Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2015 11:52:36 GMT
All of the debt is the responsibility of the present owners, they would deal with that out of their £15m. The club is worth less than nothing as it's appears to be structured in a way that means that without significant extraordinary income it will lose money every year. In fact, if I were to have that conversation with Higgs I would tell him that I wanted him to give me the club FOC and lodge funds in an account to cover at least one year's losses. Seth. We were told that the new stadium would secure the future of the FC, as we don't make any effort to fill the existing stadium I assume that the BoD don't see that as the way to deal with losses and that what secured the club was the non-football income. So, that means that the bolt-on facilities are profit generating, therefore there must be a good case to build the stadium and run it without the millstone of a FC draining all of the money out of it? I principle yes the club is worth nothing, if Higgs wanted to sell. But the rumours I have heard are that he will only sell if he has the money he has put in repaid. So I assumed that in my calculations.
In which case he's in cloud cuckoo land. If anyone was insane enough to pay for the losses that Higgs has run up then they would be so mad that they would be even more of a danger to the future of the club than Higgs is himself.
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Sept 28, 2015 12:36:26 GMT
you've hit the nail on the head, fan's apathy will keep him here and it will also end up killing the club, we have the board we deserve. I bet he even avoids a grilling at the sc agm. Those who have run the club, since the move back to Bristol, have done a superb job of dividing the fans. I don't know if it was done on purpose but what we have is those who have become friendly with those directors and then, out of some kind of daft sense of loyalty, will back them even when faced with overwhelming evidence of the god awful mismanagement. The closure of official forums, twice now. Promised Q&A sessions & so much more. I try to distance myself from the pithy arguments put forward, in their defence. It seems that the line "but Nick is a gashead" is enough for many. I also know that I have become a cantankerous and cynical man and it's personal for me given that I am on a countdown. I didn't say that for pity as I know many others who have life limiting illness. I said it because it now has become much more important to me as I would love to see us in a better place, before I kick that bloody bucket. To some of us it really is life or death, as the Mrs says, it is what it is. Divide and conquer has certainly worked at our club. I feel more sorry for those generations who never saw the club getting promoted to the now championship and who have known nothing but struggle and lower leagues football. Have a look around you at the next home game & see how disproportionate the age of our fans is. We desperately need to attract the younger local support. That bothers me more than anything else. Sorry KP but I find I disagree with most of your post, nothing unusual in that. I see no great division of the fan base, yes people have different opinions and expectations but that's to be expected in any group of individuals. I am yet to be convinced that the unsubstantiated rumours of NH wanting his loans repaid or that his intentions are anything but an attempt to progress the club. I have my doubts, I admit, but until there are facts to back up of some of the more outrageous, and often insulting posts made on here then I will give NH the benefit of my doubts. I do however agree with you being given concerned with the age demographic of the fan base. More must be done to engage younger fans, on this you are 100% correct.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2015 12:38:47 GMT
You seem to have counted the club's debts twice.
Ok, here's my ridiculous back of a fag packet guesses:
Cost of club = value of Mem aprox £15m, plus paying off shareholder and external debts plus £1 for the club itself. I'll give you £20m. But get immediately sell the Mem for deferred development (in the same ways as Sainsburys), or get a secured loan for full amount of Mem value, approx. £15m back. Real cost of club = £5 to 7m. Add £2m seed money.
Why would the UWE build be going up? Wage inflation is still low, fuel and materials costs have dropped like a stone due to China's problems. I see no reason for a 20% increase in costs, unless I can be persuaded otherwise. I'm sticking to £40m.
So £40 - £50m, and you've got yourself a stadium.
All of the debt is the responsibility of the present owners, they would deal with that out of their £15m. The club is worth less than nothing as it's appears to be structured in a way that means that without significant extraordinary income it will lose money every year. In fact, if I were to have that conversation with Higgs I would tell him that I wanted him to give me the club FOC and lodge funds in an account to cover at least one year's losses. Seth. We were told that the new stadium would secure the future of the FC, as we don't make any effort to fill the existing stadium I assume that the BoD don't see that as the way to deal with losses and that what secured the club was the non-football income. So, that means that the bolt-on facilities are profit generating, therefore there must be a good case to build the stadium and run it without the millstone of a FC draining all of the money out of it? As I'm addressed re the second half.... Re the first half, the club is worth (I think): - the value of the land, estimated as £12 - 15 million - since it's all speculative, maybe towards the bottom end, say £13 million; - less its current and immediate running cost debts, often treated as £8 million; - so call it £5 million, which is what they'd have to pay for the shares, about half of which amount would therefore go to NH (and a tiny fraction to me - hooray) - new owners then own BRFC and its ground and debts, as per above; - presumably (!) they'd pay off the debt (some of which is to NH, so another cheque to him, none to me - boo); - then they have to find £40 million to build the new gaff; - 'then' sell the Mem for £12 - £15 million. In simplest terms, that's £5M to buy the club; then £8M to clear the debt [£13M], then £40M to fund the build (plus a bit to fund current losses) [£54M], after which they'd get £12M - £15M back [ultimate cost £40M]. They might be able to get that max outlay of £54M down a bit if they broker a deal as per NH thought he had for advance payment or, more reasonably maybe, by selling the rights to buy the ground two year later. On the second point (addressed to me), the bolt-on facilities were always supposed to be the cash cow, which is why I said that renting the ground off someone else who take all the income doesn't strike me as a good thing. More central to your point, though: if you're a third party who's going to build a cash generating venue on a piece of land, and you're not a football club looking for a pitch, why waste so much space by putting a large area of grass in the middle of it? There are plenty of examples of football grounds being replaced by large furniture stores or supermarkets because that's a better cash generator for the land involved.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2015 12:45:57 GMT
On the second point (addressed to me), the bolt-on facilities were always supposed to be the cash cow, which is why I said that renting the ground off someone else who take all the income doesn't strike me as a good thing. More central to your point, though: if you're a third party who's going to build a cash generating venue on a piece of land, and you're not a football club looking for a pitch, why waste so much space by putting a large area of grass in the middle of it? There are plenty of examples of football grounds being replaced by large furniture stores or supermarkets because that's a better cash generator for the land involved. You need a piece of grass roughly that shape and size for athletics / field sports, and varsity football / rugby. Didn't someone say that UWE have a football club playing on a rented pitch? Oh, and the PP exists for that.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Sept 28, 2015 12:50:35 GMT
you've hit the nail on the head, fan's apathy will keep him here and it will also end up killing the club, we have the board we deserve. I bet he even avoids a grilling at the sc agm. Agree with you both really questions need to be asked and answered honestly..there is too much of hiding away from the fans. Uncertainty and hesitation shown by the board is only further damaging the confidence supporters have. Also regards to GD you're right, he is often popping up with comments regarding the club, quite often see his lads at the games which is fair enough they are Gasheads like us, but I don't get GD making remarks from behind the keyboard, if he can see what's wrong and wants to help the club, bloody do something about it, stirring the pot not helping and really only incites us fans. GD attends most games (like you and me) BUT what are you expecting him to do that you cannot do? Perhaps you do more than popping up with comments from behind your keyboard? I would really be interested to know.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2015 12:55:17 GMT
On the second point (addressed to me), the bolt-on facilities were always supposed to be the cash cow, which is why I said that renting the ground off someone else who take all the income doesn't strike me as a good thing. More central to your point, though: if you're a third party who's going to build a cash generating venue on a piece of land, and you're not a football club looking for a pitch, why waste so much space by putting a large area of grass in the middle of it? There are plenty of examples of football grounds being replaced by large furniture stores or supermarkets because that's a better cash generator for the land involved. You need a piece of grass roughly that shape and size for athletics / field sports, and varsity football / rugby. Didn't someone say that UWE have a football club playing on a rented pitch? Oh, and the PP exists for that. True, but would you invest in that? Private equity didn't fancy funding and owning an Olympic Stadium or new Wembley, and hasn't Crystal Palace (the athletics venue, that is) struggled to redevelop and revamp for years? So why would they think a low profile venue in Stoke Gifford is a better option? All hypothetical and theoretical, though. I just can't see how 'someone else will build UWE for us to play at' is either likely, or a good thing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2015 13:13:05 GMT
You need a piece of grass roughly that shape and size for athletics / field sports, and varsity football / rugby. Didn't someone say that UWE have a football club playing on a rented pitch? Oh, and the PP exists for that. True, but would you invest in that? Private equity didn't fancy funding and owning an Olympic Stadium or new Wembley, and hasn't Crystal Palace (the athletics venue, that is) struggled to redevelop and revamp for years? So why would they think a low profile venue in Stoke Gifford is a better option? All hypothetical and theoretical, though. I just can't see how 'someone else will build UWE for us to play at' is either likely, or a good thing. I never suggested that us having the equity blown in our present home and becoming tenants again was a good thing Don't underestimate how competitive running universities is and how ambitious UWE are, I'm being told that they are keen to raise their profile in areas other than academia.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Sept 28, 2015 13:38:04 GMT
For the sake of argument let's say the new consortium has to invest £50m to buy the club and build the UWE, we are told they've no previous connection with Rovers so they are clearly only here to get a return on investmnet, that surely means they want a 5 to 10% return, can you honestly see us ever generating a £2.5m to £5m profit each season when for the last decade we've made circa £1m losses p.a.?
The £50m doesn't even take into consideration the vast investment needed on the pitch where Lansdown blown £50m, sorry but this just doesn't add up, either there's no consortium or there's something not quie right about the deal.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Sept 28, 2015 14:42:07 GMT
For the sake of argument let's say the new consortium has to invest £50m to buy the club and build the UWE, we are told they've no previous connection with Rovers so they are clearly only here to get a return on investmnet, that surely means they want a 5 to 10% return, can you honestly see us ever generating a £2.5m to £5m profit each season when for the last decade we've made circa £1m losses p.a.? The £50m doesn't even take into consideration the vast investment needed on the pitch where Lansdown blown £50m, sorry but this just doesn't add up, either there's no consortium or there's something not quie right about the deal. Amy insane person investing in football would be looking for capital growth in their investment not a return by way of dividend income. So no reason to be making 2.5 to 5 mill profit each year, in fact any free cash / profit would actively be reinvested (players wages and fees) in the hope of capital growth. The insane investor would only be hoping that it wasn't loss making year on year.
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Sept 28, 2015 14:44:17 GMT
Agree with you both really questions need to be asked and answered honestly..there is too much of hiding away from the fans. Uncertainty and hesitation shown by the board is only further damaging the confidence supporters have. Also regards to GD you're right, he is often popping up with comments regarding the club, quite often see his lads at the games which is fair enough they are Gasheads like us, but I don't get GD making remarks from behind the keyboard, if he can see what's wrong and wants to help the club, bloody do something about it, stirring the pot not helping and really only incites us fans. GD attends most games (like you and me) BUT what are you expecting him to do that you cannot do? Perhaps you do more than popping up with comments from behind your keyboard? I would really be interested to know. I am not one who the club probably owes money too and has a strong connection and left the club to current board and now making comment on how things should be done. FYI I agree with lots of things he says, he's not wrong but it frustrating to know someone who has ideas like GD and probably could if he wanted to get involved and help the club but doesn't.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Sept 28, 2015 14:53:53 GMT
For the sake of argument let's say the new consortium has to invest £50m to buy the club and build the UWE, we are told they've no previous connection with Rovers so they are clearly only here to get a return on investmnet, that surely means they want a 5 to 10% return, can you honestly see us ever generating a £2.5m to £5m profit each season when for the last decade we've made circa £1m losses p.a.? The £50m doesn't even take into consideration the vast investment needed on the pitch where Lansdown blown £50m, sorry but this just doesn't add up, either there's no consortium or there's something not quie right about the deal. Well we were all assured that there was/is a consortium, and that they were based in the West Midlands. There were other statements made on their behalf, which don't really matter too much to the fans in the grand scheme of things. The only things said of any significance is ''a promise to invest at least £40 million into building a new Stadium at the UWE, and further investment into the team,'' by the consortium. Plus of course the report that the Chairman has either not received any offer from anybody, or alternatively has rejected the approach. Take yer pick(s).
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Sept 28, 2015 15:26:05 GMT
Even the West Midlands connection was later denied and it was then suggested they were south east based, I haven't seen any further statements although the b Post artilce seems to have now been removed from their website! Forbidden You don't have permission to access /BRISTOL-ROVERS-Club-stays-silent-rumours-talk/story-27856409-detail/story.html on this server. Apache Server at www.bristolpost.co.uk Port 80
|
|
|
Post by PeterHooper57 on Sept 28, 2015 15:25:47 GMT
For the sake of argument let's say the new consortium has to invest £50m to buy the club and build the UWE, we are told they've no previous connection with Rovers so they are clearly only here to get a return on investmnet, that surely means they want a 5 to 10% return, can you honestly see us ever generating a £2.5m to £5m profit each season when for the last decade we've made circa £1m losses p.a.? The £50m doesn't even take into consideration the vast investment needed on the pitch where Lansdown blown £50m, sorry but this just doesn't add up, either there's no consortium or there's something not quie right about the deal. Well we were all assured that there was/is a consortium, and that they were based in the West Midlands. There were other statements made on their behalf, which don't really matter too much to the fans in the grand scheme of things. The only things said of any significance is ''a promise to invest at least £40 million into building a new Stadium at the UWE, and further investment into the team,'' by the consortium. Plus of course the report that the Chairman has either not received any offer from anybody, or alternatively has rejected the approach. Take yer pick(s). What is this new consortium nonsense all about ? if there is any truth, who is supposed to be leading this new group ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2015 15:29:58 GMT
Well we were all assured that there was/is a consortium, and that they were based in the West Midlands. There were other statements made on their behalf, which don't really matter too much to the fans in the grand scheme of things. The only things said of any significance is ''a promise to invest at least £40 million into building a new Stadium at the UWE, and further investment into the team,'' by the consortium. Plus of course the report that the Chairman has either not received any offer from anybody, or alternatively has rejected the approach. Take yer pick(s). What is this new consortium nonsense all about ? if there is any truth, who is supposed to be leading this new group ? They are set to reveal themselves last week, so Jon says, Oh, hang on..........
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Sept 28, 2015 15:39:06 GMT
Well we were all assured that there was/is a consortium, and that they were based in the West Midlands. There were other statements made on their behalf, which don't really matter too much to the fans in the grand scheme of things. The only things said of any significance is ''a promise to invest at least £40 million into building a new Stadium at the UWE, and further investment into the team,'' by the consortium. Plus of course the report that the Chairman has either not received any offer from anybody, or alternatively has rejected the approach. Take yer pick(s). What is this new consortium nonsense all about ? if there is any truth, who is supposed to be leading this new group ? Precisely. If (and when) you find out, kindly let me know.
|
|
|
Post by bristolbluegas on Sept 28, 2015 15:48:35 GMT
Even the West Midlands connection was later denied and it was then suggested they were south east based, I haven't seen any further statements although the b Post artilce seems to have now been removed from their website! Forbidden You don't have permission to access /BRISTOL-ROVERS-Club-stays-silent-rumours-talk/story-27856409-detail/story.html on this server. Apache Server at www.bristolpost.co.uk Port 80 No, it's still there........... link
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2015 16:43:31 GMT
Even the West Midlands connection was later denied and it was then suggested they were south east based, I haven't seen any further statements although the b Post artilce seems to have now been removed from their website! Forbidden You don't have permission to access /BRISTOL-ROVERS-Club-stays-silent-rumours-talk/story-27856409-detail/story.html on this server. Apache Server at www.bristolpost.co.uk Port 80 No, it's still there........... linkSo, nothing actually from Higgs himself, just a ''club insider'', If the rumours are enough to make him angry then a flat-out denial would remove any shred of dignity that they may have.
|
|
|
Post by deanoman on Sept 28, 2015 19:54:49 GMT
For the sake of argument let's say the new consortium has to invest £50m to buy the club and build the UWE, we are told they've no previous connection with Rovers so they are clearly only here to get a return on investmnet, that surely means they want a 5 to 10% return, can you honestly see us ever generating a £2.5m to £5m profit each season when for the last decade we've made circa £1m losses p.a.? The £50m doesn't even take into consideration the vast investment needed on the pitch where Lansdown blown £50m, sorry but this just doesn't add up, either there's no consortium or there's something not quie right about the deal. Amy insane person investing in football would be looking for capital growth in their investment not a return by way of dividend income. So no reason to be making 2.5 to 5 mill profit each year, in fact any free cash / profit would actively be reinvested (players wages and fees) in the hope of capital growth. The insane investor would only be hoping that it wasn't loss making year on year. Droitwichgas is a winner with his post, and sums (pardon the pun) it up in a nutshell. Let us not forget (and to reiterate) the NET WORTH of any business is purely based upon the value of all Assets (Fixed & Intangible) less all the Liabilities (Long & Short Term).In this instance the Value of the Fixed Asset (ie The Mem) whatever the value would have been subject to a re-valuation process in the Accounts and would have been suscepitible to market conditions at that particular time of valuation. So with that in mind (and is anybody privy to the current Accounts?) then yes the Value of a perceived buyer of the Business as it stands (ie no stadium build) is indeed very low and indeed not a going concern.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Sept 28, 2015 20:17:07 GMT
For the sake of argument let's say the new consortium has to invest £50m to buy the club and build the UWE, we are told they've no previous connection with Rovers so they are clearly only here to get a return on investmnet, that surely means they want a 5 to 10% return, can you honestly see us ever generating a £2.5m to £5m profit each season when for the last decade we've made circa £1m losses p.a.? The £50m doesn't even take into consideration the vast investment needed on the pitch where Lansdown blown £50m, sorry but this just doesn't add up, either there's no consortium or there's something not quie right about the deal. Amy insane person investing in football would be looking for capital growth in their investment not a return by way of dividend income. So no reason to be making 2.5 to 5 mill profit each year, in fact any free cash / profit would actively be reinvested (players wages and fees) in the hope of capital growth. The insane investor would only be hoping that it wasn't loss making year on year. The only way to get capital growth would be to turn us into at least a Championship side although I'm not sure how many of those sell for £50m+ I doubt even Leeds & Sheffield Wed went for that type of money? What would it cost team building wise just to get us to the Championship £10m over 5 years, so that's £60m plus interest on the investment, say 5% p.a. so that's £75m+ invested if it all goes to plan, if like Lansdown it doesn't then it could be £100m just to get to the Championship and take a decade or more. Either the consortium doesn't exist, they are just messing the club about like Northampton's apparent investors or they've more money than sense.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Sept 28, 2015 20:27:58 GMT
There ain't gonna be any consortium. There ain't gonna be a brand new stadium which UWE builds and we use. There ain't gonna be a victory over Sainsbury's to pay for the UWE . And we ain't gonna ever get anyone to revamp the MEM and they pay for it. I have been saying this to board backers for 10 years and more . We should be really focusing on how we survive part-time football !. How we readdress our huge debt of around £ 6-8 million ! And how we deal with the monies used on the failed Sainsbury's deal!. I know it's not fashionable to call a spade a spade anymore or 'tell it how it is' but this gas- mythology dreamed up by daydreamers will just allow the dust to build under the rug which we will trip over in due course. Let's put it another way. Can we survive another 7 years based on the last 7 ?
|
|