|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 15, 2017 15:45:52 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. I know that you, like the rest of us, have spent far too much time at Heartbreak Hotel over the years swiss, but I thought that work was already underway at the training ground? and with the funding of backroom staff (real cash, at worst real money secured against the Mem), DC's extension (a financial commitment, though not cash itself), I still think the only elephant in the room is the stadium. And it might not turn out to be a white one the mystery of the charge remains unsolved, in my view |
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 15, 2017 15:49:07 GMT
although Wael has reportedly said both that..
running a football club is more complicated than he thought (or words to that effect)
we DO have a new stadium
|
|
|
|
Post by gasheadpirate on Jul 15, 2017 16:09:42 GMT
although Wael has reportedly said both that.. running a football club is more complicated than he thought (or words to that effect) we DO have a new stadium Must have missed the opening! 😂 |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2017 16:17:26 GMT
although Wael has reportedly said both that.. running a football club is more complicated than he thought (or words to that effect) we DO have a new stadium We categorically do not have a new stadium, though. |
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Jul 16, 2017 7:28:37 GMT
It's fine to be cautious, but let's look at what we do know ...
This isn't your standard wealthy international businessman football club ownership - Wael is firstly a huge fan of football, and has now become a huge fan of Bristol Rovers. While we are a million miles apart from his other love, Chelsea FC, Wael can point out similarities in the football experience. BRFC has now become a family affair: he's brought his family over for games, his brother has stood watching from the Blackthorn/Thatchers End. Wael himself has stood alongside supporters at away games.
Wael is currently on his way to Portugal with his football mad son ... this could become a dynasty.
One final point, on the stadium issue, is from Wael's interview in The Guardian on 01/11/2016. It concerns the situation with UWE; I've seen the negotiations alluded to elsewhere, but this explains it much better:
"A new stadium has to be built. We cannot be sustainable if we stay at the Memorial." Qadi says. "But we inherited this situation and we did find some issues, and it takes time because UWE are a public institution; it's not a private company where the CEO can say: 'Let's get rid of this condition.'"
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,500 
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 16, 2017 8:49:30 GMT
I'm with the Concept. I bumped into Wael Al-Qadi at about 6pm after the Oldham home match. About a dozen of the family were going into the Club Shop to pick up merchandise. Strange behaviour for an asset-stripper and his family. He has invited the local media into his home. He is approachable and articulate. He has never 'over-promised and under-delivered'. He has said very clearly what his objectives are. The training ground is proof that the finance is in place and the strategy is being implemented. He has (as far as I'm aware) never put any time constraints on his objectives. If something comes to light that 'you don't like' - fine share it, it is appreciated.
You have to ask yourself - what is the motive for Wael Al-Qadi to become owner of Bristol Rovers FC? I guess its:
1. A football-mad foreign investor wants to be a part of the regeneration of a proud, well supported, under-achieving football Club that has potential to expand. He wants to build a new stadium whereby he can re-coup his money (and maybe even make some). or
2. A cynical, but brilliant con artist attempts to screw a relatively small sum of money out of a lower division football Club by somehow acquiring the freehold and selling it. This complex plot, played out over a number of years would involve the hiring of numerous professionals who are nothing but a veneer to fool the stupid fans. An expensive and time-consuming subterfuge.
So members of the Jury I would ask you to look at the owners motives and look at the evidence before you.
|
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 16, 2017 10:44:25 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. Think you are failing to state the most obvious reason for the charge, and you're to astute not to have thought of it, protecting as much of their investment as they can. As far as I can tell so far they have 'spent' four pots of money which ultimately they'll be looking to recoup (I'm ignoring epping la la land view that they are some sort of football fairy godmother): 1. Dwayne Sports buying out directors of the football club, who knows how much but only recoupable if they increase the value of their 92% holding 2. Dwayne Sports legal and professional fees in relation a stadium owned and developed by Dwayne Sports, recoupable only if it gets built and increases the value of point 1 3. Dwayne Sports purchase of land at Almondsbury, unless they paid more than market value then they really shouldn't lose a penny on that investment 4. Bristol Rovers Football Club up to £10m provided via a Revolving Credit Facility secured against the assets of Bristol Rovers Football Club, of which Dwayne Sports own 92% of those assets,money recoupable but increasing revenues of the club or as a last resort placing the club in administration and selling it's only asset Quite simply this charge is intelligent businessmen protecting their investment whilst kidding fans the club is spending someone else's money. But hey I agree with the rest at least they aren't Higgs and co |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 16, 2017 13:28:20 GMT
I'm with the Concept. I bumped into Wael Al-Qadi at about 6pm after the Oldham home match. About a dozen of the family were going into the Club Shop to pick up merchandise. Strange behaviour for an asset-stripper and his family. He has invited the local media into his home. He is approachable and articulate. He has never 'over-promised and under-delivered'. He has said very clearly what his objectives are. The training ground is proof that the finance is in place and the strategy is being implemented. He has (as far as I'm aware) never put any time constraints on his objectives. If something comes to light that 'you don't like' - fine share it, it is appreciated. You have to ask yourself - what is the motive for Wael Al-Qadi to become owner of Bristol Rovers FC? I guess its: 1. A football-mad foreign investor wants to be a part of the regeneration of a proud, well supported, under-achieving football Club that has potential to expand. He wants to build a new stadium whereby he can re-coup his money (and maybe even make some). or 2. A cynical, but brilliant con artist attempts to screw a relatively small sum of money out of a lower division football Club by somehow acquiring the freehold and selling it. This complex plot, played out over a number of years would involve the hiring of numerous professionals who are nothing but a veneer to fool the stupid fans. An expensive and time-consuming subterfuge. So members of the Jury I would ask you to look at the owners motives and look at the evidence before you. One of the things I struggle to understand with Rovers and Rovers fans is the constant polarization. Everything has to be good or bad, black or white and, as in the Higgs era, “you are either with us or against us”. I think it’s down to an underlying lack of confidence which, given our history, is understandable but I do feel it’s harming us. I agree with what you have said about Wael in your point 1) and think he and his family genuinely thought this was an opportunity for him to fulfill his passion, with a potentially huge upside and with minimal risk. In my postings I haven’t said or implied that they are asset strippers who are out to squeeze much as they can out of Rovers for their own selfish reasons. In fact I don’t think anyone has actually posted anything like the suggestions in your point 2). But, as under the previous owners, once any questions start to be asked the instinctive reaction is to become defensive. I appreciate that you are very respectful in replying to my post eppinggas but there is a place not far away where it would draw accusations of being a “board hater” with a “hidden agenda”. We all wanted Nick Higgs to succeed and we all want Wael to succeed but I don’t believe we helped Nick by pretending he was infallible and the same applies to Wael. When questions were asked about Nick’s words and actions the underpinning response of his supporters was “Nick is a successful businessman and he knows the facts which you don’t, he knows what he is doing and we trust him to make the right decisions”. This was very plausible to the majority of fans and they willingly accepted it but we now know that Nick was making many wrong decisions and he took the club, of which he is without doubt a genuine supporter, very close to disaster. No one has attempted to comment on the seven issues I highlighted in my post yesterday so I guess the consensus is to keep to the line that the Al Qadi family are infallible ? When Nick & Co retreated into their shell and most fans pretended all was well and hid behind the “confidentiality agreement” and “working hard behind the scenes” excuses I posted something like this on the old forum. “If you are confident that you are heading in the right direction and sure your plans will succeed you don’t hide away and sulk you lead from the front and galvanize your supporters to continue believing in the cause. But if you know your plans are in tatters and can’t think which way to turn there must be a great temptation to maintain a wall of silence and hope something will come up to distract peoples attention”. If the Al Qadi family did misjudge the situation at Rovers and if they did miscalculate and there are now issues with funding then I believe, as a Rovers fan who wants them to succeed, it would be far better to come out into the open and explain. Otherwise I fear we shall soon be back to the old extreme polarization which does no good and which will keep holding us back if we don’t cure ourselves of it. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 13:59:13 GMT
Swiss (hello, btw)
You often talk a lot of sense, so I'm interested in your stance here, but a bit lost. What is your concern? Am I right in thinking it's a) there's a charge on the ground? b) the A-Qs might not be throwing endless unsecured money at the club as we might have been led to believe?
On b) I don't think they ever promised to, and I wouldn't expect them to. I think they're sensible, pragmatic, ambitious, and well-advised - with a good 'in' to finance. What resources are available are, I sense, being used well. That's all I've ever asked. That's not to say they're infallible, but who is?
Working backwards to a), given what's above, I'm fairly relaxed. What's going on on the finance / development front is closed to us. Maybe that's your worry, but again, given above, I'm happy with giving them the benefit of the doubt and understand why it would be private. On the specific issue of the charge, that's all behind that screen: might UWE want some guarantee that work, if started, will complete? Is a charge on the ground the quickest and easiest way of providing that? I've no idea, but that's an example of how it might not be a cause for concern.*
I think they have credibility. Maybe I'm naive, but I haven't had grounds to withdraw that yet (and I think that I am sensitive to that). If I'm missing something here, I'd love to know.
* Changing the subject, given that it's taken so long to get an agreement with UWE, I'm coming to believe they won't. If that's best for the club, good, and I still trust them in that.
EDIT TO ADD: (because I don't think a strict (b) is really you)
c) we don't know that all is well, so shouldn't ignore that possibility. Well, yes, but I think it requires more grounds than I have to take 'problems unless full visibility otherwise' as my default stance, then resposne as per (b).
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,500
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 16, 2017 14:17:01 GMT
I appreciate your measured response swissgas. In response:
1. Higgs MADE the situation black & white. His modus operandi was: "If you don't trust me 100%, you're against me". Guess what - the supporters split and by the time we were consigned to non-league football - a tiny minority were 'for' and the majority 'against'.
Wael Al-Qadi has gone out of his way to UNITE supporters. Kevin Spencer - welcome back.
2. I don't think you are a 'Board hater'. The information you brought about the charge is interesting. Your negative speculation less welcome.
3. I do not, and have never had blind faith in anyone, including the Al-Qadi family. Of course they are not infallible and no-one is saying that they are.
4. I don't see any polorisation in supporters right now. One could argue that it's posts like yours that are intended to agitate and could possibly cause splits in the fan base.
5. If, and that's a big IF there are problems around funding - I fully expect Wael Al-Qadi to front up and explain.
If there are problems around finance / the new Stadium and he goes into hiding - he'll get as much bcfc1982 from me as I gave Higgs. UTG.
|
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 16, 2017 14:22:00 GMT
Swiss (hello, btw) You often talk a lot of sense, so I'm interested in your stance here, but a bit lost. What is your concern? Am I right in thinking it's a) there's a charge on the ground? b) the A-Qs might not be throwing endless unsecured money at the club as we might have been led to believe? On b) I don't think they ever promised to, and I wouldn't expect them to. I think they're sensible, pragmatic, ambitious, and well-advised - with a good 'in' to finance. What resources are available are, I sense, being used well. That's all I've ever asked. That's not to say they're infallible, but who is? Working backwards to a), given what's above, I'm fairly relaxed. What's going on on the finance / development front is closed to us. Maybe that's your worry, but again, given above, I'm happy with giving them the benefit of the doubt and understand why it would be private. On the specific issue of the charge, that's all behind that screen: might UWE want some guarantee that work, if started, will complete? Is a charge on the ground the quickest and easiest way of providing that? I've no idea, but that's an example of how it might not be a cause for concern.* I think they have credibility. Maybe I'm naive, but I haven't had grounds to withdraw that yet (and I think that I am sensitive to that). If I'm missing something here, I'd love to know. * Changing the subject, given that it's taken so long to get an agreement with UWE, I'm coming to believe they won't. If that's best for the club, good, and I still trust them in that. EDIT TO ADD: (because I don't think a strict (b) is really you) c) we don't know that all is well, so shouldn't ignore that possibility. Well, yes, but I think it requires more grounds than I have to take 'problems unless full visibility otherwise' as my default stance, then resposne as per (b). It’s those seven points I made in the post yesterday Seth. If anyone wanted to answer then I think, being Rovers fans desperate to believe, they could come up with a semi plausible response to each but never a straightforward logical answer. Which is exactly what happened in the Higgs era. AMPG says in his post about the charge possibly being linked to a completion bond for the UWE Stadium, “maybe” “something like that”, because he knows it is stretching it a bit but, like the rest of us, he wants it to be true. If something like that happens once or twice, okay, maybe we let it go but under Higgs and now with the new owners things keep happening which don’t make sense but, as loyal Rovers fans, we stretch our imagination to try and make sense of them. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 16, 2017 15:20:39 GMT
Swiss (hello, btw) You often talk a lot of sense, so I'm interested in your stance here, but a bit lost. What is your concern? Am I right in thinking it's a) there's a charge on the ground? b) the A-Qs might not be throwing endless unsecured money at the club as we might have been led to believe? On b) I don't think they ever promised to, and I wouldn't expect them to. I think they're sensible, pragmatic, ambitious, and well-advised - with a good 'in' to finance. What resources are available are, I sense, being used well. That's all I've ever asked. That's not to say they're infallible, but who is? Working backwards to a), given what's above, I'm fairly relaxed. What's going on on the finance / development front is closed to us. Maybe that's your worry, but again, given above, I'm happy with giving them the benefit of the doubt and understand why it would be private. On the specific issue of the charge, that's all behind that screen: might UWE want some guarantee that work, if started, will complete? Is a charge on the ground the quickest and easiest way of providing that? I've no idea, but that's an example of how it might not be a cause for concern.* I think they have credibility. Maybe I'm naive, but I haven't had grounds to withdraw that yet (and I think that I am sensitive to that). If I'm missing something here, I'd love to know. * Changing the subject, given that it's taken so long to get an agreement with UWE, I'm coming to believe they won't. If that's best for the club, good, and I still trust them in that. EDIT TO ADD: (because I don't think a strict (b) is really you) c) we don't know that all is well, so shouldn't ignore that possibility. Well, yes, but I think it requires more grounds than I have to take 'problems unless full visibility otherwise' as my default stance, then resposne as per (b). You ask if you are naive, perhaps the answer is yes and no. But on asking if the charge is to help as security for UWE then I have to think yes. It is clear from the last set of accounts and this charge that it relates to £10m Revolving Credit Facility the majority of which according to the last set of accounts is already spent. So I can't see any situation where this will help secure development of the UWE. However if the UWE doesn't happen it does allow the Al qs to recover £10m of their cash. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 17:40:31 GMT
Swiss (hello, btw) You often talk a lot of sense, so I'm interested in your stance here, but a bit lost. What is your concern? Am I right in thinking it's a) there's a charge on the ground? b) the A-Qs might not be throwing endless unsecured money at the club as we might have been led to believe? On b) I don't think they ever promised to, and I wouldn't expect them to. I think they're sensible, pragmatic, ambitious, and well-advised - with a good 'in' to finance. What resources are available are, I sense, being used well. That's all I've ever asked. That's not to say they're infallible, but who is? Working backwards to a), given what's above, I'm fairly relaxed. What's going on on the finance / development front is closed to us. Maybe that's your worry, but again, given above, I'm happy with giving them the benefit of the doubt and understand why it would be private. On the specific issue of the charge, that's all behind that screen: might UWE want some guarantee that work, if started, will complete? Is a charge on the ground the quickest and easiest way of providing that? I've no idea, but that's an example of how it might not be a cause for concern.* I think they have credibility. Maybe I'm naive, but I haven't had grounds to withdraw that yet (and I think that I am sensitive to that). If I'm missing something here, I'd love to know. * Changing the subject, given that it's taken so long to get an agreement with UWE, I'm coming to believe they won't. If that's best for the club, good, and I still trust them in that. EDIT TO ADD: (because I don't think a strict (b) is really you) c) we don't know that all is well, so shouldn't ignore that possibility. Well, yes, but I think it requires more grounds than I have to take 'problems unless full visibility otherwise' as my default stance, then resposne as per (b). It’s those seven points I made in the post yesterday Seth. If anyone wanted to answer then I think, being Rovers fans desperate to believe, they could come up with a semi plausible response to each but never a straightforward logical answer. Which is exactly what happened in the Higgs era. AMPG says in his post about the charge possibly being linked to a completion bond for the UWE Stadium, “maybe” “something like that”, because he knows it is stretching it a bit but, like the rest of us, he wants it to be true. If something like that happens once or twice, okay, maybe we let it go but under Higgs and now with the new owners things keep happening which don’t make sense but, as loyal Rovers fans, we stretch our imagination to try and make sense of them. 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. I never thought Higgs had any idea what he was doing. I didn't think that Hughes or Duffy were players that were going to propel us to the 2nd tier, it was obvious that there was no plan or structure in anything that was happening. I was lambasted on here for asking where the rest of the money was coming from for UWE, the sums never added up, even if Sainsbury's had given us £30m, the new stadium was always talked about as being circa £40m. At least the new owners have mentioned outside investment.
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 have inherited a manager on a roll, we can judge where they are in football terms when the first wheel falls off, but so far so good.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. Did anybody think that a RADAR lock on the disabled facilities was ''special'', I doubt it, I think we all realised that it was just basic stuff, but it was nice to have basics being dealt with.
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. Swansea have been handed a new stadium to use, Bournemouth are a model that Wael made clear on day 1 we would not be following. Wael said we wouldn't be risking everything on the roll of a dice, I'm happy about that, so I don't see your point?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. Yep, fair enough, you've got me there, this I can't explain.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. What did you expect, all the numbers posted on the internet? Wasn't that study followed up by meetings with potential investors?
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. Others have already addressed this point.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. Kroenke uses his own money, the Glazers don't, both expect a return (although it seems that Kroenke is more interested in the status of owning a PL club that in it making money for him or actually winning anything meaningful), both models seem to work. I have no idea what's going on, but someone did mention that the previous owners hadn't been paid yet and maybe wouldn't be until the stadium was sold, you would imagine that they would want that position secured. Why don't you ping Steve Hamer an email, people say that he usually replies quickly.There you go, that's 7.  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. We'll know one way or another soon. The odd thing is, if it's dead in the water, the longer they leave it to say so, the harder it gets to blame it all on Higgs.Read more: gasheads.org/thread/3623/throw-good-money-bad?page=6#ixzz4n12BIE1y |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 19:14:30 GMT
There are intelligent and compelling cases made on both sides of this thread.
Thanks all for not conforming to stereotypes of either football supporters or internet messageboard contributors.
|
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 16, 2017 21:43:19 GMT
having digested all of the expert financial analysis above, I'm of the conclusion...
the charge is to support funding of something
we don't know what its funding (although CGH above suggests the money is spent, based on the accounts, we still don't know what on)
and I don't know if anyone has yet asked!
|
|
|
|
Post by richmace on Jul 18, 2017 22:23:29 GMT
My take on the thread (for what it is worth) is as follows:
I am not qualified to comment on the technicalities of the finances, so I won't.
As a football fan, you are not a normal customer or consumer of a product. There is always an element of faith involved. Such is the way of the football fan.
The key phrase used from day one is "Evolution not revolution". This is very instructive and at the same time very frustrating. It means that there is not a limitless bucket of money to be thrown at the football club. I think we all thought that we were going to see golden signings in the model of many clubs (Fulham, Chelsea, etc). This was never the case, and it is a good thing in my opinion.
The last few years have been a modern golden age for the club, augmented by the takeover. Luck has certainly been on the side of the new owners, and they have added to the feel good factor by their attitude, professionalism and love for our club. I do not have enough positive words to say regarding our new owners.
Peter Parker is absolutely spot on when he says that the decision regarding the UWE is key to all of this. We need a decision and we really need it now!
We need this whole project to be decided, either way.
I love the fact that DC is committed to us long term. That is unprecedented in our history (in my lifetime anyway).
I love the fact we have a training ground in progress. That is unprecedented in our history.
I love the fact that we still have a family club vibe about us. I hope we never lose this. The fact that we have a family owning our club is perfect in my opinion.
So, for all the positives, we have this elephant in the room hanging over us. The curse of the new stadium still haunts our football club. A curse that needs to be lifted, either by the move to a new purpose built stadium, or the redevelopment of our current home. Both options will make me happy to be honest.
Wael will not be judged by the success or failure of the UWE in the same way that Nick Higgs was, but it needs to be sorted, and it will.
I would expect a decision to be announced soon, and I would also expect a plan b to be announced should plan a not be possible. I suspect that is what the delay and radio silence is about...
I hope I am wrong, but I am not feeling like the UWE will happen, I have been a blind faith supporter of the project in the past.
I feel that this discussion has been really interesting, everyone is entitled to their opinion and all of us are in the dark with regards to the facts. There is nothing wrong with questioning the custodians of our club, as long as the discussions do not get personal and insulting and everybody realises that we are trading opinions, not facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Aug 3, 2017 10:24:58 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. Worth reading again. Spot on. Or may not be, but some serious questions need answering. |
|
