|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 17, 2019 16:56:35 GMT
I know it's only from the EP, but there's probably some truth somewhere....
What mayor Marvin Rees had to say about the Fruit Market and the future of Bristol Rovers
Talks remain ongoing regarding the site at St Philip's Marsh
Marvin Rees insists Bristol City Council are fully committed to securing a sustainable and ambitious future for Bristol Rovers but stopped short of revealing specific details surrounding takeover talks and the proposed site of a new stadium at the Fruit Market.
As revealed by Bristol Live in August, a UK-based consortium has been in extensive discussions with shareholders surrounding the 11-acre site just to the east of Temple Meads over purchasing the land with a view to building a 20,000-seater stadium and leisure facilities.
That purchase would then lead to a full takeover of Bristol Rovers as the Al Qadi family have been open to selling the club for at least the last 11 months, due to annual losses incurred, which for the most recent accounts stood at £3.6m, and their own frustrations at finding a new home for the club.
Bristol Live understands that talks remain positive between the proposed buyer and Dublin-based Total Produce, who are the majority shareholder and kingmaker, and are considering the latest sizeable offer on the table with a decision expected soon.
Speaking on BBC Radio Bristol on Wednesday night, Mayor of Bristol Rees was questioned by host Laura Rawlings about the Fruit Market but remained tight-lipped on specifics regarding the future of Rovers as he claimed it would potentially jeopardise the deal.
"We want the club to flourish. There are conversations going on regarding various configurations of the club that I'm not going to get into on air," Rees told BBC Radio Bristol.
"We're the most pro-sports administration the city has ever had. It's a big part of the city's future to have mass participation and world class events.
"Now, world class events take world class facilities. We want to support all of our sport teams to have world class facilities.
We have a good relationship with the clubs and we'll support the clubs.
"In terms of specifics I won't go into them if me sharing them on air won't be great for the sports clubs.
"I think the club and the city are very ambitious. The fans want great facilities and I'm not going to give the BBC material that could cost the club's futures.
"We'll support the clubs in pursuing what they think they need to succeed as clubs in the future on a sustainable basis."
"The specifics are obviously very sensitive areas and it's not something I can talk about. It's great for radio but wouldn't be great for Bristol Rovers.
The Fruit Market is the latest proposed site in what has been a long, extensive and difficult search for a new stadium to replace the charming but dilapitated Memorial Stadium.
As reported by Bristol Live in August, the proposed buyers have held initial discussions with the Mayor's Office over their plans as should a purchase be completed, the Fruit Market and the traders who work there will need to be moved to another site.
Their plans also include restaurants, bars and another leisure facilities in what would be a wholesale development in an area of the city that is largely industrial.
Several sites, most recently at UWE, have been a various stages of being explored, negotiated and significant money spent but none have come to fruition.
The proposed buyer does possess significant experience and expertise of undertaking such large-scale redevelopment work in a major city in England.
"It's not easy to build stadiums. They're quite big and they take land. That's not always easy to get done," Rees added.
"You don't know what conversations are taking place at the moment. I'm not saying anything about it but there has to be an ask that goes with an offer.
"A local government cannot deliver Premier League football to Bristol but we can say to the clubs is, 'what can we do to make ourselves most useful to making it possible for you to become a Premier League team.
"That's our ongoing offer but those things don't happen quickly."
As for the prospect of Rovers potentially building their stadium beyond the confines of Bristol and into South Gloucestershire, the mayor offered his clear opinion, "that wouldn't be my preference. It's a Bristol team so it's nice to have a Bristol team in Bristol."
The future of the site where the Mem is would also be a matter of significance for the council, with the proposed buyer of Rovers likely to turn that into a residental development.
Redeveloping the Mem is a difficult exercise due to the density of housing surrounding it and the building restrictions that govern two sides of the ground.
When asked about the future of the Mem, Rees added: "That would be part of a wider conversation if they did move sites."
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Nov 17, 2019 20:25:49 GMT
When Flook and Bradshaw passed ownership to the Dunfords they cut their losses and did what they thought was best for Rovers.
When Geoff Dunford passed ownership to Nick Higgs he cut his losses and did what he thought was best for Rovers.
When Nick Higgs passed ownership to Dwane Sports he cut his losses and did what he thought was best for Rovers.
I think the media may sense that Dwane Sports want to cut their losses, recoup everything they have put in, take a profit on the sale of the land and choose the deal which is best for them and not the one which would be best for Rovers.
If this is the case and someone breaks ranks and spills the beans I am afraid most Gasheads will continue their slumber and a few may even cheer Wael on as he ensures we will be perpetually inferior to City.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2019 22:52:13 GMT
When Flook and Bradshaw passed ownership to the Dunfords they cut their losses and did what they thought was best for Rovers. When Geoff Dunford passed ownership to Nick Higgs he cut his losses and did what he thought was best for Rovers. When Nick Higgs passed ownership to Dwane Sports he cut his losses and did what he thought was best for Rovers. I think the media may sense that Dwane Sports want to cut their losses, recoup everything they have put in, take a profit on the sale of the land and choose the deal which is best for them and not the one which would be best for Rovers. If this is the case and someone breaks ranks and spills the beans I am afraid most Gasheads will continue their slumber and a few may even cheer Wael on as he ensures we will be perpetually inferior to City. But that is pure guesswork and speculation on your part.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 0:08:40 GMT
When Flook and Bradshaw passed ownership to the Dunfords they cut their losses and did what they thought was best for Rovers. When Geoff Dunford passed ownership to Nick Higgs he cut his losses and did what he thought was best for Rovers. When Nick Higgs passed ownership to Dwane Sports he cut his losses and did what he thought was best for Rovers. I think the media may sense that Dwane Sports want to cut their losses, recoup everything they have put in, take a profit on the sale of the land and choose the deal which is best for them and not the one which would be best for Rovers. If this is the case and someone breaks ranks and spills the beans I am afraid most Gasheads will continue their slumber and a few may even cheer Wael on as he ensures we will be perpetually inferior to City. Oh you little tease. Plenty there to think about. Maybe more than 1 deal out there. But why do trails keep leading back to the Mayor, what's it got to do with him? He may not even be in office by the time development reaches that area anyway. Vertigo. Swiss can fight his own battles, but that's not all supposition. Remember that he was on the BoD of Rovers at Twerton so would have known Martin, Barry, Geoff and Dennis at that time. Unless I'm mistaken, the club, with assets, was passed to our present owners, for a total cost which was well below the market value of the stadium. So, couldn't Nick could have shut the club, sold the land and rode off into the sunset with his wallet bulging? He didn't, what he did was handed the show over, at a reduced price, for someone else to take it forward. I read that as doing what he thought was best for Rovers.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 18, 2019 0:34:16 GMT
Unless I'm mistaken, the club, with assets, was passed to our present owners, for a total cost which was well below the market value of the stadium. So, couldn't Nick could have shut the club, sold the land and rode off into the sunset with his wallet bulging? He didn't, what he did was handed the show over, at a reduced price, for someone else to take it forward. I read that as doing what he thought was best for Rovers. my guess is that Nick said something like 'you can have the club for £7m, which you know is much less than the value of the land, as long as you commit to keeping the stadium until a replacement has been provided for the club - and here's the bit in the contract which watertight guarantees that'
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 1:48:36 GMT
When Flook and Bradshaw passed ownership to the Dunfords they cut their losses and did what they thought was best for Rovers. When Geoff Dunford passed ownership to Nick Higgs he cut his losses and did what he thought was best for Rovers. When Nick Higgs passed ownership to Dwane Sports he cut his losses and did what he thought was best for Rovers. I think the media may sense that Dwane Sports want to cut their losses, recoup everything they have put in, take a profit on the sale of the land and choose the deal which is best for them and not the one which would be best for Rovers. If this is the case and someone breaks ranks and spills the beans I am afraid most Gasheads will continue their slumber and a few may even cheer Wael on as he ensures we will be perpetually inferior to City. Oh you little tease. Plenty there to think about. Maybe more than 1 deal out there. But why do trails keep leading back to the Mayor, what's it got to do with him? He may not even be in office by the time development reaches that area anyway. Vertigo. Swiss can fight his own battles, but that's not all supposition. Remember that he was on the BoD of Rovers at Twerton so would have known Martin, Barry, Geoff and Dennis at that time. Unless I'm mistaken, the club, with assets, was passed to our present owners, for a total cost which was well below the market value of the stadium. So, couldn't Nick could have shut the club, sold the land and rode off into the sunset with his wallet bulging? He didn't, what he did was handed the show over, at a reduced price, for someone else to take it forward. I read that as doing what he thought was best for Rovers. Sorry,i meant it was guesswork that the current owners will want to make profit on a sale unlike the other good old gasheads. All the anti-owner stuff is based on assuming the worst of them without any factual information. But to my mind they keep funding the club despite losses like so many other owners do and nobody has any evidence that that they will not continue to do so. I mean who is paying the players wages?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 9:03:27 GMT
When Flook and Bradshaw passed ownership to the Dunfords they cut their losses and did what they thought was best for Rovers. When Geoff Dunford passed ownership to Nick Higgs he cut his losses and did what he thought was best for Rovers. When Nick Higgs passed ownership to Dwane Sports he cut his losses and did what he thought was best for Rovers. I think the media may sense that Dwane Sports want to cut their losses, recoup everything they have put in, take a profit on the sale of the land and choose the deal which is best for them and not the one which would be best for Rovers. If this is the case and someone breaks ranks and spills the beans I am afraid most Gasheads will continue their slumber and a few may even cheer Wael on as he ensures we will be perpetually inferior to City. Oh you little tease. Plenty there to think about. Maybe more than 1 deal out there. But why do trails keep leading back to the Mayor, what's it got to do with him? He may not even be in office by the time development reaches that area anyway. Vertigo. Swiss can fight his own battles, but that's not all supposition. Remember that he was on the BoD of Rovers at Twerton so would have known Martin, Barry, Geoff and Dennis at that time. Unless I'm mistaken, the club, with assets, was passed to our present owners, for a total cost which was well below the market value of the stadium. So, couldn't Nick could have shut the club, sold the land and rode off into the sunset with his wallet bulging? He didn't, what he did was handed the show over, at a reduced price, for someone else to take it forward. I read that as doing what he thought was best for Rovers. Just to straighten one urban myth. We actually paid £10k over the valuation price as a stadium. Compared to the valuation as a development site the figure is a massive difference though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 11:15:33 GMT
Oh you little tease. Plenty there to think about. Maybe more than 1 deal out there. But why do trails keep leading back to the Mayor, what's it got to do with him? He may not even be in office by the time development reaches that area anyway. Vertigo. Swiss can fight his own battles, but that's not all supposition. Remember that he was on the BoD of Rovers at Twerton so would have known Martin, Barry, Geoff and Dennis at that time. Unless I'm mistaken, the club, with assets, was passed to our present owners, for a total cost which was well below the market value of the stadium. So, couldn't Nick could have shut the club, sold the land and rode off into the sunset with his wallet bulging? He didn't, what he did was handed the show over, at a reduced price, for someone else to take it forward. I read that as doing what he thought was best for Rovers. Just to straighten one urban myth. We actually paid £10k over the valuation price as a stadium. Compared to the valuation as a development site the figure is a massive difference though. I would have thought that the valuation as a stadium was much lower than as development land. Anyway, it wasn't long before a big chunk of the site was sold off, and when that happened I shouldn't think that the value was set pro-rata based on the site's value as a stadium With the benefit of hindsight, cutting that site up was a mistake. But yes, I take your point, there are a couple of things that still, to this day, keep getting said; we stole half of the ground from the rugby club etc, which are simply not true. Nice pussy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 11:29:59 GMT
Oh you little tease. Plenty there to think about. Maybe more than 1 deal out there. But why do trails keep leading back to the Mayor, what's it got to do with him? He may not even be in office by the time development reaches that area anyway. Vertigo. Swiss can fight his own battles, but that's not all supposition. Remember that he was on the BoD of Rovers at Twerton so would have known Martin, Barry, Geoff and Dennis at that time. Unless I'm mistaken, the club, with assets, was passed to our present owners, for a total cost which was well below the market value of the stadium. So, couldn't Nick could have shut the club, sold the land and rode off into the sunset with his wallet bulging? He didn't, what he did was handed the show over, at a reduced price, for someone else to take it forward. I read that as doing what he thought was best for Rovers. Sorry,i meant it was guesswork that the current owners will want to make profit on a sale unlike the other good old gasheads. All the anti-owner stuff is based on assuming the worst of them without any factual information. But to my mind they keep funding the club despite losses like so many other owners do and nobody has any evidence that that they will not continue to do so. I mean who is paying the players wages? Us and sponsors are paying the bulk of the players' wages. If I'm reading the last set of accounts correctly, in round terms, turnover was circa £9m, income circa £6m, so losses circa £3m. That means that for every £1 they put in we are putting in £2. What I would say though is that losses of £3m on turnover of £9m is quite incredible. Anyway. The remaining £3m, is being lent to the club, with interest applied, well above the rate that you or I would get by sticking our money in a Halifax saver account, and although I haven't checked, I suspect it's above the rate that the owners' bank pay on investments as well, and it's secured against the stadium. That's not a criticism, it's an observation. And also, for balance, as far as I'm aware, although interest has been applied, I'm not aware of any being claimed yet, so it could all be written off. But you know this, so why do you keep asking it as if it's going to demonstrate something?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 11:58:54 GMT
Sorry,i meant it was guesswork that the current owners will want to make profit on a sale unlike the other good old gasheads. All the anti-owner stuff is based on assuming the worst of them without any factual information. But to my mind they keep funding the club despite losses like so many other owners do and nobody has any evidence that that they will not continue to do so. I mean who is paying the players wages? Us and sponsors are paying the bulk of the players' wages. If I'm reading the last set of accounts correctly, in round terms, turnover was circa £9m, income circa £6m, so losses circa £3m. That means that for every £1 they put in we are putting in £2. What I would say though is that losses of £3m on turnover of £9m is quite incredible. Anyway. The remaining £3m, is being lent to the club, with interest applied, well above the rate that you or I would get by sticking our money in a Halifax saver account, and although I haven't checked, I suspect it's above the rate that the owners' bank pay on investments as well, and it's secured against the stadium. That's not a criticism, it's an observation. And also, for balance, as far as I'm aware, although interest has been applied, I'm not aware of any being claimed yet, so it could all be written off. But you know this, so why do you keep asking it as if it's going to demonstrate something? The main point is that just like most teams below the premier league the club relies on the owners to keep them running despite making losses. How they service the debt is not relevant imo. I suppose what people are saying is that our owners will sell the ground and leave the club homeless but that applies to all the other debt ridden clubs as well. Also i am pretty sure sponsors and tv companies put money in as well as the fans and the owners but maybe not?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 12:11:07 GMT
Us and sponsors are paying the bulk of the players' wages. If I'm reading the last set of accounts correctly, in round terms, turnover was circa £9m, income circa £6m, so losses circa £3m. That means that for every £1 they put in we are putting in £2. What I would say though is that losses of £3m on turnover of £9m is quite incredible. Anyway. The remaining £3m, is being lent to the club, with interest applied, well above the rate that you or I would get by sticking our money in a Halifax saver account, and although I haven't checked, I suspect it's above the rate that the owners' bank pay on investments as well, and it's secured against the stadium. That's not a criticism, it's an observation. And also, for balance, as far as I'm aware, although interest has been applied, I'm not aware of any being claimed yet, so it could all be written off. But you know this, so why do you keep asking it as if it's going to demonstrate something? The main point is that just like most teams below the premier league the club relies on the owners to keep them running despite making losses. How they service the debt is not relevant imo. I suppose what people are saying is that our owners will sell the ground and leave the club homeless but that applies to all the other debt ridden clubs as well. Also i am pretty sure sponsors and tv companies put money in as well as the fans and the owners but maybe not? I did say sponsors, but fair enough, I didn't mention individually television income. Either way, the ration remains 2 to 1. The main difference, and why it keeps on coming round as a topic of conversation, is that our owners have secured their loans against the stadium, that, naturally, raises the question, what happens when debt exceeds the value of the ground? I think that it's perfectly natural for people to be worried about that and discuss what may happen at that point. I don't think that anybody has stated with certainty that they know what the owners will do when we arrive there.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Nov 18, 2019 13:25:12 GMT
When Flook and Bradshaw passed ownership to the Dunfords they cut their losses and did what they thought was best for Rovers. When Geoff Dunford passed ownership to Nick Higgs he cut his losses and did what he thought was best for Rovers. When Nick Higgs passed ownership to Dwane Sports he cut his losses and did what he thought was best for Rovers. I think the media may sense that Dwane Sports want to cut their losses, recoup everything they have put in, take a profit on the sale of the land and choose the deal which is best for them and not the one which would be best for Rovers. If this is the case and someone breaks ranks and spills the beans I am afraid most Gasheads will continue their slumber and a few may even cheer Wael on as he ensures we will be perpetually inferior to City. But that is pure guesswork and speculation on your part. Ok but it's more plausible and believable than anything that has come out of the club in the last 2 years. When the owners are evasive, unclear and have clearly not lived up to their original statements of intent then it's not surprising that people will start making educated guesses as to what is going on and Swiss's are more educated than most.
It's not really good enough to say that the AQ's should be trusted because they are still 'putting the money in' (something I think some doubt anyway) when it is obvious that their original evolution not revolution strategy is in tatters and the club is running up a debt mountain that even people who are clueless about the financial side like me can see is utterly unsustainable. Did a bunch of Jordanian bankers take over Rovers in order to maintain as us a club that aspires to tread water in League 1? That seems unlikely to me - and in the absence of any positive off-field developments it seems reasonable to assume that they would like to get out of the mess they have put themselves into.
I think the Mayor's interest in this is genuine - he probably sees it as a good legacy. Open up a post-industrial area for development while addressing the 35 year+ issue of a permanent home for Rovers. UK City Mayors still don't have a great deal of actual power (with the exception of Manchester) - these kind of 'soft power' brokering roles are one of the few ways they can excert clear influence.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 13:35:39 GMT
Just to straighten one urban myth. We actually paid £10k over the valuation price as a stadium. Compared to the valuation as a development site the figure is a massive difference though. I would have thought that the valuation as a stadium was much lower than as development land. Anyway, it wasn't long before a big chunk of the site was sold off, and when that happened I shouldn't think that the value was set pro-rata based on the site's value as a stadium With the benefit of hindsight, cutting that site up was a mistake. But yes, I take your point, there are a couple of things that still, to this day, keep getting said; we stole half of the ground from the rugby club etc, which are simply not true. Nice pussy. Exactly and a stadium valuation was all that any lender would consider for mortgage purposes. The land sell off had been agreed whilst we were still playing at Twerton Park and had nothing to do with BRFC. The proceeds legally had to be spent on stadium improvements and the new floodlights and the purchase of the South Stand (after renting it) was partly how the cash was spent. Glad you like the Fluff Monster.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 13:52:20 GMT
I would have thought that the valuation as a stadium was much lower than as development land. Anyway, it wasn't long before a big chunk of the site was sold off, and when that happened I shouldn't think that the value was set pro-rata based on the site's value as a stadium With the benefit of hindsight, cutting that site up was a mistake. But yes, I take your point, there are a couple of things that still, to this day, keep getting said; we stole half of the ground from the rugby club etc, which are simply not true. Nice pussy. Exactly and a stadium valuation was all that any lender would consider for mortgage purposes. The land sell off had been agreed whilst we were still playing at Twerton Park and had nothing to do with BRFC. The proceeds legally had to be spent on stadium improvements and the new floodlights and the purchase of the South Stand (after renting it) was partly how the cash was spent. Glad you like the Fluff Monster. I'm not sure that you can say that, it its entirety, the land sell-off had nothing to do with Rovers. Anyway, if the proceeds were used for floodlights, what was going on with those 50/50 tickets with pictures of floodlights on them? Back to that question, because you know I can't let things go Was the land where Trubshaw Gardens was built, valued pro-rata based on the site value as a stadium? I suspect not Kitty is beautiful
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 13:58:16 GMT
Exactly and a stadium valuation was all that any lender would consider for mortgage purposes. The land sell off had been agreed whilst we were still playing at Twerton Park and had nothing to do with BRFC. The proceeds legally had to be spent on stadium improvements and the new floodlights and the purchase of the South Stand (after renting it) was partly how the cash was spent. Glad you like the Fluff Monster. I'm not sure that you can say that, it its entirety, the land sell-off had nothing to do with Rovers. Anyway, if the proceeds were used for floodlights, what was going on with those 50/50 tickets with pictures of floodlights on them? Back to that question, because you know I can't let things go Was the land where Trubshaw Gardens was built, valued pro-rata based on the site value as a stadium? I suspect not Kitty is beautiful The developers had an option to purchase the land for a set cost of £500k. It was an agreement signed and sealed when the rugby club built the centenary stand long before we arrived. We hoped that the developers wouldn't take up the offer but obviously that was just wishful thinking. We did gain an extra £50k when they built the wall 6" out of line but that was our only gain. Don't believe anything that is printed on a 50/50 ticket or a Share Scheme Leaflet. The value of the land, I guess was relevant to the building cost of the Centenary Stand and had nothing to do with market value. It was a bad deal but the rugby clubs bad deal.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,412
|
Post by harrybuckle on Nov 18, 2019 13:59:41 GMT
It would surely be best to groundshare with Bristol Sport. Football, rugby and concerts what is not to like ?
While we develop the Fruit Bowl as our spanking new all seater stadium.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 14:10:50 GMT
I'm not sure that you can say that, it its entirety, the land sell-off had nothing to do with Rovers. Anyway, if the proceeds were used for floodlights, what was going on with those 50/50 tickets with pictures of floodlights on them? Back to that question, because you know I can't let things go Was the land where Trubshaw Gardens was built, valued pro-rata based on the site value as a stadium? I suspect not Kitty is beautiful The developers had an option to purchase the land for a set cost of £500k. It was an agreement signed and sealed when the rugby club built the centenary stand long before we arrived. We hoped that the developers wouldn't take up the offer but obviously that was just wishful thinking. We did gain an extra £50k when they built the wall 6" out of line but that was our only gain. Don't believe anything that is printed on a 50/50 ticket or a Share Scheme Leaflet. The value of the land, I guess was relevant to the building cost of the Centenary Stand and had nothing to do with market value. It was a bad deal but the rugby clubs bad deal. Lost for words. You'll be telling us next that it wasn't Share Scheme money used to sign Andy Rammell Anyway, back in the real world. Cutting that site up, as far as Rovers are concerned, was a huge mistake. Thanks for the detail. It's always good to have facts rather than rumour and speculation. There were stories at the time about deals being done with Directors having houses in Trubshaw Gardens as part of the package, I'm sure you remember all of that old rot.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 14:23:09 GMT
The developers had an option to purchase the land for a set cost of £500k. It was an agreement signed and sealed when the rugby club built the centenary stand long before we arrived. We hoped that the developers wouldn't take up the offer but obviously that was just wishful thinking. We did gain an extra £50k when they built the wall 6" out of line but that was our only gain. Don't believe anything that is printed on a 50/50 ticket or a Share Scheme Leaflet. The value of the land, I guess was relevant to the building cost of the Centenary Stand and had nothing to do with market value. It was a bad deal but the rugby clubs bad deal. Lost for words. You'll be telling us next that it wasn't Share Scheme money used to sign Andy Rammell Anyway, back in the real world. Cutting that site up, as far as Rovers are concerned, was a huge mistake. Thanks for the detail. It's always good to have facts rather than rumour and speculation. There were stories at the time about deals being done with Directors having houses in Trubshaw Gardens as part of the package, I'm sure you remember all of that old rot. Ah, the houses in Trubshaw Gardens. They were bought after the land deal was completed as they would have been blighted as part of the stadium regeneration scheme (which never happened obviously) and Westbury Homes could have objected to the scheme and planning permission would have been rejected. They were actually purchased by a directors daughter and later sold on to Rovers Directors who remained following the 2006 fall out. Andy Rammell still owes me 30 quid if the Share Scheme would like to forward it on.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 14:23:28 GMT
Were Bristol we do what we want. That's where the problem lies.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 14:24:59 GMT
It would surely be best to groundshare with Bristol Sport. Football, rugby and concerts what is not to like ? While we develop the Fruit Bowl as our spanking new all seater stadium. All possible now that the previous owners are out of the way but only one person could negotiate such a deal with Steve Lansdown on BRFC's behalf. I think the wheels might have come off with the fruit market plan.
|
|