|
Post by chewbacca on Jul 23, 2016 11:53:33 GMT
So this thread is basically "I'm annoyed because I am not told every tiny detail".
Sure.
|
|
|
Post by yategas78 on Jul 23, 2016 12:40:28 GMT
I am not in the know but I heard that NH when negotiating the deal with UWE agreed that any profits from the bars and catering would go to the UWE and that is a bit of a sticking point for Wael and company probably because he seen now packed the club house gets on match days!! Anyway as I said I am not ITK just saying what I was told UTG!
|
|
|
Post by hargravegas on Jul 23, 2016 12:44:44 GMT
Arguing over rights to catering etc is actually really sensible, without it we could have Coventry style problems.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jul 23, 2016 12:45:47 GMT
I am not in the know but I heard that NH when negotiating the deal with UWE agreed that any profits from the bars and catering would go to the UWE and that is a bit of a sticking point for Wael and company probably because he seen now packed the club house gets on match days!! Anyway as I said I am not ITK just saying what I was told UTG! I think come the end with the whole sainsburys thing NH and co was prepared to give up all sorts to get it built
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 12:50:11 GMT
I get the impression the situation is more complex than we thought, land ownership etc. would be important too if that was an issue.
I said all along that I'd like to hear something on the stadium by the autumn, I think judging by Hamer's comments the other week we may well see that (fingers crossed)
People have higher expectations now with the board, which I think is unfair if a lot of the delay has been private discussions with UWE. Money or no money, it there's important stuff to talk over it takes time.
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Jul 23, 2016 13:05:28 GMT
I am not in the know but I heard that NH when negotiating the deal with UWE agreed that any profits from the bars and catering would go to the UWE and that is a bit of a sticking point for Wael and company probably because he seen now packed the club house gets on match days!! Anyway as I said I am not ITK just saying what I was told UTG! I know a lot of people would like this to be true but I am pretty sure no such deal was ever done. I think the sticking point is far more complicated yet more simple than that, hence the time delay. See what I did ? no answers just more questions.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Jul 23, 2016 13:07:33 GMT
When he gave the last update, everyone moaned as they said what was the point of the update. No news probably just means no new news lol. If we were finished negotiation with UWE, be it good news or bad news, then I'm sure we will hear something.
Whatever they do people will moan.
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Jul 23, 2016 17:45:43 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if new ground is built elsewhere other than uwe or stadium redesigned. I am still hearing the wael and Hamer are visiting grounds. Can only believe changes are being made.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 23, 2016 17:53:45 GMT
Arguing over rights to catering etc is actually really sensible, without it we could have Coventry style problems. I think it is exactly like this. Coventry and Oxford both desperately wanted new grounds and agreed to deals which were not in the long term interests of the clubs. It seems incredible that both would want another new ground only 12 years or so after moving in. This is why the planning over freehold/leasehold and income rights has to be in our favour. It takes time. We don't want to be repeating this problem 10 years down the line. So we have to be patient, let Wael and co get the planning stuff correct and in our favour over the long term. And yes it is very frustrating but the alternative was awful! Just imagine the last board might have agreed to anything just to build it and it would have taken a few years before the problems came out. I have faith that these people will get it done correctly, albeit not very quickly. It will be good when we have actual football to moan about! UTG!
|
|
|
Post by bluegas on Jul 23, 2016 17:59:15 GMT
Arguing over rights to catering etc is actually really sensible, without it we could have Coventry style problems. I think it is exactly like this. Coventry and Oxford both desperately wanted new grounds and agreed to deals which were not in the long term interests of the clubs. It seems incredible that both would want another new ground only 12 years or so after moving in. This is why the planning over freehold/leasehold and income rights has to be in our favour. It takes time. We don't want to be repeating this problem 10 years down the line. So we have to be patient, let Wael and co get the planning stuff correct and in our favour over the long term. And yes it is very frustrating but the alternative was awful! Just imagine the last board might have agreed to anything just to build it and it would have taken a few years before the problems came out. I have faith that these people will get it done correctly, albeit not very quickly. It will be good when we have actual football to moan about! UTG! Ooohh, you're so sensible & rational......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 18:03:42 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if new ground is built elsewhere other than uwe or stadium redesigned. I am still hearing the wael and Hamer are visiting grounds. Can only believe changes are being made. Where did you hear this from?
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Jul 23, 2016 18:26:38 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if new ground is built elsewhere other than uwe or stadium redesigned. I am still hearing the wael and Hamer are visiting grounds. Can only believe changes are being made. Where did you hear this from? Gert lush bristolian. Ow I miss ee!
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jul 23, 2016 20:26:14 GMT
Arguing over rights to catering etc is actually really sensible, without it we could have Coventry style problems. I think it is exactly like this. Coventry and Oxford both desperately wanted new grounds and agreed to deals which were not in the long term interests of the clubs. It seems incredible that both would want another new ground only 12 years or so after moving in. This is why the planning over freehold/leasehold and income rights has to be in our favour. It takes time. We don't want to be repeating this problem 10 years down the line. So we have to be patient, let Wael and co get the planning stuff correct and in our favour over the long term. And yes it is very frustrating but the alternative was awful! Just imagine the last board might have agreed to anything just to build it and it would have taken a few years before the problems came out. I have faith that these people will get it done correctly, albeit not very quickly. It will be good when we have actual football to moan about! UTG! I don't think you can compare the efforts of Nick Higgs with the debacle at the Ricoh. The owners of Coventry City agreed a rent of over £1m a year to use the stadium, with a minimal interest in income from food and drink, and nothing from all the other events. Expecting a quick return to the Premier League in their shiny new stadium to cover the costs, when in fact things went Pete Tong for Coventry, there was no way they could afford the rent. Hence the exile in Northampton in front of crowds of 2,500. They now pay £100k a year, just a tenth of the original rent, presumably because without Coventry City, the Ricoh is a massive white elephant. Higgs may not have been negotiating from a position of strength, but had we got to the UWE under his tenure, we would as a minimum have owned the stadium, if not the land. We may be better off without him, but in my opinion Nick Higgs as a gashead would never have led us down the disastrous financial path that the hedge fund owners of Coventry City led their club.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 23, 2016 20:36:45 GMT
I think it is exactly like this. Coventry and Oxford both desperately wanted new grounds and agreed to deals which were not in the long term interests of the clubs. It seems incredible that both would want another new ground only 12 years or so after moving in. This is why the planning over freehold/leasehold and income rights has to be in our favour. It takes time. We don't want to be repeating this problem 10 years down the line. So we have to be patient, let Wael and co get the planning stuff correct and in our favour over the long term. And yes it is very frustrating but the alternative was awful! Just imagine the last board might have agreed to anything just to build it and it would have taken a few years before the problems came out. I have faith that these people will get it done correctly, albeit not very quickly. It will be good when we have actual football to moan about! UTG! Ooohh, you're so sensible & rational...... Not really, it's just after over 50 years of following Rovers I have seen so many false dawns over new grounds that I know that whatever happens we will survive and, at times, thrive. But this is the first time I have ever felt so optimistic about the people owning us. Wael and co, from what I've seen are professional businessmen with oodles of common sense who, given time, will be successful (I hope!) After all this time I don't see waiting for a couple of years to get the infrastructure right is that bad especially now that they are taking a sensible approach over updating the Mem in a way that will enable them to get back any costs through increased income. It just seems like a measured, sensible plan that will enable more people to see Rovers. UTG!
|
|
|
Post by CrispPusher on Jul 23, 2016 20:42:13 GMT
I am not in the know but I heard that NH when negotiating the deal with UWE agreed that any profits from the bars and catering would go to the UWE and that is a bit of a sticking point for Wael and company probably because he seen now packed the club house gets on match days!! Anyway as I said I am not ITK just saying what I was told UTG! I know a lot of people would like this to be true but I am pretty sure no such deal was ever done. I think the sticking point is far more complicated yet more simple than that, hence the time delay. See what I did ? no answers just more questions. You're probably right, a lot of the stuff we hear about the UWE sounds like guess work to me. We will know what is happening one way or the other by November, don't understand the impatience myself?
|
|
|
Post by kylegas on Jul 23, 2016 21:24:37 GMT
Uh oh, the Taylor distraction wore off lol
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Jul 23, 2016 22:07:45 GMT
Uwe is the only game in town, no other site has the access, transport links and the potential increase in future population. You would think all this would offset a deal that is marginally more in favour of uwe than we'd like it to be. In an ideal world yes we'd like everything to be perfect. Throw this away now and it will be a six or seven year wait by which time all the goodwill and progress built will have disappeared.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Jul 23, 2016 22:14:36 GMT
especially now that they are taking a sensible approach over updating the Mem in a way that will enable them to get back any costs through increased income. It just seems like a measured, sensible plan that will enable more people to see Rovers. UTG! The South Stand has been revamped or it would have been empty for the season. Our friends at H & S were about to see to that. The Dribuild stand will become the major issue in the near future. That's why we need progress on a new stadium ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Jul 23, 2016 22:17:09 GMT
Uwe is the only game in town, no other site has the access, transport links and the potential increase in future population. You would think all this would offset a deal that is marginally more in favour of uwe than we'd like it to be. In an ideal world yes we'd like everything to be perfect. Throw this away now and it will be a six or seven year wait by which time all the goodwill and progress built will have disappeared. No it's not. In fact there is a potential alternative site that Rovers have been made aware of. The downside is that we would have to go through the planning stages again. The advantage is that it is again in South Gloucs.
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Jul 23, 2016 22:20:25 GMT
Uwe is the only game in town, no other site has the access, transport links and the potential increase in future population. You would think all this would offset a deal that is marginally more in favour of uwe than we'd like it to be. In an ideal world yes we'd like everything to be perfect. Throw this away now and it will be a six or seven year wait by which time all the goodwill and progress built will have disappeared. No it's not. In fact there is a potential alternative site that Rovers have been made aware of. The downside is that we would have to go through the planning stages again. The advantage is that it is again in South Gloucs. whereabouts? Comparable transport links?
|
|