Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 15:24:55 GMT
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. It all went on 16 red down the Grosvenor, didn't it?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Nov 18, 2019 18:19:15 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? In February 2016 we all assumed the new owners would be good for the club but as the years have passed that faith has been eroded to the point where it would be imprudent not to fear the worst. The AJIB shares have dropped again today making the family's stake over 40% lower in value than it was when they acquired Rovers and their dividend income has suffered a similar redction. If you were in their position, had acquired a football club for an outlay of 7 million then found it was losing 3 million a year, what would you do ? 1) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, the 10 million losses we have made are entirely our own fault so although the land is worth 20 + million it's only right we pass the club on for that same 7 million to give the new owners a fighting chance of turning things around. 2) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, it's cost us another 10 million since and its only going to get worse, the land is worth 20 + million but if we get out cleanly now for 17 million and cut all ties then we'll be happy. 3) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, it's cost us 10 million since and it's only going to get worse, but we are in a strong position because the land is in demand and could be worth considerably more than 20 million, the Council don't want BRFC to fail and so if we play it right we can extract some profit to make up for the drop in the value of our other investments, show our business associates (whom we rely on) that we were quite astute in acquiring this land and still cobble together a scheme to give a wayward family member a miniature version of what he always wanted.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 18, 2019 18:22:40 GMT
still cobble together a scheme to give a wayward family member a miniature version of what he always wanted. any ideas on what that might look like swiss?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Nov 18, 2019 19:02:08 GMT
still cobble together a scheme to give a wayward family member a miniature version of what he always wanted. any ideas on what that might look like swiss? I do, but (and I don't think I've ever said this before) it would be wrong to betray confidences. What hurts is that the UWE and the Fruit Market were schemes which could conceivably have put Rovers in a position where we were able to compete with City. The cobbled together compromise which we might end up with would leave fans with a place to go on a Saturday and a club where the usual Gashead banter could be enjoyed but it would fall well short of what many of us had hoped for.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 18, 2019 19:17:10 GMT
any ideas on what that might look like swiss? I do, but (and I don't think I've ever said this before) it would be wrong to betray confidences. What hurts is that the UWE and the Fruit Market were schemes which could conceivably have put Rovers in a position where we were able to compete with City. The cobbled together compromise which we might end up with would leave fans with a place to go on a Saturday and a club where the usual Gashead banter could be enjoyed but it would fall well short of what many of us had hoped for. I guess that's what Marvin was referring to with 'There are conversations going on regarding various configurations of the club that I'm not going to get into on air'
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 19:25:01 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? In February 2016 we all assumed the new owners would be good for the club but as the years have passed that faith has been eroded to the point where it would be imprudent not to fear the worst. The AJIB shares have dropped again today making the family's stake over 40% lower in value than it was when they acquired Rovers and their dividend income has suffered a similar redction. If you were in their position, had acquired a football club for an outlay of 7 million then found it was losing 3 million a year, what would you do ? 1) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, the 10 million losses we have made are entirely our own fault so although the land is worth 20 + million it's only right we pass the club on for that same 7 million to give the new owners a fighting chance of turning things around. 2) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, it's cost us another 10 million since and its only going to get worse, the land is worth 20 + million but if we get out cleanly now for 17 million and cut all ties then we'll be happy. 3) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, it's cost us 10 million since and it's only going to get worse, but we are in a strong position because the land is in demand and could be worth considerably more than 20 million, the Council don't want BRFC to fail and so if we play it right we can extract some profit to make up for the drop in the value of our other investments, show our business associates (whom we rely on) that we were quite astute in acquiring this land and still cobble together a scheme to give a wayward family member a miniature version of what he always wanted. Bang on Swiss. They have always been in a no lose situation so why would they choose to do otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 19:37:05 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? In February 2016 we all assumed the new owners would be good for the club but as the years have passed that faith has been eroded to the point where it would be imprudent not to fear the worst. The AJIB shares have dropped again today making the family's stake over 40% lower in value than it was when they acquired Rovers and their dividend income has suffered a similar redction. If you were in their position, had acquired a football club for an outlay of 7 million then found it was losing 3 million a year, what would you do ? 1) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, the 10 million losses we have made are entirely our own fault so although the land is worth 20 + million it's only right we pass the club on for that same 7 million to give the new owners a fighting chance of turning things around. 2) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, it's cost us another 10 million since and its only going to get worse, the land is worth 20 + million but if we get out cleanly now for 17 million and cut all ties then we'll be happy. 3) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, it's cost us 10 million since and it's only going to get worse, but we are in a strong position because the land is in demand and could be worth considerably more than 20 million, the Council don't want BRFC to fail and so if we play it right we can extract some profit to make up for the drop in the value of our other investments, show our business associates (whom we rely on) that we were quite astute in acquiring this land and still cobble together a scheme to give a wayward family member a miniature version of what he always wanted. No 3 is bordering on fantasy. Even if things were agreed today, and we both know that they won't be, but even if they were, how long do you suppose to get that stadium in St Phillips operational? I'll eat my hat if it was done in 5 years. If we halve our losses between then and now and by some miracle stay in the League at the same time, that still adds an additional £7.5m to the debt. It's close to delusional thinking to suppose that anybody is going to bail them out of this mess and they'll walk away with a profit. Anyway, are your figures correct? Not saying that they aren't, but when the last set of accs were released, the Evening Post ran a feature and said that with the £3m+ added the debt was now £19m. BTW, even on your figures, No 2 probably doesn't work because there will be losses for this trading year I would imagine.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 19:48:38 GMT
In February 2016 we all assumed the new owners would be good for the club but as the years have passed that faith has been eroded to the point where it would be imprudent not to fear the worst. The AJIB shares have dropped again today making the family's stake over 40% lower in value than it was when they acquired Rovers and their dividend income has suffered a similar redction. If you were in their position, had acquired a football club for an outlay of 7 million then found it was losing 3 million a year, what would you do ? 1) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, the 10 million losses we have made are entirely our own fault so although the land is worth 20 + million it's only right we pass the club on for that same 7 million to give the new owners a fighting chance of turning things around. 2) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, it's cost us another 10 million since and its only going to get worse, the land is worth 20 + million but if we get out cleanly now for 17 million and cut all ties then we'll be happy. 3) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, it's cost us 10 million since and it's only going to get worse, but we are in a strong position because the land is in demand and could be worth considerably more than 20 million, the Council don't want BRFC to fail and so if we play it right we can extract some profit to make up for the drop in the value of our other investments, show our business associates (whom we rely on) that we were quite astute in acquiring this land and still cobble together a scheme to give a wayward family member a miniature version of what he always wanted. No 3 is bordering on fantasy. Even if things were agreed today, and we both know that they won't be, but even if they were, how long do you suppose to get that stadium in St Phillips operational? I'll eat my hat if it was done in 5 years. If we halve our losses between then and now and by some miracle stay in the League at the same time, that still adds an additional £7.5m to the debt. It's close to delusional thinking to suppose that anybody is going to bail them out of this mess and they'll walk away with a profit. Anyway, are your figures correct? Not saying that they aren't, but when the last set of accs were released, the Evening Post ran a feature and said that with the £3m+ added the debt was now £19m. BTW, even on your figures, No 2 probably doesn't work because there will be losses for this trading year I would imagine. The last part of Number 3 concerns me because it could be the most likely outcome.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Nov 18, 2019 20:30:40 GMT
In February 2016 we all assumed the new owners would be good for the club but as the years have passed that faith has been eroded to the point where it would be imprudent not to fear the worst. The AJIB shares have dropped again today making the family's stake over 40% lower in value than it was when they acquired Rovers and their dividend income has suffered a similar redction. If you were in their position, had acquired a football club for an outlay of 7 million then found it was losing 3 million a year, what would you do ? 1) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, the 10 million losses we have made are entirely our own fault so although the land is worth 20 + million it's only right we pass the club on for that same 7 million to give the new owners a fighting chance of turning things around. 2) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, it's cost us another 10 million since and its only going to get worse, the land is worth 20 + million but if we get out cleanly now for 17 million and cut all ties then we'll be happy. 3) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, it's cost us 10 million since and it's only going to get worse, but we are in a strong position because the land is in demand and could be worth considerably more than 20 million, the Council don't want BRFC to fail and so if we play it right we can extract some profit to make up for the drop in the value of our other investments, show our business associates (whom we rely on) that we were quite astute in acquiring this land and still cobble together a scheme to give a wayward family member a miniature version of what he always wanted. No 3 is bordering on fantasy. Even if things were agreed today, and we both know that they won't be, but even if they were, how long do you suppose to get that stadium in St Phillips operational? I'll eat my hat if it was done in 5 years. If we halve our losses between then and now and by some miracle stay in the League at the same time, that still adds an additional £7.5m to the debt. It's close to delusional thinking to suppose that anybody is going to bail them out of this mess and they'll walk away with a profit. Anyway, are your figures correct? Not saying that they aren't, but when the last set of accs were released, the Evening Post ran a feature and said that with the £3m+ added the debt was now £19m. BTW, even on your figures, No 2 probably doesn't work because there will be losses for this trading year I would imagine. The loan stood at £13 million in the June 2018 accounts so I doubt it's up to £19 million now but it is on the way there if nothing changes. If the Council have given an indication to one developer that they would allow a high density development on the Mem site which would maximize it's value then I should have thought it would be difficult to backtrack on that. And if a deal was done I am sure there would be a clause allowing Rovers to stay and pay rent for a period while a new ground was being built. So if the land value remains constant whichever developer buys it there may be two alternatives available. A first class stadium and the chance to attract serious investment into Rovers but no place for Wael or a second class stadium with acknowledgement that Rovers would be perpetual "also-rans" but a place for Wael.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 20:56:45 GMT
No 3 is bordering on fantasy. Even if things were agreed today, and we both know that they won't be, but even if they were, how long do you suppose to get that stadium in St Phillips operational? I'll eat my hat if it was done in 5 years. If we halve our losses between then and now and by some miracle stay in the League at the same time, that still adds an additional £7.5m to the debt. It's close to delusional thinking to suppose that anybody is going to bail them out of this mess and they'll walk away with a profit. Anyway, are your figures correct? Not saying that they aren't, but when the last set of accs were released, the Evening Post ran a feature and said that with the £3m+ added the debt was now £19m. BTW, even on your figures, No 2 probably doesn't work because there will be losses for this trading year I would imagine. The loan stood at £13 million in the June 2018 accounts so I doubt it's up to £19 million now but it is on the way there if nothing changes. If the Council have given an indication to one developer that they would allow a high density development on the Mem site which would maximize it's value then I should have thought it would be difficult to backtrack on that. And if a deal was done I am sure there would be a clause allowing Rovers to stay and pay rent for a period while a new ground was being built. So if the land value remains constant whichever developer buys it there may be two alternatives available. A first class stadium and the chance to attract serious investment into Rovers but no place for Wael or a second class stadium with acknowledgement that Rovers would be perpetual "also-rans" but a place for Wael. The numbers giveth, and the numbers taketh away. Typical EP reporting, maybe they had factored in some other money to come up with £19m? But either way, those involved would know all of the figures, and any rent would reflect those. Anyway, shouldn't this be a 3 or maybe even 4 way discussion. What I mean is, if there's a preferred developer for The Mem, shouldn't that be agreed with the owners of the site? I don't think that Marvin is the type to start throwing compulsory purchase orders around, is he?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 22:51:21 GMT
In February 2016 we all assumed the new owners would be good for the club but as the years have passed that faith has been eroded to the point where it would be imprudent not to fear the worst. The AJIB shares have dropped again today making the family's stake over 40% lower in value than it was when they acquired Rovers and their dividend income has suffered a similar redction. If you were in their position, had acquired a football club for an outlay of 7 million then found it was losing 3 million a year, what would you do ? 1) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, the 10 million losses we have made are entirely our own fault so although the land is worth 20 + million it's only right we pass the club on for that same 7 million to give the new owners a fighting chance of turning things around. 2) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, it's cost us another 10 million since and its only going to get worse, the land is worth 20 + million but if we get out cleanly now for 17 million and cut all ties then we'll be happy. 3) Say to yourself, we shelled out 7 million to own this, it's cost us 10 million since and it's only going to get worse, but we are in a strong position because the land is in demand and could be worth considerably more than 20 million, the Council don't want BRFC to fail and so if we play it right we can extract some profit to make up for the drop in the value of our other investments, show our business associates (whom we rely on) that we were quite astute in acquiring this land and still cobble together a scheme to give a wayward family member a miniature version of what he always wanted. Bang on Swiss. They have always been in a no lose situation so why would they choose to do otherwise. No lose situation? so your saying no matter how much money the club have lost and however much they may lose in the next 1,2,3,4,5 years the current owners are comfortably in a no lose situation. No buyer will question the losses? The losses will not impact any sale of the club according to you because the owners are in a "no lose" situation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 23:09:26 GMT
No 3 is bordering on fantasy. Even if things were agreed today, and we both know that they won't be, but even if they were, how long do you suppose to get that stadium in St Phillips operational? I'll eat my hat if it was done in 5 years. If we halve our losses between then and now and by some miracle stay in the League at the same time, that still adds an additional £7.5m to the debt. It's close to delusional thinking to suppose that anybody is going to bail them out of this mess and they'll walk away with a profit. Anyway, are your figures correct? Not saying that they aren't, but when the last set of accs were released, the Evening Post ran a feature and said that with the £3m+ added the debt was now £19m. BTW, even on your figures, No 2 probably doesn't work because there will be losses for this trading year I would imagine. The last part of Number 3 concerns me because it could be the most likely outcome. "it could be" that sums up several posters who articulate their genuine concerns about the owners. Those posters presume the worse regarding the owners but without any evidence to back up their claims. I will just wait and see what happens,maybe we will get clues during the transfer window and in 2020 as to what will happen. But what "could happen" simply depends on a positive or negative outlook and nothing else.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 23:46:34 GMT
Bang on Swiss. They have always been in a no lose situation so why would they choose to do otherwise. No lose situation? so your saying no matter how much money the club have lost and however much they may lose in the next 1,2,3,4,5 years the current owners are comfortably in a no lose situation. No buyer will question the losses? The losses will not impact any sale of the club according to you because the owners are in a "no lose" situation. I didn't say the club wouldn't be the losers but I don't think the owners are in a losing position....yet.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 23:49:24 GMT
The last part of Number 3 concerns me because it could be the most likely outcome. "it could be" that sums up several posters who articulate their genuine concerns about the owners. Those posters presume the worse regarding the owners but without any evidence to back up their claims. I will just wait and see what happens,maybe we will get clues during the transfer window and in 2020 as to what will happen. But what "could happen" simply depends on a positive or negative outlook and nothing else. Weighing up what is already in the public domain and what is not leads me to what is the most likely outcome.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 23:50:38 GMT
No lose situation? so your saying no matter how much money the club have lost and however much they may lose in the next 1,2,3,4,5 years the current owners are comfortably in a no lose situation. No buyer will question the losses? The losses will not impact any sale of the club according to you because the owners are in a "no lose" situation. I didn't say the club wouldn't be the losers but I don't think the owners are in a losing position....yet. Maybe you could clarify? So far despite considerable losses since they have been owners they are smiling because it has not affected them yet. When will it impact on them? febuary? april? july? 2021?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 23:52:04 GMT
I didn't say the club wouldn't be the losers but I don't think the owners are in a losing position....yet. Maybe you could clarify? So far despite considerable losses since they have been owners they are smiling because it has not affected them yet. When will it impact on them? febuary? april? july? 2021? It will impact them the moment their loans exceed the assets. I doubt very much they are smiling about it though.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 18, 2019 23:57:53 GMT
Maybe you could clarify? So far despite considerable losses since they have been owners they are smiling because it has not affected them yet. When will it impact on them? febuary? april? july? 2021? It will impact them the moment their loans exceed the assets. I doubt very much they are smiling about it though. To that extent I see them as being in a race against time. And as the situation is quite widely known, I don't see their bargaining position regarding the Fruit Bowl as being very strong. But maybe I'm missing something?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2019 0:00:36 GMT
It will impact them the moment their loans exceed the assets. I doubt very much they are smiling about it though. To that extent I see them as being in a race against time. And as the situation is quite widely known, I don't see their bargaining position regarding the Fruit Bowl as being very strong. But maybe I'm missing something? I don't think the Fruit Market has anything to do with the current owners, I think it's a plan by potential purchasers.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Nov 19, 2019 0:07:21 GMT
The last part of Number 3 concerns me because it could be the most likely outcome. "it could be" that sums up several posters who articulate their genuine concerns about the owners. Those posters presume the worse regarding the owners but without any evidence to back up their claims. I will just wait and see what happens,maybe we will get clues during the transfer window and in 2020 as to what will happen. But what "could happen" simply depends on a positive or negative outlook and nothing else. The perception of a positive or negative outlook is something which genuinely intrigues me. Is it really taking a positive outlook to witness the club fail financially, as evidenced by the accounts, and yet say or do nothing on the basis that “it might not happen”. If you saw your family threatened in some way would you sit back and hope for the best or would you try to do something about it ? Turning a blind eye to the danger signals we all should see and saying “what will be will be”, when you could try to do something about it, is IMO taking a very negative outlook. I think highlighting the issues, encouraging debate on the possible scenarios and suggesting potential ways of improving Rovers prospects, in other words being optimistic that there is a solution and doing something to try and find it, is taking a very positive outlook.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 19, 2019 0:07:47 GMT
To that extent I see them as being in a race against time. And as the situation is quite widely known, I don't see their bargaining position regarding the Fruit Bowl as being very strong. But maybe I'm missing something? I don't think the Fruit Market has anything to do with the current owners, I think it's a plan by potential purchasers. I'm pre-supposing that the new owners will want to run the club their way - with WAQ disappeared or with a honorary role only
|
|