Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2017 23:03:05 GMT
I agree with the points raised by Swiss Gas. The main thing is that the AlQs understand that there is another model for funding and whether they wish to engage in this thinking or not. They may have it all covered.😁 As said, you'll need to ask the question, but you'll also need to prepare for what answers and questions may come back at you. First impressions are always important, not everything, but important.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Dec 28, 2017 11:15:32 GMT
morning swiss, can you talk us through her reasoning here? I ask as I think I understand the point, up to a point - they will 'cash in' eventually as they won't be owners for ever (so that part is axiomatic), but the timing and homeless things seem to be very uncertain to me for the timing (unless some of the other rumoured 10 investors are willing to stump up cash) the obvious time to do it would be now - as, if the putative analysis done on here is to be believed (and in my view it largely is - I think Oldie pointed out that there is nothing new and it has always been director guarantees keeping the gig afloat, the fact that in aggregate they probably add up to the value of professional fees paid for stadium developments notwithstanding), the losses are ticking up at a rate of maybe around £5.5k a day (£2m a year) the security no longer covering the value of the financial hole seems to be the 'crisis point'. But, going back to the thread title, the reputational damage (which I suspect I perceive as of higher value than your wife, though she is probably at least as well placed to know) would follow the alternative is to invest and create, or create the impression of, something much 'bigger' than what is currently in place. That was happening with some gusto for the first year or so, it seemed to me, but there is no longer even 'window dressing' going on can you, based on the breakfast debate, elaborate on how and why it might be played out (if they were to decide that they want out asap, and there aren't any real buyers out there, selling the Mem and the 'club' for a small amount is the one that seems to be imagined, but maybe that's not what you wife had in mind)? Well ampg she has experience of how bankers operate, including Middle Eastern bankers, and she tends to take a more objective view of Rovers than we do. Over the last ten years the names of "Mike and Colin" cropped up frequently as alternative to the contemporary owners and only last week 199 Two Mile Hill Rd was mentioned again as the last gasp safety net if the club ever ran into financial difficulties. I am afraid too many Gasheads are stuck in the past and are unable to grasp the modern financial realities of owning and running a professional football club. The sums involved today are far in excess of what were needed in the past and anyone taking a chance must be fully aware of the consequences. A football club is not the place for pension money or a secure home for cash on which they can expect a competitive return. A football club is a place where someone can spend their surplus cash in a quest for fun and personal satisfaction in much the same way as a punter might put 50p into a gaming machine or blow £50 000 on a racehorse. We now know that the Al-Qadi family made a terrible misjudgment when buying Rovers because Steve Hamer has talked about "reality kicking in" and told us they view the cash they have put into the club as "recoverable". The question is, how can they get out with minimal damage to their reputation and how can Rovers survive as a league club ? As NQSS says, it's unlikely that anyone is going to pay the current debt to buy the club and begin their quest for fun and personal satisfaction from a starting point of - £12 million, needing to cover losses of £1 + million per year (no interest because loans would have been cleared) and with an estimate in hand of £25 million for either redeveloping the Mem or building a new stadium. As Oldie says, anyone owning a football club must accept that the club will make losses and that any money they put in either through bank guarantees, loans or cash equity investments is at risk and they have to be prepared to lose it. The most likely group of people to gain fun and personal satisfaction from being part of a football club and helping it achieve success are people who already follow that club and the next likely group are those with an interest in football or sport in general who could be persuaded to get involved. We then move to the question of how much surplus cash those people have to invest and it's clear that this will vary from very small amounts on a regular basis to large amounts on a regular basis to very large amounts as lump sumps. The Hearts FC model shows that it can be done but it needs excellent organization and leadership plus some fairly hefty lump sums to give it credibility and kick start it into action. I will minimize this bit for obvious reasons but the Rovers supporters whom we know have just received windfalls of nearly £4 million and who would be best placed to "kick start" such a scheme are NH, BB, CJ and EW. However if those gentlemen were to become involved it would have to be clear that the cash was put in as per the Hearts foundation model and that no proportionate influence or entitlement would be forthcoming.
So with a Hearts FC "foundation" model underway the current owners would have to be persuaded to pass the club to the "foundation" for £1 and give it a lease of the Mem for three years until a new home for the football club is found. If the current loan is £12 million, and they are no longer responsible for ongoing losses, the interest on the debt will bring it to about £14 million after three years which means, if the Mem is sold then for £15 million, the Al Qadi family will recover their money and be able to pay transaction costs.
Those three years would give the "foundation" time to work with other interested parties to construct a suitable stadium which may be on a more modest scale than we have been led to expect but nevertheless one which would be more that suitable for our needs because the foundation principle establishes that sustainability is primarily achieved through participants investing surplus cash rather than the much talked about (but IMO much less easily realized) revenue schemes. Would the previous owners come together with Mike, Colin and others, independent sports minded investors and the great mass of Gasheads to create a new model for Rovers ?thanks swiss some very interesting thoughts there - and maybe some which will have legs in the future. It's a bit similar to the RAFC plan, it seems to me, though now involving a new ground I suspect that the bankers would find all of that a bit time consuming for little financial or reputational reward, unfortunately (not that I've any idea in reality). They might, however, be prepared to gamble a bit of dosh on a training ground (where much of the value is secured), a few players, and a few plans on paper for re-developing the Mem. That way they might sell a 'Championship' club maybe it depends on their attitude to risk. My experience is that bankers don't mind a bit of credit risk, but they don't like any other type at all. Maybe fortunately, they hate reputational risk in particular, and this venture has already had a lot of publicity in a lot of places, but particularly back at home in Jordan (or so it is said) I'm wondering who the business brain is. Currently I see Hani as the FD, controlling funds but not leading the venture. I saw early snippets from Wael to suggest that he may be great at it - hitting the ground running, copying proven models etc - but a combination of extensive use of consultants (a shield to hide behind for some, as much as a source of expertise), the lack of control over the UWE announcement dribbling out, and the recent bumbly interviews have made me re-think that
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Dec 28, 2017 12:07:28 GMT
Well ampg she has experience of how bankers operate, including Middle Eastern bankers, and she tends to take a more objective view of Rovers than we do. Over the last ten years the names of "Mike and Colin" cropped up frequently as alternative to the contemporary owners and only last week 199 Two Mile Hill Rd was mentioned again as the last gasp safety net if the club ever ran into financial difficulties. I am afraid too many Gasheads are stuck in the past and are unable to grasp the modern financial realities of owning and running a professional football club. The sums involved today are far in excess of what were needed in the past and anyone taking a chance must be fully aware of the consequences. A football club is not the place for pension money or a secure home for cash on which they can expect a competitive return. A football club is a place where someone can spend their surplus cash in a quest for fun and personal satisfaction in much the same way as a punter might put 50p into a gaming machine or blow £50 000 on a racehorse. We now know that the Al-Qadi family made a terrible misjudgment when buying Rovers because Steve Hamer has talked about "reality kicking in" and told us they view the cash they have put into the club as "recoverable". The question is, how can they get out with minimal damage to their reputation and how can Rovers survive as a league club ? As NQSS says, it's unlikely that anyone is going to pay the current debt to buy the club and begin their quest for fun and personal satisfaction from a starting point of - £12 million, needing to cover losses of £1 + million per year (no interest because loans would have been cleared) and with an estimate in hand of £25 million for either redeveloping the Mem or building a new stadium. As Oldie says, anyone owning a football club must accept that the club will make losses and that any money they put in either through bank guarantees, loans or cash equity investments is at risk and they have to be prepared to lose it. The most likely group of people to gain fun and personal satisfaction from being part of a football club and helping it achieve success are people who already follow that club and the next likely group are those with an interest in football or sport in general who could be persuaded to get involved. We then move to the question of how much surplus cash those people have to invest and it's clear that this will vary from very small amounts on a regular basis to large amounts on a regular basis to very large amounts as lump sumps. The Hearts FC model shows that it can be done but it needs excellent organization and leadership plus some fairly hefty lump sums to give it credibility and kick start it into action. I will minimize this bit for obvious reasons but the Rovers supporters whom we know have just received windfalls of nearly £4 million and who would be best placed to "kick start" such a scheme are NH, BB, CJ and EW. However if those gentlemen were to become involved it would have to be clear that the cash was put in as per the Hearts foundation model and that no proportionate influence or entitlement would be forthcoming.
So with a Hearts FC "foundation" model underway the current owners would have to be persuaded to pass the club to the "foundation" for £1 and give it a lease of the Mem for three years until a new home for the football club is found. If the current loan is £12 million, and they are no longer responsible for ongoing losses, the interest on the debt will bring it to about £14 million after three years which means, if the Mem is sold then for £15 million, the Al Qadi family will recover their money and be able to pay transaction costs.
Those three years would give the "foundation" time to work with other interested parties to construct a suitable stadium which may be on a more modest scale than we have been led to expect but nevertheless one which would be more that suitable for our needs because the foundation principle establishes that sustainability is primarily achieved through participants investing surplus cash rather than the much talked about (but IMO much less easily realized) revenue schemes. Would the previous owners come together with Mike, Colin and others, independent sports minded investors and the great mass of Gasheads to create a new model for Rovers ?thanks swiss some very interesting thoughts there - and maybe some which will have legs in the future. It's a bit similar to the RAFC plan, it seems to me, though now involving a new ground I suspect that the bankers would find all of that a bit time consuming for little financial or reputational reward, unfortunately (not that I've any idea in reality). They might, however, be prepared to gamble a bit of dosh on a training ground (where much of the value is secured), a few players, and a few plans on paper for re-developing the Mem. That way they might sell a 'Championship' club maybe it depends on their attitude to risk. My experience is that bankers don't mind a bit of credit risk, but they don't like any other type at all. Maybe fortunately, they hate reputational risk in particular, and this venture has already had a lot of publicity in a lot of places, but particularly back at home in Jordan (or so it is said) I'm wondering who the business brain is. Currently I see Hani as the FD, controlling funds but not leading the venture. I saw early snippets from Wael to suggest that he may be great at it - hitting the ground running, copying proven models etc - but a combination of extensive use of consultants (a shield to hide behind for some, as much as a source of expertise), the lack of control over the UWE announcement dribbling out, and the recent bumbly interviews have made me re-think that Best case scenario now is that the rumours about Ed Ware and UWE building the stadium that Rovers will lease are true. The Mem would likely be sold to cover the AQ's loans + interest. Win, win - for them at least. Hopefully the terms of the lease would be favourable.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Dec 28, 2017 12:28:42 GMT
I'm not sure that's 'best case' Pess (though realise you've a name to live up to there!)
maybe Wael would want a role in it if it were to happen - to help support his career in football?
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Dec 28, 2017 12:43:09 GMT
I'm not sure that's 'best case' Pess (though realise you've a name to live up to there!) maybe Wael would want a role in it if it were to happen - to help support his career in football? Ok, least worst option that is actually realistic. At the other end of the scale the Mem is flogged from beneath us and we are left homeless again. I don't think Wael will set foot in BS7 again after the s**te hits the fan. Happy New year. :-)
|
|
|
Post by gasolder on Dec 28, 2017 13:05:27 GMT
I'm just a simple soul and try to keep my thoughts to the basics. Everyone in the world is aware that football clubs are not a sound financial investment. Wael's family, as bankers, would have been very much aware of this when they took on their ownership of Rovers. They must have been surprised by the success of the club since their purchase. One of the best young managers in League football, trawled the lower reaches of football and built a side which played well above anyone's expectations. So the rules have changed, for the club's financial outgoings will be well beyond what they would have predicted. The more successful, the more expensive the project becomes! Their cosy little project where all of their outgoings were covered by the value of the club's assets has changed into a greedy cash gobbler. They are probably going through the process of determining whether they wish to continue with the project or should they abandon it before the rising debt passes the point at which the assets are no longer covering the equation. That's if they haven't already done so. A model of how expensive the project becomes is exemplified by the £130 million or so invested not too far away!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 13:23:27 GMT
thanks swiss some very interesting thoughts there - and maybe some which will have legs in the future. It's a bit similar to the RAFC plan, it seems to me, though now involving a new ground I suspect that the bankers would find all of that a bit time consuming for little financial or reputational reward, unfortunately (not that I've any idea in reality). They might, however, be prepared to gamble a bit of dosh on a training ground (where much of the value is secured), a few players, and a few plans on paper for re-developing the Mem. That way they might sell a 'Championship' club maybe it depends on their attitude to risk. My experience is that bankers don't mind a bit of credit risk, but they don't like any other type at all. Maybe fortunately, they hate reputational risk in particular, and this venture has already had a lot of publicity in a lot of places, but particularly back at home in Jordan (or so it is said) I'm wondering who the business brain is. Currently I see Hani as the FD, controlling funds but not leading the venture. I saw early snippets from Wael to suggest that he may be great at it - hitting the ground running, copying proven models etc - but a combination of extensive use of consultants (a shield to hide behind for some, as much as a source of expertise), the lack of control over the UWE announcement dribbling out, and the recent bumbly interviews have made me re-think that Best case scenario now is that the rumours about Ed Ware and UWE building the stadium that Rovers will lease are true. The Mem would likely be sold to cover the AQ's loans + interest. Win, win - for them at least. Hopefully the terms of the lease would be favourable. I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually propose that Ed Ware is the best case scenario
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Dec 28, 2017 13:24:59 GMT
Best case scenario now is that the rumours about Ed Ware and UWE building the stadium that Rovers will lease are true. The Mem would likely be sold to cover the AQ's loans + interest. Win, win - for them at least. Hopefully the terms of the lease would be favourable. I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually propose that Ed Ware is the best case scenario Pess, I think you've been out-pessed....
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Dec 28, 2017 16:01:15 GMT
thanks swiss some very interesting thoughts there - and maybe some which will have legs in the future. It's a bit similar to the RAFC plan, it seems to me, though now involving a new ground I suspect that the bankers would find all of that a bit time consuming for little financial or reputational reward, unfortunately (not that I've any idea in reality). They might, however, be prepared to gamble a bit of dosh on a training ground (where much of the value is secured), a few players, and a few plans on paper for re-developing the Mem. That way they might sell a 'Championship' club maybe it depends on their attitude to risk. My experience is that bankers don't mind a bit of credit risk, but they don't like any other type at all. Maybe fortunately, they hate reputational risk in particular, and this venture has already had a lot of publicity in a lot of places, but particularly back at home in Jordan (or so it is said) I'm wondering who the business brain is. Currently I see Hani as the FD, controlling funds but not leading the venture. I saw early snippets from Wael to suggest that he may be great at it - hitting the ground running, copying proven models etc - but a combination of extensive use of consultants (a shield to hide behind for some, as much as a source of expertise), the lack of control over the UWE announcement dribbling out, and the recent bumbly interviews have made me re-think that Best case scenario now is that the rumours about Ed Ware and UWE building the stadium that Rovers will lease are true. The Mem would likely be sold to cover the AQ's loans + interest. Win, win - for them at least. Hopefully the terms of the lease would be favourable. Is this actually for real? I was there for the last game at Eastville and trust me, I never want to go back to renting a stadium for as long as I breathe.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 28, 2017 16:28:34 GMT
Best case scenario now is that the rumours about Ed Ware and UWE building the stadium that Rovers will lease are true. The Mem would likely be sold to cover the AQ's loans + interest. Win, win - for them at least. Hopefully the terms of the lease would be favourable. Is this actually for real? I was there for the last game at Eastville and trust me, I never want to go back to renting a stadium for as long as I breathe. As in 1939 and 1986 it may be a case of beggars can't be choosers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 16:47:31 GMT
Is this actually for real? I was there for the last game at Eastville and trust me, I never want to go back to renting a stadium for as long as I breathe. As in 1939 and 1986 it may be a case of beggars can't be choosers. And the football club rent it now. From the company that owns the freehold. Unless something changed.
|
|
c4h10
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 476
|
Post by c4h10 on Dec 28, 2017 17:37:40 GMT
I may be the only one who doesn't know the answer to this, but can someone tell me how clubs with half, or less, of the gate that Rovers regularly get can survive. It's been stated in this thread that we lose a million a year, so how much is lost by clubs with 4,000 gates?
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Dec 28, 2017 17:44:52 GMT
Best case scenario now is that the rumours about Ed Ware and UWE building the stadium that Rovers will lease are true. The Mem would likely be sold to cover the AQ's loans + interest. Win, win - for them at least. Hopefully the terms of the lease would be favourable. Is this actually for real? I was there for the last game at Eastville and trust me, I never want to go back to renting a stadium for as long as I breathe. If the lease is long enough it's as good a freehold. Certainly don't see the issue with a 125 years lease with a peppercorn rent. I think the issue with Eastville not just that we sold the ground but allowed to be sold with a 25 year lease with extortionate rent rises. Let's hope Hani doesn't want his money back any time soon or we won't have a choice in the matter.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 17:50:43 GMT
Is this actually for real? I was there for the last game at Eastville and trust me, I never want to go back to renting a stadium for as long as I breathe. If the lease is long enough it's as good a freehold. Certainly don't see the issue with a 125 years lease with a peppercorn rent. Let's hope Hani doesn't want his money back any time soon or we won't have a choice in the matter. As was the case with the previous BoD
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Dec 28, 2017 18:00:22 GMT
If the lease is long enough it's as good a freehold. Certainly don't see the issue with a 125 years lease with a peppercorn rent. Let's hope Hani doesn't want his money back any time soon or we won't have a choice in the matter. As was the case with the previous BoD That may be true, But for all of their faults I know the previous BoD were Gasheads with the best interests of the club at heart. I definitely cannot say the same about Hani Al Qadi. Also, the Mem was worth many times the value of the debt. The debt is now approaching the value of the Mem. There is no plan and clearly the appetite for investment has waned. Realistically, is he going to let the debt exeed the value of their only asset?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 28, 2017 18:20:58 GMT
I may be the only one who doesn't know the answer to this, but can someone tell me how clubs with half, or less, of the gate that Rovers regularly get can survive. It's been stated in this thread that we lose a million a year, so how much is lost by clubs with 4,000 gates? I posted my views on this yesterday. "A football club is not the place for pension money or a secure home for cash on which they can expect a competitive return. A football club is a place where someone can spend their surplus cash in a quest for fun and personal satisfaction in much the same way as a punter might put 50p into a gaming machine or blow £50 000 on a racehorse. " It is just my opinion but I think at Rovers we've been brainwashed into accepting that our owners are entitled to get their money back whether or not they succeed. But in any other business enterprise if it succeeds the owners can get their money back and more but if it fails then they lose their money. Scunthorpe United get very low crowds and last year their Chairman had to put over £3 million into the club as equity to cover losses but he understands that you have to "pay to play".
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Dec 28, 2017 18:21:47 GMT
I may be the only one who doesn't know the answer to this, but can someone tell me how clubs with half, or less, of the gate that Rovers regularly get can survive. It's been stated in this thread that we lose a million a year, so how much is lost by clubs with 4,000 gates? I posted my views on this yesterday. "A football club is not the place for pension money or a secure home for cash on which they can expect a competitive return. A football club is a place where someone can spend their surplus cash in a quest for fun and personal satisfaction in much the same way as a punter might put 50p into a gaming machine or blow £50 000 on a racehorse. " It is just my opinion but I think at Rovers we've been brainwashed into accepting that our owners are entitled to get their money back whether or not they succeed. But in any other business enterprise if it succeeds the owners can get their money back and more but if it fails then they lose their money. Scunthorpe United get very low crowds and last year their Chairman had to put over £3 million into the club as equity to cover losses but he understands that you have to "pay to play". but only because football is broken
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Dec 28, 2017 18:28:43 GMT
As was the case with the previous BoD That may be true, But for all of their faults I know the previous BoD were Gasheads with the best interests of the club at heart. I definitely cannot say the same about Hani Al Qadi. Also, the Mem was worth many times the value of the debt. The debt is now approaching the value of the Mem. There is no plan and clearly the appetite for investment has waned. Realistically, is he going to let the debt exeed the value of their only asset? It doesn’t matter if they were Gasheads or not, surely their competence (or lack of) is the only thing that should be questioned. It wasn’t the Al Qadi family who made our club tinpot.
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Dec 28, 2017 18:36:57 GMT
That may be true, But for all of their faults I know the previous BoD were Gasheads with the best interests of the club at heart. I definitely cannot say the same about Hani Al Qadi. Also, the Mem was worth many times the value of the debt. The debt is now approaching the value of the Mem. There is no plan and clearly the appetite for investment has waned. Realistically, is he going to let the debt exeed the value of their only asset? It doesn’t matter if they were Gasheads or not, surely their competence (or lack of) is the only thing that should be questioned. It wasn’t the Al Qadi family who made our club tinpot. I don't disagree, I'm not defending the previous board(s). All I am saying is that I was confident Higgs at al wouldn't sell our ground from under us and piss off into the sunset. Judging present incumbents on the past 12 months, is it any less of s**tshow than it always was?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 28, 2017 19:28:18 GMT
I posted my views on this yesterday. "A football club is not the place for pension money or a secure home for cash on which they can expect a competitive return. A football club is a place where someone can spend their surplus cash in a quest for fun and personal satisfaction in much the same way as a punter might put 50p into a gaming machine or blow £50 000 on a racehorse. " It is just my opinion but I think at Rovers we've been brainwashed into accepting that our owners are entitled to get their money back whether or not they succeed. But in any other business enterprise if it succeeds the owners can get their money back and more but if it fails then they lose their money. Scunthorpe United get very low crowds and last year their Chairman had to put over £3 million into the club as equity to cover losses but he understands that you have to "pay to play". but only because football is broken But it's not broken if you are a player or if you are distributing the rights to Premiership football all over the World or if you earn your own income directly or indirectly from those sources. And I bet the fans and owners of Bournemouth, Huddersfield, Burnley or dare I say it (no I won't) don't think football is broken. Unfortunately for Rovers £7.2 million of the equity in the Mem has been used to pay for the previous owners mistakes and, to date, £4.8 million has apparently been used to pay for the current owners mistakes. I would suggest that clubs which have lower attendances than Rovers but achieve more success are owned by people who are prepared to pay for their own mistakes.
|
|