|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Mar 1, 2024 16:01:16 GMT
I was there last night. It was a good meeting in all. Abdullatif was happy to chuck TG under the bus for his previous operational mistakes and it appears hes become a bit of a PA rather than a CEO. It was me who questioned him on the finance side of his model for the club. My questions were how were the stands going to be funded at the ground, the training ground built/remodelled to Cat 1 status? His reply was a mixture of selling some land at The Quarters, investments from established partners and the owners own pockets. He said that his family have very good relationships with banks through their previous projects for low rates of interest on any monies borrowed. He stated the The Quarters is around 30 acres in size of which only 5 is currently in use. The plan is to sell around 5 acres for housing to fund the Cat 1 academy. I asked how much he expected to raise (3 times!) from that to go towards the project? He said it would be around £8m. I also asked him if the money spent was going to go on the clubs balance sheet as debt or is it gifted by the owners with the debt capitalised and he dodged that question. He was insistant that infrastructure was the key to building us as a ready made PL club which is sustainable in the championship. My impression is that The stadium is what is important to the 3 year model, EG, start building next year with the hope to be there by the time the stand is completed with the TG a much longer and larger project. I also detected that if they go get to the championship with the infrastucture built it is where these owners will exit and get their money back. Just my opinion, but thats my impression. Thanks for asking those pertinent financial questions. In a subsequent post you've said you've now been told the Nationwide Finance loan is for £1.6 million and not the £ 5 million you'd claimed on January 31st. That's a very big difference and you were quite specific with the £5 million figure, mentioning it twice, and adding that it was partially used for other purposes. Have you asked for an explanation from the person who told you ? If the Al-Saeeds have good relationships with banks and are able to obtain low interest rates why haven't they refinanced the Nationwide loan ? To try to claim that Nationwide is a low cost finance provider is pushing it a bit too far because they are obviously a second tier lender charging very high rates. Their accounts confirm this and they even make higher percentage profits than MSP Capital who were charging Rovers 1.2% per month. You were told that redeveloping the Mem would be financed through a mixture of selling land at the Quarters, investment from established partners and from the owners own pockets. But how does that stack up with starting the build in 25/26 because zoning the land at the Quarters and then obtaining planning permission will take many years if it happens at all. And selling land or bringing in partners wasn't mentioned by Hussain on October 28th last year when he was asked the same question and his reply was " That is something that we hope we can finance. We hope we can find banks or other financial institutions who can finance this because it will hopefully increase the revenue". I saw on Gaschat that Abdullatif told one of the Gasheads at the meeting that Rovers would show a loss of £ 5 million for the 22/23 financial year and that if this was maintained the club would fold within two or three years. That, IMO, is the level of honesty we need and what we certainly don't need is mixed messages or to have our hopes raised about a category 1 academy and a redeveloped Mem with Championship football within three years which is wholly unrealistic. To get an idea of what might be realistic at the Quarters after five acres of land is sold off here is an aerial view of the blank canvas we started with in 2017. View Attachment The questions you pose and points you make are things that I think left some of us in the room wondering about too. I remain rather unconvinced by what I heard last night, for example trying to argue that Rovers could be like Man City in Manchester and become a better supported club (within the city of Manchester) than United if we became really successful we could do the same. "Success would attract children", that seemed to me to be a very fragile argument that was a little naïve and hard to sustain. That was trying to justify not offering better deals to families and children. This was having argued that rises in ticket prices were necessary for a variety of reasons that we all understood, but for me just to hope that families would suddenly be able to afford to come to football because Rovers were successful seemed fanciful. This was demolished by one supporter later who spoke most eloquently about the demise of the Young Pirates and the top table had no answer. The proposed timescale of the redevelopment seems hard to believe if much of it hinges on the housing development at The Quarters, I can't see that filtering through in two years to be in a position to go out to banks. I hope I am wrong in that assumption. The one chink of light for me was a most impressive contribution from George Friend, he is no mug and I thought he spoke really well about how he and his team would go about their task. I hope he doesn't become a victim of what I saw as a somewhat confused set of objectives around the upscaling of the academy and trying to achieve almost immediate success for the first team (Championship football within three years whilst rebuilding the stadium). Luton was used as the example that Rovers should follow in terms of moving to a new stadium once the Premier League was in sight. It all seemed like a wish list rather than a clear set of objectives and more importantly "this is how we are going to do it". The other thing that I took away from last night is that I feel that the new owners still don't really understand the fanbase and it's diversity in terms of opinion, means and what it really means to be a Rovers supporter. It is almost like everything that went before 2016 doesn't really matter or have any relevance. Key employees don't seem to have a clear grasp of the history of the club since the move to the Memorial Stadium, this cannot help the new owners understand where the fanbase is "coming from" and what those of us who supported the club at Eastville went through when the club had to move to Bath? Had the club tapped into some of the knowledge that longstanding supporters have about the history of Rovers move to the Mem, then some of the mistakes that were made in the building of the South Stand could have been avoided. Do they know why the dimensions of the two stands are as they are, there is a reason which might be good to know before they embark on the redevelopment? It was good to see such a well attended meeting, whilst there was a lot of old stagers such as myself present it was good to see some fresh faces engaging with the Football Club. Kind regards John Malyckyj PS I enjoyed my chat with ITB afterwards and we were able to compare notes on a few issues of mutual interest! |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 1, 2024 17:17:53 GMT
Thanks for asking those pertinent financial questions. In a subsequent post you've said you've now been told the Nationwide Finance loan is for £1.6 million and not the £ 5 million you'd claimed on January 31st. That's a very big difference and you were quite specific with the £5 million figure, mentioning it twice, and adding that it was partially used for other purposes. Have you asked for an explanation from the person who told you ? If the Al-Saeeds have good relationships with banks and are able to obtain low interest rates why haven't they refinanced the Nationwide loan ? To try to claim that Nationwide is a low cost finance provider is pushing it a bit too far because they are obviously a second tier lender charging very high rates. Their accounts confirm this and they even make higher percentage profits than MSP Capital who were charging Rovers 1.2% per month. You were told that redeveloping the Mem would be financed through a mixture of selling land at the Quarters, investment from established partners and from the owners own pockets. But how does that stack up with starting the build in 25/26 because zoning the land at the Quarters and then obtaining planning permission will take many years if it happens at all. And selling land or bringing in partners wasn't mentioned by Hussain on October 28th last year when he was asked the same question and his reply was " That is something that we hope we can finance. We hope we can find banks or other financial institutions who can finance this because it will hopefully increase the revenue". I saw on Gaschat that Abdullatif told one of the Gasheads at the meeting that Rovers would show a loss of £ 5 million for the 22/23 financial year and that if this was maintained the club would fold within two or three years. That, IMO, is the level of honesty we need and what we certainly don't need is mixed messages or to have our hopes raised about a category 1 academy and a redeveloped Mem with Championship football within three years which is wholly unrealistic. To get an idea of what might be realistic at the Quarters after five acres of land is sold off here is an aerial view of the blank canvas we started with in 2017. View Attachment The questions you pose and points you make are things that I think left some of us in the room wondering about too. I remain rather unconvinced by what I heard last night, for example trying to argue that Rovers could be like Man City in Manchester and become a better supported club (within the city of Manchester) than United if we became really successful we could do the same. "Success would attract children", that seemed to me to be a very fragile argument that was a little naïve and hard to sustain. That was trying to justify not offering better deals to families and children. This was having argued that rises in ticket prices were necessary for a variety of reasons that we all understood, but for me just to hope that families would suddenly be able to afford to come to football because Rovers were successful seemed fanciful. This was demolished by one supporter later who spoke most eloquently about the demise of the Young Pirates and the top table had no answer. The proposed timescale of the redevelopment seems hard to believe if much of it hinges on the housing development at The Quarters, I can't see that filtering through in two years to be in a position to go out to banks. I hope I am wrong in that assumption. The one chink of light for me was a most impressive contribution from George Friend, he is no mug and I thought he spoke really well about how he and his team would go about their task. I hope he doesn't become a victim of what I saw as a somewhat confused set of objectives around the upscaling of the academy and trying to achieve almost immediate success for the first team (Championship football within three years whilst rebuilding the stadium). Luton was used as the example that Rovers should follow in terms of moving to a new stadium once the Premier League was in sight. It all seemed like a wish list rather than a clear set of objectives and more importantly "this is how we are going to do it". The other thing that I took away from last night is that I feel that the new owners still don't really understand the fanbase and it's diversity in terms of opinion, means and what it really means to be a Rovers supporter. It is almost like everything that went before 2016 doesn't really matter or have any relevance. Key employees don't seem to have a clear grasp of the history of the club since the move to the Memorial Stadium, this cannot help the new owners understand where the fanbase is "coming from" and what those of us who supported the club at Eastville went through when the club had to move to Bath? Had the club tapped into some of the knowledge that longstanding supporters have about the history of Rovers move to the Mem, then some of the mistakes that were made in the building of the South Stand could have been avoided. Do they know why the dimensions of the two stands are as they are, there is a reason which might be good to know before they embark on the redevelopment? It was good to see such a well attended meeting, whilst there was a lot of old stagers such as myself present it was good to see some fresh faces engaging with the Football Club. Kind regards John Malyckyj PS I enjoyed my chat with ITB afterwards and we were able to compare notes on a few issues of mutual interest! John I had to laugh when Topper Gas said ITB was "going rogue like swissgas" but it sounds as though you are joining the rogues gallery as well. I don't mean laugh "at" Topper because I think he said it in the right spirit and everyone knew what he meant. But where I think we've gone wrong over the years is in defining the difference between "negativity" and "positivity" and categorising anyone asking difficult questions as a negative rogue. Whereas the majority of Gasheads have defined "positivity" as believing in and backing the owners whatever they said or did out of a sense of loyalty to Rovers but also because it was the easiest option to take. The Rovers Agenda for Change movement probably didn't capture the hearts of Gasheads because most preferred to trust Geoff but also, I believe, because the message of "blood, tears, toil and sweat" isn't particularly attractive especially if you believe the next saviour is just around the corner. We are continually looking for a panacea and it sounds as though last nights meeting tried to provide that with the talk of £ 30 - 35 million investment being intended to overshadow the difficult questions which we all know need to be answered. Most say to go with the flow and enjoy the ride but if a director of the club is talking about folding in two to three years that is surely not something to be ignored. I think the only thing we can do is to try to steer the Al-Saeeds in the right direction and let them know that Gasheads would rather have"blood tears toil and sweat" for a few years to save the club from extinction even if it means putting up with the current facilities while we regroup. And that we want to see plausible plans with a realistic timescale for development of the Mem and the training ground rather than pie in the sky ideas which don't stand up to scrutiny. To me the prospect of Abdullatif visiting St Pauli in Germany to examine their day care operation ( see recent post) and asking for their advice would be a most positive move and a sign that Rovers owners are finally thinking long term and have given up on the idea of stringing along fans for as long as they can. |
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Mar 1, 2024 20:10:37 GMT
There is a quote that states we are currently using 5 acres out of 30. Another quote is 13 pitches to be added.That's absolutely crazy! No way you could fit anywhere near 13 pitches on the site of The Quarters. A look at the plans, or google maps, or the aerial shot Swiss posted on page 1, shows that it would be a squeeze to get just 3 extra pitches on land not yet developed. To the east of the car park and clubhouse we could probably get the same as our current 2 pitches and goalkeeping area, that are now earmarked for housing, and maybe another full size pitch south of the gym. ... Unless we've also purchased land north of Horsham Lane, that Ed Ware had planned for a housing estate (ITB would know about that), google maps currently showing those fields are brown, rather than covered in grass. |
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Mar 2, 2024 16:15:22 GMT
According to Abdullatif we own 30 acres, we must own all the present scrub land surrounding the property, alongside the M4, as the green pitches area is only around 10 acres.
Whether it's all pie in the sky only time will tell, personally if I could get £8m+ for 5 acres I'd be looking to sell the whole 30 acres for £40m+ and spending it on a new ground and finding cheap land elsewhere for a training ground, who knows perhaps this there the real plan, as a Level 1 Academy seems unlikely.
|
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Mar 4, 2024 7:21:28 GMT
Good reasoning Droitwich.
First problem is, no way is he going to get £8m for 5 acres there.
Second problem it is a green belt site, meaning you may get a sports facility on there given the precedent of it always being a sports ground with some houses on a small square but I doubt you'll get a full housing estate.
Third problem is there is no such thing as cheap land in Bristol and you certainly won't find any with the ease of links to the motorway that The Quarters has. It is a very good location.
I have no idea where all Ed's investments in land are or what his plans for them are so I couldn't tell what his Hortham Lane interests are. Sorry.
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 2,544 
|
Post by trymer on Mar 4, 2024 8:21:26 GMT
Good reasoning Droitwich. First problem is, no way is he going to get £8m for 5 acres there. Second problem it is a green belt site, meaning you may get a sports facility on there given the precedent of it always being a sports ground with some houses on a small square but I doubt you'll get a full housing estate. Third problem is there is no such thing as cheap land in Bristol and you certainly won't find any with the ease of links to the motorway that The Quarters has. It is a very good location. I have no idea where all Ed's investments in land are or what his plans for them are so I couldn't tell what his Hortham Lane interests are. Sorry. I think that the previous owners of the land must have thought that planning permission was going to be difficult to obtain or they wouldnt have sold so cheaply,maybe things have changed,lets hope that they have. |
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Mar 4, 2024 11:39:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Mar 4, 2024 21:46:17 GMT
Good reasoning Droitwich. First problem is, no way is he going to get £8m for 5 acres there. Second problem it is a green belt site, meaning you may get a sports facility on there given the precedent of it always being a sports ground with some houses on a small square but I doubt you'll get a full housing estate. Third problem is there is no such thing as cheap land in Bristol and you certainly won't find any with the ease of links to the motorway that The Quarters has. It is a very good location. I have no idea where all Ed's investments in land are or what his plans for them are so I couldn't tell what his Hortham Lane interests are. Sorry. The club are seeking to use 5 acres for housing, assuming they get the green light to include that, what's to stop them seeking permission for more particularly as Labour, who seem likely to win the next election, intend ripping up the present Green Belt laws. If we can get pp for 60 or 70 houses on the 5 acres then £100K/£150K does seem that unreasonable if we intend building Hortham Hospital exec type housing. Unless Wael got extremely lucky then I assume similar land must be available elsewhere in Bristol/S Glos. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 6, 2024 17:29:40 GMT
There is a quote that states we are currently using 5 acres out of 30. Another quote is 13 pitches to be added.That's absolutely crazy! No way you could fit anywhere near 13 pitches on the site of The Quarters. A look at the plans, or google maps, or the aerial shot Swiss posted on page 1, shows that it would be a squeeze to get just 3 extra pitches on land not yet developed. To the east of the car park and clubhouse we could probably get the same as our current 2 pitches and goalkeeping area, that are now earmarked for housing, and maybe another full size pitch south of the gym. ... Unless we've also purchased land north of Horsham Lane, that Ed Ware had planned for a housing estate (ITB would know about that), google maps currently showing those fields are brown, rather than covered in grass. The original Rugby Club plans from 20+ years ago showed 6 full size rugby pitches and 2 half size which appeared to max out the area available. Taking away the two current football pitches for a housing development and allowing for the part lost where the reservoir has been constructed it would be a struggle to get more than two full size pitches plus an indoor pitch and a new multi purpose building on the remaining land. |
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Mar 6, 2024 20:18:59 GMT
That's absolutely crazy! No way you could fit anywhere near 13 pitches on the site of The Quarters. A look at the plans, or google maps, or the aerial shot Swiss posted on page 1, shows that it would be a squeeze to get just 3 extra pitches on land not yet developed. To the east of the car park and clubhouse we could probably get the same as our current 2 pitches and goalkeeping area, that are now earmarked for housing, and maybe another full size pitch south of the gym. ... Unless we've also purchased land north of Horsham Lane, that Ed Ware had planned for a housing estate (ITB would know about that), google maps currently showing those fields are brown, rather than covered in grass. The original Rugby Club plans from 20+ years ago showed 6 full size rugby pitches and 2 half size which appeared to max out the area available. Taking away the two current football pitches for a housing development and allowing for the part lost where the reservoir has been constructed it would be a struggle to get more than two full size pitches plus an indoor pitch and a new multi purpose building on the remaining land. Might well need a bigger car-park as well, if the facilities are expanded, which will take up more space. Plus they can't use the entire footprint, as Hortham Brook flows around the edge of the site. There was talk of leaving part of the site as a nature area. I guess that will change if they want to ultilise as much as they can. Personally, one of the first things I would have done would have been to plant native trees around the perimeter. Arrange it with One Tree Per Child project (if South Glos do the same as BCC), or some similar scheme. Get local kids involved, or the Rovers Ability group, or Extra Time group. Would be nice landscaping while acting as a screen from the motorway and cut down on noise polution. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 6, 2024 20:46:37 GMT
The original Rugby Club plans from 20+ years ago showed 6 full size rugby pitches and 2 half size which appeared to max out the area available. Taking away the two current football pitches for a housing development and allowing for the part lost where the reservoir has been constructed it would be a struggle to get more than two full size pitches plus an indoor pitch and a new multi purpose building on the remaining land. Might well need a bigger car-park as well, if the facilities are expanded, which will take up more space. Plus they can't use the entire footprint, as Hortham Brook flows around the edge of the site. There was talk of leaving part of the site as a nature area. I guess that will change if they want to ultilise as much as they can. Personally, one of the first things I would have done would have been to plant native trees around the perimeter. Arrange it with One Tree Per Child project (if South Glos do the same as BCC), or some similar scheme. Get local kids involved, or the Rovers Ability group, or Extra Time group. Would be nice landscaping while acting as a screen from the motorway and cut down on noise polution. The conditions attached to the planning permission required extensive landscaping and tree planting as well as many other things which haven't been done. Imagine a homeowner or small businessman being brought to task for not complying with planning conditions and telling the Council it was because at some time in the future he was thinking of doing something else on his land so he didn't feel it was worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Mar 7, 2024 11:17:02 GMT
Technically Swiss they haven't finished the development yet as the extention which has approval isn't started/completed.
Im sure they're relying on that technicality!
|
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 7, 2024 15:10:04 GMT
Technically Swiss they haven't finished the development yet as the extention which has approval isn't started/completed. Im sure they're relying on that technicality! The planning conditions were very specific. The extensive landscaping required should have been carried out in the first planting season following the first use of the buildings and pitches identified as phase 1 of the development. And there are other planning conditions attached to phase 1, with the same timescale requirement, which haven't been carried out. |
|
