|
Post by severnbeachline on Nov 30, 2015 17:13:05 GMT
2 – The takeover/consortium talks are advanced and going well. I have no idea if the investors NH is talking about is the Consortium that several of us have been talking about. They may be or maybe not separate entities. Sorry hang on... didn't the club come out and say this was categorically bollocks and all potential buy-outs had been deemed unsuitable?
|
|
|
Post by severnbeachline on Nov 30, 2015 17:16:26 GMT
What human rights does a supermarket have? The right to a fair aisle?
*honk honk*
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Nov 30, 2015 17:25:06 GMT
2 – The takeover/consortium talks are advanced and going well. I have no idea if the investors NH is talking about is the Consortium that several of us have been talking about. They may be or maybe not separate entities. Sorry hang on... didn't the club come out and say this was categorically bollocks and all potential buy-outs had been deemed unsuitable? No they didn't say this.
|
|
|
Post by severnbeachline on Nov 30, 2015 17:55:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by severnbeachline on Nov 30, 2015 17:58:57 GMT
Sorry hang on... didn't the club come out and say this was categorically bollocks and all potential buy-outs had been deemed unsuitable? No they didn't say this. See also:
"I keep hearing about this so called consortium from various sources. Would somebody be kind enough to tell us who they are, as we are very curious to find out ourselves!"
www.itv.com/news/west/update/2015-09-30/rovers-chairman-scotches-takeover-bid/
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Nov 30, 2015 18:44:03 GMT
SevernBeach i think i can clear this up - its purely a play on words from our leader - because people/myself were saying "a consortium" were bidding for Rovers we should have been clearer and said a 'group/cartel/collective/partnership/few individuals/conglomerate/corporation/gang/gaggle/litter/pride/flock/herd/brood/clowder/school etc etc etc' in fact depending on the word anyone chose i'm sure someone could say "I keep hearing about this so called ________ (insert name of choice here) from various sources. Would somebody be kind enough to tell us who they are, as we are very curious to find out ourselves!"
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Nov 30, 2015 18:56:23 GMT
SevernBeach i think i can clear this up - its purely a play on words from our leader - because people/myself were saying "a consortium" were bidding for Rovers we should have been clearer and said a 'group/cartel/collective/partnership/few individuals/conglomerate/corporation/gang/gaggle/litter/pride/flock/herd/brood/clowder/school etc etc etc' in fact depending on the word anyone chose i'm sure someone could say "I keep hearing about this so called ________ (insert name of choice here) from various sources. Would somebody be kind enough to tell us who they are, as we are very curious to find out ourselves!" JTS - as you say, a play on words. What he has NOT said is that there are no negotiations with anyone.
Some confused the two. The fact that NH said he did not know the name of the people from "We Will Build UWE Company Ltd" is different from saying that there are no negotiations with "We Will Build UWE Company Ltd.
Don't Google that name as it is factious.
|
|
|
Post by pirate49 on Nov 30, 2015 20:51:29 GMT
I might be a bit late in the day with this observation but all the talk seems to be of a possible takeover by a consortium; yet no talk of new directors joining the existing board or of new investment coming to the current board. In other words, it seems like all or nothing.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Nov 30, 2015 20:54:43 GMT
2 – The takeover/consortium talks are advanced and going well. I have no idea if the investors NH is talking about is the Consortium that several of us have been talking about. They may be or maybe not separate entities. Sorry hang on... didn't the club come out and say this was categorically bollocks and all potential buy-outs had been deemed unsuitable? SBL.....I was also of the opinion the club/Chairman had come out with various comments throwing doubt on the existence of any potential investors with sufficient capital to keep us in the manner to which we've been accustomed. Can anyone confirm if NH actually said that or is that a summary of what someone thought he said. I find it extraordinary that at one point NH is either saying any previous approaches don't seem financially viable or else he doesn't know the names of the group or groups of those who are interested in investing in the club but then supposedly comes out with the comment I've highlighted above.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Nov 30, 2015 20:57:28 GMT
What is clear is that NH is hiding behind confidentiality agreements and that he is in no mind to sell. He is obviously looking for 'investors' to prop him up and provide the money he hasn't got to build at UWE. There are plenty of people around with the sort of money to build UWE stadium but not many foolish enough to hand it to NH whilst he has the majority shareholding and can outvote everyone and do as he pleases. Ultimately he will have to sell before time runs out on the financial problem which is growing by the day (Unless he wins in court after Christmas).
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Nov 30, 2015 22:35:35 GMT
Sorry hang on... didn't the club come out and say this was categorically bollocks and all potential buy-outs had been deemed unsuitable? SBL.....I was also of the opinion the club/Chairman had come out with various comments throwing doubt on the existence of any potential investors with sufficient capital to keep us in the manner to which we've been accustomed. Can anyone confirm if NH actually said that or is that a summary of what someone thought he said. I find it extraordinary that at one point NH is either saying any previous approaches don't seem financially viable or else he doesn't know the names of the group or groups of those who are interested in investing in the club but then supposedly comes out with the comment I've highlighted above. NH said outside the Q & A that the takeover/consortium talks are advanced and going well. If that was not the case, why would he have said that in his opinion that if the talks are completed that building work could commence early next year.
In the Q & A, he indicated that no one had provided proof of funds "in the manner that both he and/or TW had requested."
So on the one hand he is saying talks are ongoing and that this are going well, BUT the format of the funds had not yet been submitted to his satisfaction.
My interpretation, that means he requires proof of these funds in a specific type of bank account. I'm sure that the funds are probably there but to satisfy NH these need to be in a format of his choosing.
|
|
|
Post by severnbeachline on Nov 30, 2015 22:43:58 GMT
I literally didn't understand any of the above replies.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 22:48:32 GMT
I literally didn't understand any of the above replies. in a nutshell, virtually nothing that Mr Higgs says publicly is true.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 22:55:59 GMT
What human rights does a supermarket have? In fairness the same as any other individual/group - the right to remain innocent until proven guilty -UTG Not quite, and I'm very sure that no matter how far this case goes, it will never ever trouble the European Court of Human Rights.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 30, 2015 23:32:23 GMT
SBL.....I was also of the opinion the club/Chairman had come out with various comments throwing doubt on the existence of any potential investors with sufficient capital to keep us in the manner to which we've been accustomed. Can anyone confirm if NH actually said that or is that a summary of what someone thought he said. I find it extraordinary that at one point NH is either saying any previous approaches don't seem financially viable or else he doesn't know the names of the group or groups of those who are interested in investing in the club but then supposedly comes out with the comment I've highlighted above. NH said outside the Q & A that the takeover/consortium talks are advanced and going well. If that was not the case, why would he have said that in his opinion that if the talks are completed that building work could commence early next year.
In the Q & A, he indicated that no one had provided proof of funds "in the manner that both he and/or TW had requested."
So on the one hand he is saying talks are ongoing and that this are going well, BUT the format of the funds had not yet been submitted to his satisfaction.
My interpretation, that means he requires proof of these funds in a specific type of bank account. I'm sure that the funds are probably there but to satisfy NH these need to be in a format of his choosing.
in his shoes I'd do the same - to screen out the chancers and bluffers. 'Show me the colour of your money', as they might or might not have said in films
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Nov 30, 2015 23:35:59 GMT
Semantics perhaps, but neither of the links you posted quite agreed with your point. I would agree, though, that our chairman seems to skirt around the subject without a great deal of verbal dexterity on occasions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 23:51:51 GMT
NH said outside the Q & A that the takeover/consortium talks are advanced and going well. If that was not the case, why would he have said that in his opinion that if the talks are completed that building work could commence early next year.
In the Q & A, he indicated that no one had provided proof of funds "in the manner that both he and/or TW had requested."
So on the one hand he is saying talks are ongoing and that this are going well, BUT the format of the funds had not yet been submitted to his satisfaction.
My interpretation, that means he requires proof of these funds in a specific type of bank account. I'm sure that the funds are probably there but to satisfy NH these need to be in a format of his choosing.
in his shoes I'd do the same - to screen out the chancers and bluffers. 'Show me the colour of your money', as they might or might not have said in films Wouldn't you need to agree a price first though, to know how much money you could demonstrate that you had access to?
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Dec 1, 2015 2:17:01 GMT
I literally didn't understand any of the above replies. Same here mate, none of it makes sense except we have a Chairman according the the various responses he or the club have made keep on contradicting themselves.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Dec 1, 2015 3:00:07 GMT
SBL.....I was also of the opinion the club/Chairman had come out with various comments throwing doubt on the existence of any potential investors with sufficient capital to keep us in the manner to which we've been accustomed. Can anyone confirm if NH actually said that or is that a summary of what someone thought he said. I find it extraordinary that at one point NH is either saying any previous approaches don't seem financially viable or else he doesn't know the names of the group or groups of those who are interested in investing in the club but then supposedly comes out with the comment I've highlighted above. NH said outside the Q & A that the takeover/consortium talks are advanced and going well. If that was not the case, why would he have said that in his opinion that if the talks are completed that building work could commence early next year.
In the Q & A, he indicated that no one had provided proof of funds "in the manner that both he and/or TW had requested."
So on the one hand he is saying talks are ongoing and that this are going well, BUT the format of the funds had not yet been submitted to his satisfaction.
My interpretation, that means he requires proof of these funds in a specific type of bank account. I'm sure that the funds are probably there but to satisfy NH these need to be in a format of his choosing.
But hang on a minute, and I'm honestly trying to put into context what you have said with what NH/the club have previously said. Look I don't doubt you are relating what NH said to you but there has to be some doubt of the existence of a takeover group/consortium he's referred to then ? He has said that over a period of time he has had 12 approaches about investing in the club but none of them meet the financial criteria he requires and fair enough he owns the club and does not want us to be put in even more financial jeopardy than we are now, so presumably we can discount whoever they were and assume we aren't currently in discussion with any of them. He is then interviewed on a local broadcasting station where he categorically denies knowing who the takeover/consortium group are and goes as far as to say can someone let him know who they are. I don't doubt you are genuine in passing on the comments NH made and that he seemed genuine in making them but some of us have reaonably good memories of virtually getting on a coach to Cheltenham to choose our seats at Whaddon Road and as a Bristol Rugby supporter actually applying to buy a season ticket at Rodney Parade Newport for our temporary exile while a new stadium was built at the Mem. Then there's the reluctance to tell us that Sainsbury's wanted to pull out of the scheme before the JR had even started, hence no Sainsbury's representation at the JR so indeed "why would he (NH) have said that in his opinion that if the talks are completed that building work could commence early next year", when he's denied even knowing who they are ?! Or perhaps I'm going to wake up in a shower in a minute and find it was all a nasty dream and that we really have won the Champion's League
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Dec 1, 2015 3:02:05 GMT
I might be a bit late in the day with this observation but all the talk seems to be of a possible takeover by a consortium; yet no talk of new directors joining the existing board or of new investment coming to the current board. In other words, it seems like all or nothing. Previous experience suggests the latter
|
|