Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 15:03:47 GMT
What a daft argument. Firstly you are ignoring maintenance costs, which will kick on on that tin shed in a couple of years. I can absolutely promise you that it won't still be stood there in 30 years time. Secondly, who would you not sign during that 30 year period to free up the capital to purchase and develop this as yet unidentified site? Maybe Lambert, who we made a profit on, maybe Disley, who was the backbone of getting us out of L2 and stable back in L1? In fact, daft doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. Was it you who used 'windswept' the describe other training facilities previously, then when I asked for meteorological reports and Beaufort data to compare adjacent to the M5 to other training grounds wasn't able to provide anything? As daft an argument as millions of people having a mortgage for 25 years rather than renting. Bit of free advice for you - don't ever consider a second career as a financial advisor  Thanks but I'll pass on advice from anybody who puts forward an argument based on financial comparison and seems to think that the purchase price would have had no historical impact and that this new ground is somehow, magically, maintenance free. If you have anything worthwhile to say then of course I'll listen, but so far there hasn't been a great deal from you. BTW, you forgot to qualify your assertion that the wind conditions were less favourable at previous training facilities... |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 15:38:47 GMT
As daft an argument as millions of people having a mortgage for 25 years rather than renting. Bit of free advice for you - don't ever consider a second career as a financial advisor Thanks but I'll pass on advice from anybody who puts forward an argument based on financial comparison and seems to think that the purchase price would have had no historical impact and that this new ground is somehow, magically, maintenance free. If you have anything worthwhile to say then of course I'll listen, but so far there hasn't been a great deal from you. BTW, you forgot to qualify your assertion that the wind conditions were less favourable at previous training facilities... You need to learn how to debate properly old boy, its a serious debating point as to whether we would be better off now if we had not spent so much dead money over the years to stand still. Of course there would be maintenance costs, but I quoted very generalised figures /glorified guesses & god knows exactly what we were paying at the various rented sites - but we are talking principles here. Its interesting that when (sometimes) we try and move away from the automatic anti board rhetoric coming from some to more serious debates some people are found wanting as they are out of their comfort zone. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 16, 2021 15:50:13 GMT
The initial takeover money in 2016 was £ 7.2 million of which £ 2.7 million was used to repay MSP Capital and £ 4.5 million to repay Nick Higgs & Co their loans and bonds. Swiss Setting aside your other points for a moment, it makes me smile when I hear and see on here the former directors and their acolytes undermining and attacking WAQ when they got their cash back and the MSP loan repaid when the latter was costing the club about £30k+ per month in interest. Further Higgs had stated that the other directors didn't want to put more money in to meet burgeoning losses and legal costs yet here they are saying how WAQ is the bad guy for covering losses..... I do agree though that WAQ is proving naïve and far too trusting of so called experienced people and really needs people with experience [naturally] but with a desire for sustainability who he can trust, have Rovers long term interest at heart and won't be just out for themselves. Trouble is nowadays those kind of people are in short supply although I could name a few from the Rovers past. I believe there are people who could help him build a sustainable plan, based on reducing costs and reuniting the fan base. However that would need the taking of difficult decisions on and off the field, require people dedicated to the club and need people like the BRSC and PC to stop bitching, whinging and whining and start looking forward rather than trying to get back what they perceive as lost glories and influence. The loss of which is mostly self inflicted. The trouble is I think, like I guess you do, that we are almost past the point of no return. I think the former directors did very well to get their £ 4.5 million loans and bonds repaid and my suspicion is that other parties which would have been willing to take over Rovers, and may have had a better chance of progressing the club including replacing or regenerating the stadium, were rejected because they would not repay those loans and bonds. As Pop has explained in his post above a strict interpretation of the agreement regarding preferential shares is that the capital does not have to be repaid if no cash is available but I believe we are talking about chunks of £ 40 000 of a time which is minuscule in terms of Rovers current finances yet probably means a great deal to those now in retirement who helped the club when it needed help. I would question the judgement of anyone who has the power to do the right thing but chooses not to purely because they don’t have to. Gasincider and knowall did not always help their cause with the ITK type postings and their frustration at no longer being close to the heart of the club anymore was evident. But nevertheless I think theirs, and others, concerns over the direction the club has taken are genuine and come from a desire to see Rovers achieve success. So long as Wael is encouraged to continue in the direction he is going then I’m afraid he will keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. Trying to look at it from his point of view what would you do if you anticipate the supply of cash being insufficient to get the club back to League 1 let alone finish the training ground or do anything about a new / regenerated stadium ? The problem is that Wael wants Rovers to be successful but he also wants to be well liked by Gasheads, to be seen to be in control and certainly to not lose face. Sadly, with his lack of business acumen and possibly with diminishing cash resources, the two things now look as if they are incompatible. Therefore, in his mind, one solution might be to find someone with cash and some business acumen who is willing come in and, without completely overshadowing him, take some of the responsibility away and make an attempt at a turnaround. One method of doing this would be to separate the football club from 1883 Ltd and have new people owning part of the football club which would lease the Mem and training ground from Wael. The difficult question to ask in this scenario is “what type of football club owner would want to take on the current business model and rent the Mem and training ground in their present condition ?” And, unfortunately, the answer is “the type of football club owner who is not able to get anything better” ... which is a very depressing thought. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 16, 2021 16:06:23 GMT
What a daft argument. Firstly you are ignoring maintenance costs, which will kick on on that tin shed in a couple of years. I can absolutely promise you that it won't still be stood there in 30 years time. Secondly, who would you not sign during that 30 year period to free up the capital to purchase and develop this as yet unidentified site? Maybe Lambert, who we made a profit on, maybe Disley, who was the backbone of getting us out of L2 and stable back in L1? In fact, daft doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. Was it you who used 'windswept' the describe other training facilities previously, then when I asked for meteorological reports and Beaufort data to compare adjacent to the M5 to other training grounds wasn't able to provide anything? As daft an argument as millions of people having a mortgage for 25 years rather than renting. Bit of free advice for you - don't ever consider a second career as a financial advisor How does owning a property help make a football club successful ? Since taking ownership of the Mem we've had the most unsuccessful period in our entire history. |
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Sept 16, 2021 16:29:54 GMT
As daft an argument as millions of people having a mortgage for 25 years rather than renting. Bit of free advice for you - don't ever consider a second career as a financial advisor Thanks but I'll pass on advice from anybody who puts forward an argument based on financial comparison and seems to think that the purchase price would have had no historical impact and that this new ground is somehow, magically, maintenance free. If you have anything worthwhile to say then of course I'll listen, but so far there hasn't been a great deal from you. BTW, you forgot to qualify your assertion that the wind conditions were less favourable at previous training facilities... Is Colerne at top of a hill? Can remember playing at Landsdown, which is high ground and very windy. Struggled to get goal kicks much out the penalty area so assume Colerne would be similar. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 16, 2021 16:37:54 GMT
The land registry states the purchase price was £ 1, 183,119 You will have more knowledge than me on construction costs but perhaps you can comment on something that happened at the start of the project but which seemed to fade away very quickly as if it didn't matter. We were told that when work began on preparing the bases for the pitches some geological feature had caused a re-think and a lot of extra work had to be done to change the levels. I've not been involved with a lot of groundwork but from the little I know this sort of thing can be a major headache, eat up contingencies and even send a project over budget before it has started. But when this happened at Almondsbury there didn't seem to be any concerns at all in fact the reaction from fans, media and the club was "oh well, not to worry, we'll just have to get on with it". Do you know anything about that problem and how much it may have cost to rectify ? When the topsoil was removed at the beginning of the process, a lot of rock was found relatively near the surface. Rather than remove it (which would be very expensive over an area of 2.5 pitches), they decided to raise the level of the pitches rather than excavate. So the gravel bed and sand/topsoil layers are higher than originally planned. The height difference is clear when you look at any picture taken looking down the entrance driveway. I assume that didn’t add much to the cost, but Stuart1974 from the other forum (I think he posts on here as Stuu) is likely to have a much better idea than me, as I think he is associated with the construction industry. At one point during the building of the pitches, a worker told a gaschat forum member that the cost of the fibre sand pitches was £1.2m. That sounds about right given the internet gives a figure of around £0.5m for one pitch. As there is also a reservoir, a barn conversion and a clubhouse to build and fit out in addition, I can quite easily imagine the spend so far exceeding £2m. Thanks, there was also £700 K of fixed asset capitalisation in the 2020 accounts which may relate to the training ground. So if we take a figure closer to £ 3 million and add the cost of fully complying with remaining planning requirements, the footpath next to Hortham Lane, roadways within the complex, lighting, landscape planting and tidying up the entrance we may be nearly at £ 4 million as the final cost of phase 1. There are a whole host of questions to be asked about the wisdom of spending £ 4 million to save £ 80 K pa in rent at a time when a pandemic had just started and the football club was in disarray. But one to concentrate the mind would be to look at the Fleetwood Town facility which cost £ 8 million, but generates income for them, and compare it with what we will have built for £4 million and ask ourselves WHY ? |
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Sept 16, 2021 17:25:39 GMT
When the topsoil was removed at the beginning of the process, a lot of rock was found relatively near the surface. Rather than remove it (which would be very expensive over an area of 2.5 pitches), they decided to raise the level of the pitches rather than excavate. So the gravel bed and sand/topsoil layers are higher than originally planned. The height difference is clear when you look at any picture taken looking down the entrance driveway. I assume that didn’t add much to the cost, but Stuart1974 from the other forum (I think he posts on here as Stuu) is likely to have a much better idea than me, as I think he is associated with the construction industry. At one point during the building of the pitches, a worker told a gaschat forum member that the cost of the fibre sand pitches was £1.2m. That sounds about right given the internet gives a figure of around £0.5m for one pitch. As there is also a reservoir, a barn conversion and a clubhouse to build and fit out in addition, I can quite easily imagine the spend so far exceeding £2m. Thanks, there was also £700 K of fixed asset capitalisation in the 2020 accounts which may relate to the training ground. So if we take a figure closer to £ 3 million and add the cost of fully complying with remaining planning requirements, the footpath next to Hortham Lane, roadways within the complex, lighting, landscape planting and tidying up the entrance we may be nearly at £ 4 million as the final cost of phase 1. There are a whole host of questions to be asked about the wisdom of spending £ 4 million to save £ 80 K pa in rent at a time when a pandemic had just started and the football club was in disarray. But one to concentrate the mind would be to look at the Fleetwood Town facility which cost £ 8 million, but generates income for them, and compare it with what we will have built for £4 million and ask ourselves WHY ? I vaguely recall you quoting £150000 pa for rent. And I also recall it was a supposition that one was available at that rent. Or was it all a dream. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 17:41:29 GMT
As daft an argument as millions of people having a mortgage for 25 years rather than renting. Bit of free advice for you - don't ever consider a second career as a financial advisor
Since taking ownership of the Mem we've had the most unsuccessful period in our entire history. Maybe you should ask all the clubs who own their grounds & other property eh.
How strange that so many do
|
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 16, 2021 19:46:40 GMT
How does owning a property help make a football club successful ?
Since taking ownership of the Mem we've had the most unsuccessful period in our entire history. Maybe you should ask all the clubs who own their grounds & other property eh.
How strange that so many do
I was asking you. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 19:46:47 GMT
Thanks but I'll pass on advice from anybody who puts forward an argument based on financial comparison and seems to think that the purchase price would have had no historical impact and that this new ground is somehow, magically, maintenance free. If you have anything worthwhile to say then of course I'll listen, but so far there hasn't been a great deal from you. BTW, you forgot to qualify your assertion that the wind conditions were less favourable at previous training facilities... You need to learn how to debate properly old boy, its a serious debating point as to whether we would be better off now if we had not spent so much dead money over the years to stand still. Of course there would be maintenance costs, but I quoted very generalised figures /glorified guesses & god knows exactly what we were paying at the various rented sites - but we are talking principles here. Its interesting that when (sometimes) we try and move away from the automatic anti board rhetoric coming from some to more serious debates some people are found wanting as they are out of their comfort zone. You have literally no idea of the calibre of debate I'm involved in elsewhere. In your desperation to be divisive you are making assumptions. I'm not 'anti-Wael', I want him to succeed, after he sacks Barton and apologises for the humiliation of bringing that character to my club, but other than that, why would I be 'anti' this owner? Here's what happens between people who write as you do and me. You post opinion disguised as fact, I reply in the same tone, you spit your dummy. It's a well worn path. To your initial point. In the last 5 1/2 years we've lost record sums, are now relegated, on a disastrous run of form and are I believe 90th out of 92 League clubs. I don't care whether you pretend that it's not debt, the money has been lost and there's a charge against the stadium, so you explain to me precisely how owning this ground has helped in the last 5 years? Without figures so that we can understand what the rent costs were on those training facilities and what the maintenance costs will be over a specified period for The Quarters, you don't even have coherent starting point. Get your own house in order before accusing others of not being able to construct a position to debate from. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 16, 2021 19:57:04 GMT
Thanks, there was also £700 K of fixed asset capitalisation in the 2020 accounts which may relate to the training ground. So if we take a figure closer to £ 3 million and add the cost of fully complying with remaining planning requirements, the footpath next to Hortham Lane, roadways within the complex, lighting, landscape planting and tidying up the entrance we may be nearly at £ 4 million as the final cost of phase 1. There are a whole host of questions to be asked about the wisdom of spending £ 4 million to save £ 80 K pa in rent at a time when a pandemic had just started and the football club was in disarray. But one to concentrate the mind would be to look at the Fleetwood Town facility which cost £ 8 million, but generates income for them, and compare it with what we will have built for £4 million and ask ourselves WHY ? I vaguely recall you quoting £150000 pa for rent. And I also recall it was a supposition that one was available at that rent. Or was it all a dream. No, I never mentioned £ 150 000 pa for rent LG it must have been someone else. And it's been confirmed to me that a training ground considered better than Cribbs was available in Spring 2020 for £ 80 000 pa but Rovers turned it down. With another potential training ground, which could have been substantially better than Cribbs, also available at the same time and at a similar price but no enquiry was made. |
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300 
|
Post by womble on Sept 16, 2021 20:13:37 GMT
When the topsoil was removed at the beginning of the process, a lot of rock was found relatively near the surface. Rather than remove it (which would be very expensive over an area of 2.5 pitches), they decided to raise the level of the pitches rather than excavate. So the gravel bed and sand/topsoil layers are higher than originally planned. The height difference is clear when you look at any picture taken looking down the entrance driveway. I assume that didn’t add much to the cost, but Stuart1974 from the other forum (I think he posts on here as Stuu) is likely to have a much better idea than me, as I think he is associated with the construction industry. At one point during the building of the pitches, a worker told a gaschat forum member that the cost of the fibre sand pitches was £1.2m. That sounds about right given the internet gives a figure of around £0.5m for one pitch. As there is also a reservoir, a barn conversion and a clubhouse to build and fit out in addition, I can quite easily imagine the spend so far exceeding £2m. Thanks for the info Womble, have you visited the Quarters recently?, any update or new photos you can share?, very interested to know how the project is coming along. Not been for a few weeks TG - can't see any major changes happening until South Glos process the outstanding planning applications for the clubhouse extension and overall site. They're already overdue, so next year seems to be the likeliest time for a 3G pitch, enlarged clubhouse etc. The only recent changes are ball stop netting behind the goals and the tarmacking of the car park. Posts for the netting (the nets have since been installed).  The car park now has a tarmac surface. As discussed earlier, you can see the higher levels of the pitches to the right of the driveway.  |
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Sept 16, 2021 20:21:18 GMT
I vaguely recall you quoting £150000 pa for rent. And I also recall it was a supposition that one was available at that rent. Or was it all a dream. No, I never mentioned £ 150 000 pa for rent LG it must have been someone else. And it's been confirmed to me that a training ground considered better than Cribbs was available in Spring 2020 for £ 80 000 pa but Rovers turned it down. With another potential training ground, which could have been substantially better than Cribbs, also available at the same time and at a similar price but no enquiry was made. I remember reading that Swindon were paying around £70,000 pa for training facilities on three different sites a couple of years ago - so that certainly sounds in the right ballpark. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 20:40:29 GMT
Maybe you should ask all the clubs who own their grounds & other property eh.
How strange that so many do
I was asking you. Swiss, for the last time..........
However much you crave it WE ARE NOT EVER GOING BACK TO TWERTON
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 20:56:43 GMT
You need to learn how to debate properly old boy, its a serious debating point as to whether we would be better off now if we had not spent so much dead money over the years to stand still. Of course there would be maintenance costs, but I quoted very generalised figures /glorified guesses & god knows exactly what we were paying at the various rented sites - but we are talking principles here. Its interesting that when (sometimes) we try and move away from the automatic anti board rhetoric coming from some to more serious debates some people are found wanting as they are out of their comfort zone. In your desperation to be divisive you are making assumptions. I'm not 'anti-Wael', I want him to succeed, after he sacks Barton and apologises for the humiliation of bringing that character to my club, but other than that, why would I be 'anti' this owner? Here's what happens between people who write as you do and me. You post opinion disguised as fact, I reply in the same tone, you spit your dummy. It's a well worn path. To your initial point. In the last 5 1/2 years we've lost record sums, are now relegated, on a disastrous run of form and are I believe 90th out of 92 League clubs. I don't care whether you pretend that it's not debt, the money has been lost and there's a charge against the stadium, so you explain to me precisely how owning this ground has helped in the last 5 years? Without figures so that we can understand what the rent costs were on those training facilities and what the maintenance costs will be over a specified period for The Quarters, you don't even have coherent starting point. Get your own house in order before accusing others of not being able to construct a position to debate from. You are correct - I have no idea regarding your debating standards eleshere - (but I sure can guess )
My point was around how much we would have spent renting since Hambrook, so its 35 years of 'dead money', thats the point, as you well know.
Its telling perhaps that you want to base a debate on only 5 1/2 years though.
Anyway enough of this nonsense, people will be getting bored. (But feel free to debate with someone else over whether they may have been better off with a house mortgage or by renting over 35 years)
Chillax and enjoy your evening
|
|
TaiwanGas
Paul Bannon
Tom Ramasuts Left Foot.
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,531
|
Post by TaiwanGas on Sept 16, 2021 21:35:57 GMT
Thanks for the info Womble, have you visited the Quarters recently?, any update or new photos you can share?, very interested to know how the project is coming along. Not been for a few weeks TG - can't see any major changes happening until South Glos process the outstanding planning applications for the clubhouse extension and overall site. They're already overdue, so next year seems to be the likeliest time for a 3G pitch, enlarged clubhouse etc. The only recent changes are ball stop netting behind the goals and the tarmacking of the car park. Posts for the netting (the nets have since been installed). The car park now has a tarmac surface. As discussed earlier, you can see the higher levels of the pitches to the right of the driveway. Appreciate the update womble, it’s good to see progress no matter how small. |
|
|
|
Post by richmace on Sept 16, 2021 21:51:25 GMT
With regards to the training ground pictures, the one thing that enables a football fan to continue to follow their football club with passion and hope is progress.
Us Gasheads have seen precious little progress over the last 20 plus years, so to see a training ground develop from nothing to pitches, tarmac and building with the Bristol Rovers logo on is nothing short of miraculous.
I half expected us to buy the land, cut the grass and whack a few terapins down and call that a training ground. This looks like a decent attempt at building a facility fit for purpose.
As I keep saying, Wael must be applauded for this achievement.
|
|
|
|
Post by chelt_gas on Sept 16, 2021 22:04:29 GMT
Is that "Santa's Grotto" to the right of the clubhouse? I knew they just couldn't let go of it... |
|
|
|
Post by richmace on Sept 16, 2021 22:05:48 GMT
On the subject of the finances, they are eye-wateringly bad, and the annual losses seem to be worse than they have ever been.
I know the Covid situation was unprecedented and contributed hugely to the problem, but it's not the only cause.
Over the years, this forum has discussed the poor finances of this club and all we can do is hope that Wael can continue to fund the football club, and hope that our footballing fortunes will improve.
I would feel happier if there was a publicly communicated plan and a vision that we could all get behind. At the end of the day though, we are only supporters and we follow the team whatever happens...
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Sept 16, 2021 22:13:56 GMT
Terapins?
|
|
