Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on Aug 9, 2017 9:37:24 GMT
It has been suggested that previous Directors of the Club stand to lose out if the UWE does not go ahead and that they are the leak. Given the circumstances - even I can't blame them. Even if they had agreed a contract with uwe which was not in the best interests of BRFC?
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,424
|
Post by harrybuckle on Aug 9, 2017 9:54:17 GMT
Its like Brexit ...no deal is better than a bad deal ...funny how so called gasheads turn on owners so quickly Martin Flook, Barry Bradshaw, The Dunfords, Nick Higgs and now Wael.
Lets be honest the Club has struggled to compete financially as a professional club since 1897. I remember my great granddad saying that fans used to barrack Chairman George Humphreys in the 1920 saying he just wanted the Eastville site for new housing.
Being optimistic is a trait we all have to aspire to ...the Twerton Park days and the Frys Training ground days taught us Ragbag Rovers that surviving is an achievement to which we should be grateful for. Getting crowds of 9,000 at the Mem is a major plus as are the improved pasties ...embrace it you know it makes sense
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,143
|
Post by eppinggas on Aug 9, 2017 9:57:44 GMT
It has been suggested that previous Directors of the Club stand to lose out if the UWE does not go ahead and that they are the leak. Given the circumstances - even I can't blame them. Even if they had agreed a contract with uwe which was not in the best interests of BRFC? Well we don't know the details of the original deal (though I share your cynicism). Higgs hid behind "confidentiality" and I really hated it when Wael trotted out a similar line. If a former Director stands to lose out financially if the UWE fails to go ahead, then yes - I have no problems with them leaking that news. As Wael said "It's dead. Dead in the water." That news was soon to be in the public domain. So what? It just gave Steve "crazy gang" Hamer and Wael A-Q less time to prepare the damage limitation exercise. Which has been piss-poor IMHO.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on Aug 9, 2017 9:59:01 GMT
Its like Brexit ...no deal is better than a bad deal ...funny how so called gasheads turn on owners so quickly Martin Flook, Barry Bradshaw, The Dunfords, Nick Higgs and now Wael. I doubt it's just Gasheads. In our case it's understandable, given history. It's the not knowing that's the problem, it's bound to cause speculation and rumour. Time will tell how much of that was accurate. Same as ever ...
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,143
|
Post by eppinggas on Aug 9, 2017 10:01:06 GMT
Its like Brexit ...no deal is better than a bad deal ...funny how so called gasheads turn on owners so quickly Martin Flook, Barry Bradshaw, The Dunfords, Nick Higgs and now Wael. Lets be honest the Club has struggled to compete financially as a professional club since 1897. I remember my great granddad saying that fans used to barrack Chairman George Humphreys in the 1920 saying he just wanted the Eastville site for new housing. Being optimistic is a trait we all have to aspire to ...the Twerton Park days and the Frys Training ground days taught us Ragbag Rovers that surviving is an achievement to which we should be grateful for. Getting crowds of 9,000 at the Mem is a major plus as are the improved pasties ...embrace it you know it makes sense So called Gasheads are not 'turning' on the owners. They are asking some very reasonable questions and are not getting answers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 10:06:32 GMT
Its like Brexit ...no deal is better than a bad deal ...funny how so called gasheads turn on owners so quickly Martin Flook, Barry Bradshaw, The Dunfords, Nick Higgs and now Wael. Lets be honest the Club has struggled to compete financially as a professional club since 1897. I remember my great granddad saying that fans used to barrack Chairman George Humphreys in the 1920 saying he just wanted the Eastville site for new housing. Being optimistic is a trait we all have to aspire to ...the Twerton Park days and the Frys Training ground days taught us Ragbag Rovers that surviving is an achievement to which we should be grateful for. Getting crowds of 9,000 at the Mem is a major plus as are the improved pasties ...embrace it you know it makes sense This is one of Rovers supporters greatest problems accepting "well we've always been s**t......."
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on Aug 9, 2017 10:12:25 GMT
Even if they had agreed a contract with uwe which was not in the best interests of BRFC? Well we don't know the details of the original deal (though I share your cynicism). Higgs hid behind "confidentiality" and I really hated it when Wael trotted out a similar line. If a former Director stands to lose out financially if the UWE fails to go ahead, then yes - I have no problems with them leaking that news. As Wael said "It's dead. Dead in the water." That news was soon to be in the public domain. So what? It just gave Steve "crazy gang" Hamer and Wael A-Q less time to prepare the damage limitation exercise. Which has been piss-poor IMHO. It's certainly not been great. Oldie suggested that the former directors may have made the mistake of agreeing that if uwe didn't happen they would lose out financially. IF they had been foolish enough to add that clause, on top of having already agreed a duff contract for the new stadium, I would suggest they were the masters of their own downfall. In which case I would have no sympathy. Personally I can't see much reason for the leak in the first place. It was pretty obvious an announcement would be made very soon. We all knew August was the cut off date, so who stood to gain by pre-empting it.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 9, 2017 10:35:01 GMT
Even if they had agreed a contract with uwe which was not in the best interests of BRFC? Well we don't know the details of the original deal (though I share your cynicism). Higgs hid behind "confidentiality" and I really hated it when Wael trotted out a similar line. If a former Director stands to lose out financially if the UWE fails to go ahead, then yes - I have no problems with them leaking that news. As Wael said "It's dead. Dead in the water." That news was soon to be in the public domain. So what? It just gave Steve "crazy gang" Hamer and Wael A-Q less time to prepare the damage limitation exercise. Which has been piss-poor IMHO. as I say if ex-directors are likely to lose out, the question to them is, is that in their own interests or the interests of BRFC the football club as former custodians?
Would NH prefer The Al-Qadi's sign a s**t deal so they get paid? at the expense of the football club. If so why shouldn't they be criticised as well?
Just seems to be a lot of rounding on Dwane Sports right now and not the other parties who have/had interests in the UWE project
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Aug 9, 2017 10:53:28 GMT
Its like Brexit ...no deal is better than a bad deal ...funny how so called gasheads turn on owners so quickly Martin Flook, Barry Bradshaw, The Dunfords, Nick Higgs and now Wael. Lets be honest the Club has struggled to compete financially as a professional club since 1897. I remember my great granddad saying that fans used to barrack Chairman George Humphreys in the 1920 saying he just wanted the Eastville site for new housing. Being optimistic is a trait we all have to aspire to ...the Twerton Park days and the Frys Training ground days taught us Ragbag Rovers that surviving is an achievement to which we should be grateful for. Getting crowds of 9,000 at the Mem is a major plus as are the improved pasties ...embrace it you know it makes sense Without wanting to get into politics, the Brexit analogy is a dreadful one because it's bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Aug 9, 2017 10:55:09 GMT
Personally I can't see much reason for the leak in the first place. It was pretty obvious an announcement would be made very soon. We all knew August was the cut off date, so who stood to gain by pre-empting it. Good question, I think maybe something born out of frustration rather than thought through? or maybe someone thought it might assist a high court case (tho Lord knows how)? maybe a clue in wael being cross about people saying the men couldn't work? all a bit odd
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Aug 9, 2017 10:57:08 GMT
Wael cross at the creditors for putting their own interests before club interests?
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on Aug 9, 2017 10:59:06 GMT
Wael cross at the creditors for putting their own interests before club interests? He certainly seemed pretty cheesed off. Why, and with who, we can only guess.
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Aug 9, 2017 11:01:10 GMT
Really people are guessing on here. Thought all comments were factual.
Sorry ANGAS not aimed at you....
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Aug 9, 2017 11:04:46 GMT
There is no "hiding behind" a confidentiality clause, any of us working in the area of management, or higher, often sign such a clause, especially on leaving a job; one cost me £700 to be checked by a solicitor. There are consequences to breaking such clauses.
I'd rather have the time we have had so far with Wael, than the equivalent time we had with NH before he took over. (Though perhaps we may now have a better view/sympathy about negotiating with UWE.) How we can go from, “We’ve got our Rovers back” to throwing pelters at Wael is beyond me.
Yep, there are questions and perhaps Wael may be better served by having some kind of forum.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on Aug 9, 2017 11:12:07 GMT
Really people are guessing on here. Thought all comments were factual. Sorry ANGAS not aimed at you.... No, that's fine. All we can do is guess though, isn't it. Hopefully G20man will prise out a few facts on Saturday.
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Aug 9, 2017 11:15:11 GMT
Well we don't know the details of the original deal (though I share your cynicism). Higgs hid behind "confidentiality" and I really hated it when Wael trotted out a similar line. If a former Director stands to lose out financially if the UWE fails to go ahead, then yes - I have no problems with them leaking that news. As Wael said "It's dead. Dead in the water." That news was soon to be in the public domain. So what? It just gave Steve "crazy gang" Hamer and Wael A-Q less time to prepare the damage limitation exercise. Which has been piss-poor IMHO. as I say if ex-directors are likely to lose out, the question to them is, is that in their own interests or the interests of BRFC the football club as former custodians?
Would NH prefer The Al-Qadi's sign a s*** deal so they get paid? at the expense of the football club. If so why shouldn't they be criticised as well?
Just seems to be a lot of rounding on Dwane Sports right now and not the other parties who have/had interests in the UWE project
I am not sure where the confusion about Dwane sports walking away from the EWE should still be bothering some people. Didn't he say, quite clearly that he wanted a permenant base for BRFC, which in his opinion would not be possible to achieve with a leasehold deal (which the Government are about to review the whole leasehold saga). He all but said that they were close to signing a deal but the EWE changed things AFTER a deal had been agreed. For those who are not aware, the EWE is a charity and is run by committees. Speaking to someone who has had commercial dealings with the EWE, he said they were a nightmare of indescion to deal with. I still dont want the Mem redevelopment to happen. The infrastructure around the Mem struggles to cope when we have a gate of 11000+ and there is no way, in my opinion,that it could handle gates of 18 to 20000 on a regular basis.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,143
|
Post by eppinggas on Aug 9, 2017 11:35:07 GMT
Personally I can't see much reason for the leak in the first place. It was pretty obvious an announcement would be made very soon. We all knew August was the cut off date, so who stood to gain by pre-empting it. Good question, I think maybe something born out of frustration rather than thought through?or maybe someone thought it might assist a high court case (tho Lord knows how)? maybe a clue in wael being cross about people saying the men couldn't work? all a bit odd Frustration, spite. Call it what you will. Previous Directors have (allegedly) just lost money due to the collapse of UWE and they're not happy. FFS - I'm not defending them, but it is understandable. Sounds like the leak was designed to make Steve Hamer and Wael A-Q squirm as they didn't have Plan C "Damage Limitation" ready to go. Crazy times. Crazy Gang.
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Aug 9, 2017 11:50:05 GMT
I too think redeveloping the Mem is wrong. Firstly at the most it will hold 20,000. Previous development plans were for 17,000, maybe we can get another couple of thousand in there. Firstly the planning and local residents. Local residents already go on about parking and traffic, and let's be fair it can be a nightmare for everyone. If we want to seriously build a new ground that holds way over 20,000 then we will build on the car park. Meaning more parking in the streets Secondly , everyone needs a stadium that make money during the week, so what enterprises can you build in to the building. well clubs and bars make some money, if you can get local people in. But with so many pubs closing down it is probably a non starter. West Hams main stand at the Boleyn Ground doubled as a hotel on non match days, and very good it was too, but is there a shortage of hotels in Bristol? Is there a shortage of Conference facilities?
The UWE had the advantage that the stadium was going to start off at 22k and could be added to and I thing it could have been 34k or thereabouts. the Mem will be a fixed number, and so in 10or 15 years we got in to the Premier league, that number remains the same.
Staying at the Mem means we will always be a small to medium club. I thought Wael would have had more ambition than that.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 9, 2017 12:48:01 GMT
I have just listened to the interview in full again.
Thought the 'dig' at the stadium building experts was interesting. Saying not building UWE is the death of the club. Makes me wonder if that was aimed at particular individuals (who may or may not be getting any money any time soon) or just a general comment in response to some of the reaction to the deal being off.
Whilst some of it may seem contradictory (and maybe it is) regarding UWE, I think it is more complex and goes back to question raised at the very original start of the deal, what may or may not have happened after Sainsbury's fell through and what the Al-Qadi's were after. How much did the original deal change that in theory would have benefitted all Rovers and the old board, to chasing the stadium and possibly giving up more, to the Al-Qadi's wanting to swing it back our way.
Perhaps 'we' would have been better not wasting 18 months on it, but it would have been remiss of Dwane Sports to have binned it without investigating further because of what could have been built
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 13:01:00 GMT
It's an odd one, at the moment I'm going to take what's been said on face value. If the deal was a leasehold as we're being told then in the short term that's not necessarily a problem. However the issue arises with how dated some new build stadiums have come. Scunthorpe built Glansford Park in 1988, 29 years later they're looking to move on. The Bescot is starting to look rather dated at the grand age of 28 and is a prime piece of land. There have also talks of Yeovil leaving their 28 year old Huish Park. A 125 year old leasehold is fine, if we plan on being there for 125 years. If not, then, well, we're back to square one again, actual square one.
|
|