Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 12:47:11 GMT
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. Waffle, and disjointed waffle at that. So, you've moved from refusing to say anything without wrapping it in caveats about it being just opinion to knowing the playing budgets of all L1 clubs. Wael said that the support base he saw at Wembley was a deciding factor in the decision to purchase this club. I'll wager that they never even made an effort to obtain N&A records / contact details of the people who attended the Conference final match at Wembley. Do you still think they are the right people to drive Rovers forward? I have serious doubts. We should do the meaning of faith via PM, you've clearly not given it any thought.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 6, 2019 13:23:05 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 Being critical of the present is not the same thing as being nostalgic about the past. It is highly questionable whether the AQ's are better owners than Nick Higgs was but, even if you accept that position, it's still a false dichotomy to imply that if you dislike/reject one then you have to like/acce[t the other. I don't have to glorify the Nick Higgs era because I'm unhappy with what the AQ's are doing. It's perfectly consistent to say they are both a pile of s***e (and also interconnected which is something people don't often recognise-ie. Higgs sold to these guys so he's also at least somewhat culpable).
Personally I don't go that far - I don't see maliciousness here, more just incompetency. I think Higgs was primarily guilty of complaceny and overconfidence - ie. assuming that because he was an expert in the construction busiess that he'd be able to get a ground deal nailed down. Instead in retrospect it rather looks like he (and therefore we) got taken to the cleaners by pretty much all parties (Sainsbury's, UWE, Lawyers etc) which had negative short term and longer term effects across the piece. I think the AQ's have gotten in over their heads in a business they don't properly understand and, in the case of the real powers that be in their organisation, aren't particularly interested in and the effect of this are just beginning to play themselves out but are unlikely to be positive for our club.
|
|
trunky
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 230
|
Post by trunky on Feb 6, 2019 14:08:39 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. What would they have to do for you not to believe in them. The one thing you cant get away from is that they have been telling porkie pies ever since they arrived,the most glaring being we have a contingency plan to redevelop the mem in the event of the UWE falling through. Even their biggest fan would have to admit that they have never had any intention of going down that route.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 14:35:54 GMT
I honestly think the AQ Perspective is...
"For God sake Wael, you've sold us a dud here. Go to your room, and no pocket money for you".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 22:39:52 GMT
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. Waffle, and disjointed waffle at that. So, you've moved from refusing to say anything without wrapping it in caveats about it being just opinion to knowing the playing budgets of all L1 clubs. Wael said that the support base he saw at Wembley was a deciding factor in the decision to purchase this club. I'll wager that they never even made an effort to obtain N&A records / contact details of the people who attended the Conference final match at Wembley. Do you still think they are the right people to drive Rovers forward? I have serious doubts. We should do the meaning of faith via PM, you've clearly not given it any thought. I stand by my views despite your usual snide put downs in the smug and patronising style you so enjoy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 22:45:45 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. What would they have to do for you not to believe in them. The one thing you cant get away from is that they have been telling porkie pies ever since they arrived,the most glaring being we have a contingency plan to redevelop the mem in the event of the UWE falling through. Even their biggest fan would have to admit that they have never had any intention of going down that route. Well i agree the handling of a plan b has been poor. But its clear they are trying to improve the club and most important of all they have provided a decent league one budget despite the cost of paying footballers continuing to spiral. Its not their fault that dc lost his way in the area of recruitment.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 0:01:54 GMT
Waffle, and disjointed waffle at that. So, you've moved from refusing to say anything without wrapping it in caveats about it being just opinion to knowing the playing budgets of all L1 clubs. Wael said that the support base he saw at Wembley was a deciding factor in the decision to purchase this club. I'll wager that they never even made an effort to obtain N&A records / contact details of the people who attended the Conference final match at Wembley. Do you still think they are the right people to drive Rovers forward? I have serious doubts. We should do the meaning of faith via PM, you've clearly not given it any thought. I stand by my views despite your usual snide put downs in the smug and patronising style you so enjoy. Fair enough, but you haven't provided any rebuttals to the points I made in reply to your post that I quoted. How do you know what other clubs' budgets are for players? Do you think it's possible that as a result of the deals done in January the club's liabilities were lowered? Do you think that my explanation of why the new owners settled the outstanding balance due to MSP is possibly correct?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 1:15:46 GMT
I stand by my views despite your usual snide put downs in the smug and patronising style you so enjoy. Fair enough, but you haven't provided any rebuttals to the points I made in reply to your post that I quoted. How do you know what other clubs' budgets are for players? Do you think it's possible that as a result of the deals done in January the club's liabilities were lowered? Do you think that my explanation of why the new owners settled the outstanding balance due to MSP is possibly correct? I think people inside the game know what clubs are paying and i believe dc when he stated we have a mid table budget. From an amateur[fans] viewpoint its fairly obvious more recent signings like craig,bennett,rodman,payne and upson who are all established league one players would be on a decent salary. I believe the fee we payed for clarke-harris and his and ogogo's wages are at least equal to the outgoings but thats an opinion of course. I believe if nick higgs was a good old gashead he would have payed off the loan out of principle before selling the club but i doubt he was able to.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 7, 2019 11:32:48 GMT
I honestly think the AQ Perspective is... "For God sake Wael, you've sold us a dud here. Go to your room, and no pocket money for you". Yes - I increasingly think this is the most plausible narrative here. A family of Jordanian bankers invest in Rovers because the younger brother convinces the rest that this is a great chance to make easy money (club on the up with new stadium development on the way) and is trusted because he is seen as having good knowledge of football as a business. When the reality strikes that the situation is more complex and more money is needed the family rapidly cools on the investment as they can no longer see where the easy money is to be made - which could be a potential existential threat to the club should they want to generate some kind of return on their investment by selling off the ground/assets etc.
I think as a fanbase we need to get out of our rather infantile 'the saviour is here/coming' attitude as if there are a lot of rich people who are prepared to pour their money into clubs just for kicks. With a few exceptions (and it doesn't help that him over the river is one of them) that isn't the case. Clubs have primarily become international financial assets to be bought and sold by the rich. This means that whoever owns us will want to make money somewhere along the line - that could very well mean that their interests are aligned with those of us as fans but it also means that it's highly likely that there are times when they are not. This is why a critical skepticism makes sense irrespective of who owns the club these days.
I think we have passed peak AQ in terms of what they can offer Rovers and I hope they sell up to someone who is prepared to sink in the necessary money in order to take us to the next level (and, in doing so, potentially get the rewards of that). Evolution was a nice idea but it doesn't work for Rovers in our current state - we need revolution to fulfill our potential or to accept an ever decreasing status.
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Feb 7, 2019 12:10:24 GMT
I honestly think the AQ Perspective is... "For God sake Wael, you've sold us a dud here. Go to your room, and no pocket money for you". Yes - I increasingly think this is the most plausible narrative here. A family of Jordanian bankers invest in Rovers because the younger brother convinces the rest that this is a great chance to make easy money (club on the up with new stadium development on the way) and is trusted because he is seen as having good knowledge of football as a business. When the reality strikes that the situation is more complex and more money is needed the family rapidly cools on the investment as they can no longer see where the easy money is to be made - which could be a potential existential threat to the club should they want to generate some kind of return on their investment by selling off the ground/assets etc.
I think as a fanbase we need to get out of our rather infantile 'the saviour is here/coming' attitude as if there are a lot of rich people who are prepared to pour their money into clubs just for kicks. With a few exceptions (and it doesn't help that him over the river is one of them) that isn't the case. Clubs have primarily become international financial assets to be bought and sold by the rich. This means that whoever owns us will want to make money somewhere along the line - that could very well mean that their interests are aligned with those of us as fans but it also means that it's highly likely that there are times when they are not. This is why a critical skepticism makes sense irrespective of who owns the club these days.
I think we have passed peak AQ in terms of what they can offer Rovers and I hope they sell up to someone who is prepared to sink in the necessary money in order to take us to the next level (and, in doing so, potentially get the rewards of that). Evolution was a nice idea but it doesn't work for Rovers in our current state - we need revolution to fulfill our potential or to accept an ever decreasing status.
To play devils advocate then, why didn't they sell up ASAP once they realised they'd made a mistake? Seems odd that they'd just continue to run down the remaining value of their investment?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 12:17:23 GMT
Fair enough, but you haven't provided any rebuttals to the points I made in reply to your post that I quoted. How do you know what other clubs' budgets are for players? Do you think it's possible that as a result of the deals done in January the club's liabilities were lowered? Do you think that my explanation of why the new owners settled the outstanding balance due to MSP is possibly correct? I think people inside the game know what clubs are paying and i believe dc when he stated we have a mid table budget. From an amateur[fans] viewpoint its fairly obvious more recent signings like craig,bennett,rodman,payne and upson who are all established league one players would be on a decent salary. I believe the fee we payed for clarke-harris and his and ogogo's wages are at least equal to the outgoings but thats an opinion of course. I believe if nick higgs was a good old gashead he would have payed off the loan out of principle before selling the club but i doubt he was able to. Settling the MSP loan would have been part of a legal agreement, nothing to do with emotion or which football club Higgs supports. Do you remember that the last manager gave two contradictory statements about the playing budget within a couple of days, which one do you believe and why do you believe that one and not the other? I'm not trying to be rude, or sound smug, I just don't understand a lot of what you say.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 7, 2019 13:59:13 GMT
Yes - I increasingly think this is the most plausible narrative here. A family of Jordanian bankers invest in Rovers because the younger brother convinces the rest that this is a great chance to make easy money (club on the up with new stadium development on the way) and is trusted because he is seen as having good knowledge of football as a business. When the reality strikes that the situation is more complex and more money is needed the family rapidly cools on the investment as they can no longer see where the easy money is to be made - which could be a potential existential threat to the club should they want to generate some kind of return on their investment by selling off the ground/assets etc.
I think as a fanbase we need to get out of our rather infantile 'the saviour is here/coming' attitude as if there are a lot of rich people who are prepared to pour their money into clubs just for kicks. With a few exceptions (and it doesn't help that him over the river is one of them) that isn't the case. Clubs have primarily become international financial assets to be bought and sold by the rich. This means that whoever owns us will want to make money somewhere along the line - that could very well mean that their interests are aligned with those of us as fans but it also means that it's highly likely that there are times when they are not. This is why a critical skepticism makes sense irrespective of who owns the club these days.
I think we have passed peak AQ in terms of what they can offer Rovers and I hope they sell up to someone who is prepared to sink in the necessary money in order to take us to the next level (and, in doing so, potentially get the rewards of that). Evolution was a nice idea but it doesn't work for Rovers in our current state - we need revolution to fulfill our potential or to accept an ever decreasing status.
To play devils advocate then, why didn't they sell up ASAP once they realised they'd made a mistake? Seems odd that they'd just continue to run down the remaining value of their investment? Well I don't know but I would hazard a guess that everything changed when the UWE deal collapsed. Up to that point I think they still thought it was a good deal. Dribs and Drabs coming out from UWE regarding why that folded would lend some support to this I think - ie. it died because AQ's wanted to change the deal so that there was more money in it for them (and possibly by extension the club - they may not have been wrong on the problems with the deal by the sound of it). It's since then that everything else has stalled on and off the pitch really. There seem to have been plausible rumours that there have been discussions to sell the club in the last year or so but nothing seemed came of that - could have been rubbish but I don't think it was based on the people I heard this from. All speculation of course but that's all we have and, like I said, I find it the most plausible explanation - could still be nonsense though.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,053
|
Post by eppinggas on Feb 7, 2019 15:45:25 GMT
Yes - I increasingly think this is the most plausible narrative here. A family of Jordanian bankers invest in Rovers because the younger brother convinces the rest that this is a great chance to make easy money (club on the up with new stadium development on the way) and is trusted because he is seen as having good knowledge of football as a business. When the reality strikes that the situation is more complex and more money is needed the family rapidly cools on the investment as they can no longer see where the easy money is to be made - which could be a potential existential threat to the club should they want to generate some kind of return on their investment by selling off the ground/assets etc.
I think as a fanbase we need to get out of our rather infantile 'the saviour is here/coming' attitude as if there are a lot of rich people who are prepared to pour their money into clubs just for kicks. With a few exceptions (and it doesn't help that him over the river is one of them) that isn't the case. Clubs have primarily become international financial assets to be bought and sold by the rich. This means that whoever owns us will want to make money somewhere along the line - that could very well mean that their interests are aligned with those of us as fans but it also means that it's highly likely that there are times when they are not. This is why a critical skepticism makes sense irrespective of who owns the club these days.
I think we have passed peak AQ in terms of what they can offer Rovers and I hope they sell up to someone who is prepared to sink in the necessary money in order to take us to the next level (and, in doing so, potentially get the rewards of that). Evolution was a nice idea but it doesn't work for Rovers in our current state - we need revolution to fulfill our potential or to accept an ever decreasing status.
To play devils advocate then, why didn't they sell up ASAP once they realised they'd made a mistake? Seems odd that they'd just continue to run down the remaining value of their investment? IMHO they have been attempting to sell since the UWE collapse 18 months ago. Nothing else makes any sense. They're not exactly going to hang a big "For Sale" signs up at the Mem. That kind of weakens their bargaining position. But why, you may ask, do they continue to spend £250k a year on a London office? Well they are either f*c**ng idiots, or it's window dressing for a potential investor. As others have mentioned - and I like the analogy, we are a bit like a Championship-light flat-pack Club. Huge potential support, in a prosperous and growing part of the country. Might just make someone some money, but a lot of investment required. Without substantial redevelopment of the Mem or a new Stadium we will never be able to compete in tier 2 of English football. One thing that Nick Higgs and Wael Al-Qadi both agree on. Yours for the princely sum of... well you'll have to ask Wael. Discretely. NDA's will apply. (In the interests of fairness other tier 3 football Clubs are available. When the fun stops, stop. The latter certainly applies to Wael).
|
|