|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Sept 25, 2015 8:36:55 GMT
Topper we all know it is far from perfect but we've got to be wary of asset strippers who come in with entirely the wrong reasons for owning a football club. That's all I am saying. I haven't been to the Mem this season but I doubt it is any different to two seasons ago when I saw us lose 1-0 at home to Accrington in a dilapidated stadium playing rubbish football. Or the year before when we lost at home to Accrington 1-0 playing rubbish football in a dilapidated stadium. If this consortium does exist then I suspect that old chestnut "proof of funds" has prevented any deal going through. Mr Higgs, for all his faults, can hardly be accused of asset stripping. Yes, he was hoping to clear his debts and no doubt make a decent profit from the UWE but no one could ever accuse him or the other directors of selling off our best players and other assets in order to turn a profit. If that was the case we would be languishing in the Conference still with a bunch of 18-year-old trainees and non-league journeymen wearing the quarters. Wouldn't selling the Mem in return for paying off debts (you yourself had incurred) so you can walk away, in return for a small share in a ground we would then have to pay rent on qualify as asset stripping? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by phillistine on Sept 25, 2015 8:51:40 GMT
Topper we all know it is far from perfect but we've got to be wary of asset strippers who come in with entirely the wrong reasons for owning a football club. That's all I am saying. I haven't been to the Mem this season but I doubt it is any different to two seasons ago when I saw us lose 1-0 at home to Accrington in a dilapidated stadium playing rubbish football. Or the year before when we lost at home to Accrington 1-0 playing rubbish football in a dilapidated stadium. If this consortium does exist then I suspect that old chestnut "proof of funds" has prevented any deal going through. Mr Higgs, for all his faults, can hardly be accused of asset stripping. Yes, he was hoping to clear his debts and no doubt make a decent profit from the UWE but no one could ever accuse him or the other directors of selling off our best players and other assets in order to turn a profit. If that was the case we would be languishing in the Conference still with a bunch of 18-year-old trainees and non-league journeymen wearing the quarters. Wouldn't selling the Mem in return for paying off debts (you yourself had incurred) so you can walk away, in return for a small share in a ground we would then have to pay rent on qualify as asset stripping? So what you are basically saying is that anyone who puts their own money into any business should see it as a charitable donation? |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Sept 25, 2015 9:01:33 GMT
Wouldn't selling the Mem in return for paying off debts (you yourself had incurred) so you can walk away, in return for a small share in a ground we would then have to pay rent on qualify as asset stripping? So what you are basically saying is that anyone who puts their own money into any business should see it as a charitable donation? Not at all. I have no problem with a successful chairman making money out of us. I can stomach a failure covering his loans. I am less comfortable with someone leaving us in a worse position that we could end up being trapped in. Is that unreasonable? I have always been supportive of Nick Higgs in the past whilst wishing and encouraging him to do better. If he stays in charge then I'm not going to drag out the Higgs out banner. I posted in response to Bucko suggesting that what NH has planned is preferable to asset stripping. My position is that IF (because in fairness none of really have a clue) Plan B is: NH gets his money back and we sell the mem for a 1/3 of the uwe then that's unacceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Sept 25, 2015 9:06:14 GMT
I will qualify that by asking in what other business would you be able to put money in and still get every penny back regardless of success or how well you had done.
I was self employed for nearly 12 years and if I hadn't got my business in order I would have lost my investment.
Football seems to be immune to reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillistine on Sept 25, 2015 9:19:29 GMT
I will qualify that by asking in what other business would you be able to put money in and still get every penny back regardless of success or how well you had done. I was self employed for nearly 12 years and if I hadn't got my business in order I would have lost my investment. Football seems to be immune to reality. Every single business out there. If you ran a business then you know that you had assets on the books. If you sell the business then you sell the assets of the company and it is goodwill that determines the trading value. I dont think that this is any different |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Sept 25, 2015 9:24:31 GMT
I will qualify that by asking in what other business would you be able to put money in and still get every penny back regardless of success or how well you had done. I was self employed for nearly 12 years and if I hadn't got my business in order I would have lost my investment. Football seems to be immune to reality. Every single business out there. If you ran a business then you know that you had assets on the books. If you sell the business then you sell the assets of the company and it is goodwill that determines the trading value. I dont think that this is any different Fair enough. As long as the current board get all their money back that's all that matters. But the question is about the difference between plan B and plan c isn' it? I thought plan c would also see NHs loans repaid? |
|
|
|
Post by phillistine on Sept 25, 2015 9:26:12 GMT
Every single business out there. If you ran a business then you know that you had assets on the books. If you sell the business then you sell the assets of the company and it is goodwill that determines the trading value. I dont think that this is any different Fair enough. As long as the current board get all their money back that's all that matters. But the question is about the difference between plan B and plan c isn' it? I thought plan c would also see NHs loans repaid? |
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Sept 25, 2015 9:56:39 GMT
BR have you been to a game at the Mem this season? To suggest anything can be worse then watching us getting the run around by the mighty Accrington in a delapited Mem, after spending a season in non-league football whilst running up debts we can't afford to repay, will surely take some beating whoever replaces NH? Logic suggests if the consortium are really prepared to spend £40m building the UWE they are going to want some return on their investment, which they'll only get if the team on the pitch performs. Topper we all know it is far from perfect but we've got to be wary of asset strippers who come in with entirely the wrong reasons for owning a football club. That's all I am saying. I haven't been to the Mem this season but I doubt it is any different to two seasons ago when I saw us lose 1-0 at home to Accrington in a dilapidated stadium playing rubbish football. Or the year before when we lost at home to Accrington 1-0 playing rubbish football in a dilapidated stadium. If this consortium does exist then I suspect that old chestnut "proof of funds" has prevented any deal going through. Mr Higgs, for all his faults, can hardly be accused of asset stripping. Yes, he was hoping to clear his debts and no doubt make a decent profit from the UWE but no one could ever accuse him or the other directors of selling off our best players and other assets in order to turn a profit. If that was the case we would be languishing in the Conference still with a bunch of 18-year-old trainees and non-league journeymen wearing the quarters. If the reported investors are prepared to use their own money to build UWE to the original specification, how can they be thought of as possible "asset stripers", it's one hell of a gamble.
I agree with Topper, for once, with that type of investment they will want a return and I have no problem with that. In fact, for BRFC to make a "running profit" would be good for a change. Remember, it will NOT be possible to tie up any loans on the UWE stadium, so as I said, it is one hell of a risk investing £250k yet alone the reported £40m.
It's good to see more sensible comments now being made, even though the bare bones of any investment have not been disclosed yet. As I believe the clubs AGM is some time in early October, I'm sure that the full details will emerge BEFORE that date as that will have the biggest impact on the AGM and the Chairman could be in for a very difficult meeting. As a shareholder, I am looking forward to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by justin blue on Sept 25, 2015 10:00:54 GMT
So what you are basically saying is that anyone who puts their own money into any business should see it as a charitable donation? Not at all. I have no problem with a successful chairman making money out of us. I can stomach a failure covering his loans. I am less comfortable with someone leaving us in a worse position that we could end up being trapped in. Is that unreasonable? I have always been supportive of Nick Higgs in the past whilst wishing and encouraging him to do better. If he stays in charge then I'm not going to drag out the Higgs out banner. I posted in response to Bucko suggesting that what NH has planned is preferable to asset stripping. My position is that IF (because in fairness none of really have a clue) Plan B is: NH gets his money back and we sell the mem for a 1/3 of the uwe then that's unacceptable. Do you/we actually know what NH has planned other than appealing the Sainsburys verdict. |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 25, 2015 10:02:05 GMT
BR have you been to a game at the Mem this season? To suggest anything can be worse then watching us getting the run around by the mighty Accrington in a delapited Mem, after spending a season in non-league football whilst running up debts we can't afford to repay, will surely take some beating whoever replaces NH? Logic suggests if the consortium are really prepared to spend £40m building the UWE they are going to want some return on their investment, which they'll only get if the team on the pitch performs. Topper we all know it is far from perfect but we've got to be wary of asset strippers The only real asset they could strip us of is the Beard. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 25, 2015 10:04:07 GMT
BR have you been to a game at the Mem this season? To suggest anything can be worse then watching us getting the run around by the mighty Accrington in a delapited Mem, after spending a season in non-league football whilst running up debts we can't afford to repay, will surely take some beating whoever replaces NH? Logic suggests if the consortium are really prepared to spend £40m building the UWE they are going to want some return on their investment, which they'll only get if the team on the pitch performs. Topper we all know it is far from perfect but we've got to be wary of asset strippers who come in with entirely the wrong reasons for owning a football club. That's all I am saying. I haven't been to the Mem this season but I doubt it is any different to two seasons ago when I saw us lose 1-0 at home to Accrington in a dilapidated stadium playing rubbish football. Or the year before when we lost at home to Accrington 1-0 playing rubbish football in a dilapidated stadium. If this consortium does exist then I suspect that old chestnut "proof of funds" has prevented any deal going through. Mr Higgs, for all his faults, can hardly be accused of asset stripping. Yes, he was hoping to clear his debts and no doubt make a decent profit from the UWE but no one could ever accuse him or the other directors of selling off our best players and other assets in order to turn a profit. If that was the case we would be languishing in the Conference still with a bunch of 18-year-old trainees and non-league journeymen wearing the quarters. LOL what asset is left to strip?? If we lose the Sainsbury's case debts will be around £10m the club's only asset is the Mem and what's that worth with no pp for anything but a supermarket nobody now wants? As far as selling off our best players which player is likely to have any transfer value, just EH and he spent most of last season on the transfer list! NH knew we really had one season to return to league football so had to give DC a dcent playing budget or we'd be the next Torquay/Grimsby and the UWE dream would well and truely be dead. |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 25, 2015 10:11:58 GMT
Topper we all know it is far from perfect but we've got to be wary of asset strippers who come in with entirely the wrong reasons for owning a football club. That's all I am saying. I haven't been to the Mem this season but I doubt it is any different to two seasons ago when I saw us lose 1-0 at home to Accrington in a dilapidated stadium playing rubbish football. Or the year before when we lost at home to Accrington 1-0 playing rubbish football in a dilapidated stadium. If this consortium does exist then I suspect that old chestnut "proof of funds" has prevented any deal going through. Mr Higgs, for all his faults, can hardly be accused of asset stripping. Yes, he was hoping to clear his debts and no doubt make a decent profit from the UWE but no one could ever accuse him or the other directors of selling off our best players and other assets in order to turn a profit. If that was the case we would be languishing in the Conference still with a bunch of 18-year-old trainees and non-league journeymen wearing the quarters. LOL what asset is left to strip?? If we lose the Sainsbury's case debts will be around £10m the club's only asset is the Mem and what's that worth with no pp for anything but a supermarket nobody now wants? As far as selling off our best players which player is likely to have any transfer value, just EH and he spent most of last season on the transfer list! NH knew we really had one season to return to league football so had to give DC a dcent playing budget or we'd be the next Torquay/Grimsby and the UWE dream would well and truely be dead. Agree, but Leads would; and I said that before this season - he has so much potential. IMO, he'll be the next player to leave Rovers for a fee (and a good one at that)... unless EH was to hit serious form; in which DL will be the next player after that to fetch a few (provided he doesn't leave on a free due to his contract running down or something like that). |
|
|
|
Post by phillistine on Sept 25, 2015 10:14:06 GMT
Topper we all know it is far from perfect but we've got to be wary of asset strippers who come in with entirely the wrong reasons for owning a football club. That's all I am saying. I haven't been to the Mem this season but I doubt it is any different to two seasons ago when I saw us lose 1-0 at home to Accrington in a dilapidated stadium playing rubbish football. Or the year before when we lost at home to Accrington 1-0 playing rubbish football in a dilapidated stadium. If this consortium does exist then I suspect that old chestnut "proof of funds" has prevented any deal going through. Mr Higgs, for all his faults, can hardly be accused of asset stripping. Yes, he was hoping to clear his debts and no doubt make a decent profit from the UWE but no one could ever accuse him or the other directors of selling off our best players and other assets in order to turn a profit. If that was the case we would be languishing in the Conference still with a bunch of 18-year-old trainees and non-league journeymen wearing the quarters. If the reported investors are prepared to use their own money to build UWE to the original specification, how can they be thought of as possible "asset stripers", it's one hell of a gamble.
I agree with Topper, for once, with that type of investment they will want a return and I have no problem with that. In fact, for BRFC to make a "running profit" would be good for a change. Remember, it will NOT be possible to tie up any loans on the UWE stadium, so as I said, it is one hell of a risk investing £250k yet alone the reported £40m.
It's good to see more sensible comments now being made, even though the bare bones of any investment have not been disclosed yet. As I believe the clubs AGM is some time in early October, I'm sure that the full details will emerge BEFORE that date as that will have the biggest impact on the AGM and the Chairman could be in for a very difficult meeting. As a shareholder, I am looking forward to it.
"If the reported investors are prepared to use their own money to build UWE".... You said it yourself - "If". How do you know that they wont take control and then sell the Mem without investing money in the club? This almost happened at Bath a few years ago when a Consortium tried to acquire the club with the intention of moving them out of the city and then cashing in on prime building land in the city of Bath. They were stopped because the club was run by true fans who basically kicked the idea into touch. I am not sure why people think the Consortium want to invest in us. Foreigners invest in Premier League clubs as an ego trip but we are talking about UK investors who dont seem to be fans with an emotional attachment to the club . It can only be because they want financial return - something which no-one else has succesfully done. If indeed they have spoken to NH it would be interesting to know what the proposition was. Nick Higgs may have made mistakes but he was a Bristol Rovers fan before he was a Director and I believe that counts for a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Sept 25, 2015 10:14:36 GMT
Not at all. I have no problem with a successful chairman making money out of us. I can stomach a failure covering his loans. I am less comfortable with someone leaving us in a worse position that we could end up being trapped in. Is that unreasonable? I have always been supportive of Nick Higgs in the past whilst wishing and encouraging him to do better. If he stays in charge then I'm not going to drag out the Higgs out banner. I posted in response to Bucko suggesting that what NH has planned is preferable to asset stripping. My position is that IF (because in fairness none of really have a clue) Plan B is: NH gets his money back and we sell the mem for a 1/3 of the uwe then that's unacceptable. Do you/we actually know what NH has planned other than appealing the Sainsburys verdict. Nope,no idea. I'm simply talking within the context of this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 25, 2015 10:15:04 GMT
You can hardly say NH has turned down bids for Leads though, which is surely what BR was suggesting?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Sept 25, 2015 10:20:13 GMT
If the reported investors are prepared to use their own money to build UWE to the original specification, how can they be thought of as possible "asset stripers", it's one hell of a gamble.
I agree with Topper, for once, with that type of investment they will want a return and I have no problem with that. In fact, for BRFC to make a "running profit" would be good for a change. Remember, it will NOT be possible to tie up any loans on the UWE stadium, so as I said, it is one hell of a risk investing £250k yet alone the reported £40m.
It's good to see more sensible comments now being made, even though the bare bones of any investment have not been disclosed yet. As I believe the clubs AGM is some time in early October, I'm sure that the full details will emerge BEFORE that date as that will have the biggest impact on the AGM and the Chairman could be in for a very difficult meeting. As a shareholder, I am looking forward to it.
"If the reported investors are prepared to use their own money to build UWE".... You said it yourself - "If". How do you know that they wont take control and then sell the Mem without investing money in the club? This almost happened at Bath a few years ago when a Consortium tried to acquire the club with the intention of moving them out of the city and then cashing in on prime building land in the city of Bath. They were stopped because the club was run by true fans who basically kicked the idea into touch. I am not sure why people think the Consortium want to invest in us. Foreigners invest in Premier League clubs as an ego trip but we are talking about UK investors who dont seem to be fans with an emotional attachment to the club . It can only be because they want financial return - something which no-one else has succesfully done. If indeed they have spoken to NH it would be interesting to know what the proposition was. Nick Higgs may have made mistakes but he was a Bristol Rovers fan before he was a Director and I believe that counts for a lot. I agree. Most of what has been said so far is pure conjecture. Personally I want to hear an open and honest discussion from the current board and the rumoured consortium before I fully take sides with fans made aware of their plans to take us forward. I realize that's about as likely as Baggins doing a days work but we live in hope. |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 25, 2015 10:38:41 GMT
You can hardly say NH has turned down bids for Leads though, which is surely what BR was suggesting? Well no, but I was simply stating he's worth some money. And if he stays here long enough, it won't be long before we are fending off bids IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 25, 2015 10:39:50 GMT
You can hardly say NH has turned down bids for Leads though, which is surely what BR was suggesting? Well no, but I was simply stating he's worth some money. And if he stays here long enough, it won't be long before we are fending off bids IMO. Or accepting the first decent offer made?? |
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Sept 25, 2015 10:40:37 GMT
If the reported investors are prepared to use their own money to build UWE to the original specification, how can they be thought of as possible "asset stripers", it's one hell of a gamble.
I agree with Topper, for once, with that type of investment they will want a return and I have no problem with that. In fact, for BRFC to make a "running profit" would be good for a change. Remember, it will NOT be possible to tie up any loans on the UWE stadium, so as I said, it is one hell of a risk investing £250k yet alone the reported £40m.
It's good to see more sensible comments now being made, even though the bare bones of any investment have not been disclosed yet. As I believe the clubs AGM is some time in early October, I'm sure that the full details will emerge BEFORE that date as that will have the biggest impact on the AGM and the Chairman could be in for a very difficult meeting. As a shareholder, I am looking forward to it.
"If the reported investors are prepared to use their own money to build UWE".... You said it yourself - "If". How do you know that they wont take control and then sell the Mem without investing money in the club? This almost happened at Bath a few years ago when a Consortium tried to acquire the club with the intention of moving them out of the city and then cashing in on prime building land in the city of Bath. They were stopped because the club was run by true fans who basically kicked the idea into touch. I am not sure why people think the Consortium want to invest in us. Foreigners invest in Premier League clubs as an ego trip but we are talking about UK investors who dont seem to be fans with an emotional attachment to the club . It can only be because they want financial return - something which no-one else has succesfully done. If indeed they have spoken to NH it would be interesting to know what the proposition was. Nick Higgs may have made mistakes but he was a Bristol Rovers fan before he was a Director and I believe that counts for a lot. Yes, it is "If".
I'm sure that NH will ask for proof of those funds, you cannot rustle up a reported £40m from nowhere.
Whilst I have not seen or heard NH's comments that he has not been approached by any "consortium" and that he will not deem to reply to "rumours", is he really saying that over the last few weeks he has not been approached by "anyone" with regard to an investment/takeover and he has no idea of any such approach.
He can, of course refuse to answer that but he will find it very difficult to fob off such a question at the AGM.
|
|
|
|
Post by justin blue on Sept 25, 2015 10:47:04 GMT
"If the reported investors are prepared to use their own money to build UWE".... You said it yourself - "If". How do you know that they wont take control and then sell the Mem without investing money in the club? This almost happened at Bath a few years ago when a Consortium tried to acquire the club with the intention of moving them out of the city and then cashing in on prime building land in the city of Bath. They were stopped because the club was run by true fans who basically kicked the idea into touch. I am not sure why people think the Consortium want to invest in us. Foreigners invest in Premier League clubs as an ego trip but we are talking about UK investors who dont seem to be fans with an emotional attachment to the club . It can only be because they want financial return - something which no-one else has succesfully done. If indeed they have spoken to NH it would be interesting to know what the proposition was. Nick Higgs may have made mistakes but he was a Bristol Rovers fan before he was a Director and I believe that counts for a lot. Yes, it is "If".
I'm sure that NH will ask for proof of those funds, you cannot rustle up a reported £40m from nowhere.
Whilst I have not seen or heard NH's comments that he has not been approached by any "consortium" and that he will not deem to reply to "rumours", is he really saying that over the last few weeks he has not been approached by "anyone" with regard to an investment/takeover and he has no idea of any such approach.
He can, of course refuse to answer that but he will find it very difficult to fob off such a question at the AGM.
He hasn't said anything. |
|
