Lazza
Rod Hull
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 264
|
Post by Lazza on Aug 13, 2015 11:14:19 GMT
Let's broaden it. The Fixed Term Parliament Act sets the next general election as the first Thursday in May 2020. We will have a home game one Saturday either side of that. That's a reasonable horizon. Where do people genuinely think that home game will be? I think at the Memorial Stadium, in much the same state as it is now. The thing that might alter that is if the club has a fundamental change of ownership by, say, the end of next year and the new people, with finance, getting straight down to addressing the ground thing. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, just that's the feeling in my bones when people say they're confident about the UWE stadium happening. Agreed, we'll be still at the Mem ... or worse (hopefully not!). Higgs promised so, so much to supporters about his projected future of the club but what has the outcome been? When you compare where we were when he first came onto the BoD and where we are now under his "rule" I really don't see how any honest fan could say his reign has not been anything but an unmitigated disaster. Frankly fed up with hearing whatever Higgs has to say about the future of the club because how can anyone put any credability in a single word he says when you look at his track record at BRFC?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 13, 2015 11:42:41 GMT
Or do something after the game to get people to stick around in the stadium bars. For the benefits of doing that on a much larger scale, look at the concert that gets put on at Silverstone after the British Grand Prix - that was mostly instigated to help with traffic problems.
It seems obvious to me that the coaches leaving the ground have difficulty making the right turn into Filton Ave due to the narrow road , the cars parked on it, and the traffic. I suggested to the club that the away supporters should be kept in the ground for half an hour or so to allow the car parks to clear, then when the coaches do leave at least the traffic will have died down. I got the usual reply ......nothing. The least they could do is cone one side of that part of Filton Ave off
I have also believed that the section of Filton Avenue should be one way traffic as it easy to go around the top and isn't exactly a diversion
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Aug 13, 2015 11:51:13 GMT
Or do something after the game to get people to stick around in the stadium bars. For the benefits of doing that on a much larger scale, look at the concert that gets put on at Silverstone after the British Grand Prix - that was mostly instigated to help with traffic problems.
It seems obvious to me that the coaches leaving the ground have difficulty making the right turn into Filton Ave due to the narrow road , the cars parked on it, and the traffic. I suggested to the club that the away supporters should be kept in the ground for half an hour or so to allow the car parks to clear, then when the coaches do leave at least the traffic will have died down. I got the usual reply ......nothing. Think the club was right on that. If I went away and I was told I couldn't leave for half an hour because of people on coaches I'd be fuming
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Aug 13, 2015 12:10:41 GMT
It seems obvious to me that the coaches leaving the ground have difficulty making the right turn into Filton Ave due to the narrow road , the cars parked on it, and the traffic. I suggested to the club that the away supporters should be kept in the ground for half an hour or so to allow the car parks to clear, then when the coaches do leave at least the traffic will have died down. I got the usual reply ......nothing. Think the club was right on that. If I went away and I was told I couldn't leave for half an hour because of people on coaches I'd be fuming I think he meant that the coaches should be held back until the car park is clear, unless I misunderstood
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Aug 13, 2015 12:11:15 GMT
1.9% PA? There are some people out there willing to give you 1.2% per month, and they'll secure it against property worth 5x the amount they want to borrow. As reported, the terms of the MSP loan are 1.2% per month (APR = 14.4%) on £2million. i.e. £24,000 interest per month or a total of £288,000 interest + the £2million to be repayed "at the end of the year" To be clear to all those calling this a Wonga loan. Wonga's typical APR is a staggering 1508%, i.e .if Rovers had borrowed from Wonga, they would have to repay £30,160,000 + £2million at the end of the year. I raise this for a few reasons: - Not trying to score any points, just put some numbers to the arrangement. - The decision to go to appeal will cost an additional £24,000 per month to service the loan. - If the appeal drags over to the new year, it would seem necessary to negotiate extension to the loan, which may or may not be at the same rate. - Finally, I cannot understand why Wonga or any other similar lender is allowed to operate with such extortion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 12:31:03 GMT
1.9% PA? There are some people out there willing to give you 1.2% per month, and they'll secure it against property worth 5x the amount they want to borrow. As reported, the terms of the MSP loan are 1.2% per month (APR = 14.4%) on £2million. i.e. £24,000 interest per month or a total of £288,000 interest + the £2million to be repayed "at the end of the year" To be clear to all those calling this a Wonga loan. Wonga's typical APR is a staggering 1508%, i.e .if Rovers had borrowed from Wonga, they would have to repay £30,160,000 + £2million at the end of the year. I raise this for a few reasons: - Not trying to score any points, just put some numbers to the arrangement. - The decision to go to appeal will cost an additional £24,000 per month to service the loan. - If the appeal drags over to the new year, it would seem necessary to negotiate extension to the loan, which may or may not be at the same rate. - Finally, I cannot understand why Wonga or any other similar lender is allowed to operate with such extortion. Well, if you right and interest is charged monthly and repayable, capital and interest, at year end then the total compounded interest will be £307,800 Not bad when you already have negative cash flow. Money spent supporting hubris.
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Aug 13, 2015 12:45:18 GMT
Let's broaden it. The Fixed Term Parliament Act sets the next general election as the first Thursday in May 2020. We will have a home game one Saturday either side of that. That's a reasonable horizon. Where do people genuinely think that home game will be? I think at the Memorial Stadium, in much the same state as it is now. The thing that might alter that is if the club has a fundamental change of ownership by, say, the end of next year and the new people, with finance, getting straight down to addressing the ground thing. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, just that's the feeling in my bones when people say they're confident about the UWE stadium happening. Hard to see the club still existing in its present form in 2020.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Aug 13, 2015 12:50:32 GMT
The MEM is ok if you don't mind BRfC staying as they are. It is not suitable for regular crowds of over 8000. The attendance of 8000+ at our first home game just showed how bad the infrastructure around the ground struggled to cope with the traffic. Long wait to get out of the car park, gridlock on Filton Ave as the away coaches struggle with the narrow road. It is not a ground that BRFC can grow in, simple as that. I've argued similar in the past, that without a modern stadium, Rovers would not attract investment and not have the potential to grow, citing Swansea and reading as examples. All well and good, until Bournemouth come along with a stadium that is little better than the Mem and make it to the Premier League. The key in all of the cases of clubs of similar potential size as Rovers is that investment is made in all aspects of the playing side as the main priority. I'd still welcome a move to UWE, but being a pragmatist, I'd suggest that Rovers must plan for a future at the Mem and seek to address the shortcomings as much as possible. Although there is minor inconvenience, I would disagree that we "struggle to cope" with crowds over 8000. I've been to many grounds where the traffic congestion is much, much worse than the Mem with crowds of 10,000+. I'm no expert, but traffic management at the Mem is done with a very light touch. A more structured approach (which I guess would involve the police) could greatly improve the flow of traffic away from the ground at the end of the game. One example is the absence of park and ride arrangements. If Forest Green can do it, why can't we? From a physical point of view, there is plenty of opportunity to develop the ground at less cost than the proposed UWE build. Phased development of the East, West and South stands (in that order) to extend to the full extent of the pitch would not only increase capacity and matchday revenue, but also provides the opportunity to develop the non-matchday revenue promised at the UWE. I understand license arrangements may need to be improved, but surely this would be an opportunity to test the metal of the council's support for Rovers. So how much would it cost and how would it be funded? Very roughly, an increase of 1,000 to an existing ground capacity with a relatively easy build would cost £1.7million, i.e a 4,000 increase to the capacity of the Mem would cost less than £7million. That would be a stretch in one go, but as suggested, I think this could be done in a phased manner. Extending the East stand and with it bringing the conference facilities up to scratch would be the first move for me and could be done for around £2million IMO. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Aug 13, 2015 12:53:57 GMT
As reported, the terms of the MSP loan are 1.2% per month (APR = 14.4%) on £2million. i.e. £24,000 interest per month or a total of £288,000 interest + the £2million to be repayed "at the end of the year" To be clear to all those calling this a Wonga loan. Wonga's typical APR is a staggering 1508%, i.e .if Rovers had borrowed from Wonga, they would have to repay £30,160,000 + £2million at the end of the year. I raise this for a few reasons: - Not trying to score any points, just put some numbers to the arrangement. - The decision to go to appeal will cost an additional £24,000 per month to service the loan. - If the appeal drags over to the new year, it would seem necessary to negotiate extension to the loan, which may or may not be at the same rate. - Finally, I cannot understand why Wonga or any other similar lender is allowed to operate with such extortion. Well, if you right and interest is charged monthly and repayable, capital and interest, at year end then the total compounded interest will be £307,800 Not bad when you already have negative cash flow. Money spent supporting hubris. Your £307,800 may be right if compounded as you say, but I wasn't sure whether that had already been taken into account. What's an extra £19,800 between friends?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 12:55:17 GMT
The MEM is ok if you don't mind BRfC staying as they are. It is not suitable for regular crowds of over 8000. The attendance of 8000+ at our first home game just showed how bad the infrastructure around the ground struggled to cope with the traffic. Long wait to get out of the car park, gridlock on Filton Ave as the away coaches struggle with the narrow road. It is not a ground that BRFC can grow in, simple as that. BCC thought the site was OK for expansion to 18500.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 13:00:22 GMT
1.9% PA? There are some people out there willing to give you 1.2% per month, and they'll secure it against property worth 5x the amount they want to borrow. As reported, the terms of the MSP loan are 1.2% per month (APR = 14.4%) on £2million. i.e. £24,000 interest per month or a total of £288,000 interest + the £2million to be repayed "at the end of the year" To be clear to all those calling this a Wonga loan. Wonga's typical APR is a staggering 1508%, i.e .if Rovers had borrowed from Wonga, they would have to repay £30,160,000 + £2million at the end of the year. I raise this for a few reasons: - Not trying to score any points, just put some numbers to the arrangement. - The decision to go to appeal will cost an additional £24,000 per month to service the loan. - If the appeal drags over to the new year, it would seem necessary to negotiate extension to the loan, which may or may not be at the same rate. - Finally, I cannot understand why Wonga or any other similar lender is allowed to operate with such extortion. I think we all realise that the company isn't actually Wonga Wonder what MSP would charge for a short term unsecured loan of the type that Wonga specialise in? It was originally reported in the local media to be 'a loan believed to be in the region of £2m', but didn't someone lift something from accounts to show that it was actually £2.6m? Not sure that all of the costs of the loan can be assigned to the Sainsbury's situation. Wasn't £900k used to pay back Barclays and around £200k used to pay a loan of some sort back to Geoff?
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Aug 13, 2015 13:07:40 GMT
As reported, the terms of the MSP loan are 1.2% per month (APR = 14.4%) on £2million. i.e. £24,000 interest per month or a total of £288,000 interest + the £2million to be repayed "at the end of the year" To be clear to all those calling this a Wonga loan. Wonga's typical APR is a staggering 1508%, i.e .if Rovers had borrowed from Wonga, they would have to repay £30,160,000 + £2million at the end of the year. I raise this for a few reasons: - Not trying to score any points, just put some numbers to the arrangement. - The decision to go to appeal will cost an additional £24,000 per month to service the loan. - If the appeal drags over to the new year, it would seem necessary to negotiate extension to the loan, which may or may not be at the same rate. - Finally, I cannot understand why Wonga or any other similar lender is allowed to operate with such extortion. Well, if you right and interest is charged monthly and repayable, capital and interest, at year end then the total compounded interest will be £307,800 Not bad when you already have negative cash flow. Money spent supporting hubris. I have no idea how Higgs has been able to get away without explaining how he is planning to pay back the loan should the appeal fail - and lets face it, the chances of it succeeding are vanishingly small.
It seems illogical that Higgs or the other directors would be willing or able to underwrite it as they could have just done this in the first place without accruing £300,000+ in compound interest. Even more illogical if they truly believe(d) that the case was indeed "watertight" or anywhere close.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 13:40:03 GMT
Well, if you right and interest is charged monthly and repayable, capital and interest, at year end then the total compounded interest will be £307,800 Not bad when you already have negative cash flow. Money spent supporting hubris. I have no idea how Higgs has been able to get away without explaining how he is planning to pay back the loan should the appeal fail - and lets face it, the chances of it succeeding are vanishingly small.
It seems illogical that Higgs or the other directors would be willing or able to underwrite it as they could have just done this in the first place without accruing £300,000+ in compound interest. Even more illogical if they truly believe(d) that the case was indeed "watertight" or anywhere close.
I guess he gets away with it by a mixture of some people having got used to being served bs, and others just wanting bread and circuses. It's all part of the a game that you cheer the club on in its selected battle: UTG and boo to whoever it is at the moment, whether that's Northampton, Alfreton, or Sainsbury's it overlooks that: 1. It's the wrong battle: they're using contract law to pursue who are the good guys, and how much we want it with a dash of doom-mongering if we don't get it. UTG as much as you like, but contract law isn't interested. 2. It's not moving us an iota closer to building a stadium at UWE. 3. The remote chance of pulling off a £15 million boost to the asset register is primarily in the interests of the shareholders, not the operational side of the club. 4. It's costing a fortune, both in financing our costs and in paying Sainsbury's. We're up around the £1 million mark now, aren't we? Maybe if people viewed that as the opportunity cost - pursuing this means it's not funding a top of the (4th division) range striker, midfielder and goalkeeper that we otherwise could have had, but will have to do without at Yeovil on Saturday. Except we know that's not the alternative, because we wouldn't spend money we haven't got on squad building, but we nod it through on this madness.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Aug 13, 2015 13:44:40 GMT
1.9% PA? There are some people out there willing to give you 1.2% per month, and they'll secure it against property worth 5x the amount they want to borrow. As reported, the terms of the MSP loan are 1.2% per month (APR = 14.4%) on £2million. i.e. £24,000 interest per month or a total of £288,000 interest + the £2million to be repayed "at the end of the year" To be clear to all those calling this a Wonga loan. Wonga's typical APR is a staggering 1508%, i.e .if Rovers had borrowed from Wonga, they would have to repay £30,160,000 + £2million at the end of the year. I raise this for a few reasons: - Not trying to score any points, just put some numbers to the arrangement. - The decision to go to appeal will cost an additional £24,000 per month to service the loan. - If the appeal drags over to the new year, it would seem necessary to negotiate extension to the loan, which may or may not be at the same rate. - Finally, I cannot understand why Wonga or any other similar lender is allowed to operate with such extortion. Just to correct an important point.
The loan from Wonga, sorry MSP, is £2.6m as indicated in the last set of Company accounts.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Aug 13, 2015 13:52:49 GMT
As reported, the terms of the MSP loan are 1.2% per month (APR = 14.4%) on £2million. i.e. £24,000 interest per month or a total of £288,000 interest + the £2million to be repayed "at the end of the year" To be clear to all those calling this a Wonga loan. Wonga's typical APR is a staggering 1508%, i.e .if Rovers had borrowed from Wonga, they would have to repay £30,160,000 + £2million at the end of the year. I raise this for a few reasons: - Not trying to score any points, just put some numbers to the arrangement. - The decision to go to appeal will cost an additional £24,000 per month to service the loan. - If the appeal drags over to the new year, it would seem necessary to negotiate extension to the loan, which may or may not be at the same rate. - Finally, I cannot understand why Wonga or any other similar lender is allowed to operate with such extortion. Just to correct an important point.
The loan from Wonga, sorry MSP, is £2.6m as indicated in the last set of Company accounts.
If so, then £31-33k per month interest
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Aug 13, 2015 13:54:39 GMT
I think we all realise that the company isn't actually Wonga Probably but I wanted some perspective. Still a hell of a lot to pay back.
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Aug 13, 2015 14:09:18 GMT
I have no idea how Higgs has been able to get away without explaining how he is planning to pay back the loan should the appeal fail - and lets face it, the chances of it succeeding are vanishingly small.
It seems illogical that Higgs or the other directors would be willing or able to underwrite it as they could have just done this in the first place without accruing £300,000+ in compound interest. Even more illogical if they truly believe(d) that the case was indeed "watertight" or anywhere close.
I guess he gets away with it by a mixture of some people having got used to being served bs, and others just wanting bread and circuses. It's all part of the a game that you cheer the club on in its selected battle: UTG and boo to whoever it is at the moment, whether that's Northampton, Alfreton, or Sainsbury's it overlooks that: 1. It's the wrong battle: they're using contract law to pursue who are the good guys, and how much we want it with a dash of doom-mongering if we don't get it. UTG as much as you like, but contract law isn't interested. 2. It's not moving us an iota closer to building a stadium at UWE. 3. The remote chance of pulling off a £15 million boost to the asset register is primarily in the interests of the shareholders, not the operational side of the club. 4. It's costing a fortune, both in financing our costs and in paying Sainsbury's. We're up around the £1 million mark now, aren't we? Maybe if people viewed that as the opportunity cost - pursuing this means it's not funding a top of the (4th division) range striker, midfielder and goalkeeper that we otherwise could have had, but will have to do without at Yeovil on Saturday. Except we know that's not the alternative, because we wouldn't spend money we haven't got on squad building, but we nod it through on this madness. So, come the end of the year when the loan is due, along with the additional legal fees and costs if the case is lost, what is a realistic scenario?
I genuinely have no idea.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Aug 13, 2015 14:13:46 GMT
I guess he gets away with it by a mixture of some people having got used to being served bs, and others just wanting bread and circuses. It's all part of the a game that you cheer the club on in its selected battle: UTG and boo to whoever it is at the moment, whether that's Northampton, Alfreton, or Sainsbury's it overlooks that: 1. It's the wrong battle: they're using contract law to pursue who are the good guys, and how much we want it with a dash of doom-mongering if we don't get it. UTG as much as you like, but contract law isn't interested. 2. It's not moving us an iota closer to building a stadium at UWE. 3. The remote chance of pulling off a £15 million boost to the asset register is primarily in the interests of the shareholders, not the operational side of the club. 4. It's costing a fortune, both in financing our costs and in paying Sainsbury's. We're up around the £1 million mark now, aren't we? Maybe if people viewed that as the opportunity cost - pursuing this means it's not funding a top of the (4th division) range striker, midfielder and goalkeeper that we otherwise could have had, but will have to do without at Yeovil on Saturday. Except we know that's not the alternative, because we wouldn't spend money we haven't got on squad building, but we nod it through on this madness. So, come the end of the year when the loan is due, along with the additional legal fees and costs if the case is lost, what is a realistic scenario?
I genuinely have no idea.
It will all be sorted out by then
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 14:15:58 GMT
I guess he gets away with it by a mixture of some people having got used to being served bs, and others just wanting bread and circuses. It's all part of the a game that you cheer the club on in its selected battle: UTG and boo to whoever it is at the moment, whether that's Northampton, Alfreton, or Sainsbury's it overlooks that: 1. It's the wrong battle: they're using contract law to pursue who are the good guys, and how much we want it with a dash of doom-mongering if we don't get it. UTG as much as you like, but contract law isn't interested. 2. It's not moving us an iota closer to building a stadium at UWE. 3. The remote chance of pulling off a £15 million boost to the asset register is primarily in the interests of the shareholders, not the operational side of the club. 4. It's costing a fortune, both in financing our costs and in paying Sainsbury's. We're up around the £1 million mark now, aren't we? Maybe if people viewed that as the opportunity cost - pursuing this means it's not funding a top of the (4th division) range striker, midfielder and goalkeeper that we otherwise could have had, but will have to do without at Yeovil on Saturday. Except we know that's not the alternative, because we wouldn't spend money we haven't got on squad building, but we nod it through on this madness. So, come the end of the year when the loan is due, along with the additional legal fees and costs if the case is lost, what is a realistic scenario?
I genuinely have no idea.
I think we file that with 'we were only in the relegation zone for the last 70 minutes of the season'. Probably under 'O' for 'oops!'
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Aug 13, 2015 14:25:44 GMT
So, come the end of the year when the loan is due, along with the additional legal fees and costs if the case is lost, what is a realistic scenario?
I genuinely have no idea.
I think we file that with 'we were only in the relegation zone for the last 70 minutes of the season'. Probably under 'O' for 'oops!'
I struggle to believe that even Higgs and Co are so incompetent that they are refusing to even contemplate the possibility of defeat and plan accordingly.
|
|