|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 7, 2015 12:33:12 GMT
I'm thinking that this is a tricky time, and with high stakes for the club, but that the Board have so far made the best of difficulties which were not of their making
maybe time will tell us more about whether that's right
what do others think, with the benefit of hindsight, we/they might have done better in respect of this deal?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2015 12:56:36 GMT
Yes they should of sold it to Tesco!
|
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Mar 7, 2015 13:00:56 GMT
I don't think much else could have been done WRT the stadium project to be honest. As I have said before, we were sabotaged by the NIMBYs and we are now being shafted by Sainsburys.
What could have been done infinitely better is separating the management of the stadium project from the management of the football club. ISTM that we were sleep walking itowards the conference while the board were focusing elsewhere. UWE was seen as THE platform for on field success.
There was no short to medium term strategy for development of the team and every footballing decision made in the last 3 or 4 years has been reactive.
|
|
dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872 
|
Post by dagnogo on Mar 7, 2015 13:06:00 GMT
The board have done what they could re the stadium. Higgs not being entirely honest in his Radio Bristol interview is the only black mark.
As the poster above said, the football side of things has been a catalogue of errors.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Mar 7, 2015 13:21:19 GMT
The board have done what they could re the stadium. Higgs not being entirely honest in his Radio Bristol interview is the only black mark. As the poster above said, the football side of things has been a catalogue of errors. Hard to disagree with that. A mismanaged transfer of power to DC looks like the only footballing decision of recent years that might turn out well. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Mar 7, 2015 13:31:09 GMT
One thing's for sure, the directors may be skilled businessmen in their own field, but their transferable skills in running a football club leave alot to be desired. The board have allowed us to slip way below expectations almost to the point of oblivion.
If they ran their snackbox, construction company (amongst others) in a similar way to our beloved club, they would be anonymous failed businessmen.
I'm hoping the experience of sealing legally binding contracts, favourable credit histories and the fact they are actually Bristol Rovers supporters will produce positive outcome in Sainsburygate. But as the mistrust between club and supporters has been at an all time low, I won't hold my breath for anything more optimistic than faith.
Because at the moment, that's all I feel I have..
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Mar 7, 2015 13:36:05 GMT
Speaking purely about the stadium issue, I don't really think that the BoD can really be faulted. They really have had a tortuous time dealing with all of the various Planning Committee hearings, TRASH and now, to cap it all Sainsbury's trying to withdraw from the purchase of The Mem.
If TRASH hadn't become involved, then I think that there is every chance that things would have progressed in an orderly fashion. But because of their time-consuming intervention(s), this has had the effect of upsetting the timescale of the project, with disastrous results for BRFC.
Even with the benefit of hindsight, I don't think that the BoD can be criticised for their actions regarding the stadium project.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 7, 2015 13:41:43 GMT
I don't think much else could have been done WRT the stadium project to be honest. As I have said before, we were sabotaged by the NIMBYs and we are now being shafted by Sainsburys. What could have been done infinitely better is separating the management of the stadium project from the management of the football club. ISTM that we were sleep walking itowards the conference while the board were focusing elsewhere. UWE was seen as THE platform for on field success. There was no short to medium term strategy for development of the team and every footballing decision made in the last 3 or 4 years has been reactive. I woupd agree with that, would add Nicks not quite honesty on Radio Bristol was bad and was some sort of trying to save face when the truth that there were issues to sort out would have been better. What worries me now is what me could be risking to try and push this through. If we could negotiate a decent settlement prior to the case can we turn that down |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 7, 2015 15:08:24 GMT
I'm thinking that this is a tricky time, and with high stakes for the club, but that the Board have so far made the best of difficulties which were not of their making maybe time will tell us more about whether that's right what do others think, with the benefit of hindsight, we/they might have done better in respect of this deal? The relationship between Rovers fans and the board must be the longest "let's give them the benefit of the doubt" saga in history. Nick told me about what turned out to be the UWE Stadium project long before it was made public and his words were "it might be a step too far". I wrote to him on September 19th 2009, but did not receive a reply, and here is an extract from my letter. " To my mind such an outside investor with the necessary resources to completely fund the stadium project, modernise the business and ensure income streams are fed back into the club would provide the best option for BRFC. I realise it’s easy to say this from the sidelines but in my view the club exists to provide maximum enjoyment for all it’s supporters, including the owners, and it can’t be much fun having to cope with up’s and down’s on the field as well as continually funding financial losses" The time to look for outside investors and the time to engage a PR consultant was at the outset of the project not when it's on the verge of collapse. The same common sense applies whether you are building a £20 000 extension to your home, opening a chip shop or starting a 40 million stadium project. You plan for every foreseeable contingency, you get your finances in place and you make sure all the people necessary for the project to succeed fully on board with you. |
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 7, 2015 15:14:42 GMT
The same common sense applies whether you are building a £20 000 extension to your home, opening a chip shop or starting a 40 million stadium project. You plan for every foreseeable contingency, you get your finances in place and you make sure all the people necessary for the project to succeed fully on board with you. the thing is swiss, they did seem to many of us to have the finances well-enough planned. And it might yet turn out that they had
the stuff about the 'benefit of the doubt story' is off-topic background IMO - chucked in as colour, rather than as part of the answer. The 'outside investor' thing isn't though - but was a path they either chose not to follow, or didn't have the opportunity of following. An interesting approach though, and at least you took the trouble to communicate direct, rather than rant on forums like most of the rest of us
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2015 17:31:17 GMT
I don't think much else could have been done WRT the stadium project to be honest. As I have said before, we were sabotaged by the NIMBYs and we are now being shafted by Sainsburys. They could have taken professional advice that outlined the absolute worst case maximum time that it could have taken to obtain full detailed permission and incorporated that into the contract? |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 7, 2015 17:45:17 GMT
The same common sense applies whether you are building a £20 000 extension to your home, opening a chip shop or starting a 40 million stadium project. You plan for every foreseeable contingency, you get your finances in place and you make sure all the people necessary for the project to succeed fully on board with you. the thing is swiss, they did seem to many of us to have the finances well-enough planned. And it might yet turn out that they had
the stuff about the 'benefit of the doubt story' is off-topic background IMO - chucked in as colour, rather than as part of the answer. The 'outside investor' thing isn't though - but was a path they either chose not to follow, or didn't have the opportunity of following. An interesting approach though, and at least you took the trouble to communicate direct, rather than rant on forums like most of the rest of us
I agree AMPG many fans thought Nick had the finances well-enough planned but was that purely because he told us he did ? He wasn't very willing to answer questions when people asked for detail was he ? Their track record shows the board are weak at planning and weak at communicating so it's questionable whether they planned the finances properly or communicated with their partners properly. The immediate, shoot from the hip, response to those comments will be "how on earth could Rovers have known Sainsburys were going to pull out and what could they have done about it even if they had known ?" But if you take a moment to think about it the answer is planning and communication. The wording of the writ issued in July 2014 illustrates that communication between Rovers and Sainsburys was poor and quite likely had been poor for some time. We are Rovers fans so we desperately want to give Nick the benefit of the doubt but if you look at it rationally who is really likely to be primarily responsible for that poor communication ? And, as every sales person knows, a sale is not complete until the goods are paid for so you put 100% effort into keeping your customer happy till then. |
|
|
|
Post by Brockworth Gas on Mar 7, 2015 19:28:55 GMT
I think Higgs and the BoD has had a difficult balancing act to manage and have been pressed to be more transparent than they'd have wished.
In fact I think that they have been far too transparent this week announcing that they've had to borrow at 14% to fund the legal battle with Sainsbury. They would know our resources are limited - but this has given them more commercially sensitive information than any litigant would typically expect to receive about their opposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by alasitsgas on Mar 7, 2015 20:57:02 GMT
I think Higgs and the BoD has had a difficult balancing act to manage and have been pressed to be more transparent than they'd have wished. In fact I think that they have been far too transparent this week announcing that they've had to borrow at 14% to fund the legal battle with Sainsbury. They would know our resources are limited - but this has given them more commercially sensitive information than any litigant would typically expect to receive about their opposition. I think Sainsbury will take this down to the wire thinking they can shake Rovers by exhausting the funds.But if Rovers stick with the cause Sainsbury will settle out of court just before the case comes up mainly because of the publicity it will bring.
|
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 7, 2015 23:45:10 GMT
the thing is swiss, they did seem to many of us to have the finances well-enough planned. And it might yet turn out that they had
the stuff about the 'benefit of the doubt story' is off-topic background IMO - chucked in as colour, rather than as part of the answer. The 'outside investor' thing isn't though - but was a path they either chose not to follow, or didn't have the opportunity of following. An interesting approach though, and at least you took the trouble to communicate direct, rather than rant on forums like most of the rest of us
I agree AMPG many fans thought Nick had the finances well-enough planned but was that purely because he told us he did ? He wasn't very willing to answer questions when people asked for detail was he ? Their track record shows the board are weak at planning and weak at communicating so it's questionable whether they planned the finances properly or communicated with their partners properly. The immediate, shoot from the hip, response to those comments will be "how on earth could Rovers have known Sainsburys were going to pull out and what could they have done about it even if they had known ?" But if you take a moment to think about it the answer is planning and communication. The wording of the writ issued in July 2014 illustrates that communication between Rovers and Sainsburys was poor and quite likely had been poor for some time. We are Rovers fans so we desperately want to give Nick the benefit of the doubt but if you look at it rationally who is really likely to be primarily responsible for that poor communication ? And, as every sales person knows, a sale is not complete until the goods are paid for so you put 100% effort into keeping your customer happy till then. So if Rovers had communicated better with Sainsburys they wouldn't have changed their minds? That makes no sense whatsoever to me nor does the point about planning. I'm not clear what rovers could have done about it whether overall the board are good or bad, i'm afraid i don't yet see any merit in the arguments above |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 8, 2015 0:03:01 GMT
I agree AMPG many fans thought Nick had the finances well-enough planned but was that purely because he told us he did ? He wasn't very willing to answer questions when people asked for detail was he ? Their track record shows the board are weak at planning and weak at communicating so it's questionable whether they planned the finances properly or communicated with their partners properly. The immediate, shoot from the hip, response to those comments will be "how on earth could Rovers have known Sainsburys were going to pull out and what could they have done about it even if they had known ?" But if you take a moment to think about it the answer is planning and communication. The wording of the writ issued in July 2014 illustrates that communication between Rovers and Sainsburys was poor and quite likely had been poor for some time. We are Rovers fans so we desperately want to give Nick the benefit of the doubt but if you look at it rationally who is really likely to be primarily responsible for that poor communication ? And, as every sales person knows, a sale is not complete until the goods are paid for so you put 100% effort into keeping your customer happy till then. So if Rovers had communicated better with Sainsburys they wouldn't have changed their minds? That makes no sense whatsoever to me nor does the point about planning. I'm not clear what rovers could have done about it whether overall the board are good or bad, i'm afraid i don't yet see any merit in the arguments above I'll respond tomorrow AMPG as I'm just about to go out for dinner. But it will be Sunday so you might expect a long sermon. Get your protests in now if you don't want one.  |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 8, 2015 9:48:09 GMT
I don't think much else could have been done WRT the stadium project to be honest. As I have said before, we were sabotaged by the NIMBYs and we are now being shafted by Sainsburys. They could have taken professional advice that outlined the absolute worst case maximum time that it could have taken to obtain full detailed permission and incorporated that into the contract? Surely they did and got to that point but Sainsbury's have now refused to play ball, could any financial expert have predicted a supermarket crisis of the type nobody has ever witnessed before? Unless it comes out in the court documents Sainsbury's had concerns we couldn't finance the project (I'm not sure what else can be in their defence?) I can't see what more the BoD could do apart from somehow stopping the march of Aldi/Lidl |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 9:56:00 GMT
They could have taken professional advice that outlined the absolute worst case maximum time that it could have taken to obtain full detailed permission and incorporated that into the contract? Surely they did and got to that point but Sainsbury's have now refused to play ball, could any financial expert have predicted a supermarket crisis of the type nobody has ever witnessed before? Unless it comes out in the court documents Sainsbury's had concerns we couldn't finance the project (I'm not sure what else can be in their defence?) I can't see what more the BoD could do apart from somehow stopping the march of Aldi/Lidl We were told a couple of weeks ago that Sainsbury's are saying that the contract has time expired. |
|
|
|
Post by Strange Gas on Mar 8, 2015 10:16:10 GMT
See thread about cynical time wasting. Sainsburys were also happy to deploy this tactic very early on and officials didn't really help us much
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 10:26:52 GMT
See thread about cynical time wasting. Sainsburys were also happy to deploy this tactic very early on and officials didn't really help us much Every application and appeal was lodged within the required time. Doesn't this go back to what Swiss was talking about yesterday, managing the relationship with our customer? |
|
