Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 15:27:43 GMT
The case I know of involves the training ground. There has been no dispute raised and the payment is 5 months overdue. Surely as the training ground is owned by Dwane Sports they'll be the ones facing court action? Or is the football club paying to enhance an asset they don't own? Good point. Perhaps the fact that Dawne Sports is based in Jersey has something to do with BRFC being invoiced so that VAT can be reclaimed?
|
|
Alveston Gas
Brucie Bannister
Once a Gashead always a Gashead
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 746
|
Post by Alveston Gas on Aug 14, 2017 19:53:18 GMT
It's been posted already that this involves the fencing contractor. Surely this isn't a can't pay situation but a dispute? Them as well. The fencing around the Colony site looks like it was undertaken by Mr Fred Bodger of Bodger & Co who didn't have an eye for a straight line or a device for tightening the bolts. I wouldn't pay for that quality of workmanship!
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Aug 14, 2017 20:17:51 GMT
Surely as the training ground is owned by Dwane Sports they'll be the ones facing court action? Or is the football club paying to enhance an asset they don't own? Good point. Perhaps the fact that Dawne Sports is based in Jersey has something to do with BRFC being invoiced so that VAT can be reclaimed? So are Rovers being treated as tenants of The Colony, and being charged rent?, even though it's nothing more than scrub land now, as failing which i can't see how they could authorise the work anymore than I could authorise somebody to build a fence around somebody's house then try and reclaim the VAT for the work?
|
|
|
Post by johnmclean on Aug 15, 2017 7:02:20 GMT
I sincerely hope Mr Clarke remains as manager as he is a breathe of fresh air and has proven young English coaches have an opportunity to progress. Hopefully with BRFC
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 9:34:16 GMT
The fencing around the Colony site looks like it was undertaken by Mr Fred Bodger of Bodger & Co who didn't have an eye for a straight line or a device for tightening the bolts. I wouldn't pay for that quality of workmanship! This is all a bit odd. If the problem does relate to the contractor who put the fences up and they have been told that the job isn't satisfactory, one of 2 things would normally happen, either the contractor takes a look and agrees, then goes back and rectifies any defects, or if they don't agree then a 3rd party expert is brought in (by mutual consent) to inspect the work and both parties agree to be bound by his/her findings. A winding up order sounds a tad premature to me, but what do I know
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Aug 15, 2017 9:53:30 GMT
the thing is, if you've run out of funds you tend to put on a brave face, tell the fans to concentrate on the team, and sound a bit less convincing than usual (I think BRFC has examples of that)
on the other hand, if you've had a set-back and are trying to work out a way forward, you tend to put on a brave face, tell the fans to concentrate on the team, and sound a bit less convincing than usual
with the whiff of creditor unrest, rumours about Hani's influence, and the lack of perceived progress/spend on the training ground, I can see how it isn't easy for people to decide
|
|
|
Post by iwasborn on Aug 15, 2017 11:11:58 GMT
Not sure if anyone else would agree with me but im not convinced that the UWE deal is dead in the water yet. My reasoning is this. The sticking point seems to be that Wael wants to buy the ground and UWE want to lease it to us. UWE were given a deadline to agree the sale or we would pull out. I get this and agree that leasing isn't the way forward, but why a dead line date of 31 July. There's nobody at the UWE in July and August, there all on holiday. Universities are semi independent from government but receive government money and there all on holiday too. Seems an odd date to give as a dead line when the decision makers are not available. Also the UWE stand to loose a great deal of money if this doesn't go ahead. Think of all the students that they would have been able to attract with the facilities the stadium would offer which may now go elsewhere. 500 extra students equates to roughly 4.5 million pounds in course fee's lost a year. It wouldn't surprise me that come September when all the power brokers and interested parties are back that talks begin again. Both parties here stand to loose.
If not then we are f**ked, does any one on here really believe we would get planning permission on refurbishing the mem. Slim at best.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 12:12:57 GMT
Not sure if anyone else would agree with me but im not convinced that the UWE deal is dead in the water yet. My reasoning is this. The sticking point seems to be that Wael wants to buy the ground and UWE want to lease it to us. UWE were given a deadline to agree the sale or we would pull out. I get this and agree that leasing isn't the way forward, but why a dead line date of 31 July. There's nobody at the UWE in July and August, there all on holiday. Universities are semi independent from government but receive government money and there all on holiday too. Seems an odd date to give as a dead line when the decision makers are not available. Also the UWE stand to loose a great deal of money if this doesn't go ahead. Think of all the students that they would have been able to attract with the facilities the stadium would offer which may now go elsewhere. 500 extra students equates to roughly 4.5 million pounds in course fee's lost a year. It wouldn't surprise me that come September when all the power brokers and interested parties are back that talks begin again. Both parties here stand to loose. If not then we are f**ked, does any one on here really believe we would get planning permission on refurbishing the mem. Slim at best. Don't know what the real reason is for Rovers stepping back, but I'm not convinced that there's a better local option either, so it could still happen. Rebuilding the Mem, yes, we'll get permission, eventually, but factor in lost revenue over the added years it'll take to deliver that plan, added costs for planning etc, and reduced income over the entire life of the stadium and it may make UWE, warts and all, look more attractive. That makes me wonder why, although Hamer said 'never say never', Wael was so quick to say that UWE was dead in the water?
|
|
|
Post by traveling_wilbury on Aug 15, 2017 17:38:17 GMT
Not sure if anyone else would agree with me but im not convinced that the UWE deal is dead in the water yet. My reasoning is this. The sticking point seems to be that Wael wants to buy the ground and UWE want to lease it to us. UWE were given a deadline to agree the sale or we would pull out. I get this and agree that leasing isn't the way forward, but why a dead line date of 31 July. There's nobody at the UWE in July and August, there all on holiday. Universities are semi independent from government but receive government money and there all on holiday too. Seems an odd date to give as a dead line when the decision makers are not available. Also the UWE stand to loose a great deal of money if this doesn't go ahead. Think of all the students that they would have been able to attract with the facilities the stadium would offer which may now go elsewhere. 500 extra students equates to roughly 4.5 million pounds in course fee's lost a year. It wouldn't surprise me that come September when all the power brokers and interested parties are back that talks begin again. Both parties here stand to loose. If not then we are f**ked, does any one on here really believe we would get planning permission on refurbishing the mem. Slim at best. I would have though that only the staff and students are currently not at the UWE. The non-teaching staff are more likely to be around and not have 2 months off. The same with the government. Just because parliament is not sitting doesn't mean all the civil servants stop working as well so there is no reason not to give a July/August deadline as the right people would be around.
|
|
gaslife
Joined: August 2015
Posts: 8
|
Post by gaslife on Aug 15, 2017 17:55:20 GMT
Not sure if anyone else would agree with me but im not convinced that the UWE deal is dead in the water yet. My reasoning is this. The sticking point seems to be that Wael wants to buy the ground and UWE want to lease it to us. UWE were given a deadline to agree the sale or we would pull out. I get this and agree that leasing isn't the way forward, but why a dead line date of 31 July. There's nobody at the UWE in July and August, there all on holiday. Universities are semi independent from government but receive government money and there all on holiday too. Seems an odd date to give as a dead line when the decision makers are not available. Also the UWE stand to loose a great deal of money if this doesn't go ahead. Think of all the students that they would have been able to attract with the facilities the stadium would offer which may now go elsewhere. 500 extra students equates to roughly 4.5 million pounds in course fee's lost a year. It wouldn't surprise me that come September when all the power brokers and interested parties are back that talks begin again. Both parties here stand to loose. If not then we are f**ked, does any one on here really believe we would get planning permission on refurbishing the mem. Slim at best. Don't know what the real reason is for Rovers stepping back, but I'm not convinced that there's a better local option either, so it could still happen. Rebuilding the Mem, yes, we'll get permission, eventually, but factor in lost revenue over the added years it'll take to deliver that plan, added costs for planning etc, and reduced income over the entire life of the stadium and it may make UWE, warts and all, look more attractive. That makes me wonder why, although Hamer said 'never say never', Wael was so quick to say that UWE was dead in the water? According to UWE and South Glos the stadium project is far from being dead. Even if the Al-Qadis achieve planning permission and then actually build something on their 'beautiful site' in Horfield, it may still only be the 3rd best stadium in the city. Seems that some Rovers fans would be happy with that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 18:07:34 GMT
Don't know what the real reason is for Rovers stepping back, but I'm not convinced that there's a better local option either, so it could still happen. Rebuilding the Mem, yes, we'll get permission, eventually, but factor in lost revenue over the added years it'll take to deliver that plan, added costs for planning etc, and reduced income over the entire life of the stadium and it may make UWE, warts and all, look more attractive. That makes me wonder why, although Hamer said 'never say never', Wael was so quick to say that UWE was dead in the water? According to UWE and South Glos the stadium project is far from being dead. Even if the Al-Qadis achieve planning permission and then actually build something on their 'beautiful site' in Horfield, it may still only be the 3rd best stadium in the city. Seems that some Rovers fans would be happy with that. Bristol Rugby?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Aug 15, 2017 18:22:32 GMT
According to UWE and South Glos the stadium project is far from being dead. can you elaborate on that - the only thing I've seen from either of them is UWE's statement of surprise at the start of this month?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 18:23:06 GMT
Don't know what the real reason is for Rovers stepping back, but I'm not convinced that there's a better local option either, so it could still happen. Rebuilding the Mem, yes, we'll get permission, eventually, but factor in lost revenue over the added years it'll take to deliver that plan, added costs for planning etc, and reduced income over the entire life of the stadium and it may make UWE, warts and all, look more attractive. That makes me wonder why, although Hamer said 'never say never', Wael was so quick to say that UWE was dead in the water? According to UWE and South Glos the stadium project is far from being dead. Even if the Al-Qadis achieve planning permission and then actually build something on their 'beautiful site' in Horfield, it may still only be the 3rd best stadium in the city. Seems that some Rovers fans would be happy with that. Well, if a new stadium stands on the UWE campus with a hotel and all that jazz whilst we are pinned into a small site at the top of Muller Rd with next to no facilities for generating non match day revenue and angry neighbours, I would say that the supporters would be due an explanation as to exactly how that was allowed to happen, confidentiality agreements or not. Please don't take that the wrong way, yes it's barbed, but not towards you gaslife
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 18:26:06 GMT
According to UWE and South Glos the stadium project is far from being dead. Even if the Al-Qadis achieve planning permission and then actually build something on their 'beautiful site' in Horfield, it may still only be the 3rd best stadium in the city. Seems that some Rovers fans would be happy with that. Bristol Rugby? If they were a top flight club, just maybe. But would be very surprised otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 18:33:59 GMT
If they were a top flight club, just maybe. But would be very surprised otherwise. The only clubs who could make a stadium viable there would be Bristol Rugby, Bath Rugby and Bristol Rovers so it's either one, a combination of or its dead.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 18:42:02 GMT
If they were a top flight club, just maybe. But would be very surprised otherwise. The only clubs who could make a stadium viable there would be Bristol Rugby, Bath Rugby and Bristol Rovers so it's either one, a combination of or its dead. In theory absolutely. But Bristol Rugby is now lower league, why would Bath move that far from Bath itself and Rovers (we are told) are no longer interested
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 18:57:39 GMT
The only clubs who could make a stadium viable there would be Bristol Rugby, Bath Rugby and Bristol Rovers so it's either one, a combination of or its dead. In theory absolutely. But Bristol Rugby is now lower league, why would Bath move that far from Bath itself and Rovers (we are told) are no longer interested Nothing surprises me with Rugby. Wasps have moved from London to Coventry with several stop offs in between. All the theory though as the title of the thread suggests.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 19:20:32 GMT
There's no chance whatsoever Lansdown is going to move the rugby out of Ashton Gate now he's spent so much doing it up for top flight rugby.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 19:27:07 GMT
There's no chance whatsoever Lansdown is going to move the rugby out of Ashton Gate now he's spent so much doing it up for top flight rugby. Which doesn't leave many other options for Gaslife's theory.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 19:29:14 GMT
There's no chance whatsoever Lansdown is going to move the rugby out of Ashton Gate now he's spent so much doing it up for top flight rugby. Which doesn't leave many other options for Gaslife's theory. F.G.R ?
|
|