Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 23:59:15 GMT
They had the influence. At the time of the vote if they had voted against it then the resolution would have been defeated. Along with some former directors and existing shareholders at the time...as I recall The former directors and the individual shareholders in the room voted against it and the board was defeated on a show of hands. They passed the resolution the next day on a share count and the SC shares were the deciding factor. Merry Christmas, hope you are ok.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 0:01:22 GMT
Along with some former directors and existing shareholders at the time...as I recall The former directors and the individual shareholders in the room voted against it and the board was defeated on a show of hands. They passed the resolution the next day on a share count and the SC shares were the deciding factor. Merry Christmas, hope you are ok. Thanks for the clarification. The fog of history and age and all that. Merry Christmas to you and yours
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 0:14:05 GMT
The former directors and the individual shareholders in the room voted against it and the board was defeated on a show of hands. They passed the resolution the next day on a share count and the SC shares were the deciding factor. Merry Christmas, hope you are ok. Thanks for the clarification. The fog of history and age and all that. Merry Christmas to you and yours The final chapter is going to be how Jim sweeps over £1m under the carpet and we all move forward as if it never happened
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Dec 24, 2017 9:54:20 GMT
Let's not rake over the coals of the Share Scheme as it revealed good intentions but very poor leadership from the SC. More importantly, it's history.
If we were to raise money to be the outside investors then we would have to set up a proper charity organisation with full-time employees to hit a figure every year. It would potentially galvanise a fan base to leave a lasting legacy. A ground permanently in supporters' ownership addressing over 70 years of vulnerability.
It is in effect a mortgage on a new build with the Jordanian bank providing the initial capital for new build. They would be acting in the role of a .....bank.
The scheme has to be a re-invention of UWE, re-negotiated by those representing the Stadium Trust. The design will have to be re-visted with emphasis on safe standing and shared catering facilities that will benefit football club and UWE. The design has to be the opportunity to engage the fan base as they will be the ones paying for it. The design has to be meet a realistic budget for fund-raising target.
I would not be interested in any scheme that does not guarantee 100% ownership of the Stadium by supporters via Trust. That gives us control over how the Stadium is used and even developed.
There will be people who say it can't be done. Thanks, but what is the alternative if, as we suspect, the funding will not come from ALQ. If they we were not prepared to provide the capital to get this off the ground, excuse the pun, then they are next to useless to us from a strategic perspective.
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Dec 24, 2017 9:59:08 GMT
Good luck in finding 10,000 people who are either willing or able to put in an average of 3 grand each. This is the nuts and bolts of this proposal I’m afraid.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Dec 24, 2017 10:17:58 GMT
10,000 supporters raising on average £100 a year over 25 years.
But properly run charities are a bit more imaginative than that.
Did you know that your local Air Ambulance raises more than £3 million every year to keep its helicopter operational.
We have more than 10,000 supporters in this city, just we don't attract them often enough in a ramshackle stadium.
Yes, keep telling me it can't be done.
|
|
|
Post by gasheadpirate on Dec 24, 2017 10:23:33 GMT
10,000 supporters raising on average £100 a year over 25 years. But properly run charities are a bit more imaginative than that. Did you know that your local Air Ambulance raises more than £3 million every year to keep its helicopter operational. We have more than 10,000 supporters in this city, just we don't attract them often enough in a ramshackle stadium. Yes, keep telling me it can't be done. I pay more than that in the Share Scheme already. If such a scheme you suggest were to start, I would consider putting the Silver Level I presently pay into this.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 11:18:58 GMT
Let's not rake over the coals of the Share Scheme as it revealed good intentions but very poor leadership from the SC. More importantly, it's history. I didn't mean to rake (or shovel) coal, or anything more malodorous. But the SS has apparently taken £1m ish of supporters' cash, for no influence, and for no security in the ground. Those gasheads paying in should have a claim to a charge on the Memorial Ground if so do Dwane Sports. The most salient point I have though is that this sorry BRSCSS episode will prevent a crowdfunding scheme for a generation at least. Such a waste of loyal support, financial sacrfice, and gashead goodwill. A generation at least. EDIT: I shall be delighted if you prove me wrong. EDIT 2: let's start the ball rolling with that £1m already invested now to be repaid. Can somebody work out what this is worth now (compound the interest correctly)?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 11:37:23 GMT
10,000 supporters raising on average £100 a year over 25 years. But properly run charities are a bit more imaginative than that. Did you know that your local Air Ambulance raises more than £3 million every year to keep its helicopter operational. We have more than 10,000 supporters in this city, just we don't attract them often enough in a ramshackle stadium. Yes, keep telling me it can't be done. If Just a couple of thoughts Vaughan. This raises £25m gross. Unless you can find someone prepared to lend the money for free then some will be lost to interest, so what residual amount do you anticipate when the scheme matures? Or are we saving to build a ground in 25 years time? What can you build with £25m? If it doesn't get built, do the investors get their money back? Yes, people do want better facilities, but leisure spend is competitive, people won't come just because you have a nice stadium. Will investors be legally bound to fulfill the 25 year term? If so, that may require a charge on their estates. If you can put the thing together in a way that makes some kind of sense I'm in above the £100 level. Good luck.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 11:49:02 GMT
Let's not rake over the coals of the Share Scheme as it revealed good intentions but very poor leadership from the SC. More importantly, it's history. I didn't mean to rake (or shovel) coal, or anything more malodorous. But the SS has apparently taken £1m ish of supporters' cash, for no influence, and for no security in the ground. Those gasheads paying in should have a claim to a charge on the Memorial Ground if so do Dwane Sports. The most salient point I have though is that this sorry BRSCSS episode will prevent a crowdfunding scheme for a generation at least. Such a waste of loyal support, financial sacrfice, and gashead goodwill. A generation at least. EDIT: I shall be delighted if you prove me wrong. EDIT 2: let's start the ball rolling with that £1m already invested now to be repaid. Can somebody work out what this is worth now (compound the interest correctly)?6% feels like a comfortable number We'll get nothing, it's going to vanish, every penny of it. Jim will sell the shares for 50p and a box of stale mince pies, the mince pies will be given to some unlucky devil sat outside of a shop on Glouces Rd, the 50p will be given to a Rovers related cause, the lights will be turned out and that will be that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 12:19:57 GMT
You learn from history and Bristol Rovers history indicates that you have little to no chance of raising £25m when we couldn’t raise £3m when the board ran out of cash in 2003 ish.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 12:28:45 GMT
You learn from history and Bristol Rovers history indicates that you have little to no chance of raising £25m when we couldn’t raise £3m when the board ran out of cash in 2003 ish. Give Vaughan a chance, let him put his thoughts together, maybe he can come up with a model and a way of selling it that nobody else has thought of yet? Not sure that mentioning the Air Ambulance is the best move though, it just makes me want to give more money to the Air Ambulance
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 12:41:00 GMT
You learn from history and Bristol Rovers history indicates that you have little to no chance of raising £25m when we couldn’t raise £3m when the board ran out of cash in 2003 ish. Give Vaughan a chance, let him put his thoughts together, maybe he can come up with a model and a way of selling it that nobody else has thought of yet? Not sure that mentioning the Air Ambulance is the best move though, it just makes me want to give more money to the Air Ambulance Fair point but I don’t think Vaughan will have 25 years. The club would need to find a ground to play in and that won’t be easy if we manage to keep our league status after the fall out. The best option would be to find enough cash to buy out the current owners before the fan and s**t collide.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 12:54:50 GMT
Give Vaughan a chance, let him put his thoughts together, maybe he can come up with a model and a way of selling it that nobody else has thought of yet? Not sure that mentioning the Air Ambulance is the best move though, it just makes me want to give more money to the Air Ambulance Fair point but I don’t think Vaughan will have 25 years. The club would need to find a ground to play in and that won’t be easy if we manage to keep our league status after the fall out. The best option would be to find enough cash to buy out the current owners before the fan and s*** collide. I said that Higgs had nothing to sell, he had a business that was tied to it's premises, the business was all but guaranteed to lose money every year, ultimately it's long term value was zero. These owners have made it worse. What would you be buying from them exactly? One good thing, if a takeover happens soon, we'll have to cull some staff, so Tom will go and Holts can have his office back before he gets cold toes sat in that portacabin
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 13:12:21 GMT
Fair point but I don’t think Vaughan will have 25 years. The club would need to find a ground to play in and that won’t be easy if we manage to keep our league status after the fall out. The best option would be to find enough cash to buy out the current owners before the fan and s*** collide. I said that Higgs had nothing to sell, he had a business that was tied to it's premises, the business was all but guaranteed to lose money every year, ultimately it's long term value was zero. These owners have made it worse. What would you be buying from them exactly? One good thing, if a takeover happens soon, we'll have to cull some staff, so Tom will go and Holts can have his office back before he gets cold toes sat in that portacabin All you would be buying would be the rights to play in a delapited Stadium paying more than the Stadium is worth as a Stadium. You would only do that for blind love wouldn’t you. I hope Ian gets some fluffy slippers for a Christmas.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 13:37:06 GMT
I said that Higgs had nothing to sell, he had a business that was tied to it's premises, the business was all but guaranteed to lose money every year, ultimately it's long term value was zero. These owners have made it worse. What would you be buying from them exactly? One good thing, if a takeover happens soon, we'll have to cull some staff, so Tom will go and Holts can have his office back before he gets cold toes sat in that portacabin All you would be buying would be the rights to play in a delapited Stadium paying more than the Stadium is worth as a Stadium. You would only do that for blind love wouldn’t you. I hope Ian gets some fluffy slippers for a Christmas. If I understood UWE correctly, they are still amenable to discussions around developing a stadium on their land, so I guess the challenge for Vaughan is to find not £25m but circa £45m plus operating capital, then we can consign the whole Al-Qadi / Hamer episode to history. But there's good news for him. He will have done the sums, the present site can be sold for circa £15m, so nett cost of building UWE is circa £30m. Including demolition etc and the fact that a new stadium on the existing site would need to be stage built, UWE is by far the best option. I can't wait to get started Should we club together to get Holts a heater to go under his desk? £17.99 at Argos.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Dec 24, 2017 13:47:57 GMT
If the ALQs were in it for the long haul and had the best interests of the Club at heart, why would they not facilitate investment in the Club via outside investors? That is the only way that they are going to get their money back without the reputational damage of making us homeless.
AlQs fund the build and we raise the money over time to secure the ownership.
It's difficult to know where UWE are with this. Has anyone asked?
Also I don't know what £25 million would buy over £50 million, but for me a guiding principle is that match-day experience is more important than a pissing contest over seat capacity. I am working backwards from a number, although some people think that it is pie in the sky. Again, it has to be a funding commitment spread over realistic timeframe.
The other factor is that a brand new stadium is best means of attracting new support, especially if self-funded.
So I think that we should go back and re-negotiate with UWE with those negotiations underpinned by different funding model. The ultimate carrot is we own the Stadium and FC benefit from revenue generated.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 14:06:45 GMT
If the ALQs were in it for the long haul and had the best interests of the Club at heart, why would they not facilitate investment in the Club via outside investors? That is the only way that they are going to get their money back without the reputational damage of making us homeless. AlQs fund the build and we raise the money over time to secure the ownership. It's difficult to know where UWE are with this. Has anyone asked? Also I don't know what £25 million would buy over £50 million, but for me a guiding principle is that match-day experience is more important than a pissing contest over seat capacity. I am working backwards from a number, although some people think that it is pie in the sky. Again, it has to be a funding commitment spread over realistic timeframe. The other factor is that a brand new stadium is best means of attracting new support, especially if self-funded. So I think that we should go back and re-negotiate with UWE with those negotiations underpinned by different funding model. The ultimate carrot is we own the Stadium and FC benefit from revenue generated. So you want to borrow the money from the present owners? This is going to be interesting, how are they going to justify lending against a project that they won't commit to themselves when they own the parent company?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 14:18:12 GMT
Without the Supporters Clubs backing at the time of the rights issue the directors couldn’t dilute the shareholding. The fact that they did vote in favour made it the end game for future influence. Didn't the fact that they did vote for it demonstrate that they had no clue, or influence anyway? Doesn't it really matter the club are in turmoil on and off the pitch and revisiting something that happened years ago is not going to divert the worries the majority of us have about the future of the club. Until a few months ago I was not unduly concerned because there was someone who would have moved heaven and earth to keep the club going but he is no longer around answer all the struggles we have put up with since 1986 look to be heading into oblivion under the current ownership and there is nothing any of us can do about it
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 24, 2017 14:45:34 GMT
If the ALQs were in it for the long haul and had the best interests of the Club at heart, why would they not facilitate investment in the Club via outside investors? That is the only way that they are going to get their money back without the reputational damage of making us homeless. AlQs fund the build and we raise the money over time to secure the ownership. It's difficult to know where UWE are with this. Has anyone asked? Also I don't know what £25 million would buy over £50 million, but for me a guiding principle is that match-day experience is more important than a pissing contest over seat capacity. I am working backwards from a number, although some people think that it is pie in the sky. Again, it has to be a funding commitment spread over realistic timeframe. The other factor is that a brand new stadium is best means of attracting new support, especially if self-funded. So I think that we should go back and re-negotiate with UWE with those negotiations underpinned by different funding model. The ultimate carrot is we own the Stadium and FC benefit from revenue generated. Thank you Vaughan, the discussion of your ideas has caused the most ferocious breakfast table debate we've had in our house for many a long Christmas Eve. Like you I would be keen to explore all possibilities including the model at Hearts FC which I've flagged up before. But my wife, who was previously an accountant at a Swiss private bank, is adamant that the owners will ruthlessly cash in their security when they are ready and that Rovers will be left homeless again. She thinks Ed Ware (whom she got on well with when they met many years ago) might be the one to pick up the pieces. My elder son, who proudly turned "Irene" into his College fraternity anthem and led many a drunken rampage with them after Rovers victories, is embarrassed at the position we are in, questions whether our fans have the will to do anything to help the club and doubts whether any outsiders would want to get involved. My younger son, who has inherited my sense of humour, loves the absurdity associated with Rovers and suggested that if the Al-Qadi's pull out we might apply for an Arts Council grant to keep the club going.
|
|