|
|
Post by garystash on Dec 30, 2015 17:50:16 GMT
I still think the 'leak' was either to undermine the existing regime, or being more generous, to try & put pressure on them to negotiate a cheaper deal for the alleged interested parties. I just dont see a valid reason to leak a fabricated story. The only reason I've heard for this is to "discredit" the current board. I don't buy this for two reasons. Firstly our board dont need anything to discredit them, they seem to have done a great job of that for themselves. Secondly, the only way this would truly work was if someone with the money came out in public and said "I tried to buy Bristol Rovers and build the UWE but the board rejected my offer". Then and only then would the board lose all credibility. |
|
|
|
Post by woodygas on Dec 30, 2015 18:19:02 GMT
I think one of the main reasons of the confidentiality agreements are to stop any potential investor from going public if NH decides he does not want to do business with them. It could be a PR disaster for him if we knew what he had or hadn't turned down at any stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Dec 30, 2015 18:28:41 GMT
I think one of the main reasons of the confidentiality agreements are to stop any potential investor from going public if NH decides he does not want to do business with them. It could be a PR disaster for him if we knew what he had or hadn't turned down at any stage. I agree, and a rumour alone is never going to be enough to discredit him. |
|
|
|
Post by justin blue on Dec 30, 2015 18:54:43 GMT
I think one of the main reasons of the confidentiality agreements are to stop any potential investor from going public if NH decides he does not want to do business with them. It could be a PR disaster for him if we knew what he had or hadn't turned down at any stage. Nick has said he will not make a deal that would not be in the clubs best interest and as he is the main invester that means his best interest as well. I can't see why he would be worried about his reputation as it's already in tatters. Anyway anybody who thinks owning a football club is going to enhance their reputation is probably deluded. |
|
|
|
Post by woodygas on Dec 30, 2015 19:08:35 GMT
I think one of the main reasons of the confidentiality agreements are to stop any potential investor from going public if NH decides he does not want to do business with them. It could be a PR disaster for him if we knew what he had or hadn't turned down at any stage. Nick has said he will not make a deal that would not be in the clubs best interest and as he is the main invester that means his best interest as well. I can't see why he would be worried about his reputation as it's already in tatters. Anyway anybody who thinks owning a football club is going to enhance their reputation is probably deluded. Not sure how he'd ever be able to lead the club forwards if fans knew he'd turned down a seriously good offer because of his own self interests. He knows that he'd be hung drawn and quartered (blue & white quarters of course!) if the details ever got out. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 30, 2015 19:15:25 GMT
I think one of the main reasons of the confidentiality agreements are to stop any potential investor from going public if NH decides he does not want to do business with them. It could be a PR disaster for him if we knew what he had or hadn't turned down at any stage. It's odd how he can apparently make those agreements watertight but not a multi million pound contract? I guess Everton & Palace also make potential investors sign such agreements before allowing due diligence checks but that hasn't stopped rumours hitting the press. |
|
|
|
Post by justin blue on Dec 30, 2015 19:22:47 GMT
Nick has said he will not make a deal that would not be in the clubs best interest and as he is the main invester that means his best interest as well. I can't see why he would be worried about his reputation as it's already in tatters. Anyway anybody who thinks owning a football club is going to enhance their reputation is probably deluded. Not sure how he'd ever be able to lead the club forwards if fans knew he'd turned down a seriously good offer because of his own self interests. He knows that he'd be hung drawn and quartered (blue & white quarters of course!) if the details ever got out. But the game is littered with chairmen who have acted out of self interest just look at what's happening at Blackpool as just one example. |
|
|
|
Post by woodygas on Dec 30, 2015 19:37:31 GMT
Not sure how he'd ever be able to lead the club forwards if fans knew he'd turned down a seriously good offer because of his own self interests. He knows that he'd be hung drawn and quartered (blue & white quarters of course!) if the details ever got out. But the game is littered with chairmen who have acted out of self interest just look at what's happening at Blackpool as just one example. I agree, just saying though what I think one of the reasons might be for a confidentiality agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by Strange Gas on Dec 30, 2015 20:36:43 GMT
But the game is littered with chairmen who have acted out of self interest just look at what's happening at Blackpool as just one example. I agree, just saying though what I think one of the reasons might be for a confidentiality agreement. I get distinct impression any conversation with Higgs beyond the first phone call is immediately done under terms of confidentiality agreements. Can't blame him for that, works both ways and explains why there are so many in place |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 30, 2015 20:40:19 GMT
Not sure how he'd ever be able to lead the club forwards if fans knew he'd turned down a seriously good offer because of his own self interests. He knows that he'd be hung drawn and quartered (blue & white quarters of course!) if the details ever got out. But the game is littered with chairmen who have acted out of self interest just look at what's happening at Blackpool as just one example. I assume if you'd invested millions in Rovers, had spent countless hours working for them w/o pay, you'd just had over the club to the first investor who turned up and wipe off your investment? Whilst I'm no great fan of NH's time as Chairman we have to accept he's entitled to some return on his investment, particularly if the plans he's drawn up for the UWE are so attractive that an investor is prepared to invest £40/50m in his stadium plan?. |
|
|
|
Post by woodygas on Dec 30, 2015 21:19:26 GMT
But the game is littered with chairmen who have acted out of self interest just look at what's happening at Blackpool as just one example. I assume if you'd invested millions in Rovers, had spent countless hours working for them w/o pay, you'd just had over the club to the first investor who turned up and wipe off your investment? Whilst I'm no great fan of NH's time as Chairman we have to accept he's entitled to some return on his investment, particularly if the plans he's drawn up for the UWE are so attractive that an investor is prepared to invest £40/50m in his stadium plan?. I think you are missing my point. I am not saying he should accept anything other than an amount that suits all parties. I just pointed out that a confidentiality agreement would amongst other things protect him from having to explain his decisions/reasons in public. I'd do the same too. |
|
|
|
Post by peterpirate on Dec 30, 2015 21:29:03 GMT
But the game is littered with chairmen who have acted out of self interest just look at what's happening at Blackpool as just one example. I assume if you'd invested millions in Rovers, had spent countless hours working for them w/o pay, you'd just had over the club to the first investor who turned up and wipe off your investment? Whilst I'm no great fan of NH's time as Chairman we have to accept he's entitled to some return on his investment, particularly if the plans he's drawn up for the UWE are so attractive that an investor is prepared to invest £40/50m in his stadium plan?. invested millions? He has a free box what more does he want |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Dec 30, 2015 22:11:32 GMT
But the game is littered with chairmen who have acted out of self interest just look at what's happening at Blackpool as just one example. I assume if you'd invested millions in Rovers, had spent countless hours working for them w/o pay, you'd just had over the club to the first investor who turned up and wipe off your investment? Whilst I'm no great fan of NH's time as Chairman we have to accept he's entitled to some return on his investment, particularly if the plans he's drawn up for the UWE are so attractive that an investor is prepared to invest £40/50m in his stadium plan?. How is a loan that gets paid back in full, with interest and at no risk to any poor decisions you make an investment? I'm not saying we could have done it without his money, nor am I saying I'm ungrateful but let's call it what it is. Its a risk free low interest loan that is secured against the club and will be repaid once he leaves regardless of where his leadership has left us either by new/current directors or any potential new buyer. Investment it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by hargravegas on Dec 30, 2015 23:27:09 GMT
Risk Free? I thibnk we are closer to administration than some people think, we need some form of good outcome from the Sainsbury's Trial
|
|
|
|
Post by hargravegas on Dec 30, 2015 23:30:51 GMT
I also think its odd that Palace get all excited about £100m showing that is a massive amount, and yet we also believe some consortium is going to come in for a club in League 2 and invest £50m, of which the vast majority would need to be invested in building a new ground.....
Thats maybe why you leak a story, as actually you want to buy the club, clear of debts for a MUCH lower figure & not invest anywhere near what some would have us believe.
If I am wrong, I am sure those in the know will put me right, at some point maybe =;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Dec 30, 2015 23:31:32 GMT
Risk Free? I thibnk we are closer to administration than some people think, we need some form of good outcome from the Sainsbury's Trial Or new investors |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2015 8:32:42 GMT
Risk Free? I thibnk we are closer to administration than some people think, we need some form of good outcome from the Sainsbury's Trial Or new investors Keep the faith, any day now... Any day now. |
|
|
|
Post by simon1883 on Dec 31, 2015 8:48:56 GMT
I assume if you'd invested millions in Rovers, had spent countless hours working for them w/o pay, you'd just had over the club to the first investor who turned up and wipe off your investment? Whilst I'm no great fan of NH's time as Chairman we have to accept he's entitled to some return on his investment, particularly if the plans he's drawn up for the UWE are so attractive that an investor is prepared to invest £40/50m in his stadium plan?. How is a loan that gets paid back in full, with interest and at no risk to any poor decisions you make an investment? I'm not saying we could have done it without his money, nor am I saying I'm ungrateful but let's call it what it is. Its a risk free low interest loan that is secured against the club and will be repaid once he leaves regardless of where his leadership has left us either by new/current directors or any potential new buyer. Investment it isn't. Hugo I love you dearly. However, be it a loan or whatever, it a very high risk investment that nearly failed. It's also out of his capital so he's losing interest that he might otherwise be gaining by holding it in safer investments. |
|
|
|
Post by 2nd May 1990 on Dec 31, 2015 8:55:16 GMT
Keep the faith, any day now... Any day now. I shall be released? |
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Dec 31, 2015 9:28:39 GMT
How is a loan that gets paid back in full, with interest and at no risk to any poor decisions you make an investment? I'm not saying we could have done it without his money, nor am I saying I'm ungrateful but let's call it what it is. Its a risk free low interest loan that is secured against the club and will be repaid once he leaves regardless of where his leadership has left us either by new/current directors or any potential new buyer. Investment it isn't. Hugo I love you dearly. However, be it a loan or whatever, it a very high risk investment that nearly failed. It's also out of his capital so he's losing interest that he might otherwise be gaining by holding it in safer investments. Except that 2.5 to 4.0% above bank rate is risk interest for the risk investment. And what risk is there against the Mem equity? |
|
