|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 3, 2019 11:01:55 GMT
After the pre-Christmas brouhaha about takeover/stadium/stadium & training ground falling through, and with rumours of big cuts in the pipeline, I'm wondering what the investors' perspective is
The following seem to me to be salient. I'm wondering what others think.....
DS have spent around £16m to date, split something like; - former owners loans £8m - consultancy fees £2.5m - operating losses £4.5m
They have achieved their initial goal of giving WAQ a life in football. They also have; - a beautiful piece of land in Horfield - a rather less beautiful piece of land at the Colony - which has represented £1m of investment sat doing nothing but attracting a few costs and much attention - a bunch of disaffected stakeholders - former manager (who passed up Leeds), fans, some former employees - a lot more experience than when they started (and an idea of how hard it seems to be to get a new stadium in the Bristol area)
So their plan is to operate within BRFC's means - which means big cost cuts. But they know they are in a business where many of the competitors operate outside of their means, so that BRFC are relatively less able to compete
At the same time, depending on who you believe, their other businesses are doing less well than previously, possibly meaning that there is less scope for speculative ventures
The cost cuts will mean reversing many of the initiatives that they brought to the club when they first arrived. To that extent, we might be back to the business model of the previous regime - running as tight as ship as we can, while trying to find a stadium for the future
They have reputedly tried to level the playing field by bringing in other investors, although (depending on who you believe) wanting to keep WAQ in the game seems to have been a bit of a stumbling block, and does maybe their negotiating stances
Bankers know that there might be a long-term pay-off due to 'events' - eg Arsenal's recognition that a big stadium is much less key to long-term success than at the time they started work on the Emirates, due to the massively increased importance of telly money
So they are 'battening down the hatches' until a new idea comes along? Certainly, when they had ideas (at the beginning) they were pretty keen to share them. We aren't hearing any ideas at all now. Even things which have been announced, like the submission of the training ground plans and the new big screen, are way behind schedule
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 3, 2019 11:03:36 GMT
One further thought - do they always insist on having lots of consultants as a way of delaying and frustrating progress, rather than to help them through unfamiliar 'ground'?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 3, 2019 12:32:50 GMT
One further thought - do they always insist on having lots of consultants as a way of delaying and frustrating progress, rather than to help them through unfamiliar 'ground'? I think we are in the most precarious position we have ever been. Why would the AQ’s put a charge against our only asset and so quickly, that’s the question that would provide much more clarity than anything else, in my view of course. They are investment bankers afterall. It’s a fact that Arabic families are very much patriarchal in nature and I don’t believe Wael will have any input, once we get to the point where our assets are outweighed by our debts. Personally, I don’t see them being here for the long haul, once that figure gets reached
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Feb 3, 2019 13:18:11 GMT
One further thought - do they always insist on having lots of consultants as a way of delaying and frustrating progress, rather than to help them through unfamiliar 'ground'? Smoke and mirrors. Dwane Sports seem to think that they can hoodwink us by saying that they are employing consultants and that "everything is just fine". Example: Wael's "Experts who have built 10-12 stadiums" that were allegedly employed after the UWE collapse. These were figments of Wael's imagination that did not even exist. Example: Dwane Sports bought the land for the Colony in FEB 2017. Yup - 2 years ago. Absolutely f*ck all happened for a year. So they appoint Evans Jones Surveyors to over-see development in JAN 2018. Has ANYTHING happened since then? Has ANYTHING official been said since then? Fast forward to FEB 2019. Are Evans Jones still employed by Dwane Sports? (I checked their web page and there is no mention of the Colony as far as I'm aware, I'm happy to be corrected on that one). Maybe we chuck them a grand a month as a retainer just to fend of embarrassing questions from concerned supporters. Charlatans.
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Feb 4, 2019 18:01:48 GMT
Of course everything was so much better when Higgs was in charge
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 18:26:52 GMT
Of course everything was so much better when Higgs was in charge That view is always nonsensical. Like saying “Oh, well a sprained wrist is better than a broken one”. You can have a healthy wrist.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 18:32:31 GMT
Of course everything was so much better when Higgs was in charge If you have to use Higgs to make the Al Qadi's look better, quite frankly that says everything about what the Al Qadi's have 'achieved' to date. Only at Bristol Rovers, hey. At any other club the Al Qadi's would be considered yet another bunch of rubbish foreign owmers who rode into town to great fanfare and raised expectations and eventually under-delivered. But at Bristol Rovers they are feted as heroes because the previous incumbents set the bar so bloody low. *shake my head*. Seriously...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 19:32:22 GMT
Of course everything was so much better when Higgs was in charge If you have to use Higgs to make the Al Qadi's look better, quite frankly that says everything about what the Al Qadi's have 'achieved' to date.Only at Bristol Rovers, hey. At any other club the Al Qadi's would be considered yet another bunch of rubbish foreign owmers who rode into town to great fanfare and raised expectations and eventually under-delivered. But at Bristol Rovers they are feted as heroes because the previous incumbents set the bar so bloody low. *shake my head*. Seriously... Things were, at the end, better with Higgs. He employed the manager and assembled the squad who won 2 promotions and handed over a club with upwards inertia. The losses under Higgs were, as far as I'm aware, never as big as these owners have managed and weren't all secured against the stadium. Unless these owners pull something unexpected out of a hat history won't be kind to them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 20:28:10 GMT
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Feb 4, 2019 20:34:44 GMT
Of course everything was so much better when Higgs was in charge 1. Debatable if we are looking at the levels of debt. 2. I don't really care about the past. I care about what happens now, and in the future. We have Harry Buckle for Rovers history.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 21:17:17 GMT
Always happy to debate the points.
|
|
RiversGas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,064
|
Post by RiversGas on Feb 4, 2019 22:49:05 GMT
Of course everything was so much better when Higgs was in charge That view is always nonsensical. Like saying “Oh, well a sprained wrist is better than a broken one”. You can have a healthy wrist. As long as you don't overdo the manual handling.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2019 0:44:16 GMT
Im happy enough with the owners. They have provided a middling league one budget. They backed the manager in january including paying a fee for the coventry striker. They have made numerous improvements to the club including providing a fantastic playing surface. I still feel they saved the club from oblivion,if nick higgs was not in deep trouble then why didnt he pay off the bloody wonga loan before selling the club? They have not delivered the new ground,thats the big problem of course but i still believe in them.
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on Feb 5, 2019 6:21:32 GMT
Bloody foreigners coming here and taking our muddy pitches from us.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,412
|
Post by harrybuckle on Feb 5, 2019 7:58:59 GMT
Of course everything was so much better when Higgs was in charge 1. Debatable if we are looking at the levels of debt. 2. I don't really care about the past. I care about what happens now, and in the future. We have Harry Buckle for Rovers history. To quote Mr Hamer Any Club that does not respect its past has no future. You can learn a lot from history The Bristol Rovers Definitive History book is well worth a read !
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Feb 5, 2019 12:20:45 GMT
My comment was tongue in cheek obviously. But endless rumours of takeovers are just a waste of time. If it happens then it will but there is no sign of it. But lets look at some of the facts. Apart from the pitch, the bar the shop they gave Clarke the biggest budget he has ever had and he assembled a squad of 27, most of which were average at best. Apart from the big clubs in this division most teams have a squad of 21 or so. Clarke had 27, and the development squad. He went for numbers rather than quality. So if the squad gets cut down to 21 or 22 then it is not a "cut back" its being sensible and having a squad that is manageable and hopefully contains better quality players.
Some 30 years ago when I was working for Wincanton transport as transport manager one of my drivers used to do a night trunk to Bristol, and he said all the time. Those buggers down there, always moaning and always complaining that it was better years ago. Somethings haven't changed
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 6, 2019 0:04:14 GMT
swissgas put the below on the other place. It's roughly in line with what I put above if you take the consultancy fees as being largely a write-off of previously-capitalised expenditure (which I didn't)....
In February 2016 Dwane Sports acquired the club for nothing and Nick Higgs & Co transferred their shares for free because Dwane Sports agreed to loan Rovers an initial 6.2 million to pay back most of the loans owed to the former shareholders plus the MSP Capital loan and agreed to pay the remainder of the former shareholders loans, amounting to 900K, once certain conditions were met.
So in February 2016 the amount required to acquire 92% of BRFC 1883 Ltd was about 7.1 million.
By my reckoning the Dwane Sports loan will now stand at between 11 and 12 million which, following the logic of previous posts, any new owner would be required to pay to acquire the club.
£7.1m for a site valued at £15m, albeit with a loss-making football club attached, does look to have been a bit of a bargain. I suppose it's reflective of the dire financial straits we were in (just as the Wonga loan was)
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Feb 6, 2019 9:47:16 GMT
swissgas put the below on the other place. It's roughly in line with what I put above if you take the consultancy fees as being largely a write-off of previously-capitalised expenditure (which I didn't).... In February 2016 Dwane Sports acquired the club for nothing and Nick Higgs & Co transferred their shares for free because Dwane Sports agreed to loan Rovers an initial 6.2 million to pay back most of the loans owed to the former shareholders plus the MSP Capital loan and agreed to pay the remainder of the former shareholders loans, amounting to 900K, once certain conditions were met.So in February 2016 the amount required to acquire 92% of BRFC 1883 Ltd was about 7.1 million.By my reckoning the Dwane Sports loan will now stand at between 11 and 12 million which, following the logic of previous posts, any new owner would be required to pay to acquire the club.£7.1m for a site valued at £15m, albeit with a loss-making football club attached, does look to have been a bit of a bargain. I suppose it's reflective of the dire financial straits we were in (just as the Wonga loan was) Positives: As a business "our" assets comfortably exceed "our" debts. And even at annual losses of circa (say £750k pa) we will remain in positive territory for around another 4 years (assuming the Mem value remains £15mil ish). Negatives: Without new owners, we are stuck where we are for the foreseeable. Stagnation, not evolution. The limits of our ambition will be to retain League 1 status. I'm not moaning. It is, what it is.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 10:52:21 GMT
Im happy enough with the owners. Maybe, can you demonstrate this? But based on attendances, who exactly is providing this money? It's us, not them. After the players leaving I suspect we made a nett monetary gain over the length of player contracts as a result of our January dealings. All tinkering around the edges. Spending pennies when pounds need investing. The ground is still a dump, the match day experience still woeful, and the pitch is struggling as well. Haven't you noticed that when the ball is rolling it's bobbling all over the place? Because the deal to sell was already agreed, subject to the outcome of the court case. The new owners didn't want any shenanigans, so they took on the debt and settled it, to make 100% sure that there were no delays and that it was done and dusted. Also, MSP held a charge on the stadium, so clearing that charge was tied in with change of ownership. Why complicate things? Good for you. But why, after 3 years and racking up many millions of pounds of losses do you think they have any kind of plan? Faith remember is the excuse that people give for clinging to beliefs that they can't support with evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 11:57:28 GMT
Im happy enough with the owners. Maybe, can you demonstrate this? But based on attendances, who exactly is providing this money? It's us, not them. After the players leaving I suspect we made a nett monetary gain over the length of player contracts as a result of our January dealings. All tinkering around the edges. Spending pennies when pounds need investing. The ground is still a dump, the match day experience still woeful, and the pitch is struggling as well. Haven't you noticed that when the ball is rolling it's bobbling all over the place? Because the deal to sell was already agreed, subject to the outcome of the court case. The new owners didn't want any shenanigans, so they took on the debt and settled it, to make 100% sure that there were no delays and that it was done and dusted. Also, MSP held a charge on the stadium, so clearing that charge was tied in with change of ownership. Why complicate things? Good for you. But why, after 3 years and racking up many millions of pounds of losses do you think they have any kind of plan? Faith remember is the excuse that people give for clinging to beliefs that they can't support with evidence. Football is a loss making business and most of the issues relate to that,were no different from most other clubs in that regard. As for having faith,its no different from the opposite view expressed by some that they have no faith. There is no evidence we will come to harm with these owners or that we will build a stadium etc. On the budget we don't make enough money to provide a middling budget but neither did wigan last season when they lost £7m.
|
|