Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 22:38:51 GMT
Whats done is done mate. As far as Im concerned its as good as a blood promise. but is it a water tight contract
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 22:41:14 GMT
Whats done is done mate. As far as Im concerned its as good as a blood promise. Blood? You mean there's teeth involved? kev, i do suffer from insomnia.... you're not helping mate....
|
|
|
Post by dmacca65 on Aug 7, 2014 7:21:54 GMT
Can't help but think that sometimes us Rovers fans get exactly what we deserve. If we had half as much about us as some people believe..we wouldn't be rolling over so easily. It's really sad. Just redevelop the Mem? What, so another 3 years of planning and objections etc. We will cease to exist before that! 40000 letters hand written was what was required and nobody could be ar5ed. A couple of greens have scuppered the whole bl00dy thing while so many Sat and watched. Barely 6000 can be arsed to turn up at the men, so I guess expecting 40000 to write letters is a little optimistic, why would you write a letter in support of a 21700 capacity stadium knowing you only had a 50/50 chance of being able to attend. A 42000 capacity stadium is required for all those writers! This football club will never cease to exist, new stadium or not, it might be a bitter pill to swallow as a nice new state of the art stadium is the thing every fan dreams of me included, but I think a bit of realism is required here if the UWE doesn't happen Twerton is not the answer, we need to be as close to our roots as possible, the Memorial Stadium fits the bill, but requires updating, what other option is there?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 7, 2014 7:29:59 GMT
Sainsbury still want the Mem, they just don't want to pay what the agreed to in the contract
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Aug 7, 2014 8:02:08 GMT
Sainsbury still want the Mem, they just don't want to pay what the agreed to in the contract I'll try that one next time I'm in Sainsbury's.
"I still want my £60 shop, but I want it for £40."
|
|
|
Post by gasheadnaboo on Aug 7, 2014 12:08:53 GMT
Surely if the UWE stadium was going to be such the moneyspinner the BoD say it will, it would be relatively easy to raise the money to cover any of the shortfall from Sainsbury's through external investment/stadium share distribution? Or is their foremost concern retaining 100% of the pie for themselves??
|
|
|
Post by amgas on Aug 7, 2014 12:13:56 GMT
Yes, because the right thing to do is to let Sainsbury's get away with paying less, and just borrow the rest - after all it is not like if they borrowed more they would have to pay it back using money that would otherwise be going on building a decent team etc .....
The idea that the BOD have done anything other than bankroll the club is laughable - some may argue they have had to do so due to poor management, but the idea that they are taking any money out of the club is frankly a joke. If UWE was a huge success and we had some success on the field they might get some of the money back they have poured into the club, but there are much easier ways to make money than running a lower league football club.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 12:34:38 GMT
Sainsbury still want the Mem, they just don't want to pay what the agreed to in the contract Haha, as mentioned above I'm sure they wouldn't put up with bargaining from customers. Let's be honest, given how much money would be generated from the supermarket, it does water me off that this is what is causing the delay.
|
|
|
Post by ganymede on Aug 7, 2014 12:34:53 GMT
Surely if the UWE stadium was going to be such the moneyspinner the BoD say it will, it would be relatively easy to raise the money to cover any of the shortfall from Sainsbury's through external investment/stadium share distribution? Or is their foremost concern retaining 100% of the pie for themselves?? Deep down not many believe that the UWE stadium will be a moneyspinner for a BRFC (certainly not to the extent of being able to generate profits to pay back large borrowing now). Any increase in revenue from the UWE will simply help the club to manage its day-to-day financial needs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 12:45:08 GMT
Surely if the UWE stadium was going to be such the moneyspinner the BoD say it will, it would be relatively easy to raise the money to cover any of the shortfall from Sainsbury's through external investment/stadium share distribution? Or is their foremost concern retaining 100% of the pie for themselves?? Deep down not many believe that the UWE stadium will be a moneyspinner for a BRFC (certainly not to the extent of being able to generate profits to pay back large borrowing now). Any increase in revenue from the UWE will simply help the club to manage its day-to-day financial needs. Yes the board stated at the q and a that the addiional revenue will be used to reduce the yearly investment needed by the board rather then to increase budgets. I have no problem at all with that and the only way the stadium will generate bigger budgets is if we get bigger gates.
|
|
|
Post by gasheadnaboo on Aug 7, 2014 13:06:19 GMT
Yes, because the right thing to do is to let Sainsbury's get away with paying less, and just borrow the rest - after all it is not like if they borrowed more they would have to pay it back using money that would otherwise be going on building a decent team etc ..... The idea that the BOD have done anything other than bankroll the club is laughable - some may argue they have had to do so due to poor management, but the idea that they are taking any money out of the club is frankly a joke. If UWE was a huge success and we had some success on the field they might get some of the money back they have poured into the club, but there are much easier ways to make money than running a lower league football club. Calm down you drama queen I'm not saying we should, I'm merely saying unless we can force Sainsbury's to pay the full amount and the UWE is such a sound investment then surely a 50% or more share of something is better than 100% of nothing.
|
|
|
Post by phillistine on Aug 7, 2014 13:24:36 GMT
Yes, because the right thing to do is to let Sainsbury's get away with paying less, and just borrow the rest - after all it is not like if they borrowed more they would have to pay it back using money that would otherwise be going on building a decent team etc ..... The idea that the BOD have done anything other than bankroll the club is laughable - some may argue they have had to do so due to poor management, but the idea that they are taking any money out of the club is frankly a joke. If UWE was a huge success and we had some success on the field they might get some of the money back they have poured into the club, but there are much easier ways to make money than running a lower league football club. Calm down you drama queen I'm not saying we should, I'm merely saying unless we can force Sainsbury's to pay the full amount and the UWE is such a sound investment then surely a 50% or more share of something is better than 100% of nothing. But why when there is a contract in force? How do you think hey would have reacted if we had undervalued it and went back and asked for another £10 million as we got the original valuation wrong?
|
|
|
Post by ganymede on Aug 7, 2014 14:54:14 GMT
Calm down you drama queen I'm not saying we should, I'm merely saying unless we can force Sainsbury's to pay the full amount and the UWE is such a sound investment then surely a 50% or more share of something is better than 100% of nothing. But why when there is a contract in force? How do you think hey would have reacted if we had undervalued it and went back and asked for another £10 million as we got the original valuation wrong? As I see it ... there is a contract in place at a price tag which Sainsbury offered ... they have the financial clout to pay it ... they pride themselves on good business ethics ... they should honour the deal. if the boot was on the other foot (Gas accepting an undervalued price) then they would hold us to it. I just hope watertight is just that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 16:59:03 GMT
Yes, because the right thing to do is to let Sainsbury's get away with paying less, and just borrow the rest - after all it is not like if they borrowed more they would have to pay it back using money that would otherwise be going on building a decent team etc ..... The idea that the BOD have done anything other than bankroll the club is laughable - some may argue they have had to do so due to poor management, but the idea that they are taking any money out of the club is frankly a joke. If UWE was a huge success and we had some success on the field they might get some of the money back they have poured into the club, but there are much easier ways to make money than running a lower league football club. Then why don't they let someone else have a go ? Before you say no one wants it then the latest was Darryl Eales who tried to buy just 8 weeks ago. We also have had others try. The debts have been built up by the board by allowing silly contracts and by not giving due care and attention to business matters. They put money in yes but they have shares for that and are not in a losing position. If the assets sold then they are very well compensated and they get interest on their loans above any banks rate.
|
|
|
Post by amgas on Aug 7, 2014 17:09:57 GMT
Where did that come from ? Who is he ? How much did he offer ? How much was he willing to invest ? If he really wanted to buy us and had a price in mind why did he not go public ? If he had a reasonable plan and was willing to pay a decent price, the pressure on the board would have been huge if he went public, especially if he had £Millions to plough into the team and/or stadium.
Edit : So google reveals he bought 30% of Oxford who have no assets as they don't own their stadium , and had made a £30M offer for Birmingham, would have thought if he wanted Birmingham for £30M ( The asset value of the Mem ! ) he would not have been willing to stump up more for a conference club. Clearly he just wanted any football club, think I would still rather have a board that are supporters rather than a random that just wanted any football club.
For someone to buy us you have to start at the asset value of the Mem otherwise there is a risk someone could buy us for £10 Million, move us to Twerton and sell the Mem for a quick profit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 17:50:25 GMT
Where did that come from ? Who is he ? How much did he offer ? How much was he willing to invest ? If he really wanted to buy us and had a price in mind why did he not go public ? If he had a reasonable plan and was willing to pay a decent price, the pressure on the board would have been huge if he went public, especially if he had £Millions to plough into the team and/or stadium. Edit : So google reveals he bought 30% of Oxford who have no assets as they don't own their stadium , and had made a £30M offer for Birmingham, would have thought if he wanted Birmingham for £30M ( The asset value of the Mem ! ) he would not have been willing to stump up more for a conference club. Clearly he just wanted any football club, think I would still rather have a board that are supporters rather than a random that just wanted any football club. For someone to buy us you have to start at the asset value of the Mem otherwise there is a risk someone could buy us for £10 Million, move us to Twerton and sell the Mem for a quick profit. It's pretty common knowledge. We turned him down on the veto of one board member. He fronts up some serious investment and is not a foreigner or Tann like figure. I don't get those who say, as you do, that they would prefer this lot to someone new, not foreign and who was genuinely interested. If we want a successful team then we need new investment. My understanding is the the club went back to him but it was too little, too late. There have been offers. Our board just see fit to turn them away. The last time we were put up for sale, when GD said there were no takers, he valued us the same value as Aston Villa lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 6:42:12 GMT
There was an internal takeover attempt too apparantly but again GD said no.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Sept 10, 2014 19:16:37 GMT
Seems like we are not the only ones with dramas! m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29144491Tottenham Hotspur face having to play all their home matches away from White Hart Lane for one season. A legal wrangle means they are "highly unlikely" to move into their new stadium as scheduled for 2017-18. The Premier League club may have to find an alternative venue while construction work is carried out. Plans for the 56,250-capacity stadium, next to their current White Hart Lane ground, are being challenged by the landowners. Progress on the project appeared to take a big step forward in July when a compulsory purchase order of land was approved. Possible alternative venues Stadium Who plays there Capacity Distance from White Hart Lane Wembley England and selected matches 90,000 12.7 miles Olympic Stadium No one, until West Ham in summer 2016 54,000 6 miles Stadium MK Milton Keynes Dons 30,000 48.6 miles But a Spurs statement issued on Wednesday said that decision was being challenged in the High Court and the club fear they will not able to move into the new stadium for the start of the 2017-18 season. "The club has revised its construction programme in order to take the shortest possible time to construct," said the statement. "This now therefore involves the club moving away from the Lane during construction for a period of one season, to start at the beginning of a season in order to comply with Premier League rules. "We are currently undertaking due diligence on alternative stadium options." The stadium would be built as part of a development that would also include the land their current home (capacity 36,240) stands on (external). In 2011, Tottenham lost out to West Ham in a bid to move to the Olympic Stadium in Stratford. The venue - which will be the Hammers' home from the 2016-17 season - is reportedly among alternatives, together with Wembley and Milton Keynes Dons, being considered for the time away from White Hart Lane. But with West Ham established as the prime tenant, it is thought the Olympic Stadium is not a front-runner in the search for a temporary home.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Sept 10, 2014 20:54:46 GMT
I'm sure Arsenal would be very understanding in these difficult times.
If all else fails they could try Twerton Park. It has a proven history of success for lodgers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 22:32:41 GMT
I don't see why the stadium is a dead duck the permission is there we have the potential ok if sainsburys falls through we have to look for other backers. Surely there has got to be the interest out there and all the hard work has been done. Just needs investment.
|
|