crater
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by crater on Mar 13, 2018 20:16:21 GMT
London office is the embassy of the People's Republic of Horfield
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Mar 13, 2018 21:25:14 GMT
I have been attending AGMs for the best part of 22 years. I was allowed to go in a journalistic capacity whilst writing for The Pirate even before I became a shareholder in the early part of this century.
I think that the posts I have read are a fair reflection of the meeting last night. There are some that seem fixated upon the role of Dwane Sports and it's relationship with Bristol Rovers 1883("1883"). The Al Qadi family own 92% of 1883 and have created Dwane Sports as the holding company. I view them as one and the same. Two years ago they purchased Bristol Rovers Football Club and that was the arrangement they put in place.
One shareholder asked a question about the initial investment against the value of the Mem - in other words what would happen when the "debt" exceeded the value of the stadium. The president pointed out that the arrangement was no different from how other investors had purchased other clubs. In my view he gave a very clear indication that the family were committed to a long term future with Bristol Rovers.
One shareholder probed on the question of a "conflict of interests" with director Mike Turner's company taking legal fees of £97k and then the "London office" expenses. I thought that they were fair questions and I found the answers given entirely acceptable and may I add, convincing. Remember the family own the Football Club and if they think that they need an office in London then that is good enough for me. The point was made by the finance director that these expenses did not impact upon playing budgets. As the evening developed clear explanations were given about turnover and the impact upon the playing budgets (and what could be spent on over 21 players), there seemed to be clear unity between the manager and the Board in terms of understanding the issues.
I also have confidence that if the current owners felt that the UWE deal wasn't right for them as an investment, then so be it. There are some who seem to think that somehow that project should never have been given up and don't seem to understand that the reasons should remain confidential for the possible benefit of both parties in the future. UWE may wish to attract an alternative partner and IF (and I stress IF) Bristol Rovers found an alternative site for another project they wouldn't want their hand to be shown in the public domain.
I do believe that some people have been so used to having information leaked to them they cannot get over the fact that it is no longer available, it is hard to believe that the "fence gate" brigade were not represented in some form last night, there was a brief discussion about the pitch.....but that was it.
So the acid test for me as a shareholder is this, do I have confidence in the current Board to run Bristol Rovers Football Club?
My answer is "yes", certainly far more confidence than I did in attending AGMs between 2007 and 2015.
Before anyone accuses me of being a soft touch, I frequently asked the "difficult" questions of the previous regimes (which they didn't like) and got the new president last night into the meeting by asking him to tell us what he had learned over the last two years - "no day is the same and always a new challenge", and would he do it again to which he responded "we are here to stay."
There are still question marks but I do not subscribe to the doom and gloom view of things.
Regards
John Malyckyj
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 13, 2018 21:36:18 GMT
that's another good read - thank you John Scotch
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2018 21:49:38 GMT
Very nice, but falls into Wael's trap of believing we are governed by some form of FFP, in reality, as long as the owners are prepared to cover losses, we aren't.
If Wael was so worried about protecting UWE's reputation going forward, he wouldn't have said the things he did about 1 step forward and 4 back and them not even responding to deadlines.
I gave up reading at that point, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 13, 2018 21:52:59 GMT
the "London office" expenses. I thought that they were fair questions and I found the answers given entirely acceptable and may I add, convincing. Remember the family own the Football Club and if they think that they need an office in London then that is good enough for me I think that's fair enough. I'm still intrigued as to what an office in London, manned by 2 persons, is for though has anyone got any suggestions?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2018 21:58:14 GMT
Thanks very much for your account and view. Good to see you back on the Guzzler, especially as KS/RR/CIS/NQSS seems to have deregistered himself, and I haven't seen a swiss account for a while. The rest of our hypotheses are valid. But some of us don't know a damn thing, ducks especially. I consider that DS is simply HAQ in company form. For now at least, BRFC are WAQ's club owned/financed by DS/HAQ. I had considered that BRFC ownership was designed to procure interest and landownership for DS/HAQ. If this is wrong, and they want (slowly) to develop BRFC from a lossy basketcase into... something else, then good. We must hope so.
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Mar 13, 2018 22:00:17 GMT
Very nice, but falls into Wael's trap of believing we are governed by some form of FFP, in reality, as long as the owners are prepared to cover losses, we aren't. If Wael was so worried about protecting UWE's reputation going forward, he wouldn't have said the things he did about 1 step forward and 4 back and them not even responding to deadlines. I gave up reading at that point, sorry. Bring back Higgs then....... You know me I say as I see it.......
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Mar 13, 2018 22:10:01 GMT
So let me see if I understand this... Bristol Rovers FC are paying the equivalent of a respectable transfer fee to retain an office in a city some distance away, for the exclusive use of a couple of brothers who are not domiciled in the Uk? Seems legit. To the statement of "oh well it's their money" it isn't quite just their money because they have secured their investment against our home. So that charge for the office is eating up liquidity in the mem. Of course, if they categorically stated they will never sell the mem then they can have a penthouse suite in Mayfair as far as I am concerned, however the likelihood of them making that promise is non-existent. This news about the office does frame the question of "why is the debt rising so rapidly" in a new light, that is for sure. "To the statement of "oh well it's their money" it isn't quite just their money because they have secured their investment against our home. So that charge for the office is eating up liquidity in the mem. "It isn't "our home" the Al Qadi family own it, what don't you understand about that? The President CLEARLY explained, that he didn't see it as a debt. Now I understood that statement.......
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2018 22:43:51 GMT
Very nice, but falls into Wael's trap of believing we are governed by some form of FFP, in reality, as long as the owners are prepared to cover losses, we aren't. If Wael was so worried about protecting UWE's reputation going forward, he wouldn't have said the things he did about 1 step forward and 4 back and them not even responding to deadlines. I gave up reading at that point, sorry. Bring back Higgs then....... You know me I say as I see it....... Of course, nobody is accusing you of anything less. Does that mean we can't discuss what you've said? Don't be so frigging sensitive you old drama queen. Anyway, Jim would probably vote to bring Higgs back, so based on the attendance at Wembley, assuming Higgs remembers to vote for himself, only another 44,998 people to convince.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Mar 13, 2018 22:53:37 GMT
Very nice, but falls into Wael's trap of believing we are governed by some form of FFP, in reality, as long as the owners are prepared to cover losses, we aren't. Same applies to all clubs. Perhaps what Wael means is that we choose to be governed by FFP (or SCMP as it is in our league). Some clubs choose not to, but does it guarantee them success?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2018 23:15:12 GMT
Very nice, but falls into Wael's trap of believing we are governed by some form of FFP, in reality, as long as the owners are prepared to cover losses, we aren't. Same applies to all clubs. Perhaps what Wael means is that we choose to be governed by FFP (or SCMP as it is in our league). Some clubs choose not to, but does it guarantee them success? The point is Anne, that Wael stated that we couldn't spend above a certain amount because we were governed by FFP. The statement was wrong for 2 reasons, as you correctly identify, we have SCMP at our level, and, if part of the objective was to create competition, the rules are hopeless, you can spend as much as you like, as long as the losses are covered. FFP rules for the first and 2nd divisions are a bit more robust. Does spending loads more than everyone around you guarantee success? Ask Wolves and Citeh. But probably best not to ask Man Utd fans tonight
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Mar 13, 2018 23:37:03 GMT
I have been attending AGMs for the best part of 22 years. I was allowed to go in a journalistic capacity whilst writing for The Pirate even before I became a shareholder in the early part of this century. I think that the posts I have read are a fair reflection of the meeting last night. There are some that seem fixated upon the role of Dwane Sports and it's relationship with Bristol Rovers 1883("1883"). The Al Qadi family own 92% of 1883 and have created Dwane Sports as the holding company. I view them as one and the same. Two years ago they purchased Bristol Rovers Football Club and that was the arrangement they put in place. One shareholder asked a question about the initial investment against the value of the Mem - in other words what would happen when the "debt" exceeded the value of the stadium. The president pointed out that the arrangement was no different from how other investors had purchased other clubs. In my view he gave a very clear indication that the family were committed to a long term future with Bristol Rovers. One shareholder probed on the question of a "conflict of interests" with director Mike Turner's company taking legal fees of £97k and then the "London office" expenses. I thought that they were fair questions and I found the answers given entirely acceptable and may I add, convincing. Remember the family own the Football Club and if they think that they need an office in London then that is good enough for me. The point was made by the finance director that these expenses did not impact upon playing budgets. As the evening developed clear explanations were given about turnover and the impact upon the playing budgets (and what could be spent on over 21 players), there seemed to be clear unity between the manager and the Board in terms of understanding the issues. I also have confidence that if the current owners felt that the UWE deal wasn't right for them as an investment, then so be it. There are some who seem to think that somehow that project should never have been given up and don't seem to understand that the reasons should remain confidential for the possible benefit of both parties in the future. UWE may wish to attract an alternative partner and IF (and I stress IF) Bristol Rovers found an alternative site for another project they wouldn't want their hand to be shown in the public domain. I do believe that some people have been so used to having information leaked to them they cannot get over the fact that it is no longer available, it is hard to believe that the "fence gate" brigade were not represented in some form last night, there was a brief discussion about the pitch.....but that was it. So the acid test for me as a shareholder is this, do I have confidence in the current Board to run Bristol Rovers Football Club? My answer is "yes", certainly far more confidence than I did in attending AGMs between 2007 and 2015. Before anyone accuses me of being a soft touch, I frequently asked the "difficult" questions of the previous regimes (which they didn't like) and got the new president last night into the meeting by asking him to tell us what he had learned over the last two years - "no day is the same and always a new challenge", and would he do it again to which he responded "we are here to stay." There are still question marks but I do not subscribe to the doom and gloom view of things. Regards John Malyckyj Thankyou for finding time to post. To a point, I find alot of these events a propaganda tool. So many times folk leave these meetings with just as many questions as they entered. To me, it's what's not being said that is more important than what is. Because I don't believe for a minute the face value of what we are being told is the whole story. Of course we all acknowledge there is sensitivity, but in some way we are all being grandly deceived..
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Mar 14, 2018 6:06:32 GMT
I'd just like to offer the study in my house as an Australian office for the Al Qadis/Dwane Sports. The top Premier League clubs now regularly play pre-season friendlies in Melbourne and/or Sydney so pretty sure if we fill the MCG each year (as Liverpool and other top flight clubs do) then the cost of the office plus staff (ie me) will pay for itself. Happy to provide beverages and canapes to DS staff as required and provide them with a lift to the ground if needed.
Wael was in fact in Australia quite recently from memory (for the Jordan game) and I'm happy to further extend the hospitality to a select group of Jordanian officials so long as they are happy to drink out of gas themed beverage holders.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 14, 2018 8:00:47 GMT
I have been attending AGMs for the best part of 22 years. I was allowed to go in a journalistic capacity whilst writing for The Pirate even before I became a shareholder in the early part of this century. I think that the posts I have read are a fair reflection of the meeting last night. There are some that seem fixated upon the role of Dwane Sports and it's relationship with Bristol Rovers 1883("1883"). The Al Qadi family own 92% of 1883 and have created Dwane Sports as the holding company. I view them as one and the same. Two years ago they purchased Bristol Rovers Football Club and that was the arrangement they put in place. One shareholder asked a question about the initial investment against the value of the Mem - in other words what would happen when the "debt" exceeded the value of the stadium. The president pointed out that the arrangement was no different from how other investors had purchased other clubs. In my view he gave a very clear indication that the family were committed to a long term future with Bristol Rovers. One shareholder probed on the question of a "conflict of interests" with director Mike Turner's company taking legal fees of £97k and then the "London office" expenses. I thought that they were fair questions and I found the answers given entirely acceptable and may I add, convincing. Remember the family own the Football Club and if they think that they need an office in London then that is good enough for me. The point was made by the finance director that these expenses did not impact upon playing budgets. As the evening developed clear explanations were given about turnover and the impact upon the playing budgets (and what could be spent on over 21 players), there seemed to be clear unity between the manager and the Board in terms of understanding the issues. I also have confidence that if the current owners felt that the UWE deal wasn't right for them as an investment, then so be it. There are some who seem to think that somehow that project should never have been given up and don't seem to understand that the reasons should remain confidential for the possible benefit of both parties in the future. UWE may wish to attract an alternative partner and IF (and I stress IF) Bristol Rovers found an alternative site for another project they wouldn't want their hand to be shown in the public domain. I do believe that some people have been so used to having information leaked to them they cannot get over the fact that it is no longer available, it is hard to believe that the "fence gate" brigade were not represented in some form last night, there was a brief discussion about the pitch.....but that was it. So the acid test for me as a shareholder is this, do I have confidence in the current Board to run Bristol Rovers Football Club? My answer is "yes", certainly far more confidence than I did in attending AGMs between 2007 and 2015. Before anyone accuses me of being a soft touch, I frequently asked the "difficult" questions of the previous regimes (which they didn't like) and got the new president last night into the meeting by asking him to tell us what he had learned over the last two years - "no day is the same and always a new challenge", and would he do it again to which he responded "we are here to stay." There are still question marks but I do not subscribe to the doom and gloom view of things. Regards John Malyckyj Thanks John. That seems a bit of a clearer interpretation/representation of the events of the AGM.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Mar 14, 2018 9:18:44 GMT
Same applies to all clubs. Perhaps what Wael means is that we choose to be governed by FFP (or SCMP as it is in our league). Some clubs choose not to, but does it guarantee them success? The point is Anne, that Wael stated that we couldn't spend above a certain amount because we were governed by FFP. The statement was wrong for 2 reasons, as you correctly identify, we have SCMP at our level, and, if part of the objective was to create competition, the rules are hopeless, you can spend as much as you like, as long as the losses are covered. FFP rules for the first and 2nd divisions are a bit more robust. Does spending loads more than everyone around you guarantee success? Ask Wolves and Citeh. But probably best not to ask Man Utd fans tonight Just because the loopholes are there, doesn't mean anyone has to use them. So my interpretation of Wael's words (rightly or wrongly) is that we are playing by the rules. I think we've been down the road of pouring money in willy nilly previously but it didn't get us very far.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 14, 2018 9:19:48 GMT
So let me see if I understand this... Bristol Rovers FC are paying the equivalent of a respectable transfer fee to retain an office in a city some distance away, for the exclusive use of a couple of brothers who are not domiciled in the Uk? Seems legit. To the statement of "oh well it's their money" it isn't quite just their money because they have secured their investment against our home. So that charge for the office is eating up liquidity in the mem. Of course, if they categorically stated they will never sell the mem then they can have a penthouse suite in Mayfair as far as I am concerned, however the likelihood of them making that promise is non-existent. This news about the office does frame the question of "why is the debt rising so rapidly" in a new light, that is for sure. "To the statement of "oh well it's their money" it isn't quite just their money because they have secured their investment against our home. So that charge for the office is eating up liquidity in the mem. "It isn't "our home" the Al Qadi family own it, what don't you understand about that? The President CLEARLY explained, that he didn't see it as a debt. Now I understood that statement....... Seems you're falling into the trap others are on the other forum and accepting we are no longer fans but customers. As we all know customers will go where they perceive they are getting the best deal. As to the office in London if it is provided for the use of Dwane Sports then I would've hoped that a shareholder would've asked for confirmation that the cost of the office is offset against the revolving credit facility provided by Dwane Sports/HAQ. But from what I'm reading I'm guessing that question wasn't asked. If the office is for the football club then I would've hoped there would've been an incredulous gasp from the shareholders.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 14, 2018 9:36:16 GMT
"To the statement of "oh well it's their money" it isn't quite just their money because they have secured their investment against our home. So that charge for the office is eating up liquidity in the mem. "It isn't "our home" the Al Qadi family own it, what don't you understand about that? The President CLEARLY explained, that he didn't see it as a debt. Now I understood that statement....... Seems you're falling into the trap others are on the other forum and accepting we are no longer fans but customers. As we all know customers will go where they perceive they are getting the best deal. As to the office in London if it is provided for the use of Dwane Sports then I would've hoped that a shareholder would've asked for confirmation that the cost of the office is offset against the revolving credit facility provided by Dwane Sports/HAQ. But from what I'm reading I'm guessing that question wasn't asked. If the office is for the football club then I would've hoped there would've been an incredulous gasp from the shareholders. but isn't the office cost part of the operating loss which is in turn funded by Dwane Sports? So who exactly is losing out?
If we ever turn a profit then I doubt anyone would care about the office.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 9:38:05 GMT
"To the statement of "oh well it's their money" it isn't quite just their money because they have secured their investment against our home. So that charge for the office is eating up liquidity in the mem. "It isn't "our home" the Al Qadi family own it, what don't you understand about that? The President CLEARLY explained, that he didn't see it as a debt. Now I understood that statement....... Seems you're falling into the trap others are on the other forum and accepting we are no longer fans but customers. As we all know customers will go where they perceive they are getting the best deal. As to the office in London if it is provided for the use of Dwane Sports then I would've hoped that a shareholder would've asked for confirmation that the cost of the office is offset against the revolving credit facility provided by Dwane Sports/HAQ. But from what I'm reading I'm guessing that question wasn't asked. If the office is for the football club then I would've hoped there would've been an incredulous gasp from the shareholders. Funny isn't it, if it's not a debt then why assign interest to this 'non-debt'? Oh, I see, so it is a debt for tax purposes, but then again, it's not a debt. You couldn't make this stuff up. I think about this every day and I honestly don't think that these owners know for sure what they intend doing with Rovers, but to maintain credibility they'll have to make a decision fairly soon.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 14, 2018 10:38:26 GMT
Seems you're falling into the trap others are on the other forum and accepting we are no longer fans but customers. As we all know customers will go where they perceive they are getting the best deal. As to the office in London if it is provided for the use of Dwane Sports then I would've hoped that a shareholder would've asked for confirmation that the cost of the office is offset against the revolving credit facility provided by Dwane Sports/HAQ. But from what I'm reading I'm guessing that question wasn't asked. If the office is for the football club then I would've hoped there would've been an incredulous gasp from the shareholders. but isn't the office cost part of the operating loss which is in turn funded by Dwane Sports? So who exactly is losing out?
If we ever turn a profit then I doubt anyone would care about the office.
Sounds Bristol Rovers Football Club spend £250k on an office for someone else thus increasing their losses? Happy to pay for an office on behalf of Dwane Sports if that comes off the debt owed to Dwane Sports. Simple logic isn't it? And that maybe happening but no one asked that question. Or it isn't and actually we are being charged interest on costs for Dwane Sports by Dwane Sports. This is technically called double dipping. And please do remember Dwane Sports own circa 92% of the club so they should not be using it to rack up debts on behalf of Dwane Sports to the potential detriment of the other 8% of shareholders.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 11:22:56 GMT
but isn't the office cost part of the operating loss which is in turn funded by Dwane Sports? So who exactly is losing out?
If we ever turn a profit then I doubt anyone would care about the office.
Sounds Bristol Rovers Football Club spend £250k on an office for someone else thus increasing their losses? Happy to pay for an office on behalf of Dwane Sports if that comes off the debt owed to Dwane Sports. Simple logic isn't it? And that maybe happening but no one asked that question. Or it isn't and actually we are being charged interest on costs for Dwane Sports by Dwane Sports. This is technically called double dipping. And please do remember Dwane Sports own circa 92% of the club so they should not be using it to rack up debts on behalf of Dwane Sports to the potential detriment of the other 8% of shareholders. Exactly. People are being sucked in by Wael's little grin and calm demeanour. This is utter madness. Can you imagine a business running at a loss of £3,000,000 with the owners awarding themselves interest for lending themselves money and organising it all from an office costing a quarter of a million quid PA and located 120 miles from the shop floor? Maybe it's just me, but I would be at that business 24/7 trying to make sure that every penny spent was yielding the best possible return, and I would be sleeping in the broom cupboard to save money. Going back to my last post where I said that I can't read what these owners intend doing with the club, this is a perfect example of why it's impossible to work out. A couple of weeks ago Wael put out that orchastrated ''interview'' where he was trying to play down the family's wealth and was saying that he was uncomfortable with the speculation around what they may be prepared to spend. Roll forward 2 weeks, suddenly debt that we could never have imagined isn't even regarded as debt and they aren't one bit worried by losing £3m a year, and £250k for an office in London isn't a problem. Talk about mixed messages.
|
|