sure where this story originated but lets have a look at it closely. Are UWE in a financial positon to spank £20m on a new stadium. If they are, why would they need us? They have either already got a plan in place to have us as tenants (which we havent been told about) or they feel it would be a sound investment for them and the future of the Uninversity to go on their own. Makes the university much more attractive to future students, expansion of the sports faculty etc if its theirs. If they dont need our input financially why would they want to give away any part of the future earnings of the stadium. I know our being there would genereate more income but I dont think our plan would be to give them any of our income. We arent going to want to pay them more than the minimum of rent or what would be the point of us moving there if its costing us to much. We are supposed to be moving somewhere so that we can generate extra revenue to help cover the bills not cost us more. I like the idea of having a shiny new stadium but not if its not on the terms or for the reasons put forward by BoD. They got us into this mess they need to react now and get us out of it. Perhaps they need somebody to play in the stadium to make it more attractive to potential students? As what other Uni can say they have a league team using their own facilities? It could be the UWE are prepared to share income streams, if so, perhaps those income streams are far better than we could ever achieve at the Mem where, apart from match days they seem virtually non existant? Plus we also have to find millions to rebuild the Mem. As far as the BoD getting us out of the mess, how are they going to do that when they haven't got any more money to spend, unlike Pantsdown they don't have unlimited funds?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 20:23:59 GMT
Not sure where this story originated but lets have a look at it closely. Are UWE in a financial positon to spank £20m on a new stadium. If they are, why would they need us? They have either already got a plan in place to have us as tenants (which we havent been told about) or they feel it would be a sound investment for them and the future of the Uninversity to go on their own. Makes the university much more attractive to future students, expansion of the sports faculty etc if its theirs. If they dont need our input financially why would they want to give away any part of the future earnings of the stadium. I know our being there would genereate more income but I dont think our plan would be to give them any of our income. We arent going to want to pay them more than the minimum of rent or what would be the point of us moving there if its costing us to much. We are supposed to be moving somewhere so that we can generate extra revenue to help cover the bills not cost us more. I like the idea of having a shiny new stadium but not if its not on the terms or for the reasons put forward by BoD. They got us into this mess they need to react now and get us out of it. Perhaps they need somebody to play in the stadium to make it more attractive to potential students? As what other Uni can say they have a league team using their own facilities? It could be the UWE are prepared to share income streams, if so, perhaps those income streams are far better than we could ever achieve at the Mem where, apart from match days they seem virtually non existant? Plus we also have to find millions to rebuild the Mem. As far as the BoD getting us out of the mess, how are they going to do that when they haven't got any more money to spend, unlike Pantsdown they don't have unlimited funds? To be fair Topper the rooms available at the Mem are rented out on a reasonably regular basis. The club do try to maximise what they have at their disposal. It's just making use of what you have, for example Avon and Somerset Police using the boxes to conduct quick fire interviews or colleges holding courses in the members bar/Bristol room. I agree with you though, UWEs facilities would be more attractive and therefore more lucrative. Being tennants would mean at best only a share of that income. It is also worth noting that in the original plans the University had access to one whole section of stadium underbelly that Rovers did not. Not sure what they would have done with that section mind.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 3, 2015 20:32:10 GMT
I also agree with you it seems to be a problem with the Mem, the restrictive licensing rules clearly not helping, rather than how the Mem facilities are used. Hence I assume why NH said recently Rovers would die at the Mem. Although unless somebody finances the UWE you do wonder how we can ever leave the Mem w/o the Sainsbury's money.
|
|
|
Post by fanboy on Aug 4, 2015 7:35:08 GMT
Why would the UWE allow Rovers to make an income from a stadium owned by the university that would be bonkers. IMO if rovers were a tenant they would be required to pay a rent and receive nothing from the bars, shops etc. .... IMO Rovers would be *******, higgs and co would sell the MEM take all the money and disappear, and leave the club and its supporters with nothing = Eastville, I do not recall seeing Boycie at Twerton. Higgs and the board are die hard gasheads, yes they've made mistakes but they quite clearly don't want to f**k the club over.
|
|