Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 22:29:49 GMT
"Wael as a Gashead". I just read that and snorted with laughter.
Anyway, Widdrington or Mansell in.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 21, 2019 1:45:09 GMT
To answer the points raised by Vaughan and Bamber about the 4 million.
If the Mem is sold to developers and say 16 million net is raised to repay Dwane Sports then Wael as a 25% shareholder in that company is entitled to 4 million of it.
Is he going to say “I’m keeping that 4 million and I’m keeping a substantial stake in Rovers but I need someone to come in with me and put up all the cash to run the club as well as find us somewhere to play ? “ Daft as it may seem that just might be what he is thinking. Which is why a cobbled together and under capitalized deal with someone like Backroom Partners, IMO, spells big danger for Rovers.
We know the Fruit Market project is a highly prestigious development backed by the Council with the preferred partner being an AIM listed company with a good track record. And this is exactly the kind of venture which would attract serious investors with substantial resources because they would know all of their investment would be going into the business which is where they would. want it to go. The leasing of a stadium wouldn’t be an issue at all for investors who want to invest in a Football Club because it’s just another business expense to be factored into the plan. The type of investors we are talking about would be looking for a high profile / high risk / high rewards venture. People who invest in commercial property are usually only interested in low profile/ low risk / low rewards ventures.
|
|
|
Post by chelt_gas on Dec 21, 2019 5:53:06 GMT
Please blame Holmes on the other forum for provoking me into responding to a question about the length of lease apparently being offered by the Fruit Market Developers for their proposed stadium. I broached the subject there earlier with my “Groundshare” theme but didn’t get far so I’ve had another go and thought it might be of interest over here. This is the cunning plan. 1) We know developers want the Mem and we know Hani and his family want to cut their losses but Wael wants to retain a stake. 2. If Wael wants to retain a stake but the Mem has to be sold to repay his family then we need somewhere to play in the short and long terms but we also need cash to fund the business 3. The best way to attract cash from outside sources would be to have a convincing plan in place and for Wael to show his commitment to that plan by reinvesting his share of the Mem sale proceeds into the club as equity. 4. So the steps are : a) Agree a provisional and conditional sale of the Mem to developers b) Agree a provisional groundshare with a suitable local club c). Commission Deloitte or other consultants to draw up a business plan for the club based on leasing the Fruit Market Stadium and using their expertise to determine the minimum lease period necessary for that plan to work d) Go to the market using reputable agents and the comprehensive business plan with the objective of obtaining an investment of circa 19 million in equity for a 76% stake based upon Wael reinvesting 4 million for a 16% stake. (8% held by others) e) With the strength of a company which will be capitalized at 23 million go to the City Council and the Fruit Market Developers and say to them “you want us in, this is what we need to come in, so let’s work together to make it happen” FGR now have outline PP for their stadium. Just a short trip up the M5 for Rovers.
|
|
|
Post by Wembley_Gas on Dec 21, 2019 7:29:00 GMT
But the FGR proposed stadium is to be made of wood....remind me - fans of which locally based team like to set flammable sports stadia ablaze?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2019 9:44:56 GMT
Please blame Holmes on the other forum for provoking me into responding to a question about the length of lease apparently being offered by the Fruit Market Developers for their proposed stadium. I broached the subject there earlier with my “Groundshare” theme but didn’t get far so I’ve had another go and thought it might be of interest over here. This is the cunning plan. 1) We know developers want the Mem and we know Hani and his family want to cut their losses but Wael wants to retain a stake. 2. If Wael wants to retain a stake but the Mem has to be sold to repay his family then we need somewhere to play in the short and long terms but we also need cash to fund the business 3. The best way to attract cash from outside sources would be to have a convincing plan in place and for Wael to show his commitment to that plan by reinvesting his share of the Mem sale proceeds into the club as equity. 4. So the steps are : a) Agree a provisional and conditional sale of the Mem to developers b) Agree a provisional groundshare with a suitable local club c). Commission Deloitte or other consultants to draw up a business plan for the club based on leasing the Fruit Market Stadium and using their expertise to determine the minimum lease period necessary for that plan to work d) Go to the market using reputable agents and the comprehensive business plan with the objective of obtaining an investment of circa 19 million in equity for a 76% stake based upon Wael reinvesting 4 million for a 16% stake. (8% held by others) e) With the strength of a company which will be capitalized at 23 million go to the City Council and the Fruit Market Developers and say to them “you want us in, this is what we need to come in, so let’s work together to make it happen” A rock solid proposition in any normal circumstances Swiss the trouble is how to convince the camel park attendant to sign up to legally binding contracts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2019 9:51:56 GMT
To answer the points raised by Vaughan and Bamber about the 4 million. If the Mem is sold to developers and say 16 million net is raised to repay Dwane Sports then Wael as a 25% shareholder in that company is entitled to 4 million of it.Is he going to say “I’m keeping that 4 million and I’m keeping a substantial stake in Rovers but I need someone to come in with me and put up all the cash to run the club as well as find us somewhere to play ? “ Daft as it may seem that just might be what he is thinking. Which is why a cobbled together and under capitalized deal with someone like Backroom Partners, IMO, spells big danger for Rovers. We know the Fruit Market project is a highly prestigious development backed by the Council with the preferred partner being an AIM listed company with a good track record. And this is exactly the kind of venture which would attract serious investors with substantial resources because they would know all of their investment would be going into the business which is where they would. want it to go. The leasing of a stadium wouldn’t be an issue at all for investors who want to invest in a Football Club because it’s just another business expense to be factored into the plan. The type of investors we are talking about would be looking for a high profile / high risk / high rewards venture. People who invest in commercial property are usually only interested in low profile/ low risk / low rewards ventures. You've forgotten the debts secured against the stadium. Who is that money owed to?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2019 9:54:14 GMT
Please blame Holmes on the other forum for provoking me into responding to a question about the length of lease apparently being offered by the Fruit Market Developers for their proposed stadium. I broached the subject there earlier with my “Groundshare” theme but didn’t get far so I’ve had another go and thought it might be of interest over here. This is the cunning plan. 1) We know developers want the Mem and we know Hani and his family want to cut their losses but Wael wants to retain a stake. 2. If Wael wants to retain a stake but the Mem has to be sold to repay his family then we need somewhere to play in the short and long terms but we also need cash to fund the business 3. The best way to attract cash from outside sources would be to have a convincing plan in place and for Wael to show his commitment to that plan by reinvesting his share of the Mem sale proceeds into the club as equity. 4. So the steps are : a) Agree a provisional and conditional sale of the Mem to developers b) Agree a provisional groundshare with a suitable local club c). Commission Deloitte or other consultants to draw up a business plan for the club based on leasing the Fruit Market Stadium and using their expertise to determine the minimum lease period necessary for that plan to work d) Go to the market using reputable agents and the comprehensive business plan with the objective of obtaining an investment of circa 19 million in equity for a 76% stake based upon Wael reinvesting 4 million for a 16% stake. (8% held by others) e) With the strength of a company which will be capitalized at 23 million go to the City Council and the Fruit Market Developers and say to them “you want us in, this is what we need to come in, so let’s work together to make it happen” FGR now have outline PP for their stadium. Just a short trip up the M5 for Rovers. As has been said many times. BCC have never refused any stadium application put forward by Rovers. PP appears to be the easier part.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Dec 21, 2019 10:28:52 GMT
He could invest money at any time to increase our FFP. Has he? No, he trades on most of us not realising that he has lived his fantasy off the asset - our home - which took nearly 60 years to acquire. Spot on, a charlatan. No less yet still some believe in him. I will still be there today but I now feel I don’t want to help him but I have to remind myself of the longterm but I fear the worst
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Dec 21, 2019 10:32:06 GMT
Do you really think any buyer will tolerate WAQ still being around ? Just my opinion but I cannot It would make it a harder sell for sure. But I think it could be done. Ok, thank you. As I’ve said before, it’s akin to buying a car from someone but promising to give them a lift, when they need it. My dislike of WAQ is very big. On Twitter there are many blue tinter, who come to his defence yet his feed is full of NFL and hardly anything Rovers. Walter bloody Mitty
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Dec 21, 2019 10:34:28 GMT
Swiss - you do make me laugh. Your assumption is that Wael would put in some of his fortune - millions - in return for equity. Exactly what Lansdown does but add some zeroes to what you have asked of our President. This is the same man who was prepared to put that Family Stand without contributing a cent to make it less embarrassing. The man is a football fantasist who uses the money and efforts of others to make out that he is a big-wig. DC told me that the man is "deluded". He has sat through the whole season and this week's farce without saying a word. Leadership? Investment? Dream on. Spot on vaughan & chapeau sir. Straight talk, I love it
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Dec 21, 2019 10:35:32 GMT
Do you really think any buyer will tolerate WAQ still being around ? Just my opinion but I cannot You cannot think any buyer will tolerate WAQ still being around? Or you cannot tolerate WAQ still being around? Both & yes, I am bloody angry about it and him
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Dec 21, 2019 10:38:00 GMT
Don't wish to make this over-sentimental, but imagine what Geoff Dunford would be saying about this.
Selling our home, moving to a another ground, whilst waiting to have a leasehold at some future ground.
Let's just think about what We are saying in the context of our troubled history?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 21, 2019 19:49:05 GMT
To answer the points raised by Vaughan and Bamber about the 4 million. If the Mem is sold to developers and say 16 million net is raised to repay Dwane Sports then Wael as a 25% shareholder in that company is entitled to 4 million of it.Is he going to say “I’m keeping that 4 million and I’m keeping a substantial stake in Rovers but I need someone to come in with me and put up all the cash to run the club as well as find us somewhere to play ? “ Daft as it may seem that just might be what he is thinking. Which is why a cobbled together and under capitalized deal with someone like Backroom Partners, IMO, spells big danger for Rovers. We know the Fruit Market project is a highly prestigious development backed by the Council with the preferred partner being an AIM listed company with a good track record. And this is exactly the kind of venture which would attract serious investors with substantial resources because they would know all of their investment would be going into the business which is where they would. want it to go. The leasing of a stadium wouldn’t be an issue at all for investors who want to invest in a Football Club because it’s just another business expense to be factored into the plan. The type of investors we are talking about would be looking for a high profile / high risk / high rewards venture. People who invest in commercial property are usually only interested in low profile/ low risk / low rewards ventures. You've forgotten the debts secured against the stadium. Who is that money owed to? Last year I checked out the accounts of both AJIB and their associate (25% holding) in London and neither had a note to say they were loaning funds to related parties which they would have done if this was the source. The AJIB accounts show very substantial deposits being held on behalf of the banks shareholders and while they are not named it must be likely that a 29% shareholder would have significant funds on deposit. And if the funds loaned to Rovers were originating from a third party then the charge would more likely have been registered at the outset rather than in May 2017. So I tend to think the funds for the 17.5 million credit line do come from the Al Qadi family’s own resources. If Wael wants to stay on there is no reason why he couldn’t reinvest his share of the Mem sale proceeds into the restructured company. And surely if he wants others to commit themselves he will understand why this is necessary. Which developer would agree to lease a stadium to a company with such a bad financial track record as ours without knowing the restructured business was now being soundly financed ? And which investor would agree to put up a substantial amount of cash to fund the business at the new stadium if his minority partner would put up nothing ?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 21, 2019 20:15:21 GMT
Don't wish to make this over-sentimental, but imagine what Geoff Dunford would be saying about this. Selling our home, moving to a another ground, whilst waiting to have a leasehold at some future ground. Let's just think about what We are saying in the context of our troubled history? Geoff was a pragmatist and he would have understood the thinking behind this plan.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2019 20:18:20 GMT
Don't wish to make this over-sentimental, but imagine what Geoff Dunford would be saying about this. Selling our home, moving to a another ground, whilst waiting to have a leasehold at some future ground. Let's just think about what We are saying in the context of our troubled history? Except that has not happened.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2019 23:50:55 GMT
Don't wish to make this over-sentimental, but imagine what Geoff Dunford would be saying about this. Selling our home, moving to a another ground, whilst waiting to have a leasehold at some future ground. Let's just think about what We are saying in the context of our troubled history? Except that has not happened. That's the spirit, ignore the problem and because the exact scenario in Vaughan's example isn't what's happened just dismiss it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2019 23:56:48 GMT
You've forgotten the debts secured against the stadium. Who is that money owed to? Last year I checked out the accounts of both AJIB and their associate (25% holding) in London and neither had a note to say they were loaning funds to related parties which they would have done if this was the source. The AJIB accounts show very substantial deposits being held on behalf of the banks shareholders and while they are not named it must be likely that a 29% shareholder would have significant funds on deposit. And if the funds loaned to Rovers were originating from a third party then the charge would more likely have been registered at the outset rather than in May 2017. So I tend to think the funds for the 17.5 million credit line do come from the Al Qadi family’s own resources. If Wael wants to stay on there is no reason why he couldn’t reinvest his share of the Mem sale proceeds into the restructured company. And surely if he wants others to commit themselves he will understand why this is necessary. Which developer would agree to lease a stadium to a company with such a bad financial track record as ours without knowing the restructured business was now being soundly financed ? And which investor would agree to put up a substantial amount of cash to fund the business at the new stadium if his minority partner would put up nothing ? So we have no clue as to who within the family has provided the funds that form the £17.5m you mention above. OK.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 0:28:17 GMT
Except that has not happened. That's the spirit, ignore the problem and because the exact scenario in Vaughan's example isn't what's happened just dismiss it. I did not dismiss it. I simply stated a fact. We can all make up any would be scenario we like but lets not confuse that with actual events that have occurred.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 22, 2019 1:02:53 GMT
Last year I checked out the accounts of both AJIB and their associate (25% holding) in London and neither had a note to say they were loaning funds to related parties which they would have done if this was the source. The AJIB accounts show very substantial deposits being held on behalf of the banks shareholders and while they are not named it must be likely that a 29% shareholder would have significant funds on deposit. And if the funds loaned to Rovers were originating from a third party then the charge would more likely have been registered at the outset rather than in May 2017. So I tend to think the funds for the 17.5 million credit line do come from the Al Qadi family’s own resources. If Wael wants to stay on there is no reason why he couldn’t reinvest his share of the Mem sale proceeds into the restructured company. And surely if he wants others to commit themselves he will understand why this is necessary. Which developer would agree to lease a stadium to a company with such a bad financial track record as ours without knowing the restructured business was now being soundly financed ? And which investor would agree to put up a substantial amount of cash to fund the business at the new stadium if his minority partner would put up nothing ? So we have no clue as to who within the family has provided the funds that form the £17.5m you mention above. OK. Well we have the three clues I listed above and there is also the interview Wael gave to Keith Brookman in August 2017 when he told us there was “no third party involved”. But since that was the same interview in which he said the loan was not a loan and that they were about to submit a planning application for redeveloping the Mem I wouldn’t blame anyone for taking it with a pinch of sand. We were originally told that Dwane Sports was owned by four members of the Al Qadi family and the assumption was that there were four equal shares. Do you think the shareholding is split a different way and that Wael doesn’t actually own 25% ? The companies registry in Jersey isn’t much help because that shows two nominee Jersey companies holding the shares on behalf of the unnamed beneficial owners.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 10:12:49 GMT
That's the spirit, ignore the problem and because the exact scenario in Vaughan's example isn't what's happened just dismiss it. I did not dismiss it. I simply stated a fact. We can all make up any would be scenario we like but lets not confuse that with actual events that have occurred. Vaughan's view is closer to reality than your 'head in the sand' approach.
|
|