Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Sept 4, 2017 13:47:41 GMT
I've never understood why on Earth UWE felt they needed a stadium on campus. That's probably the crux of it - they almost certainly don't, so what was in it for them? The simplest solution was to sell surplus land, done. Whether a football stadium would be built on it is more a question of whether they'd be happy with that and sell to a football club for that purpose. So what did they want, that stopped that? Inflated price? Income stream? Access rights? The latter would maintain some sort of involvement, hold, or veto on stuff*. Who knows, but there's (probably) the rub. I don't think the intricacies or pros and cons are readily or respectfully explained in public. * It has to be more than access to the car park, because the core demand for a car park for a university and a football ground are at completely different times, so that would be just down to a minor and mutually beneficial agreement between neighbours. Have UWE built a car Park yet? we were told they were desperate for it
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2017 14:09:36 GMT
I don't believe UWE needed the development, that doesn't mean they don't have questions to answer though IMO.
The stadium was always (originally at least) portrayed as a joint venture. I don't know what either side wanted out of it come the end, or if either side wanted it at all.
Let's pretend/assume UWE changed their mind and don't want the stadium. It's in their interest to say given what The Al-Qadi's have said they are still open to discussion knowing it won't happen and trying to make BRFC/Dwane look bad. Perhaps we were trying to negotiate with people who didn't really want it.
We will see if any sports stadia. be it 5,000 or 20,000 gets built there or something else.
No one knows the truth and unless someone asks question of all parties than we will never know, but lets all s*** on the Al-Qadi's because of 2nd, 3rd,4th hand evidence. spouted on the internet. It may be true, but would be nice to have real information
You're sprouting rubbish. A commercial deal has broken down happens everyday. Don't recall the UWE promising rovers fans a new stadium just the current and previous owners doing that. Put quite simply if a deal isn't done then don't try to hoodwink the fans that it's a done deal. Admittedly most rovers fans don't require much hoodwinking Absolutely spot on.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Sept 4, 2017 14:15:33 GMT
That's probably the crux of it - they almost certainly don't, so what was in it for them? The simplest solution was to sell surplus land, done. Whether a football stadium would be built on it is more a question of whether they'd be happy with that and sell to a football club for that purpose. So what did they want, that stopped that? Inflated price? Income stream? Access rights? The latter would maintain some sort of involvement, hold, or veto on stuff*. Who knows, but there's (probably) the rub. I don't think the intricacies or pros and cons are readily or respectfully explained in public. * It has to be more than access to the car park, because the core demand for a car park for a university and a football ground are at completely different times, so that would be just down to a minor and mutually beneficial agreement between neighbours. Have UWE built a car Park yet? we were told they were desperate for it You need money to do that and they are cash strapped at the moment
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 4, 2017 14:21:39 GMT
Two things we know for sure are :
1) The UWE wanted the stadium on their campus but did not want debt attached to it
2) The Al Qadi family have made their entire investment in Rovers in the form of debt
It seems very likely to me that the UWE were insisting on an equity commitment to the stadium project which our owners were not prepared to give.
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on Sept 4, 2017 14:22:45 GMT
I seem to recall something about sports science
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2017 14:33:53 GMT
Have UWE built a car Park yet? we were told they were desperate for it You need money to do that and they are cash strapped at the moment No they're not.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Sept 4, 2017 14:35:48 GMT
You need money to do that and they are cash strapped at the moment No they're not. tell that to my neighbour, she is about to loose her job due to budget cuts
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Sept 4, 2017 15:08:26 GMT
a bunch of cotton headed ninny muggins.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Sept 4, 2017 15:09:02 GMT
Two things we know for sure are : 1) The UWE wanted the stadium on their campus but did not want debt attached to it 2) The Al Qadi family have made their entire investment in Rovers in the form of debt It seems very likely to me that the UWE were insisting on an equity commitment to the stadium project which our owners were not prepared to give. hence all the speculation around Completion Bonds etc, perhaps?
|
|
gaslife
Joined: August 2015
Posts: 8
|
Post by gaslife on Sept 4, 2017 16:11:16 GMT
You need money to do that and they are cash strapped at the moment No they're not. UWE have plenty of cash available for capital projects, if they want to spend it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2017 16:45:18 GMT
Just forget about UWE,plan B is under way,Hamer has been down in the archives for a few weeks now and the owners are re-grouping what could possibly go wrong ?
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Sept 4, 2017 17:59:57 GMT
Wael said it was important that the club owned their own stadium. I think he meant he land, which UWE wanted to hang on to and charge us a "peppercorn rent" Also what seems along time ago now I was told by and ex director that UWE would take the money from the car park, and bars. Also they wanted access to the stadium at all times because rovers had agreed that a jogging track would be built. The stadium would also include a gym which students would have access too. UWE thought it would be a community stadium, being their community. Rovers obviously want a ground that makes money for them, no one else.
How does it go? no deal is better than a bad deal, and I have to agree on that.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 4, 2017 19:13:00 GMT
Wael said it was important that the club owned their own stadium. I think he meant he land, which UWE wanted to hang on to and charge us a "peppercorn rent" Also what seems along time ago now I was told by and ex director that UWE would take the money from the car park, and bars. Also they wanted access to the stadium at all times because rovers had agreed that a jogging track would be built. The stadium would also include a gym which students would have access too. UWE thought it would be a community stadium, being their community. Rovers obviously want a ground that makes money for them, no one else. How does it go? no deal is better than a bad deal, and I have to agree on that. I think you have posted before LPGas about the ex director telling you what UWE apparently wanted from the deal but I find it very hard to believe what he said. When you lease land or a building the terms are very specific and usually pinpoint the fact that, within certain parameters, the landlord permits the tenant to carry on his business without interference. Would UWE really have the time or resources to monitor bar takings to make sure they got their cut ? And the Sainsburys court case documents revealed that Rovers planned to lease the gym to a third party operator so it's hardly likely students would be given free access. Of course there were crossovers between UWE and Rovers but these were known from the outset and mainly involved Rovers leasing teaching space to UWE and UWE having use of the car park at certain times. Although one of Nick Higgs' biggest critics I have to say he seemed to have created the basis of a good deal for Rovers with the UWE Stadium plan but it depended entirely on getting 29 million from Sainsburys which would have been put into the project as equity capital. The line being put forward now is that the project was discovered to be non-viable or "not good for Rovers" and to give the impression the other party are to blame. But if you take 18 million equity out of the equation ( Mem value 29 million - Mem value 11 million) and replace it with 18 million of debt the finance costs alone are bound to have a crucial effect on the viability.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Sept 4, 2017 19:28:36 GMT
Wael said it was important that the club owned their own stadium. I think he meant he land, which UWE wanted to hang on to and charge us a "peppercorn rent" Also what seems along time ago now I was told by and ex director that UWE would take the money from the car park, and bars. Also they wanted access to the stadium at all times because rovers had agreed that a jogging track would be built. The stadium would also include a gym which students would have access too. UWE thought it would be a community stadium, being their community. Rovers obviously want a ground that makes money for them, no one else. How does it go? no deal is better than a bad deal, and I have to agree on that. I think you have posted before LPGas about the ex director telling you what UWE apparently wanted from the deal but I find it very hard to believe what he said. When you lease land or a building the terms are very specific and usually pinpoint the fact that, within certain parameters, the landlord permits the tenant to carry on his business without interference. Would UWE really have the time or resources to monitor bar takings to make sure they got their cut ? And the Sainsburys court case documents revealed that Rovers planned to lease the gym to a third party operator so it's hardly likely students would be given free access. Of course there were crossovers between UWE and Rovers but these were known from the outset and mainly involved Rovers leasing teaching space to UWE and UWE having use of the car park at certain times. Although one of Nick Higgs' biggest critics I have to say he seemed to have created the basis of a good deal for Rovers with the UWE Stadium plan but it depended entirely on getting 29 million from Sainsburys which would have been put into the project as equity capital. The line being put forward now is that the project was discovered to be non-viable or "not good for Rovers" and to give the impression the other party are to blame. But if you take 18 million equity out of the equation ( Mem value 29 million - Mem value 11 million) and replace it with 18 million of debt the finance costs alone are bound to have a crucial effect on the viability. Thats the problem, UWE stadium hinged on getting over market value for The Mem land. Whether it was the Al Qadis, NH, or someone else entirely, without Sainsburys the deal needs outside/additional investment which would/will always need to be paid back. The same for any Mem redevelopment unless their is a Lansdown type ready to sinl in tens of millions without thought or return
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Sept 4, 2017 19:45:50 GMT
I think you have posted before LPGas about the ex director telling you what UWE apparently wanted from the deal but I find it very hard to believe what he said. When you lease land or a building the terms are very specific and usually pinpoint the fact that, within certain parameters, the landlord permits the tenant to carry on his business without interference. Would UWE really have the time or resources to monitor bar takings to make sure they got their cut ? And the Sainsburys court case documents revealed that Rovers planned to lease the gym to a third party operator so it's hardly likely students would be given free access. Of course there were crossovers between UWE and Rovers but these were known from the outset and mainly involved Rovers leasing teaching space to UWE and UWE having use of the car park at certain times. Although one of Nick Higgs' biggest critics I have to say he seemed to have created the basis of a good deal for Rovers with the UWE Stadium plan but it depended entirely on getting 29 million from Sainsburys which would have been put into the project as equity capital. The line being put forward now is that the project was discovered to be non-viable or "not good for Rovers" and to give the impression the other party are to blame. But if you take 18 million equity out of the equation ( Mem value 29 million - Mem value 11 million) and replace it with 18 million of debt the finance costs alone are bound to have a crucial effect on the viability. Thats the problem, UWE stadium hinged on getting over market value for The Mem land. Whether it was the Al Qadis, NH, or someone else entirely, without Sainsburys the deal needs outside/additional investment which would/will always need to be paid back. The same for any Mem redevelopment unless their is a Lansdown type ready to sinl in tens of millions without thought or return I agree, so where does that leave the Mem plan? It will probably be as expensive as the UWE, if not more so, and with no land to sell with a smaller capacity. Wael has stated that funding isn't an issue despite having no idea about cost or timescales. Something's not right, is it?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 4, 2017 20:20:12 GMT
I think you have posted before LPGas about the ex director telling you what UWE apparently wanted from the deal but I find it very hard to believe what he said. When you lease land or a building the terms are very specific and usually pinpoint the fact that, within certain parameters, the landlord permits the tenant to carry on his business without interference. Would UWE really have the time or resources to monitor bar takings to make sure they got their cut ? And the Sainsburys court case documents revealed that Rovers planned to lease the gym to a third party operator so it's hardly likely students would be given free access. Of course there were crossovers between UWE and Rovers but these were known from the outset and mainly involved Rovers leasing teaching space to UWE and UWE having use of the car park at certain times. Although one of Nick Higgs' biggest critics I have to say he seemed to have created the basis of a good deal for Rovers with the UWE Stadium plan but it depended entirely on getting 29 million from Sainsburys which would have been put into the project as equity capital. The line being put forward now is that the project was discovered to be non-viable or "not good for Rovers" and to give the impression the other party are to blame. But if you take 18 million equity out of the equation ( Mem value 29 million - Mem value 11 million) and replace it with 18 million of debt the finance costs alone are bound to have a crucial effect on the viability. Thats the problem, UWE stadium hinged on getting over market value for The Mem land. Whether it was the Al Qadis, NH, or someone else entirely, without Sainsburys the deal needs outside/additional investment which would/will always need to be paid back. The same for any Mem redevelopment unless their is a Lansdown type ready to sinl in tens of millions without thought or return It hinges on what is meant by "paid back" In Dwane Sports case it looks like the pay back is 6% interest on capital, a football business for Wael and potential repayment of capital if the club can substantially increase it's value and be sold. In Steve Lansdown's case it looks like the pay back is a football business for Steve and his son and potential repayment of capital if the club can substantially increase it's value and be sold. In both cases the ongoing price paid for enjoying the football business is substantial trading losses which have to be covered. So far it seems Dwane Sports will cover those losses with more debt which increases the annual loss through higher interest payments whereas Steve Lansdown will cover the losses through a mixture of equity and non interest bearing debt. What is needed is substantial equity investment where the investors pay back is not through interest on capital or simply enjoyment of the football business but through the provision of something tangible which they perceive as being worth the investment. Currently the best source for this kind of investment is the Far East and one would hope the Al Qadi family are already proactive in seeking it. Plenty of Far East investors want a presence in European sport to further their strategic aims and it is possible that, once top clubs are discounted, there will be a filter down effect and lower league clubs could become attractive. Last year the Chinese Ledman group bought an Australian football team, Newcastle Jets, for $5 million and also paid Euros 25 million for a stake in Infront Sports & Media based in Zug Switzerland (my wife's home town). But in addition, to increase their European profile, they have sponsored Portugal's second division "Segunda Liga" which shows they are not afraid to back, with cash, football outside the top flight. It's no use waiting.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Sept 4, 2017 21:07:19 GMT
also paid Euros 25 million for a stake in Infront Sports & Media based in Zug Switzerland (my wife's home town) tax haven. Most people move to it, not away from it. N'est-ce pas?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Sept 4, 2017 21:09:48 GMT
Maybe we should be popping another "for sale" advert in the Gulf Times? Seemed to work last time.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 4, 2017 21:15:57 GMT
also paid Euros 25 million for a stake in Infront Sports & Media based in Zug Switzerland (my wife's home town) tax haven. Most people move to it, not away from it. N'est-ce pas? There was a bigger attraction (at the time)
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Sept 5, 2017 13:02:15 GMT
I understand that if you build a new stadium you don't pay VAT, but if you redevelop it you do. Is this correct?
|
|