|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 7, 2017 12:32:13 GMT
Well the idea of a Category 2 Academy is to develop players to either sell at a profit or negate the need to buy players so in that way it does generate revenue. As to UWE plans the Britannia stadium got Stoke to the Premiership with empty corners which they are now filling in to increase attendances and revenue. As a start 21700 seats or 18000 would've made little difference at UWE without a glamour cup tie. Face it you'll support Wael and Co whatever I'm just pointing out both previous and current owners are presenting (possibly if you believe a bloke stood next to you) cut down plans we you draw completely to conclusions from based on who you feel more comfortable with. In reality both management processes look flawed. Best intentions and no resources coupled with bloody mindedness (Previous), Hubris and poor planning coupled with blind optimism (Current). Take yer pick, though neither are palatable. Couldn't agree more with you.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 7, 2017 10:43:26 GMT
Strange a stripped down UWE which could've been developed / improved later is a sign of how out of his depth NH was but a stripped down training facility, that hopefully can be developed further, is a sign of the Al Qs commitment. It's just like making things up. I don't think a 'stripped' down training facility necessarily means a long term commitment, but at the same time, it doesn't reconcile with the 'don't want to spend money argument' or 'Hani wants out' argument
However a training ground of our own and UWE are two vastly different things. One is/was supposed to be a revenue generator to further the club . a stripped down stadium, surely leads to a potential scenario of it not generating sufficient money to benefit the club
last time I checked a training ground doesn't generate revenue and having our players in one place is surely a benefit if there is 1 pitch or 10
Well the idea of a Category 2 Academy is to develop players to either sell at a profit or negate the need to buy players so in that way it does generate revenue. As to UWE plans the Britannia stadium got Stoke to the Premiership with empty corners which they are now filling in to increase attendances and revenue. As a start 21700 seats or 18000 would've made little difference at UWE without a glamour cup tie. Face it you'll support Wael and Co whatever I'm just pointing out both previous and current owners are presenting (possibly if you believe a bloke stood next to you) cut down plans we you draw completely to conclusions from based on who you feel more comfortable with.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 7, 2017 9:46:48 GMT
I will preface by saying this was in conversation with someone who stands round by me at the game on Saturday and who had some involvements with the UWE project when NH was in charge Basically to get it built the cost had to reduced to x price. (I don’t know if this is pre or post Sainsbury’s) but basically it would have been a stripped down version of what was planned That big fancy bar would have become an open concourse where you could drink. The corners would have not had seating and filled with advertising sheeting Certain standrads of lighting (Lumens) are required for Championship and above. This would have been reduced to suit us at a lower level. (This was a few hundred grand saving apparently) Certain spaces would be left unfilled (interior walls etc I guess underneath the stands) You get the drift I hate to say it, but our 'friends' on otib were touting the idea of a trimmed back UWE a long time ago and, amongst others I scoffed at the idea at the time. In my mind, it just supports the idea that the UWE stadium was not perhaps the best of ideas. Strange a stripped down UWE which could've been developed / improved later is a sign of how out of his depth NH was but a stripped down training facility, that hopefully can be developed further, is a sign of the Al Qs commitment. It's just like making things up.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 2, 2017 23:55:06 GMT
Liquidating the club is the probably the only way they will get their money back but I disagree that is an easy option and there would be considerable damage to their reputation. I think they would want to avoid the doomsday scenario, but at all costs? As they keep dithering the losses will keep mounting until our debts exceed the value of our only asset. Don't you think they would give the football club ( and the losses/responsibilities which go with it) to someone else for nothing but retain BRFC 1883 Ltd so the Mem could be sold for development to pay off the loan ? Wael said today "we will be starting from scratch" so perhaps the next question should be "whereabouts will we be starting from scratch ?" I respect you commentary so much but BRFC Own the Memorial Co. Who own the ground. They liquidate everything or nothing surely? The asset is the football clubs, technically not Dwane Sports so need to change ownership
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 2, 2017 23:49:55 GMT
Liquidating the club is the probably the only way they will get their money back but I disagree that is an easy option and there would be considerable damage to their reputation. I think they would want to avoid the doomsday scenario, but at all costs? As they keep dithering the losses will keep mounting until our debts exceed the value of our only asset. Don't you think they would give the football club ( and the losses/responsibilities which go with it) to someone else for nothing but retain BRFC 1883 Ltd so the Mem could be sold for development to pay off the loan ? Wael said today "we will be starting from scratch" so perhaps the next question should be "whereabouts will we be starting from scratch ?"
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 2, 2017 22:51:12 GMT
They can exit quite easily by liquidating the club and recouping their money. No damage to their reputation does anyone really believe people doing good business with the bank they own shares in have heard of bristol rovers? Personally I've never been more concerned about the future of bristol rovers Liquidating the club is the probably the only way they will get their money back but I disagree that is an easy option and there would be considerable damage to their reputation. I think they would want to avoid the doomsday scenario, but at all costs? As they keep dithering the losses will keep mounting until our debts exceed the value of our only asset. What reputation do Dwane Sports have?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 2, 2017 22:07:44 GMT
The whole thing was an embarrassment and, as has been said above, I cannot believe the club allowed it to go out. I thought the same. The conspiracy theorist part of me even wondered whether it was published online by the proverbially disgruntled BRFC staffer, without the permission of the President, who when he saw the playback, felt a wally, and kindly asked for the tape to be burned. Had ever I performed so on film, I would have been either be very nice or very not to the film owner until they agreed to can it. Ian Holtby is not savvy enough to post a video online
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 2, 2017 21:57:35 GMT
Yup - it's a family tiff on a major scale. Here is my take on it. 1. Wael got very enthusiastic about the purchase of BRFC. What with the prospect of synergies with the UWE and future profits at the new Stadium. 2. Hani told him to do the numbers. 3. Wael rushed it because there were "another 10 interested buyers" (as per Nick Higgs comment). Banking is about two things. FEAR and GREED. Wael didn't want to miss out on what looked like a good deal - and he persuaded Hani to go for it. Bankers are by nature cautious, but they are also greedy. 4. The devil is in the detail. Dwane Sports re-did the numbers at the UWE - and they did not add up. Wael was sent back to renegotiate with UWE in an attempt to make them work. He failed. 5. Hani had a monumental fit and seized the purse strings. To protect his investment Dwane Sports put a charge on the Memorial Stadium. 6. It transpires that owning BRFC without the prospect of a shiny new UWE Stadium does not make BRFC a great addition to the Al-Qadi investment portfolio. That is where we are. A family at war and a Club hemorrhaging cash. Hey Wael - I bet you've heard this a few times recently. "If a deal looks like it is too good to be true - then that's probably because it isn't". It all fits, I think you're probably pretty close to the mark with most of this. What is harder to work out is what the exit strategy is. Looks like there isn't any sort of plan right now. Just a complete mess. They can exit quite easily by liquidating the club and recouping their money. No damage to their reputation does anyone really believe people doing good business with the bank they own shares in have heard of bristol rovers? Personally I've never been more concerned about the future of bristol rovers
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 2, 2017 21:54:28 GMT
Yup - it's a family tiff on a major scale. Here is my take on it. 1. Wael got very enthusiastic about the purchase of BRFC. What with the prospect of synergies with the UWE and future profits at the new Stadium. 2. Hani told him to do the numbers. 3. Wael rushed it because there were "another 10 interested buyers" (as per Nick Higgs comment). Banking is about two things. FEAR and GREED. Wael didn't want to miss out on what looked like a good deal - and he persuaded Hani to go for it. Bankers are by nature cautious, but they are also greedy. 4. The devil is in the detail. Dwane Sports re-did the numbers at the UWE - and they did not add up. Wael was sent back to renegotiate with UWE in an attempt to make them work. He failed. 5. Hani had a monumental fit and seized the purse strings. To protect his investment Dwane Sports put a charge on the Memorial Stadium. 6. It transpires that owning BRFC without the prospect of a shiny new UWE Stadium does not make BRFC a great addition to the Al-Qadi investment portfolio. That is where we are. A family at war and a Club hemorrhaging cash. Hey Wael - I bet you've heard this a few times recently. "If a deal looks like it is too good to be true - then that's probably because it isn't". It all fits, I think you're probably pretty close to the mark with most of this. What is harder to work out is what the exit strategy is. Looks like there isn't any sort of plan right now. Just a complete mess.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 2, 2017 20:45:03 GMT
Come on look on the brightside we have a president who has 100% brought into the ethos of Bristol Rovers. Promise big, deliver a coat of paint, 10 years of goodwill garnered.
If anyone of note is reading this think of making the club breakeven and, moderately, successful. In our league, and the Championship, takeaway TV money and clubs income is pretty much determined by attendances. So look and learn from those clubs that consistently punch above their attendances in our league I'd suggest we could learn a lot from Scunthorpe and in the Championship Barnsley and Burton. I doubt our owners are that savvy though
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 29, 2017 9:10:55 GMT
Oh dear did people really believe this gentlemens agreement was worth the paper it wasn't written on?
|
|
|
hamer...
Nov 23, 2017 13:33:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 23, 2017 13:33:19 GMT
I'd listen if I was expecting answers, probably catch up with the Ashes highlights instead
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 23, 2017 9:32:41 GMT
What is it with you and "hard men". They are winners current side too nice in my humble opinion ...we want some thugs like we had with David Pipe, Vaughan Jones and James Hunt type players ...mind you I think Tom Broadbent has the makings.
We don't cope well physically in League One.
Being a Chelsea fan of the 1970s loved seeing Harris, McCreadie, Webb, Hutchinson all dish it out ...they were winners could make a tackle and stand up to anyone.
Oh dear poor Mike has lost the plot (again) I truly can't think of one team James Hunt would improve in any way. Perhaps you should speak to Vaughan at the next home game and tell him you mentioned him in the same breathe as James Hunt
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 23, 2017 9:28:45 GMT
The reason I brought the Colony training ground up again is because Wael is reported to have told supporters on Saturday that "it will get built" and then a rumour appeared about the development being downgraded to virtually the same as the amateur rugby club had gained permission for in the past. This all smacks of him not wishing to lose face on the training ground and not really having any defined plan of where we are going or how we are going to get there. As Padstow says above, when you have limited resources you must prioritize how you use them and to me the priority would be getting the club into profit or at least closer to break even as soon as possible. The alternative is to carry on losing money and having to loan even more from Dwane Sports in a vicious circle which can only drag us downward. What I am saying is that ownership of a training ground is not essential and that we should be able to find an acceptable facility to lease if we start looking now. An upgrade of the Mem is also not essential in the short term because if we have to borrow to make the upgrade (if that is even possible) the cost of servicing that debt will outweigh any extra revenue for many years to come. What is essential IMO is to reduce the trading losses as quickly as possible so that they do not overwhelm the club. Because of the way the EFL prize money is structured there is a huge incentive to get to the Championship and for a club like Rovers, which is financed by interest bearing debt, that seems to be the only way to avoid unsustainable losses. Once we are there, and turning in a profit, we are in a far better position to move forward with longer term infrastructure investments and source the funding for them. The general opinion of fans is that if you have a piece of land and spend £2 million on it then the developed land will suddenly be worth £3 million. My experience tells me that this is not the case and the sale value of the land may hardly increase at all. The reason is that the market for a sports training ground developed to amateur rugby club standard is limited and there may not be anyone around willing to pay £3 million for it. So the only financial benefit is a marginal saving on the cost of leasing a training ground from someone else. To me, spending £2 million on this would be a mistake when that money, if used wisely, could turn the club around completely. Your last paragraph sums up why personally I was happy for the land at UWE to be leased rather than owned. Under that circumstance once the stadium is in place we're the only possible users of it and any future owners would have to keep a stadium on site or ask the leaseholder to agree to a change of use. A pity that option now appears to be dead.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 22, 2017 15:16:24 GMT
To be quite honest if supporters members want to join a Club to enable them to travel by coaches to away games, get priority over tickets or pay into a share scheme (basically as a donation) that's entirely up to them so no need to have a go at them. Frankly I imagine most don't give a damn about your ramblings and don't want to get involved too much in the politics. To be brutally honest they just want to enjoy the entertaining football and as a bonus better facilities and of course Derby matches again and Championship football. Speaking to many SS members at the recent buffet before the Swindon match they don't worry about where their subscriptions have gone. So don't worry your cotton socks anymore...life's too short ass they say 'Enjoy the entertaining football'? Wimbledon only play here once a season
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 21, 2017 9:29:50 GMT
On a technicality Dwane Sports only own 92% of the football club. As the other 8% effectively can't make any decisions on running the football club why shouldn't Dwane Sports just purloin the 8% they don't own for nothing? The answer is legally they can't and if there is a legally binding agreement between the football club and the supporters club / sharescheme giving the right to appoint 2 associate directors then Dwane Sports need to put forward proposals to change that legally binding agreement and to do that they will need to offer some form of consideration. The ability or effectiveness of the 2 appointees is irrelevant to the legally binding agreement unless there is some stipulation in it ie perhaps said nominees need to be a season ticket holder. Come on mate. Over 75% and at an EGM the majority shareholders can do as they please. Their is a legal mechanism for minority shareholders, but do you think the SC get that? They may well not know their rights but I wasn't replying, directly, to them.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 20, 2017 15:23:20 GMT
Stand by for huge focus on and outrage about an irrelevance, and a wholesale missing of the point. 1. The number 'two' is conceptual and not, in itself, worth dying in a ditch over. The SC people used to constitute about a quarter of the board; to maintain that level it now needs to have one, not two, members. The principle of it ought to matter more than the letter of it. 2. The two that we've had in the past, with the exception of Kim Stuckey, have done the square root of F-all in providing fans' voice in decision making or keeping fans in the loop. √(F-all) is of no less value than 2(√(F-all)). The concept of not getting value from the SC Directors was waived away years ago. Jim Chappell can wind his neck in if he's going to get shirty about an irrelevant technicality, having presided over the wholesale devaluing of the whole concept throughout. 3. The board is now an operational exercise; real decisions are made in Amman, so the circus has moved on. It's a quibble about seats in an empty tent. The whole thing needs a rethink. It sounds like that motion's coming from the board and being met with frozen stupefaction by the SC. On a technicality Dwane Sports only own 92% of the football club. As the other 8% effectively can't make any decisions on running the football club why shouldn't Dwane Sports just purloin the 8% they don't own for nothing? The answer is legally they can't and if there is a legally binding agreement between the football club and the supporters club / sharescheme giving the right to appoint 2 associate directors then Dwane Sports need to put forward proposals to change that legally binding agreement and to do that they will need to offer some form of consideration. The ability or effectiveness of the 2 appointees is irrelevant to the legally binding agreement unless there is some stipulation in it ie perhaps said nominees need to be a season ticket holder.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 16, 2017 15:15:14 GMT
On the brightside for this comparison we don't have Carl Regan as one of only 5 defenders in the squad or the lucky relegation charm that was Jo Kuffour
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 1, 2017 10:56:26 GMT
Don't forget we now have a suggestion box in place too. Is there , whereabouts? There was a suggestion submitted to reveal the whereabouts of the suggestion box but the board have rejected that suggestion
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Oct 31, 2017 14:28:34 GMT
Here are some of the main rules and regulations for this season's Checkatrade Trophy. •Each team shall play each other once (either home or away) in the group stages. •Three points are awarded for a win. One point each for a draw. If the game does indeed end in a draw after 90 minutes, the match will go straight to penalties to decide which side wins the bonus point. •Penalties will take place using the new ABBA system. •Invited Category One academy sides (Premier League and Championship) will continue to participate in the tournament. •All Category One sides will play their group games AWAY from home. •The tournament will now be regionalised until the quarter-final stage. •Each EFL Club must play its 'Full Available Strength' in and during all matches. •Full Available Strength means EFL clubs must include at least four qualifying players in the ten outfield players named in their starting XI. •The four qualifying players must either (a) start the preceding fixture (b) start the fixture immediately after (c) be in the top ten of appearance makers for the club so far that season (d) have made forty or more first team starting appearances in their career to date. •Each Category One club must include at least six players in their starting XI who were aged under 21 as of the 30 June 2017. •Clubs can name seven substitutes on their team-sheet and bring three players onto the field of play. •Cautions and dismissals are treated separately under The FA Disciplinary procedures from all other first team matches.
Um a competition that has different rules for different participants. What's not to like eh? Boycott or be like Mike a scab
|
|