|
Post by PessimistGas on Sept 6, 2017 21:11:57 GMT
Prestige, economic benefits, cultural benefits, employment opportunities, facilities for local people, improved access to sport for local people, educational facilities, exhibition and conferencing facilities..... What prestige, economic etc benefits would a 22K seat stadium bring to S Glos if Rovers stayed in there native City, was the strategic plan built around the stadium plans rather than vice a versa? Regardless unless S Glos intended supplying the land &/or finance towards the stadium I can't see what it has to do with their plans! It was (or is) in South Glos's Local Plan which sets out local planning policy. It basically sets out their desire for a 20k+ regional sports stadium in their area. This means that any planning application is likely to be looked on favourably. Maybe Wael and Co. could have worked with them to identify an alternative site but, unfortunately, there are zero suitable sites in the whole of South Glos (or Bristol for that matter). What a shame.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 22:09:27 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. Sorry, but if I think about it long and hard enough, and keep repeating it, I can convince myself that I'm a pixie sitting on a toadstool. It's fine to surmise, but when that turns to firm belief and foundation for the next conclusion, it's a problem. It's fine - and considerably more helpful - to say 'I don't know'. Known unknowns and all that. We don't know what the original arrangement with UWE was - no matter how often we heard what people thought someone had said. One story was that there was no contract per se, just principles, which I've never seen or seen reported clearly. Folk seemed relaxed that whatever that was would benefit from renegotiation. Whatever the problem was, with whatever the original proposal was, and why it couldn't be resolved, aren't known. 'Probably', 'seems to be', or 'presumably, are the end of the road fr now - or at least a major 'proceed with care' sign - not a firm basis for ploughing on and declaring enlightenment. I don't know what NH's deal was and no-one passing judgement on it has indicated that they do either. Ditto why a new arrangement was needed, or why it was not reached. That's frustrating, but let's drop the 'seemed to have created a good deal' and the like stuff when we just don't know what it was (even if we could agree what a 'good' deal would be). I'm as keen as anyone to see behind the scenes and ready to believe that I would be disappointed, but this 'man with a velvet waistcoat and twirly moustache standing outside a tent and describing the horrors within' act just militates against that.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,236
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Sept 7, 2017 19:34:28 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.
Sorry if I'm missing something here, but they only agreed to buy the club after the result of the action against Sainsbury's was known (or maybe subject to that result). Did they have another nutter lined up who promised to pay £29m for the Mem who has since come to his senses? Or did they just buy without even having the Mem valued or sighting the existing contract with UWE? As I remember it, when Nick Higgs introduced the new owners he said something like this means the stadium can now be built without the need for the money from Sainsbury's. Maybe he genuinely thought this was the case and building woukd start imminently. His side kick, Doug shields was triumphant on twitter and said that I told you he would deliver or words to that effect
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2017 20:06:26 GMT
Sorry if I'm missing something here, but they only agreed to buy the club after the result of the action against Sainsbury's was known (or maybe subject to that result). Did they have another nutter lined up who promised to pay £29m for the Mem who has since come to his senses? Or did they just buy without even having the Mem valued or sighting the existing contract with UWE? As I remember it, when Nick Higgs introduced the new owners he said something like this means the stadium can now be built without the need for the money from Sainsbury's. Maybe he genuinely thought this was the case and building woukd start imminently. His side kick, Doug shields was triumphant on twitter and said that I told you he would deliver or words to that effect In which case Higgs should have had them contracted to build the frigging thing, money lodged, everything agreed with UWE before handing the keys over. Wonder what would happen if we had a poll for the worst Chairman/owner in our club's history?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2017 20:18:42 GMT
As I remember it, when Nick Higgs introduced the new owners he said something like this means the stadium can now be built without the need for the money from Sainsbury's. Maybe he genuinely thought this was the case and building woukd start imminently. His side kick, Doug shields was triumphant on twitter and said that I told you he would deliver or words to that effect In which case Higgs should have had them contracted to build the frigging thing, money lodged, everything agreed with UWE before handing the keys over. Wonder what would happen if we had a poll for the worst Chairman/owner in our club's history? It'd be the one who sold Eastville.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,236
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Sept 8, 2017 7:01:02 GMT
In which case Higgs should have had them contracted to build the frigging thing, money lodged, everything agreed with UWE before handing the keys over. Wonder what would happen if we had a poll for the worst Chairman/owner in our club's history? It'd be the one who sold Eastville. Spot on. The rot started there and we have never since been able to get things going in the right direction for any prolonged period. It was an awful decision and one that has cost the club and fans dearly
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Sept 11, 2017 18:11:55 GMT
As I remember it, when Nick Higgs introduced the new owners he said something like this means the stadium can now be built without the need for the money from Sainsbury's. Maybe he genuinely thought this was the case and building woukd start imminently. His side kick, Doug shields was triumphant on twitter and said that I told you he would deliver or words to that effect In which case Higgs should have had them contracted to build the frigging thing, money lodged, everything agreed with UWE before handing the keys over. Wonder what would happen if we had a poll for the worst Chairman/owner in our club's history? It's certainly true that the collapse of the UWE deal rather puts the final nail in the coffin of Nick Higgs legacy. If the thing had been built there would be a conceivable argument that he set that in place. Now it's gone on the pile of other failed projects it becomes very hard to see Higgs as anything other than a complete failure on and off the field even on his own terms.
It also seems to me that there is a sub-set of former Higgs cheerleaders who are often the ones that jump on things that are critical of the current ownership. Yet this is the only thing that Higgs has left - if they do the business in other ways then at least you can say 'he sold the club on well'. If some of the more negative stuff turns out to be true then some of that comes back on Higgs. So there should be no bigger supporters of the current regime than those who want Nick Higgs to have a better legacy among Gasheads but it doesn't seem to always go like that.
I speak as someone who was fairly neutral on Higgs until the last couple of years really when the accountability gap became too big to ignore.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Sept 22, 2017 9:46:26 GMT
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. It would be interesting to know how you arrive at that figure (considering there is no note in the accounts), and if it were correct what it would be buying?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Sept 22, 2017 10:38:55 GMT
Still can't get my head around this 6% bit (assuming it's true)
How are they going to get that back a) if we don't make money and outgoings have increased, b) if we don't build UWE/The Mem to a profitable revenue standard
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,393
|
Post by harrybuckle on Sept 22, 2017 13:57:48 GMT
In which case Higgs should have had them contracted to build the frigging thing, money lodged, everything agreed with UWE before handing the keys over. Wonder what would happen if we had a poll for the worst Chairman/owner in our club's history? It'd be the one who sold Eastville. That superb Bristol Rovers FC Definitive History book put it very well indeed
"Unable to maintain a side, Rovers were obliged to suspend their playing commitments. Like a number of other clubs, they played no matches between the end of the 1939-40 season and the start of 1945-46. One side effect of this inaction was to prove crucial. The club had no revenue and, although at first the board had strongly opposed chairman Fred Ashmead’s unilateral decision to sell Eastville to the Bristol Greyhound Racing Association, the sale eventually went through on 3rd March 1940. Although the greyhound company had offered more, Eastville had been sold for £12,000. Rovers were granted a lease on 8th March 1940 at £400 per year to continue playing on the ground for a further twenty-one years. During the war years, Rovers might well have folded, had it not been for the support offered by the greyhound company. In the summer of 1942, the company had suggested to Rovers’ directors that the club should begin playing matches again and had offered to meet all financial obligations for 1942-43. On 19th September 1944, the company’s managing director Constantine Augustus Lucy Stevens (1900-84) and secretary John Patrick Hare (1903-79) were voted on to the board, bringing with them a £3,000 cash injection. 1,500 new shares worth £1 each were created and sold through a loan from the greyhound company for a shilling per share to Con Stevens, who purchased a thousand, and Hare, who bought the remainder. As the matchless 1944-45 season progressed, Rovers’ debts mounted. £600 was still owed to the bank, £700 to creditors and £4,700 on outstanding loans and the season’s inaction had cost a further £1,000. On 15th June 1945, therefore, Stevens and Hare became chairman and vice-chairman respectively and Charles Ferrari (1899-1965) was appointed secretary on 20th August 1945. Effectively, from 29th November 1944, for four years, Rovers became an undisclosed subsidiary of the greyhound company. On 21st September 1945 Lew Champeny (1898-1953), an employee of the greyhound company and a key figure in the events of 1950, was elected to the Rovers board. Various well-wishers waived more than £2,000 of the unpaid loans and it was with a greater sense of optimism and purpose that Rovers pieced together a scratch side in the following weeks."
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Sept 22, 2017 14:11:33 GMT
It'd be the one who sold Eastville. That superb Bristol Rovers FC Definitive History book put it very well indeed
"Unable to maintain a side, Rovers were obliged to suspend their playing commitments. Like a number of other clubs, they played no matches between the end of the 1939-40 season and the start of 1945-46. One side effect of this inaction was to prove crucial. The club had no revenue and, although at first the board had strongly opposed chairman Fred Ashmead’s unilateral decision to sell Eastville to the Bristol Greyhound Racing Association, the sale eventually went through on 3rd March 1940. Although the greyhound company had offered more, Eastville had been sold for £12,000. Rovers were granted a lease on 8th March 1940 at £400 per year to continue playing on the ground for a further twenty-one years. During the war years, Rovers might well have folded, had it not been for the support offered by the greyhound company. In the summer of 1942, the company had suggested to Rovers’ directors that the club should begin playing matches again and had offered to meet all financial obligations for 1942-43. On 19th September 1944, the company’s managing director Constantine Augustus Lucy Stevens (1900-84) and secretary John Patrick Hare (1903-79) were voted on to the board, bringing with them a £3,000 cash injection. 1,500 new shares worth £1 each were created and sold through a loan from the greyhound company for a shilling per share to Con Stevens, who purchased a thousand, and Hare, who bought the remainder. As the matchless 1944-45 season progressed, Rovers’ debts mounted. £600 was still owed to the bank, £700 to creditors and £4,700 on outstanding loans and the season’s inaction had cost a further £1,000. On 15th June 1945, therefore, Stevens and Hare became chairman and vice-chairman respectively and Charles Ferrari (1899-1965) was appointed secretary on 20th August 1945. Effectively, from 29th November 1944, for four years, Rovers became an undisclosed subsidiary of the greyhound company. On 21st September 1945 Lew Champeny (1898-1953), an employee of the greyhound company and a key figure in the events of 1950, was elected to the Rovers board. Various well-wishers waived more than £2,000 of the unpaid loans and it was with a greater sense of optimism and purpose that Rovers pieced together a scratch side in the following weeks."
did you write that harry?
|
|
|
Post by Colyton Gas. on Sept 22, 2017 14:32:46 GMT
When you see how a proper stadium functions it makes you weep.Approaching the stadium at Molineux there were lots of food outlets all doing a roaring trade.No doubt Wolves will get a percentage but everything was top notch.We can but dream.
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Sept 22, 2017 16:38:52 GMT
I couldn't find the vegan Food Outlet. #Disappointed
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Sept 22, 2017 16:54:44 GMT
Still can't get my head around this 6% bit (assuming it's true) How are they going to get that back a) if we don't make money and outgoings have increased, b) if we don't build UWE/The Mem to a profitable revenue standard Probably Mr ALQ senior is asking the very same question! I fear everything revolved around doing a deal with the UWE and now that's v. unlikely we're stuffed. I can't see how they are ever going to get their money back if they spend another £30m+ regenerating the Mem/building a training ground.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 17:08:54 GMT
When you see how a proper stadium functions it makes you weep.Approaching the stadium at Molineux there were lots of food outlets all doing a roaring trade.No doubt Wolves will get a percentage but everything was top notch.We can but dream. What's your problem? Last Tuesday week on the way in someone tried to sell me a 50/50 ticket then on the way out there was a shouting match between a car driver and someone leaving the game, the car was trying to move, the pedestrian thought that as thousands of people were leaving at the same time he should be allowed to walk in the middle of the road. Now if you want to buy Coke it will be pre-poured and flat. It's the Rovers' way. I swear, they won't shut Filton Ave for 20 mins after a game until the day after someone gets hurt.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,393
|
Post by harrybuckle on Sept 22, 2017 17:25:34 GMT
That superb Bristol Rovers FC Definitive History book put it very well indeed
"Unable to maintain a side, Rovers were obliged to suspend their playing commitments. Like a number of other clubs, they played no matches between the end of the 1939-40 season and the start of 1945-46. One side effect of this inaction was to prove crucial. The club had no revenue and, although at first the board had strongly opposed chairman Fred Ashmead’s unilateral decision to sell Eastville to the Bristol Greyhound Racing Association, the sale eventually went through on 3rd March 1940. Although the greyhound company had offered more, Eastville had been sold for £12,000. Rovers were granted a lease on 8th March 1940 at £400 per year to continue playing on the ground for a further twenty-one years. During the war years, Rovers might well have folded, had it not been for the support offered by the greyhound company. In the summer of 1942, the company had suggested to Rovers’ directors that the club should begin playing matches again and had offered to meet all financial obligations for 1942-43. On 19th September 1944, the company’s managing director Constantine Augustus Lucy Stevens (1900-84) and secretary John Patrick Hare (1903-79) were voted on to the board, bringing with them a £3,000 cash injection. 1,500 new shares worth £1 each were created and sold through a loan from the greyhound company for a shilling per share to Con Stevens, who purchased a thousand, and Hare, who bought the remainder. As the matchless 1944-45 season progressed, Rovers’ debts mounted. £600 was still owed to the bank, £700 to creditors and £4,700 on outstanding loans and the season’s inaction had cost a further £1,000. On 15th June 1945, therefore, Stevens and Hare became chairman and vice-chairman respectively and Charles Ferrari (1899-1965) was appointed secretary on 20th August 1945. Effectively, from 29th November 1944, for four years, Rovers became an undisclosed subsidiary of the greyhound company. On 21st September 1945 Lew Champeny (1898-1953), an employee of the greyhound company and a key figure in the events of 1950, was elected to the Rovers board. Various well-wishers waived more than £2,000 of the unpaid loans and it was with a greater sense of optimism and purpose that Rovers pieced together a scratch side in the following weeks."
did you write that harry? I can barely read let alone write according to some
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,066
|
Post by Angas on Sept 22, 2017 18:21:38 GMT
Sorry, seems like I'm picking on you. But for years I've seen posts where people were saying why on earth don't the staff pre pour drinks so there's a chance of actually getting one before the second half kicks off. From what I could gather, this is what happens at better run clubs than ours.
Isn't the whole point of a suggestion box that people put their wishes into it, presumably in the hope those wishes will be acted upon?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Sept 22, 2017 18:33:02 GMT
did you write that harry? I can barely read let alone write according to some which is interesting, but swerves the question the reason I asked is that you mention that 'Bristol Rovers FC Definitive History book put it very well indeed '. My guess is that is your own comment on your own original writing
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 22, 2017 20:57:10 GMT
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. It would be interesting to know how you arrive at that figure (considering there is no note in the accounts), and if it were correct what it would be buying? This is what I posted back in May. "Previous years accounts were quite transparent about the interest rates charged on directors loans and bonds with the loans being at 2.5% - 4.0% and the 3 year bonds at 3.5% over base rate. The directors and shareholders did not charge any interest in 2015 and at the time of the takeover wrote off the accumulated interest from previous years to which they were entitled and which amounted to £ 607 000. Interest on the MSP Capital loan was charged at 1.2% per month and the amount outstanding remained at £2 730 000 from 1/7/15 to the date of the takeover. Therefore the amount of interest payable on the MSP Capital loan during this period can be estimated at about £ 260 000. Interest of about £ 30 000 was also due to preference shareholders during the 2016 financial year so taken together about £ 290 000 was payable. Interest was waived on the previous shareholders loans and bonds so it appears that nothing else was payable. The accounts show a total of £ 435 000 charged during the full year so it would appear that Dwane Sports Ltd charged £ 145 000 for the period from 18/2/16 to 30/6/16. The initial amount injected was £ 6 211 000 and the amount owed at the year end was £ 7 200 000 so, if my figures are correct, the interest rate charged by Dwane Sports Ltd would be between 5.5% and 6.5%."
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,053
|
Post by eppinggas on Sept 22, 2017 21:16:25 GMT
I haven't heard anyone shoot down Swiss Gas figures (I was initially sceptical). Worrying times.
|
|