Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2015 17:01:53 GMT
I don't see a problem with Nick Higgs wanting his money back? It's loans isn't it? They normally need to be repaid.... Well, basically he lost a load of our money, then. Whenever anyone criticised him you'd always get some spoon who would say 'well, it's his money, he can do what he likes.' Turns out it's not his money, it's the clubs, and he was just wasting it on our behalf, gambling on making money out of the club. He always went on about doing what's best for the club, but it looks like, when it cuts to the chase, he's only interested in doing what's best for him. Still, he's a Gashead innit. Not a single person disputed this at the QnA. |
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Sept 22, 2015 17:05:44 GMT
Normally yes Si but i think many Gasheads feel he has lent the club money that some of his decisions have lost and now wants all of it back - i can see it from both sides tbf - UTG That is understandable. But it is not their cash. There is little chance he is going to just step aside and let the club go for cost price when he has his own money tied into it. I know that posters would love Nick Higgs to put down his pen and walk away but that will come at a cost. He has also put a lot of work into the UWE over the last X years. I'm not his biggest fan but there's no room for emotion where business and cash are involved. Agreed - i hope he gets some money back and a fair deal can be agreed to take the club forward quicker - my understanding is the consortium were given several conditions before an offer could be discussed and they reluctantly agreed to all of them to get the ball rolling - however it appears talks have stalled even after this - UTG |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Sept 22, 2015 17:06:20 GMT
I still maintain, however, that the full facts should be reported to save all this endless speculation. I heard that in order to be allowed on the Rovers board, you have to stick your nobby in a pig's head. Nobby, you got to get in a pig's head Mate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2015 17:06:52 GMT
Not sure why forum members getting arsey with one another. Most interesting thread - since the Stu Sinclair one.- whether it's true or false.
NB: it would be easier for BRFC to deny the story than confirm story but they haven't. Hmmm!?!?
|
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Sept 22, 2015 17:07:13 GMT
Well, basically he lost a load of our money, then. Whenever anyone criticised him you'd always get some spoon who would say 'well, it's his money, he can do what he likes.' Turns out it's not his money, it's the clubs, and he was just wasting it on our behalf, gambling on making money out of the club. He always went on about doing what's best for the club, but it looks like, when it cuts to the chase, he's only interested in doing what's best for him. Still, he's a Gashead innit. Not a single person disputed this at the QnA. Not sure what you mean by that. |
|
|
|
Post by gasbs7 on Sept 22, 2015 17:11:53 GMT
Not sure why forum members getting arsey with one another. Most interesting thread - since the Stu Sinclair one.- true or false. NB: it would be easier for BRFC to deny the story than confirm story but they haven't. Hmmm!?!? This ... The club have always bee vey quick to quash any rumour and this has been rumbling on since before the weekend. |
|
|
|
Post by stapletongas on Sept 22, 2015 17:16:32 GMT
24 pages of 465 replies 99% not worth reading, but 30,325
views!
Good grief!!
|
|
|
|
Post by alvestongas on Sept 22, 2015 17:17:31 GMT
Well, you seem to be one of the ITK posters, so I guess you'd know. Just seems like his arrival must be in some way related. Exactly. Like he's acting as a go-between for someone he's worked with before perhaps. No - that's a definite No! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2015 17:17:34 GMT
NH should swallow the loss, after all he's just paid the privilege of being BRFC chairman and the kudos that goes with. What's the saying, how do you turn £50m into £10m... Buy a football team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2015 17:19:00 GMT
Not a single person disputed this at the QnA. Not sure what you mean by that. Tony Watola and Nick Higgs spoke about Directors loans at the QnA. When Tony said that the nature of a loan was that it is normally paid back, nobody complained or argued the use of any monies. Granted, this was prior to the court case etc. Nick Higgs repeatedly said that he and the others were putting their own hands in their pockets to keep the club operating. Nobody disputed it. |
|
nsgas
Reserve Team
Posts: 212
|
Post by nsgas on Sept 22, 2015 17:46:52 GMT
Not sure what you mean by that. Tony Watola and Nick Higgs spoke about Directors loans at the QnA. When Tony said that the nature of a loan was that it is normally paid back, nobody complained or argued the use of any monies. Granted, this was prior to the court case etc. Nick Higgs repeatedly said that he and the others were putting their own hands in their pockets to keep the club operating. Nobody disputed it. They lent money to themselves to cover the big losses that they ran up due to their own incompetence, knowing all the time that the only way that they could guarantee getting their money back was to sell the stadium and leave us as tenants or part owners somewhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by amgas on Sept 22, 2015 17:55:11 GMT
It would be great to think someone really is willing to stump up £40M. The thing we would need to be sure of is that the money is not just a pile of debt against the club and that they would not suddenly find they had no money as soon as the mem was sold and they end walking away with £15M instead of giving £40M. Personally would like to see an agreement where they don't get to sell the Mem until the new stadium was in place and we had moved in, then I might believe some of this .... A real danger someone could asset strip and clear off .....
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Sept 22, 2015 17:58:40 GMT
It would be great to think someone really is willing to stump up £40M. The thing we would need to be sure of is that the money is not just a pile of debt against the club and that they would not suddenly find they had no money as soon as the mem was sold and they end walking away with £15M instead of giving £40M. Personally would like to see an agreement where they don't get to sell the Mem until the new stadium was in place and we had moved in, then I might believe some of this .... A real danger someone could asset strip and clear off ..... Very good point - it is my understanding UWE building would start straight away and worry about the mem later (obviously trying to get max price for it) - if true that would alleviate that threat - i think - UTG |
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Sept 22, 2015 18:20:02 GMT
I don't see a problem with Nick Higgs wanting his money back? It's loans isn't it? They normally need to be repaid.... Normally yes Si but i think many Gasheads feel he has lent the club money that some of his decisions have lost and now wants all of it back - i can see it from both sides tbf - UTG Exactly this. There are so many clubs above us in the pyramid with smaller fanbases and less income but they are streets ahead of us and have nowhere near the level of debt. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 22, 2015 18:20:02 GMT
Birmingham based? So it has to be Mike Turl, present owner of Solihull Moors, making a come back? If not what other Brummie has Rovers connections apart from BSS?
|
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Sept 22, 2015 18:22:45 GMT
Just remember TW has no interest in the club from a shareholding point of view. He is probably more worried about his future. The one thing about UWE some of you seem to forget is that no debt can be applied to the stadium. Rovers agreed that, and you can bet the new investors would have to agree that up front.
I would love to see what assets they could then strip. If you mean the Mem, by then we will be at the UWE. I don't care what happens to the Mem then. In reality of course they are in it for the long haul.
As to why NH doesn't deny the truth of this story, you have to say why should he. If he does he knows he could be caught on a lie. Why put himself in that position. His best bet, is to stay quiet. It needs the UWE or the Consortium to break cover.
Vital is wrong with regard to NH's losses. They would clear all the debts.
Topper, you are making assumptions. Are you making 2+2 = 5 again? Or is it the Mike Turl connection, who as far as I know has nothing to do with it.
Without confirming or denying it, do the new owners have to be gasheads? I bet the sheik of arabi finds it difficult getting to Manchester to watch Ci*y play their home games in midweek. Or isn't he a Mancunian?
|
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Sept 22, 2015 18:31:24 GMT
Birmingham based? So it has to be Mike Turl, present owner of Solihull Moors, making a come back? If not what other Brummie has Rovers connections apart from BSS? They interviewed Jasper Carrot when we played them in the cup a few years back. Maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by casey12a on Sept 22, 2015 18:37:07 GMT
Just remember TW has no interest in the club from a shareholding point of view. He is probably more worried about his future. The one thing about UWE some of you seem to forget is that no debt can be applied to the stadium. Rovers agreed that, and you can bet the new investors would have to agree that up front. I would love to see what assets they could then strip. If you mean the Mem, by then we will be at the UWE. I don't care what happens to the Mem then. In reality of course they are in it for the long haul. As to why NH doesn't deny the truth of this story, you have to say why should he. If he does he knows he could be caught on a lie. Why put himself in that position. His best bet, is to stay quiet. It needs the UWE or the Consortium to break cover. Vital is wrong with regard to NH's losses. They would clear all the debts. Topper, you are making assumptions. Are you making 2+2 = 5 again? Or is it the Mike Turl connection, who as far as I know has nothing to do with it. Without confirming or denying it, do the new owners have to be gasheads? I bet the sheik of arabi finds it difficult getting to Manchester to watch Ci*y play their home games in midweek. Or isn't he a Mancunian? So they would pay what NH has lost rather than what the club is worth as I don't think they're the same thing. Which is why I can see why things have stalled. |
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Sept 22, 2015 18:41:58 GMT
So they would pay what NH has lost rather than what the club is worth as I don't think they're the same thing. Which is why I can see why things have stalled. Sorry, I just can't see where I said that. (ALL ?) By the way, just how much do you think the club is worth? I don't know, but if I hazard a guess, the football club is £1 and the Mem about £10-£12m. The debts are about that level. If a shortfall had to be covered I'm sure it would be. But it would be very little. We are knocking up interest payts of over £30k per month. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2015 18:44:37 GMT
Birmingham based? So it has to be Mike Turl, present owner of Solihull Moors, making a come back? If not what other Brummie has Rovers connections apart from BSS? They interviewed Jasper Carrot when we played them in the cup a few years back. Maybe? Paul Cannell. |
|
