Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 15:30:45 GMT
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. Sorry for any confusion, nothing you said was insulting, it was the original post from Swiss that I didn't like. Shame really, his posts are usually top drawer. Great, look forward to joining a new supporters' group, you'll need plenty of free time, and a small army of helpers. What's that, you don't have the time to head it up yourself?
|
|
|
Post by tanksfull on Jul 10, 2017 15:48:35 GMT
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. Sorry for any confusion, nothing you said was insulting, it was the original post from Swiss that I didn't like. Shame really, his posts are usually top drawer. Great, look forward to joining a new supporters' group, you'll need plenty of free time, and a small army of helpers. What's that, you don't have the time to head it up yourself? I agree with your comments on Swiss; he always puts forward considered comments. Still don't think he's been insulting. I certainly didn't feel insulted in any way. Quite the opposite. All about opinions. I would not say I don't have the time to head it up; I don't think I have the right skills though. I would be prepared to give lots of time as a backup and very happy to keep records and paperwork, go to meetings and provide input. Very happy to discuss round a table but I'm no public speaker. Half a dozen people would do it at this stage.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 15:57:41 GMT
Sorry for any confusion, nothing you said was insulting, it was the original post from Swiss that I didn't like. Shame really, his posts are usually top drawer. Great, look forward to joining a new supporters' group, you'll need plenty of free time, and a small army of helpers. What's that, you don't have the time to head it up yourself? I agree with your comments on Swiss; he always puts forward considered comments. Still don't think he's been insulting. I certainly didn't feel insulted in any way. Quite the opposite. All about opinions. I would not say I don't have the time to head it up; I don't think I have the right skills though. I would be prepared to give lots of time as a backup and very happy to keep records and paperwork, go to meetings and provide input. Very happy to discuss round a table but I'm no public speaker. Half a dozen people would do it at this stage. Maybe you can make it work, I honestly wish you the very best of luck, but be prepared for people who want to talk about it, a lot, and expect other people to do all the work.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 10, 2017 16:06:08 GMT
I agree with Swiss on the whole (nice to see you posting again by the way) I think and it provokes an interesting discussion.
Putting the precise details to one side for a moment I think it comes down to what the relationship between the fans and the club looks like from our current position. We are now wholly and completely consumers of something called 'Bristol Rovers' which is an entity that can be bought and sold by wealthy people - some people may see this is as progress of some kind and some may not. What annoyed me about the Nurse Ratched's of this world is that their basic position tended to be along the lines of 'be careful what you wish for - if you don't get behind Nick Higgs we could get owners who don't necessarily have the fans interests and the club at heart' while blindly failing to recognise that this process had clearly already happened some years previously.
To hear people talk about clubs in this country sometimes is to think there was some kind of golden age when professional football clubs operated as membership organisations. I maybe wrong but I don't think that has ever been a model of professional club ownership in this country until a few recent isolated cases (although it has been to a greater or lesser extent in most European countries I think). We always had a kind of trustee model which, while it had an enormous number of faults and a tendency towards low level corruption and cronyism, at least the allusion of a relatively close relationship between fans and 'the board' (fast becoming an outdated concept in football it seems) who were normally made up of relatively successful local businessman was retained. We lived under 92 benign dictatorships. English Football jogged along like this for most of the 20th Century but over time the Premier League model has just blown that out of the water and in the last 10 years that transformation has reached down into the football league and beyond. I think you'd struggle to find a club whose ownership and governance looked like ours did even 5 years ago - whereas 20 years ago they nearly all looked like that.
It seems to me as though we have gone completely over to a US style of sport ownership - the club ('franchise') is simply an asset to be run, operated and traded by its owners. They clearly have a vested interest in keeping fans onside and running a successful outfit given that we represent their primary consumers - but should their interests clash with the fan interests or clash with the long term stability of the club as some form of institution then ownership interest comes first every single time. It's one of the reasons so much of the supporters club apparatus we have left over from the Twerton era looks quite quaint and ineffectual because we're definitely not all 'in it together' anymore if we ever were - should our owners (either current or hypothetical future ones) put us in the crap then helpline, sharescheme, whatever ain't gonna come close to bailing us out. All we are is people who sit on the sidelines chuntering and perhaps serving a monitoring role - that is it now (maybe we always were and this just makes it much clearer). There may conceivably have been a time when it could have possibly gone another way but that is long gone. We are, to quote Jerry Seinfeld just 'rooting for laundry'. To me that means my relationship to whoever the owners of Bristol Rovers are is entirely a transactional one - if they deliver the goods, conduct themselves well and seem competent then I like them, if not then I think I can ineffectually carp about them or in particularly dire cases withdraw my custom. These guys have done well and I hope they continue to do very well but I don't have warm fuzzy feelings towards them - I am very grateful they have dug us out of an enormous hole and that they seem competent and likeable but I'm not under illusions that their interests in Rovers will always be the same as mine.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,500
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 10, 2017 21:58:54 GMT
Swissgas: "The charge taken against The Mem has made me reassess my opinion". What exactly is this charge and where can I find details of it? If I remember correctly your previous postings were relatively sane. Attempting to draw numerous parallels between Nick Higgs and Wael Al-Qadi leads me to believe that you are clinically insane. There are more lunatics on here than I had previously imagined. I guess it keeps it interesting though.
|
|
Alveston Gas
Brucie Bannister
Once a Gashead always a Gashead
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 746
|
Post by Alveston Gas on Jul 11, 2017 9:15:38 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. Can't say I ever felt this way about Mr Higgs however as an ordinary supporter in just over 18 months I have had more opportunities to shake hands & talk to WAQ than I ever did with his predecessor. That's one of the reasons I have more confidence in the AQs, they seem on the face of it decent, football "loving" people - certainly WAQ is - in it for the long run. I am not particularly concerned about the charge over the Mem - it's their property when all is said & done and if it helps with the funding of a growing more successful club so be it! UTG
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Jul 11, 2017 9:31:41 GMT
Mr Higgs appeared to run the show with (at times) utter contempt for the support base, fans and some associates of the club.
I hold him personally partly responsible for our relegation out the league. John Ward bears most of that unenviable position, but Higgs just sat and watched it happen when he was most equipped to do something about it.
He banned fans that had committed no crime.
He almost took our club into insolvency and appeared to care little about doing so in his usual deluded, dictatorship manner.
No. No more.
Thanks to Wael, he has brought together fan bases, galvanised our support, encouraged a different attitude, together in unity. DC reflects this too.
If you look back at pics of Higgs you see a serious, bitter man that divided the club. If he smiled it looked sinister.
Wael by comparison has a more charming way about him and is usually pictured smiling and enjoying his time here.
And so are we, the fans, supporters and dignitaries. It is a true reflection.
But we need to soon start to see progress. There will be time for the talking to stop and practically be delivered. Possibly through evolution. Until then, the grand deception is working so it's full speed ahead!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 11:57:21 GMT
I think there was a sense that NH was a fresh start and a break from the cronyism of the past, so a hope at least of fresh thinking and a break out of the bunker approach. That all started well with the promise of fortnightly chairman's reports.
Unfortunately, the fresh approach wasn't very good. It was an unfeasible development scheme with a football club attached. The football side of it was mismanaged to the point that we couldn't maintain league football; the development scheme ended up almost bankrupting the club on a desperate sh1t-or-bust, no-way-out strategy. The supporter base was treated with disdain.
I think there's a world of difference between the two.
|
|
c13
Rickie Lambert
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 424
|
Post by c13 on Jul 12, 2017 19:38:14 GMT
There's little to no similarities between Higgs and Wael. I'm not going to take the approach of many here and comment on how they seem on photos and how they present themselves etc because, IMO, that's just being a politician and you can be a horrible, reprehensible person with a charming smile and warm aura. However, their actions are also very different. Higgs brought money into the club and all that, but it doesn't compare do Wael; he gave us a facelift where we most needed. Training ground, youth facilities, all of these are either already done or firmly planned out, unlike a certain other gentleman's "watertight" stadium contract. Wael isn't running the club like a , even going as far as bringing in PR and Hamer as chairman, while Higgs ran the show by himself and answered to no one. Higgs and Watola messed up with the club's money, Wael entered clearing most of our debts. It's all in their plans, their actions, and how they reflect on-pitch as well, especially by keeping DC at the helm. Higgs kept DC because we didn't have the money/prestige to hire another manager; Wael kept DC because he sees the club like he does.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 12, 2017 20:46:34 GMT
I saw 3 staff interviews copied onto Gaschat - the injured young 'un, the top medical bod, and the woman who will be doing U23's medicals
their enthusiasm shone through, and all the little changes that they talked about show a very methodical approach of constantly changing and improving everything - just the stuff that DC bangs on about
the only fly in the ointment is the stadium IMO. And they probably can't control all of that. Odd how some of the stadium peeps have come and gone though - I'd like to understand that better
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 12, 2017 20:46:57 GMT
I saw 3 staff interviews copied onto Gaschat - the injured young 'un, the top medical bod, and the woman who will be doing U23's medicals their enthusiasm shone through, and all the little changes that they talked about show a very methodical approach of constantly changing and improving everything - just the stuff that DC bangs on about the only fly in the ointment is the stadium IMO. And they probably can't control all of that. Odd how some of the stadium peeps have come and gone though - I'd like to understand that better Kilgour
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Jul 13, 2017 14:03:07 GMT
An intriguing debate beforehand with lots of hot air and inaccurate thoughts and assumptions. So time to add fourpennyworth or even five! A fairy story with some truth:- Sheriff Higgs was brought in initially to add more finance because the World renowned Club always seemed to need more. Either by design or good (or bad) luck he became the biggest shareholder and thus a - and as such exercised his muscle to the point where no one else in the BOD would play with him when more money was required. The result was a Wonga type loan. One ex BOD the virtuous GD rightly protected himself and armed himself and his money with a charge on the Mem. With no one on his side except the wicked Twatola, Sheriff Higgs decided a sale was inevitable. On a charger came new owners - a successful Jordanian and his family and friends who got rid of horrible Wonga and paid off the BOD (apart from about £1million - which is repayable to a couple of the ex-BOD depending on certain conditions) Remembering certain previous happenings the new owners took a charge on the Mem which swissgas and his ilk find disturbing because he/they are assuming the new owners are doing so out of weakness. But should he think longer before he speaks he will eventually realise the real reason and may even applaud them for their action. Because the motto is 'A first rule in banking - protect your assets - so no one can bite your a....s while you are not looking.' Which this commentator thinks is eminently sensisible. Think on Swiss before you expend more Gas!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 18:22:45 GMT
the virtuous GD ? you spelt dirtbox wrong
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 14, 2017 21:09:28 GMT
An intriguing debate beforehand with lots of hot air and inaccurate thoughts and assumptions. So time to add fourpennyworth or even five! A fairy story with some truth:- Sheriff Higgs was brought in initially to add more finance because the World renowned Club always seemed to need more. Either by design or good (or bad) luck he became the biggest shareholder and thus a - and as such exercised his muscle to the point where no one else in the BOD would play with him when more money was required. The result was a Wonga type loan. One ex BOD the virtuous GD rightly protected himself and armed himself and his money with a charge on the Mem. With no one on his side except the wicked Twatola, Sheriff Higgs decided a sale was inevitable. On a charger came new owners - a successful Jordanian and his family and friends who got rid of horrible Wonga and paid off the BOD (apart from about £1million - which is repayable to a couple of the ex-BOD depending on certain conditions) Remembering certain previous happenings the new owners took a charge on the Mem which swissgas and his ilk find disturbing because he/they are assuming the new owners are doing so out of weakness. But should he think longer before he speaks he will eventually realise the real reason and may even applaud them for their action. Because the motto is 'A first rule in banking - protect your assets - so no one can bite your a....s while you are not looking.'
Which this commentator thinks is eminently sensisible. Think on Swiss before you expend more Gas!! From whom or from what are the Al Qadi family protecting their asset ?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,500
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 14, 2017 21:42:48 GMT
Swissgas: "The charge taken against The Mem has made me reassess my opinion". What exactly is this charge and where can I find details of it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 22:38:33 GMT
An intriguing debate beforehand with lots of hot air and inaccurate thoughts and assumptions. So time to add fourpennyworth or even five! A fairy story with some truth:- Sheriff Higgs was brought in initially to add more finance because the World renowned Club always seemed to need more. Either by design or good (or bad) luck he became the biggest shareholder and thus a - and as such exercised his muscle to the point where no one else in the BOD would play with him when more money was required. The result was a Wonga type loan. One ex BOD the virtuous GD rightly protected himself and armed himself and his money with a charge on the Mem. With no one on his side except the wicked Twatola, Sheriff Higgs decided a sale was inevitable. On a charger came new owners - a successful Jordanian and his family and friends who got rid of horrible Wonga and paid off the BOD (apart from about £1million - which is repayable to a couple of the ex-BOD depending on certain conditions) Remembering certain previous happenings the new owners took a charge on the Mem which swissgas and his ilk find disturbing because he/they are assuming the new owners are doing so out of weakness. But should he think longer before he speaks he will eventually realise the real reason and may even applaud them for their action. Because the motto is 'A first rule in banking - protect your assets - so no one can bite your a....s while you are not looking.'
Which this commentator thinks is eminently sensisible. Think on Swiss before you expend more Gas!! From whom or from what are the Al Qadi family protecting their asset ? Devotees of Joseph Smith who may have heard a rumour that there are golden plates buried beneath the east terrace?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 14, 2017 23:04:25 GMT
Swissgas: "The charge taken against The Mem has made me reassess my opinion". What exactly is this charge and where can I find details of it? Details can be found on the Companies House website beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04501223/charges/wSc2Sf8fS_sfvZmboWRkEEkZX6QIf you click on view pdf you can see that the charge is to secure the £10 million loan which Dwane Sports Ltd have provided to Rovers. I continue to rack my brains to work out why the 92% owner of an asset should need to take a legal charge over it. My initial thought was that Dwane Sports borrowed the money themselves and, after 15 months, whoever provided the cash became anxious about whether they would be paid back and asked Dwane Sports to take a charge so that in the event of catastrophe Dwane Sports would be sure to have the cash be able to pay them back. I still think this is the most likely reason. Another scenario, which could be viewed controversially, is that others are owed money by Rovers and have indicated they want it back which has led Dwane to secure a preferential position. And the third possibility, for the benefit of those who prefer to only see positives, is that Dwane Sports are going to cede control to another party which will provide a substantial injection of cash and they have reached an agreement with that party for the Mem to be used as formal security for their £10 million loan. If this is the case the timing seems odd because you would expect the announcement of the new controlling interest and the registration of the charge to happen at or near the same time. My views on the current situation are unpopular but nevertheless I think it's a worthwhile subject for debate.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 14, 2017 23:25:02 GMT
Swissgas: "The charge taken against The Mem has made me reassess my opinion". What exactly is this charge and where can I find details of it? Details can be found on the Companies House website beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04501223/charges/wSc2Sf8fS_sfvZmboWRkEEkZX6QIf you click on view pdf you can see that the charge is to secure the £10 million loan which Dwane Sports Ltd have provided to Rovers. I continue to rack my brains to work out why the 92% owner of an asset should need to take a legal charge over it. My initial thought was that Dwane Sports borrowed the money themselves and, after 15 months, whoever provided the cash became anxious about whether they would be paid back and asked Dwane Sports to take a charge so that in the event of catastrophe Dwane Sports would be sure to have the cash be able to pay them back. I still think this is the most likely reason. Another scenario, which could be viewed controversially, is that others are owed money by Rovers and have indicated they want it back which has led Dwane to secure a preferential position. And the third possibility, for the benefit of those who prefer to only see positives, is that Dwane Sports are going to cede control to another party which will provide a substantial injection of cash and they have reached an agreement with that party for the Mem to be used as formal security for their £10 million loan. If this is the case the timing seems odd because you would expect the announcement of the new controlling interest and the registration of the charge to happen at or near the same time. My views on the current situation are unpopular but nevertheless I think it's a worthwhile subject for debate. Good spot swiss i won't pretend to understand it but....it is a recent thing (mid June) there was talk of uwe wanting a completion bond to cover the new construction, or else the mem to be used as security for completion of construction. Completion bond costs are expensive without security. Dwane only have 92%, so maybe not in a position to use the mem due to minority interests. Maybe the charge allows them to get a bond using the mem as security - although the charge will be assigned to the bond provider in due course? or something like that
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,500
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 15, 2017 10:40:15 GMT
Swissgas: "The charge taken against The Mem has made me reassess my opinion". What exactly is this charge and where can I find details of it? Details can be found on the Companies House website beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04501223/charges/wSc2Sf8fS_sfvZmboWRkEEkZX6QIf you click on view pdf you can see that the charge is to secure the £10 million loan which Dwane Sports Ltd have provided to Rovers. I continue to rack my brains to work out why the 92% owner of an asset should need to take a legal charge over it. My initial thought was that Dwane Sports borrowed the money themselves and, after 15 months, whoever provided the cash became anxious about whether they would be paid back and asked Dwane Sports to take a charge so that in the event of catastrophe Dwane Sports would be sure to have the cash be able to pay them back. I still think this is the most likely reason. Another scenario, which could be viewed controversially, is that others are owed money by Rovers and have indicated they want it back which has led Dwane to secure a preferential position. And the third possibility, for the benefit of those who prefer to only see positives, is that Dwane Sports are going to cede control to another party which will provide a substantial injection of cash and they have reached an agreement with that party for the Mem to be used as formal security for their £10 million loan. If this is the case the timing seems odd because you would expect the announcement of the new controlling interest and the registration of the charge to happen at or near the same time. My views on the current situation are unpopular but nevertheless I think it's a worthwhile subject for debate. Thanks for providing the detail. As you say there are three (four with APMG) conclusions that you could draw regarding why the charge was taken out. So we are in the realms of speculation. I do not have "blind faith" in the Al-Qadi leadership. I am however going to give them the benefit of doubt here. Is there no-one who can ask why the charge was taken out? They have been in control for 15 months - as far as I'm concerned - they have not put a foot wrong. Gasheads received the Golden Ticket, Feb 19th 2016. Please keep us updated if anything like this does come to light though, it is appreciated. Probably best not to try and draw parallels between Higgs and Wael Al-Qadi. You will get an angry reaction, and rightly so. UTG.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 15, 2017 14:53:27 GMT
Recklessly ignoring the advice of eppinggas I'll make the kind of post I used to back in 2010.
At the end of the 2009/10 season Rovers finished 11th in league 1 and Nick Higgs was widely thought to be an excellent Chairman. Our mortgage was £944K and our overdraft £392K but Nick had loaned the club £1.3 million pounds of his own cash enabling us to buy championship quality players like Darryl Duffy and Jeff Hughes. He predicted we should be in the second tier within five years and it wouldn’t be long before he was able to announce plans for his crowning glory the UWE Stadium. A few fans had suspicions that things were not quite as they seemed and started to ask awkward questions which Nick’s supporters were unable to answer so they quickly resorted to the “put up or shut up” argument.
At the end of 2016/17 season Rovers finished 10th in league 1 and the Al Qadi family were widely thought to be excellent owners.
They showed friendliness towards fans, encouraged splinter groups, smartened up the Mem and brought in more backroom staff, but there was a suspicion that we only thought these things were so special because our previous owners had neglected them badly and that other clubs did them as a matter of course.
The new mantra was “evolution not revolution” but there was a suspicion that the rise of clubs like Swansea and Bournemouth had included more than a hint of revolution.
In a fanfare of publicity two gurus had been appointed to oversee the UWE stadium development but without explanation these men jumped ship very early and there was a suspicion they knew the project was not viable.
A feasibility study was announced but the results were never made public which gave rise to a suspicion that it was because the findings were not favourable.
Land was purchased for a training ground but no development plans materialised and there was a suspicion that if money couldn’t be found for a stadium, which might at least generate some revenue, then it was unlikely to be found for a training ground which certainly wouldn’t.
The 2016 accounts revealed the entire funding for the acquisition and for operating capital was through an interest bearing loan so we all hoped the interest would not be taken out of Rovers’ account and speculated that the loan might even be capitalised. But when a charge was registered over the Mem there was a suspicion that Rovers would actually have to make the interest payments and that the £10 million loan would have to be repaid.
When communication virtually ceased on any matter of importance we consoled ourselves with thoughts that Darrell had just signed a contract extension and the owners were probably working hard behind the scenes on the stadium and training ground projects but there was still a suspicion that all was not well.
Most fans have these suspicions but prefer to keep them at the back of their minds because they are desperate to “believe”. The same thing happened under Nick Higgs when “we couldn’t do anything about it” so we had to “sit back and enjoy the ride”. If we had read the road signs then, and tried to persuade the driver to take a different route, we may not have ended up £10 million in debt now. Yet, even today, we still prefer not to talk about things openly and find it much easier to convince ourselves that Elvis is financing the new stadium and training ground and that everything will turn out well in the end.
But surely we can’t go on forever with suspicious minds.
|
|