Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 9, 2017 6:58:42 GMT
The charge is an interesting one, which wouldnt necessarily fit with the goings on elsewhere where the long term seems to be a focus.
None of us know anything about the takeover and what was agreed, although some sources suggest directors would be paid off from the sale of The Mem (Should it happen)
We are getting to the point where we will soon know if UWE is a dead parrot or not and that will be the biggest concern/factor where we go from there. Until such time until UWE is sorted one way or another I dont think we can truly know the real state of the club.
All i know is we have lasted another 18 months which i am not sure how we would have if the Al-Qadis hadnt come along
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,500
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 9, 2017 8:22:22 GMT
Given our gates over the last 3 seasons, and lack of 'big signings' - are we really losing £1.5mil a year? I find that very hard to believe - but I will leave that to the accountants to argue over. Whatever our situation now it is a f*ck sight better then under the 'old regime'. Did the pathetic apologist for Higgs (N Ratchet / P Seaton) ever comment again? There are less lunatics on here then there used to be.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 8:51:43 GMT
doesnt planning permission run out in august ? Technically, no. It runs out in January(ish), by when building must have started for it to hold. The 'by August' thing came from SH as a cut-off date for things to be agreed with UWE *if* building is to start by January(ish).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 9:03:36 GMT
For me the difference is about having a board with *access to* funds, realistic plans, not throwing what they do have at a single lost cause, and improving the running of the club from within. It's not about them drawing on a bottomless money pit.
On the historic thread front, I'm a tad annoyed with myself that I bothered engaging with a know-nowt who was adamant that black is white.
|
|
|
Post by chelt_gas on Jul 9, 2017 10:08:53 GMT
For me the difference is about having a board with *access to* funds, realistic plans, not throwing what they do have at a single lost cause, and improving the running of the club from within. It's not about them drawing on a bottomless money pit. On the historic thread front, I'm a tad annoyed with myself that I bothered engaging with a know-nowt who was adamant that black is white. Owners of nearly all clubs are accountable to themselves and their investors but not the fans. Therefore, unless the fans own a material stake in the club, we have to hope the owners run the business strategically and sustainably so that we continue to passively enjoy the experience. They're doing a good job, well a great job, compared to their predecessors. However, as a passive supporter, I wish for a sustainable club and get uneasy with the unknowns. We know little about the stadium yet we can only trust and respect confidentiality, we speculate about the charge placed on the stadium by whom and for what motivation and we don't quite know the wealth or access to wealth from our owners. But it has been a good ride so far and Darrel has signalled that he has confidence in the owners by the new 5-year contract. I just hope there is a succession plan in the event the owners exit that leaves rovers, as a club, in tact. The previous owners had no plan other than a distress flair which was fortunately seen from Jordan.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 9, 2017 15:25:21 GMT
I appreciate the restrained response to my posts yesterday but the arguments seem to be almost identical to those used to defend Nick Higgs in the early part of his Chairmanship.
‘He is a successful businessman who will bring professionalism to the club”
“He has the wealth and contacts to get us a new stadium”
“He is a breath of fresh air compared to the previous regimes we had to endure”
“We need his money to survive”
We all had high hopes of Nick and gave him our support but when cracks began to appear and questions asked he and his colleagues retreated into their shell and even constructive criticism was branded disloyalty. We asked to be shown the plans for our future, we asked where the money was coming from, we asked for better communication, we asked for better PR and marketing to create a modern image for the club. But we were told by diehards like Paul Seaton that it was none of our business and that we must have faith in Nick or shut up.
Are we entitled to ask to see the plans for our future, to ask where the money is coming from, to ask for better communication, to ask for better PR and marketing to create a modern image for the club ? Or was Paul Seaton right all along ?
I’m playing devils advocate but I’ve always found it hard to have blind faith.
|
|
|
Post by stevethepirate on Jul 9, 2017 15:28:48 GMT
I have absolute faith in humanity to totally f**k it up. Selfish greedy barstewards.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,500
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 9, 2017 15:59:43 GMT
I don't remember a wave of enthusiasm when Higgs and his acolytes gained control of Bristol Rovers FC. "He is a successful businessman who will bring professionalism to the club”. He was a very lucky Quantity Surveyor. "He has the wealth and contacts to get us a new stadium”. No he didn't. If he said that - no-one believed him. "He is a breath of fresh air compared to the previous regimes we had to endure”. Who said that? No-one I know. "We need his money to survive”. Bollocks. We needed a well thought out strategy. It never happened. Not sure why swissgas is trying to agitate. I have no detail on the 'charge against the stadium". When I do - I'll let you know if I have changed my position. I have faith (not blind) in the Al-Qadi family.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Jul 9, 2017 16:09:15 GMT
Your faith (in your friends) is what lets you down.
Jedi mind trick.
Until anything is delivered in practise, will wait to see ..
But all signs are encouraging. Aren't they?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 17:53:49 GMT
I appreciate the restrained response to my posts yesterday but the arguments seem to be almost identical to those used to defend Nick Higgs in the early part of his Chairmanship. ‘He is a successful businessman who will bring professionalism to the club” “He has the wealth and contacts to get us a new stadium” “He is a breath of fresh air compared to the previous regimes we had to endure” “We need his money to survive” We all had high hopes of Nick and gave him our support but when cracks began to appear and questions asked he and his colleagues retreated into their shell and even constructive criticism was branded disloyalty. We asked to be shown the plans for our future, we asked where the money was coming from, we asked for better communication, we asked for better PR and marketing to create a modern image for the club. But we were told by diehards like Paul Seaton that it was none of our business and that we must have faith in Nick or shut up. Are we entitled to ask to see the plans for our future, to ask where the money is coming from, to ask for better communication, to ask for better PR and marketing to create a modern image for the club ? Or was Paul Seaton right all along ? I’m playing devils advocate but I’ve always found it hard to have blind faith. I genuinely don't recall any of the above observations made by anyone when Higgs arrived, he proved his worth to the club very early on and gave no impression from day one of being neither particularly professional and certainly not a breath of fresh air. WAQ however has so far secured a new training ground and has hugely expanded the backroom staff at the club, he has gone out of his way to meet as many supporters as possible, has allowed various splinter groups to form under the banner of the club, and there are plenty of supporters who have found the guy to be very approachable and supportive of other club initiatives that are currently running that would never have been possible under Higgs. To attempt to make any effort to compare the two is crazy IMO, however stealthily it is done. Which begs the question Swiss, why only post information that casts doubt about the family with no real genuine substance, and then omit factual information that suggests that this club is only heading on a positive upward curve both on and off the pitch under the AQ's?
|
|
|
Post by tauntongas on Jul 9, 2017 20:32:21 GMT
I appreciate the restrained response to my posts yesterday but the arguments seem to be almost identical to those used to defend Nick Higgs in the early part of his Chairmanship. ‘He is a successful businessman who will bring professionalism to the club” “He has the wealth and contacts to get us a new stadium” “He is a breath of fresh air compared to the previous regimes we had to endure” “We need his money to survive” We all had high hopes of Nick and gave him our support but when cracks began to appear and questions asked he and his colleagues retreated into their shell and even constructive criticism was branded disloyalty. We asked to be shown the plans for our future, we asked where the money was coming from, we asked for better communication, we asked for better PR and marketing to create a modern image for the club. But we were told by diehards like Paul Seaton that it was none of our business and that we must have faith in Nick or shut up. Are we entitled to ask to see the plans for our future, to ask where the money is coming from, to ask for better communication, to ask for better PR and marketing to create a modern image for the club ? Or was Paul Seaton right all along ? I’m playing devils advocate but I’ve always found it hard to have blind faith. I would like to add my mystifiction to the response to Higgs' takeover as mentioned above. From what I can remember, people held small hope that he might have a bit of cash about him following the sale of Cowlin and that at least he might know someone who could do a half decent job of knocking a stadium together. No one is asking you to have blind faith, SG. I just cannot understand how it would appear people like yourself and Westcountry Troll cannot see the night and day difference between the current setup and the previous setup. If you wish your sense of blind faith to be alleviated, what sort of information or revelation would help dispel it? Even if we were bought out by Warren Buffet, there is no one who could guarantee where money will come from but the current board have indicated that their main target is to get a stadium and facilities for the club that will enable stability, sustainability and maybe even growth for the club, off of the pitch. As PP says, we are close to the point where we will establish if UWE gets the go ahead or if we have to resort to a plan B. If the latter is the path we have to take, then that may warrant a bit more scrutiny of 'where' we actually are.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 10, 2017 5:48:21 GMT
Where was all this stuff about NH.
I know a lot of us were wary seeing as he was brought in to prop Geoff up
|
|
|
Post by tanksfull on Jul 10, 2017 7:35:53 GMT
I appreciate the restrained response to my posts yesterday but the arguments seem to be almost identical to those used to defend Nick Higgs in the early part of his Chairmanship. ‘He is a successful businessman who will bring professionalism to the club” “He has the wealth and contacts to get us a new stadium” “He is a breath of fresh air compared to the previous regimes we had to endure” “We need his money to survive” We all had high hopes of Nick and gave him our support but when cracks began to appear and questions asked he and his colleagues retreated into their shell and even constructive criticism was branded disloyalty. We asked to be shown the plans for our future, we asked where the money was coming from, we asked for better communication, we asked for better PR and marketing to create a modern image for the club. But we were told by diehards like Paul Seaton that it was none of our business and that we must have faith in Nick or shut up. Are we entitled to ask to see the plans for our future, to ask where the money is coming from, to ask for better communication, to ask for better PR and marketing to create a modern image for the club ? Or was Paul Seaton right all along ? I’m playing devils advocate but I’ve always found it hard to have blind faith. I genuinely don't recall any of the above observations made by anyone when Higgs arrived, he proved his worth to the club very early on and gave no impression from day one of being neither particularly professional and certainly not a breath of fresh air. WAQ however has so far secured a new training ground and has hugely expanded the backroom staff at the club, he has gone out of his way to meet as many supporters as possible, has allowed various splinter groups to form under the banner of the club, and there are plenty of supporters who have found the guy to be very approachable and supportive of other club initiatives that are currently running that would never have been possible under Higgs. To attempt to make any effort to compare the two is crazy IMO, however stealthily it is done. Which begs the question Swiss, why only post information that casts doubt about the family with no real genuine substance, and then omit factual information that suggests that this club is only heading on a positive upward curve both on and off the pitch under the AQ's? It seems to me Swiss is merely trying to "make people think" and avoid "total blind faith". I recall two factions when Nick invested and then took over. Those who had already lost faith completely and those who had total blind faith and were about to lose it. At present there is no bad "history" in respect of the current owners and the signs can be interpreted as very good but other than unplanned (by the current owners) success on the pitch and some extremely good signs on the peripheral, such as the training ground, there is absolutely nothing positive on the stadium except DC signing a 5 year contract (maybe he has been hoodwinked - who knows). These things do take time and I guess there was quite a bit to "undo". At present I think we can all be reasonably content but the unplanned success on the pitch must not blind us. Whilst there will, again, be no great support for it, some sort of independent supporters club/group would be a wonderful asset. Maybe now is the time to put that together; whilst there are no major factions of "them and us". Don't take that the wrong way; the suggestion is it would be a good time to put a positive group together which could act independently whist there is no major cause for concern.
|
|
simonj
Archie Stevens
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 818
|
Post by simonj on Jul 10, 2017 7:47:54 GMT
Unplanned success - Blind us? I am happy to take our position right now. We aren't in fear of crippling debts to the club, I think we have prudent and astute businessmen who have quickly gained a passion for the club. Bankers are stable in the main, not to be confused with some of our own banks here, so rushing into matters, although mildly frustrating with the lack of news, is of course a sensible approach. Another year or two at the mem, pushing for Championship football, with a new training ground being sorted, a decent backroom staff to DC who has signed a 5 year contract, presumably with a bit more knowledge than can be broadcast publicly at the moment, sounds promising to me; I'm not blinded by it, I'm happy being a rovers fan again. 4 years ago, I thought I had gone!
Lets all remember there are things called Confidentiality clauses, I see them a fair bit even in my low key industry.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,697
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jul 10, 2017 9:05:24 GMT
This charge does irritate me because it goes against the spirit of what (IMO) investing in a football club should be about. Geoff only took a charge when he left the board and had no control over events and I think every other director has put money in knowing it was at risk and being prepared to lose it if necessary. The charge indicates that someone does want their money back and is making sure they will get it. I disagree with you about "the difficulty in raising the required money" and I've got a feeling we will need cash quite soon. Swiss I believe GoD had a charge through Deltavon so not quite correct to say he hadn't taken a charge to protect his position. Regards
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 9:25:01 GMT
I genuinely don't recall any of the above observations made by anyone when Higgs arrived, he proved his worth to the club very early on and gave no impression from day one of being neither particularly professional and certainly not a breath of fresh air. WAQ however has so far secured a new training ground and has hugely expanded the backroom staff at the club, he has gone out of his way to meet as many supporters as possible, has allowed various splinter groups to form under the banner of the club, and there are plenty of supporters who have found the guy to be very approachable and supportive of other club initiatives that are currently running that would never have been possible under Higgs. To attempt to make any effort to compare the two is crazy IMO, however stealthily it is done. Which begs the question Swiss, why only post information that casts doubt about the family with no real genuine substance, and then omit factual information that suggests that this club is only heading on a positive upward curve both on and off the pitch under the AQ's? It seems to me Swiss is merely trying to "make people think" and avoid "total blind faith".I recall two factions when Nick invested and then took over. Those who had already lost faith completely and those who had total blind faith and were about to lose it. At present there is no bad "history" in respect of the current owners and the signs can be interpreted as very good but other than unplanned (by the current owners) success on the pitch and some extremely good signs on the peripheral, such as the training ground, there is absolutely nothing positive on the stadium except DC signing a 5 year contract (maybe he has been hoodwinked - who knows). These things do take time and I guess there was quite a bit to "undo". At present I think we can all be reasonably content but the unplanned success on the pitch must not blind us. Whilst there will, again, be no great support for it, some sort of independent supporters club/group would be a wonderful asset. Maybe now is the time to put that together; whilst there are no major factions of "them and us". Don't take that the wrong way; the suggestion is it would be a good time to put a positive group together which could act independently whist there is no major cause for concern. It's a bit insulting really. Does he seriously think we aren't all watching what's happening closely? Ref the point you make about an independent group, not gonna happen. The amount of work needed to get something like that off the ground is huge, if it didn't happen when we were in turmoil and relegated out of the League under Higgs then it won't happen now. The way that you mention the subject highlights the problem, you talk about it but don't say that you are going to do it. That's not a criticism, who would want to do it, it's a full time job for more than one person.
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Jul 10, 2017 11:02:46 GMT
It seems to me Swiss is merely trying to "make people think" and avoid "total blind faith".I recall two factions when Nick invested and then took over. Those who had already lost faith completely and those who had total blind faith and were about to lose it. At present there is no bad "history" in respect of the current owners and the signs can be interpreted as very good but other than unplanned (by the current owners) success on the pitch and some extremely good signs on the peripheral, such as the training ground, there is absolutely nothing positive on the stadium except DC signing a 5 year contract (maybe he has been hoodwinked - who knows). These things do take time and I guess there was quite a bit to "undo". At present I think we can all be reasonably content but the unplanned success on the pitch must not blind us. Whilst there will, again, be no great support for it, some sort of independent supporters club/group would be a wonderful asset. Maybe now is the time to put that together; whilst there are no major factions of "them and us". Don't take that the wrong way; the suggestion is it would be a good time to put a positive group together which could act independently whist there is no major cause for concern. It's a bit insulting really. Does he seriously think we aren't all watching what's happening closely? Ref the point you make about an independent group, not gonna happen. The amount of work needed to get something like that off the ground is huge, if it didn't happen when we were in turmoil and relegated out of the League under Higgs then it won't happen now. The way that you mention the subject highlights the problem, you talk about it but don't say that you are going to do it. That's not a criticism, who would want to do it, it's a full time job for more than one person. With respect, we are going over old ground again (and again.) BRISA started and for good (personal reasons) did not kick on, the Welly 3 were well-meaning, and at least arranged meetings, but, again for reasons, did not push on and embryonic discussions of a trust in The Sportsman came to nothing. BRSC are described jokingly, or mockingly, as somewhere between puppets and/or only 50:50 and coach trips organisers. Gasheads are often described as benign or apathetic, and were marching lemming like over the cliff with NH at the lead. Capable and well known people got burnt with their experiences of the BRFC board or the Supporters Committee, and so things are going to continue as they are for some time.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 10, 2017 11:16:28 GMT
I genuinely don't recall any of the above observations made by anyone when Higgs arrived, he proved his worth to the club very early on and gave no impression from day one of being neither particularly professional and certainly not a breath of fresh air. WAQ however has so far secured a new training ground and has hugely expanded the backroom staff at the club, he has gone out of his way to meet as many supporters as possible, has allowed various splinter groups to form under the banner of the club, and there are plenty of supporters who have found the guy to be very approachable and supportive of other club initiatives that are currently running that would never have been possible under Higgs. To attempt to make any effort to compare the two is crazy IMO, however stealthily it is done. Which begs the question Swiss, why only post information that casts doubt about the family with no real genuine substance, and then omit factual information that suggests that this club is only heading on a positive upward curve both on and off the pitch under the AQ's? It seems to me Swiss is merely trying to "make people think" and avoid "total blind faith". I recall two factions when Nick invested and then took over. Those who had already lost faith completely and those who had total blind faith and were about to lose it. At present there is no bad "history" in respect of the current owners and the signs can be interpreted as very good but other than unplanned (by the current owners) success on the pitch and some extremely good signs on the peripheral, such as the training ground, there is absolutely nothing positive on the stadium except DC signing a 5 year contract (maybe he has been hoodwinked - who knows). These things do take time and I guess there was quite a bit to "undo". At present I think we can all be reasonably content but the unplanned success on the pitch must not blind us. Whilst there will, again, be no great support for it, some sort of independent supporters club/group would be a wonderful asset. Maybe now is the time to put that together; whilst there are no major factions of "them and us". Don't take that the wrong way; the suggestion is it would be a good time to put a positive group together which could act independently whist there is no major cause for concern. I think we are in a limbo situation of sorts at the minute
Swiss is right, we should keep an eye on things, but I don't think it is the nature of this forum to be those of 'blind faith' given a fair number of us have questioned the club over the years.
I would re-iterate that the UWE announcement (hopefully due soon) be it good or bad is the time to take stock of our position. Until such time as we know, we can second guess on more than one outcome.
a decision one way or another soon, will at least give us a focus to evaluate the future, otherwise right now we are spinning our wheels on that front
|
|
|
Post by tanksfull on Jul 10, 2017 13:19:02 GMT
It seems to me Swiss is merely trying to "make people think" and avoid "total blind faith".I recall two factions when Nick invested and then took over. Those who had already lost faith completely and those who had total blind faith and were about to lose it. At present there is no bad "history" in respect of the current owners and the signs can be interpreted as very good but other than unplanned (by the current owners) success on the pitch and some extremely good signs on the peripheral, such as the training ground, there is absolutely nothing positive on the stadium except DC signing a 5 year contract (maybe he has been hoodwinked - who knows). These things do take time and I guess there was quite a bit to "undo". At present I think we can all be reasonably content but the unplanned success on the pitch must not blind us. Whilst there will, again, be no great support for it, some sort of independent supporters club/group would be a wonderful asset. Maybe now is the time to put that together; whilst there are no major factions of "them and us". Don't take that the wrong way; the suggestion is it would be a good time to put a positive group together which could act independently whist there is no major cause for concern. It's a bit insulting really. Does he seriously think we aren't all watching what's happening closely? Ref the point you make about an independent group, not gonna happen. The amount of work needed to get something like that off the ground is huge, if it didn't happen when we were in turmoil and relegated out of the League under Higgs then it won't happen now. The way that you mention the subject highlights the problem, you talk about it but don't say that you are going to do it. That's not a criticism, who would want to do it, it's a full time job for more than one person. How is what Swiss said or my interpretation of it insulting? He's put his view forward following the charge on the ground. Without comment to the contrary where is the problem in that? Bet there are many who have "blind faith" just as they did before. At present there is no history to think there is an issue but we are quite some way down the path and still have nothing to show for it on the stadium front. As for an independent group. Wouldn't now be the best time to get it off the ground? Everyone happy and cheerful? Perhaps an even better time would be after a positive announcement on the stadium? A group of supporters for positive reasons? Of course there is work involved and yes I would be quite happy to be involved if others thought it a good idea. It could actually start quite small and build.
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Jul 10, 2017 15:02:04 GMT
It was difficult not to get carried away with the takeover last year, it all appeared too good to be true at the time, but suspended my disbelief for a time and allowed myself to be carried along with it. There was a lot of exaggeration and hype whipped up by supporters and the local media concerning WAQ’s wealth that clearly went way over the top.
To be fair, this was played down by the owners who talked of evolution not revolution – however Mr Hamer’s talk of taking things division by division and comparisons with Swansea City certainly implied that the ambition was to establish Rovers as a Premier League club. To achieve that was always going to cost tens of millions at the very least and it is hardly credible that WAQ or any of the new owners were ignorant of this fact before purchasing the club.
The silence about the UWE is deafening, how is it to be funded? Appointing world class professional people to oversee the project only for them to leave a few months later? Bizarre. Lack of signings is a worry. I have seen it stated that DC will have a top 6 budget that also won’t be up there with the big spenders. Eh? What’s the charge on the Mem about? How is the training ground being financed? Is it the case that Rovers are racking up debt to Dwane Sports that is being secured against the stadium? What happens if WAQ loses interest?
I’m not really passing judgement on the new owners, merely stating that they should not be free from scrutiny and I am seeing some of the excuses being made for them that used to be trotted out for the old regime. If some of these things were happening under Higgs he’d be getting slaughtered for it – Higgs was rightly battered for having no long term plan or vision. At the moment we have a training ground and stadium in the pipeline (possibly) and little or no idea about how they would be paid for, or whether or not the owners have the funds, or even access to the funding, to achieve these aims.
Perhaps this all will become clearer when we finally get the news about the UWE. Hopefully. Maybe
|
|