womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Jul 6, 2021 22:02:23 GMT
I don't like the clock, the medicine ball is too big and the blue rollers a tad too short. I have no idea what the maintenance agreement is on the equipment, but let's hope the service supplier is not located in Merseyside. The supplier of most of the equipment (Matrix) has its UK operation based in Stoke, so we should be ok.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2021 22:21:58 GMT
I don't like the clock, the medicine ball is too big and the blue rollers a tad too short. I have no idea what the maintenance agreement is on the equipment, but let's hope the service supplier is not located in Merseyside.
A decent project would try and reflect the type of pitches in the 3rd tier rather than being decent surfaces to train on. Who signed that off?
Far too much equipment in the gym - a waste of valuble cash resource
Flip chart AND white board in evidence by the looks of it. Did someone at the club accidently buy both?. Rovers fans should challenge this type of thing, otherwise these type of mistakes will continue under Wael's watch, and they will have only themselves to blame if so.
No indication of where the catering is coming from in these pictures either. Perhaps its an indication the project is not complete or perhaps a key aspect has been overlooked?
But why even have a gym on site when the club can easily obtain gym facilities dotted around the west country in different locations. Surely its wasted cash when players can easily turn up at such facilities. Did the club fully investigate this option?
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Jul 7, 2021 7:25:37 GMT
😂😂😂
So many searching questions raised by Contradiction. This really needs an investigative journalist to undertake forensic analysis,on behalf of an unsuspecting fan base.
|
|
bloogas
Joined: July 2016
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by bloogas on Jul 7, 2021 8:36:54 GMT
😂😂😂 So many searching questions raised by Contradiction. This really needs an investigative journalist to undertake forensic analysis,on behalf of an unsuspecting fan base. Indeed, some very good points. Re catering, I believe a kebab van stops by the gate around midday.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 7, 2021 16:51:02 GMT
Which do you think would be the better investment ? Lease cost less than £80 000 pa. Depreciation cost £ 0 Maintenance cost £ 150 000 pa Revenue generation potential £ 250 000 pa Attachment Deleted Build cost over £ 2 000 000. Depreciation cost £ 100 000 pa Maintenance cost £ 150 000 pa Revenue generation potential £ 0
|
|
|
Post by hillfieldsboy55 on Jul 7, 2021 17:19:55 GMT
Which do you think would be the better investment ? View Attachment Lease cost less than £80 000 pa. Depreciation cost £ 0 Maintenance cost £ 150 000 pa Revenue generation potential £ 250 000 pa View Attachment View AttachmentBuild cost over £ 2 000 000. Depreciation cost £ 100 000 pa Maintenance cost £ 150 000 pa Revenue generation potential £ 0 Is the BAWA up for sale ?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 7, 2021 17:47:02 GMT
Which do you think would be the better investment ? View Attachment Lease cost less than £80 000 pa. Depreciation cost £ 0 Maintenance cost £ 150 000 pa Revenue generation potential £ 250 000 pa View Attachment View AttachmentBuild cost over £ 2 000 000. Depreciation cost £ 100 000 pa Maintenance cost £ 150 000 pa Revenue generation potential £ 0 Is the BAWA up for sale ? It could be available to lease.
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Jul 7, 2021 18:05:31 GMT
It could be or is available?
Why can no revenue be earned from Quaters?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 7, 2021 18:24:01 GMT
It could be or is available? Why can no revenue be earned from Quaters? To find out for sure one would need to speak with the Bristol office of a global international real estate services firm headquartered in Chicago. There is no planning permission in place for commercial activity at the Almondsbury site and no mention of it being considered in the latest planning statement submitted on behalf of the club.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2021 8:49:19 GMT
Which do you think would be the better investment ? View Attachment Lease cost less than £80 000 pa. Depreciation cost £ 0 Maintenance cost £ 150 000 pa Revenue generation potential £ 250 000 pa View Attachment View AttachmentBuild cost over £ 2 000 000. Depreciation cost £ 100 000 pa Maintenance cost £ 150 000 pa Revenue generation potential £ 0 I think this is the right emoji for 'crying with laugher' Think its worth clarifying at this point that Phase 3 plans are not in the public domain. Nor is any documentation or communications regarding the work being earmarked for phase 3 development and the associated planning work needed/planned in order to facilitate this over the coming years, including what is needed produce an income to the club as per the internal business case the club did. So, in exactly the same way the Wael's personal wealth is unknown, the above work is also unknown. People are free to putt a hugely negative spin on it however whilst the rest of us will find the appropriate emoji I'm sure if or when factual information is available Womble will be post it.
|
|
|
Post by holmesgas1 on Jul 8, 2021 11:39:38 GMT
Which do you think would be the better investment ? View Attachment Lease cost less than £80 000 pa. Depreciation cost £ 0 Maintenance cost £ 150 000 pa Revenue generation potential £ 250 000 pa View Attachment View AttachmentBuild cost over £ 2 000 000. Depreciation cost £ 100 000 pa Maintenance cost £ 150 000 pa Revenue generation potential £ 0 This is not worth commenting on.... 😒
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Jul 8, 2021 11:59:02 GMT
Meanwhile over at Swindon...
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,282
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 8, 2021 13:26:30 GMT
Meanwhile over at Swindon... Go compare la la la la
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,282
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 8, 2021 13:28:35 GMT
It could be or is available? Why can no revenue be earned from Quaters? To find out for sure one would need to speak with the Bristol office of a global international real estate services firm headquartered in Chicago. There is no planning permission in place for commercial activity at the Almondsbury site and no mention of it being considered in the latest planning statement submitted on behalf of the club. Wow ! One has to wonder who really owns the club if this is true. What a tangled web we weave 😶
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 8, 2021 14:52:04 GMT
I think this is the right emoji for 'crying with laugher' Think its worth clarifying at this point that Phase 3 plans are not in the public domain. Nor is any documentation or communications regarding the work being earmarked for phase 3 development and the associated planning work needed/planned in order to facilitate this over the coming years, including what is needed produce an income to the club as per the internal business case the club did. So, in exactly the same way the Wael's personal wealth is unknown, the above work is also unknown. People are free to putt a hugely negative spin on it however whilst the rest of us will find the appropriate emoji I'm sure if or when factual information is available Womble will be post it. These must be different to the tears of joy you gush when shown photo's of the new training ground. But what is this internal business case you speak of ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2021 16:13:03 GMT
I think this is the right emoji for 'crying with laugher' Think its worth clarifying at this point that Phase 3 plans are not in the public domain. Nor is any documentation or communications regarding the work being earmarked for phase 3 development and the associated planning work needed/planned in order to facilitate this over the coming years, including what is needed produce an income to the club as per the internal business case the club did. So, in exactly the same way the Wael's personal wealth is unknown, the above work is also unknown. People are free to putt a hugely negative spin on it however whilst the rest of us will find the appropriate emoji I'm sure if or when factual information is available Womble will be post it. These must be different to the tears of joy you gush when shown photo's of the new training ground. But what is this internal business case you speak of ?The one Gorringe referred to in an interview a few months ago, think it was Radio Bristol. Referred to the need for it to be its own cost centre and help pay its way as part of the business case. I'm sure you can track it down if you wanted, or more likely ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 8, 2021 17:47:25 GMT
These must be different to the tears of joy you gush when shown photo's of the new training ground. But what is this internal business case you speak of ?The one Gorringe referred to in an interview a few months ago, think it was Radio Bristol. Referred to the need for it to be its own cost centre and help pay its way as part of the business case. I'm sure you can track it down if you wanted, or more likely ignore it. I don't know whether you want to have a serious discussion about this or not ? Did Tom Gorringe provide any detail about the business case he had prepared or was it similar to Nick Higgs' top to bottom review which remained completely under wraps so we could only conclude that it became stuck at the bottom and never got anywhere near the top ? A few months ago Womble and I had a discussion on here about how, with proper project planning, the land at Almondsbury could have been effectively utilised to provide community facilities and opportunities for revenue generation. It would have been a difficult task and a hard sell, and it may ultimately have not been possible, but the fact is Rovers never even tried. The latest documents on the South Glos planning portal mention that BRFC have been in touch with the Football Foundation and Gloucestershire FA about possibly developing the site as a wider community hub but it doesn't say when that happened. To me "being in touch" gives the impression of airy fairy talk with no substance because if the club had been serious they would have consulted with South Glos and other partners well before embarking on the "rag bag" constructions which are still not finished. Now it is too late for any thoughts of a sports science park and by going about it this way we must have alienated many people not least local residents who are raising objections to the plan for more intensive use of the site even for football. It is the same old story contradiction. Rovers blunder in without thinking and the majority of Gasheads plus the local media give unwavering support but never consider whether there might be a better way.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2021 17:56:36 GMT
The one Gorringe referred to in an interview a few months ago, think it was Radio Bristol. Referred to the need for it to be its own cost centre and help pay its way as part of the business case. I'm sure you can track it down if you wanted, or more likely ignore it. I don't know whether you want to have a serious discussion about this or not ?Did Tom Gorringe provide any detail about the business case he had prepared or was it similar to Nick Higgs' top to bottom review which remained completely under wraps so we could only conclude that it became stuck at the bottom and never got anywhere near the top ? A few months ago Womble and I had a discussion on here about how, with proper project planning, the land at Almondsbury could have been effectively utilised to provide community facilities and opportunities for revenue generation. It would have been a difficult task and a hard sell, and it may ultimately have not been possible, but the fact is Rovers never even tried. The latest documents on the South Glos planning portal mention that BRFC have been in touch with the Football Foundation and Gloucestershire FA about possibly developing the site as a wider community hub but it doesn't say when that happened. To me "being in touch" gives the impression of airy fairy talk with no substance because if the club had been serious they would have consulted with South Glos and other partners well before embarking on the "rag bag" constructions which are still not finished. Now it is too late for any thoughts of a sports science park and by going about it this way we must have alienated many people not least local residents who are raising objections to the plan for more intensive use of the site even for football. It is the same old story contradiction. Rovers blunder in without thinking and the majority of Gasheads plus the local media give unwavering support but never consider whether there might be a better way. No thanks I'm busy looking at the photo's of the training ground
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Jul 8, 2021 19:41:20 GMT
The one Gorringe referred to in an interview a few months ago, think it was Radio Bristol. Referred to the need for it to be its own cost centre and help pay its way as part of the business case. I'm sure you can track it down if you wanted, or more likely ignore it. A few months ago Womble and I had a discussion on here about how, with proper project planning, the land at Almondsbury could have been effectively utilised to provide community facilities and opportunities for revenue generation. It would have been a difficult task and a hard sell, and it may ultimately have not been possible, but the fact is Rovers never even tried. The latest documents on the South Glos planning portal mention that BRFC have been in touch with the Football Foundation and Gloucestershire FA about possibly developing the site as a wider community hub but it doesn't say when that happened. To me "being in touch" gives the impression of airy fairy talk with no substance because if the club had been serious they would have consulted with South Glos and other partners well before embarking on the "rag bag" constructions which are still not finished. Now it is too late for any thoughts of a sports science park and by going about it this way we must have alienated many people not least local residents who are raising objections to the plan for more intensive use of the site even for football. The quote from the planning document is “Bristol Rovers FC have been in contact with the FF/Glos FA about developing the wider site as a community hub.” The wording suggests that the as yet unsubmitted phase 3 is being referred to here. The club has referred to ‘community use’ right at the beginning of the project - that and the fact we know without doubt that future developments were being considered from the time of Ben Garner (from the dates on the architects’ drawings), lead me to think that more thought has been given to this than is sometimes suggested. The worries of a couple of local residents seem to be based on a misunderstanding of what is being applied for. They are worried about the removal of two planning conditions (7 and 13) that relate to the original permission and were actually removed in 2016. The provision of floodlit pitches in the position requested, is already agreed by the current permission. They seem to be unaware that permission already exists for a car park with nearly four times the capacity of the current one. I agree that Rovers’ should be able to assuage the concerns of local residents, I don’t think that a sports science park with its greater intensity of use - would be at all popular with the locals.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 8, 2021 21:16:25 GMT
A few months ago Womble and I had a discussion on here about how, with proper project planning, the land at Almondsbury could have been effectively utilised to provide community facilities and opportunities for revenue generation. It would have been a difficult task and a hard sell, and it may ultimately have not been possible, but the fact is Rovers never even tried. The latest documents on the South Glos planning portal mention that BRFC have been in touch with the Football Foundation and Gloucestershire FA about possibly developing the site as a wider community hub but it doesn't say when that happened. To me "being in touch" gives the impression of airy fairy talk with no substance because if the club had been serious they would have consulted with South Glos and other partners well before embarking on the "rag bag" constructions which are still not finished. Now it is too late for any thoughts of a sports science park and by going about it this way we must have alienated many people not least local residents who are raising objections to the plan for more intensive use of the site even for football. The quote from the planning document is “Bristol Rovers FC have been in contact with the FF/Glos FA about developing the wider site as a community hub.” The wording suggests that the as yet unsubmitted phase 3 is being referred to here. The club has referred to ‘community use’ right at the beginning of the project - that and the fact we know without doubt that future developments were being considered from the time of Ben Garner (from the dates on the architects’ drawings), lead me to think that more thought has been given to this than is sometimes suggested. The worries of a couple of local residents seem to be based on a misunderstanding of what is being applied for. They are worried about the removal of two planning conditions (7 and 13) that relate to the original permission and were actually removed in 2016. The provision of floodlit pitches in the position requested, is already agreed by the current permission. They seem to be unaware that permission already exists for a car park with nearly four times the capacity of the current one. I agree that Rovers’ should be able to assuage the concerns of local residents, I don’t think that a sports science park with its greater intensity of use - would be at all popular with the locals. I think we can agree there would have been merit in going about this in a completely different way and involving South Glos and other partners in the exploration of what could be done to maximise the potential of the site whilst keeping within planning guidelines and being good neighbours with the local community. But instead of having the confidence to be transparent and talk to people openly about what might be possible Rovers, as always, kept things secretive and then made an impulsive decision with little thought being given to budgets, timescale or alternative options. The only possible reason for building to the original club house plan was because permission was in place so it could be started immediately and be in operation quickly. But here we are twelve months down the road and we still don't know whether it is finished and able to be used. Plus it has already been acknowledged by the club that the building is not fit for purpose and at some time will have to be partially knocked down and remodeled. At the very best, with the addition of a £500 000 3G pitch, the remodeled building's changing rooms and pitch could be rented out to local sports teams but what sort of revenue is that likely to generate ? I would say a pittance compared to what would have been realized if we had taken time and involved other people in a project to build a modern purpose built structure which really could serve as a community hub and make the training centre self funding. The strange reaction from Gasheads to the goings on at Almondsbury leads me to believe that most can see all is not well at the club. We prefer to remain silent about the anomalies which stare us in the face every day like the quality of signings compared to expectations, the disappearance of Martyn and Tommy, the mysterious Colonel Gibson, the lateness of the accounts, the embargo on stadium news and the inadequacy and disheveled appearance of the training ground. But is that really being positive ? Isn't it more positive to confront these issues and explore options to help the club to find a more successful business strategy ?
|
|