baselswh
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 6,610
Member is Online
|
Post by baselswh on Sept 16, 2021 5:12:16 GMT
I sincerely hope PHE and Swiss are right in thinking that WAQ,with better people around him,therefore better decision making and not forgetting all of them singing from the same sheet, our El El Presidente could actually get us a new stadium (possibly do up the Mem eg) and see us reach at least the 2nd tier.
As things stand,BRFC are really quite sad and stuck in a useless rut.
|
|
TaiwanGas
Paul Bannon
Tom Ramasuts Left Foot.
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,531 
|
Post by TaiwanGas on Sept 16, 2021 7:16:02 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 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. |
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Sept 16, 2021 7:40:53 GMT
Stand by, this should be fun..
Whilist at it perhaps we can obtain a similar breakdown of Lansdowns mistakes (losses) and lack of ambition that led to the new Ashton Gate
Or even go a stage further and get a breakdown of Abramovich's £billions of mistakes and lack of ambition that led to them being European champions
I think Steve Lansdown was guilty of being naive when he lost the chance of building at Ashton Vale. An experienced developer would have fenced off the site before the locals even knew what was going on. Higgs did this at UWE but we know that nothing came next. At least Steve Lansdown had a plan b and although I've only been to the new Ashton Gate for a concert I was very impressed with what I saw. Apparently the hospitality areas are exceptional so he hasn't done too badly. I know Steve and he takes great delight saying that he never spends more than what he earns each year so his billions and his family are safe from the losses that football can bring. As for Abramovich, we all know that Russian money is bent money even the UK government revoked his passport but he has got in through the back door by obtaining Channel Islands citizenship although nobody has ever seen him at his Jersey home. Exactly this. If he had bought that land and put a fence around it and left it for 2-3 years and said nothing, the locals would have wondered what it was about for 2-3 months and then forgotten about it themselves. The PP would have been able to prove that the area was then not of that much concern to the general public and have a much higher chance of being successful. Unfortunately SL assumed his money and status together with a Rugby World Cup bid would steamroller the process. |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,901
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Sept 16, 2021 9:22:19 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. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 9:48:03 GMT
Swiss, where did the purchase price of £1m for The Quarters come from? If that is accurate, the previous owner did rather well for 27 acres of relatively poor quality ex-grazing land with few alternative uses. I think your estimate of £2m for the build cost, may be on the conservative side. 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 ? Interesting to compare that purchase cost against what the club has paid in rent over the last 30 odd years since Hambrook. Would estimate that would have been between say 50k - 100k, x 30 odd years. We would have already paid for it by now if we had purchased a similar site years ago rather than rented. If previous ownerships had had the vision we would now have a training ground and it would have no doubt grown and been developed further over the years, rather than now starting from scratch and playing catch up and be behind so many clubs. In effect WAQ is now paying for what we should have done years and years ago. One wonders what the impact would have been - could the rent saving have helped fund a player perhaps to help get us over the line in 99/200, or enticed one or two players who we missed out on over the years to join due to a good training home rather than view the windswept facilities at Bath, or the boating lake of Fry's that we often could not use due to flooding or fumigation, or the various other limited sites that we could not control? We will never know. |
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Sept 16, 2021 9:57:13 GMT
I think Steve Lansdown was guilty of being naive when he lost the chance of building at Ashton Vale. An experienced developer would have fenced off the site before the locals even knew what was going on. Higgs did this at UWE but we know that nothing came next. At least Steve Lansdown had a plan b and although I've only been to the new Ashton Gate for a concert I was very impressed with what I saw. Apparently the hospitality areas are exceptional so he hasn't done too badly. I know Steve and he takes great delight saying that he never spends more than what he earns each year so his billions and his family are safe from the losses that football can bring. As for Abramovich, we all know that Russian money is bent money even the UK government revoked his passport but he has got in through the back door by obtaining Channel Islands citizenship although nobody has ever seen him at his Jersey home. Exactly this. If he had bought that land and put a fence around it and left it for 2-3 years and said nothing, the locals would have wondered what it was about for 2-3 months and then forgotten about it themselves. The PP would have been able to prove that the area was then not of that much concern to the general public and have a much higher chance of being successful. Unfortunately SL assumed his money and status together with a Rugby World Cup bid would steamroller the process. To be fair, any mistakes that Lansdown made with Ashton Vale have been rapidly made up for with redevelopment of Ashton Gate and the City and Bears training facilities.
I personally see the Quarters as a big step in the right direction, but literally and monetarily, we are in a different league to our red friends. I fear the gap will only ever be closed if they get things dramatically wrong and/or major new investment is attracted to Rovers.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,354
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Sept 16, 2021 10:01:44 GMT
Swiss. How is that £30m arrived at please? Stand by, this should be fun..
Whilist at it perhaps we can obtain a similar breakdown of Lansdowns mistakes (losses) and lack of ambition that led to the new Ashton Gate
Or even go a stage further and get a breakdown of Abramovich's £billions of mistakes and lack of ambition that led to them being European champions
Are you seriously contemplating a comparison between a wealth Wael to a pair of whale investors ? |
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Sept 16, 2021 10:14:17 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. Just one point of information here Cheshire, I know of one former director who recently asked for his cash back and was refused. I can agree with most of the rest of your post, we are certainly at a tipping point and with Waels statement that he needs no external investment its hard to see where we go from here |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,901
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Sept 16, 2021 10:16:22 GMT
Just one point of information here Cheshire, I know of one former director who recently asked for his cash back and was refused. I can agree with most of the rest of your post, we are certainly at a tipping point and with Waels statement that he needs no external investment its hard to see where we go from hereGT perhaps he has more money to waste invest than we know of..... |
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Sept 16, 2021 10:23:53 GMT
Just one point of information here Cheshire, I know of one former director who recently asked for his cash back and was refused. I can agree with most of the rest of your post, we are certainly at a tipping point and with Waels statement that he needs no external investment its hard to see where we go from hereGT perhaps he has more money to waste invest than we know of..... and I might be the source .My wife thinks Ive got a magic money tree at the bottom of my garden and, if Wael asks nicely, I might be able to help out |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Sept 16, 2021 11:59:04 GMT
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. Just one point of information here Cheshire, I know of one former director who recently asked for his cash back and was refused. I can agree with most of the rest of your post, we are certainly at a tipping point and with Waels statement that he needs no external investment its hard to see where we go from here Out of interest (and I can respect if you don't want to say (And I am not asking names)) is this money from preferential shares? or some other directors loan(s) as I thought any directors loans were paid off as part of the takeover |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 13:07:49 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. Hope you aren't including me in that list of former directors Chesh. Wael has my support, I just wish he had more support from those he has entrusted with his investment. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 13:13:12 GMT
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. Just one point of information here Cheshire, I know of one former director who recently asked for his cash back and was refused. I can agree with most of the rest of your post, we are certainly at a tipping point and with Waels statement that he needs no external investment its hard to see where we go from here Would this money be invested in the Preferential Shares issued when the stadium was purchased as I thought all directors loans had been repaid or is that not the case? |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,901
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Sept 16, 2021 13:24:33 GMT
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. Hope you aren't including me in that list of former directors Chesh. Wael has my support, I just wish he had more support from those he has entrusted with his investment. Absolutely not, I am sure you know who I mean PHE  I am totally in agreement and I think he could put great store by consulting people like yourself who have acumen, experience and the best interests of the Rovers at heart. But I won't hold my breath! |
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Sept 16, 2021 14:13:11 GMT
Just one point of information here Cheshire, I know of one former director who recently asked for his cash back and was refused. I can agree with most of the rest of your post, we are certainly at a tipping point and with Waels statement that he needs no external investment its hard to see where we go from here Would this money be invested in the Preferential Shares issued when the stadium was purchased as I thought all directors loans had been repaid or is that not the case? Yes preference share holder for stadium purchase |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 14:31:51 GMT
Would this money be invested in the Preferential Shares issued when the stadium was purchased as I thought all directors loans had been repaid or is that not the case? Yes preference share holder for stadium purchase Not sure if the ex director you refer to was on board when the stadium was purchased but the small print clearly states that the capital is only repayable if the company has the cash to do so. With the club currently losing c£3m per year it might be some time until there is spare cash floating around if ever. It would be wrong to withhold dividend payments though. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 14:32:00 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 ? Interesting to compare that purchase cost against what the club has paid in rent over the last 30 odd years since Hambrook. Would estimate that would have been between say 50k - 100k, x 30 odd years. We would have already paid for it by now if we had purchased a similar site years ago rather than rented. If previous ownerships had had the vision we would now have a training ground and it would have no doubt grown and been developed further over the years, rather than now starting from scratch and playing catch up and be behind so many clubs. In effect WAQ is now paying for what we should have done years and years ago. One wonders what the impact would have been - could the rent saving have helped fund a player perhaps to help get us over the line in 99/200, or enticed one or two players who we missed out on over the years to join due to a good training home rather than view the windswept facilities at Bath, or the boating lake of Fry's that we often could not use due to flooding or fumigation, or the various other limited sites that we could not control? We will never know. 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? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 14:46:01 GMT
Interesting to compare that purchase cost against what the club has paid in rent over the last 30 odd years since Hambrook. Would estimate that would have been between say 50k - 100k, x 30 odd years. We would have already paid for it by now if we had purchased a similar site years ago rather than rented. If previous ownerships had had the vision we would now have a training ground and it would have no doubt grown and been developed further over the years, rather than now starting from scratch and playing catch up and be behind so many clubs. In effect WAQ is now paying for what we should have done years and years ago. One wonders what the impact would have been - could the rent saving have helped fund a player perhaps to help get us over the line in 99/200, or enticed one or two players who we missed out on over the years to join due to a good training home rather than view the windswept facilities at Bath, or the boating lake of Fry's that we often could not use due to flooding or fumigation, or the various other limited sites that we could not control? We will never know. 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 weren't able to provide anything? Not sure about 30 years time TWD but I have a feeling that the training ground will never be fully completed in the near future and perhaps not at all. No evidence but I think all available finance will be ploughed into propping up the clubs precarious league status in the short term and it will take a long time to recover the extra spend that will inevitably occur. There are enough facilities to keep the first team happy but investment into the academy which could make the club self sufficient will go on hold. I will be happy to be shot down if I am wrong as we will be riding the crest of success. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 14:53:32 GMT
Interesting to compare that purchase cost against what the club has paid in rent over the last 30 odd years since Hambrook. Would estimate that would have been between say 50k - 100k, x 30 odd years. We would have already paid for it by now if we had purchased a similar site years ago rather than rented. If previous ownerships had had the vision we would now have a training ground and it would have no doubt grown and been developed further over the years, rather than now starting from scratch and playing catch up and be behind so many clubs. In effect WAQ is now paying for what we should have done years and years ago. One wonders what the impact would have been - could the rent saving have helped fund a player perhaps to help get us over the line in 99/200, or enticed one or two players who we missed out on over the years to join due to a good training home rather than view the windswept facilities at Bath, or the boating lake of Fry's that we often could not use due to flooding or fumigation, or the various other limited sites that we could not control? We will never know. 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  |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Sept 16, 2021 14:57:00 GMT
Interesting to compare that purchase cost against what the club has paid in rent over the last 30 odd years since Hambrook. Would estimate that would have been between say 50k - 100k, x 30 odd years. We would have already paid for it by now if we had purchased a similar site years ago rather than rented. If previous ownerships had had the vision we would now have a training ground and it would have no doubt grown and been developed further over the years, rather than now starting from scratch and playing catch up and be behind so many clubs. In effect WAQ is now paying for what we should have done years and years ago. One wonders what the impact would have been - could the rent saving have helped fund a player perhaps to help get us over the line in 99/200, or enticed one or two players who we missed out on over the years to join due to a good training home rather than view the windswept facilities at Bath, or the boating lake of Fry's that we often could not use due to flooding or fumigation, or the various other limited sites that we could not control? We will never know. 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? bit better than a tin shed isn't it. It's a Breezeblock building on the existing framework with what looks like Tin cladding. Not sure what the roof is constructed from. A bit of general maintenance every summer I am sure it will be fine. Whether that happens or not. I mean the West Stand at The Mem could do with a bit of cleaning up and paint on some of the metalwork. probably hasn't been touched in 20 years |
|
