Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2018 13:42:00 GMT
There'll be plenty more made up rubbish that will start 20 page threads between now and October. Edit. Oh look, just took it up to Page 23. If you aren't part of the solution....  |
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Dec 26, 2018 13:48:06 GMT
These things take time. site:http://gasheads.org “these things take time” |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2019 17:17:20 GMT
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883 
|
Post by dido on Mar 2, 2019 19:37:06 GMT
More chance of Rovers winning 4 - 0. . |
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 5, 2019 8:33:30 GMT
so there seem to me to be 2 main rumours.... the football side of the deal has been agreed. Which might or might not mean that Wael stays on. The hold-up is about UWE/an alternative the football side of the deal is still held up as they haggle over price. Meanwhile the ground options are still being looked at I suppose it could also be some sort of combination of the two. Which is where we were at the start, I think acting as a bit of a 'rumour consolidation site', here are a few of the latest - all culled from here or the other place - please feel free to add any I've missed; - The latest rumour I’ve heard from a source with the club is that the takeover has hit a major snag in that the proposed new owners have been having negotiations with UWE to revive the deal and then announce the takeover with also a date of construction but unfortunately the UWE is now dead in the water because the UWE are taking the piss. On a more positive note the good news is that the new owners are still keen but will be looking at alternative locations such as the airfield but obviously this will add years to whatever
- Past history suggests the football club would then be handed free gratis to some of our worthy and wealthy fans who would work in conjunction with the Supporters Club and Presidents Club to find a new home and a way of keeping us afloat financially
- The stumbling block was UWE not now wanting to even discuss anything with the owners, due to lack of professionalism on the owners part. Also WAQ wanted/wants to remain
- the Rovers end of the deal is sealed. There is however a delay in any announcement due to the new owners (construction based consortium from reading) finalising UWE.....There aim is to announce both the takeover and the UWE in one go
- DS who were taking the mickey with their valuation of the Club. Ridiculous value given the level of outstanding debt, equity in ground and that we are loss-making
- Wael wants to stay on, but DS may have to compromise on price the longer it goes on and debts increase.
- Wael won't sign the takeover papers,wants to retain a small percentage..... The current owners would rather us go into liquidation
- Gasheads will be very happy in a few months (per Knowall at the other place, who does seem to know a lot, and is in his 70's although noone seems to know who he is)
- I have heard rumours that Ollie was fronting a consortium
Take your pick? Personally I don't think Hamer is accurate when he says there is no takeover or similar (I'm not sure of his exact form of words). I think something has been happening, but has hit roadworks, but I'm not sure why
more rumours from the other place.... bideford gas...... bumped into a recent ex director, an half hour conversation ensued
. What I was told about our owners has clarified a lot of my thoughts, but interestingly I was assured there is no one and never has been anyone ready to takeover our club. The three million a year debt we are racking up being one of the major reasons why and it would appear that success on the pitch (ie. Promotion) is a pre requirement before our owners are prepared to move on anything.
This gentleman's information has convinced me that nothing is happening and will not happen for years let alone months.holmes.... I think that we might have spoken to the same person. I also came to the conclusion that as far as he was concerned there is no takeover on the horizon and UWE was a missed opportunity by the current owners. The cost of buying land and building a stadium is prohibitive and unlikely to ever happen. We discussed the long lease on the UWE land and was shocked to discover that at Eastville it wasn’t the selling of the stadium that made us homeless but previous club owners selling the right to renew the lease. eric ....As recently as Autumn 2018 UWE was back on the agenda and new plans drafted but Rovers pulled out with no reason given. A few weeks after I was made aware of this WAQ made his statement that their latest plan had broken down - whether he was talking about the UWE or somewhere else I don't know.
I can't say where I got this information which is why I haven't mentioned it before - for what it's worth the info was from a totally credible source. Anyone who claims to be ITK gets criticised on here and probably rightly so - boy who cried wolf and all that. I'm not someone who has made these type of posts before and generally speaking I don't tend to get given such credible info and don't expect to hear anything more on this subject. what to think? |
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 5, 2019 8:40:13 GMT
and a snippet from phil, already posted on here.....One of our own ex directors and Merchant Venturers points the blame of the collapse of UWE firmly with the current owners. It's all history now. Dead, deceased, it's f*****g snuffed it!!
which might tie in with knowall's post on 15th December that Wael should 'grow up and admit his mistake', or something like that?
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,979
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Mar 5, 2019 9:09:18 GMT
As far as I remember it wasn't the selling of Eastville that was the issue nor the selling of the lease. It was the significantly high rent increase demanded by the owners (including some who are close to 'ex-directors') that forced Rovers out.
As for UWE if we had become leasehold tenants giving up a significant amount of car park and match day income how would we have had the money to progress?
When I read about these discussions with 'recent ex-directors' I know that there is an agenda behind what they say and they obviously want to turn fans against the current owners. I am sure the current owners can do that for themselves, they don't need an 'ex-director' who was party to us nearly becoming bankrupt.
|
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 5, 2019 9:19:43 GMT
When I read about these discussions with 'recent ex-directors' I know that there is an agenda behind what they say and they obviously want to turn fans against the current owners. I am sure the current owners can do that for themselves, they don't need an 'ex-director' who was party to us nearly becoming bankrupt. 'tis a good point. Doesn't mean that the content is untrue, or true, though we lost £3m in the year to summer 2017, due largely to exceptional items it will be interesting to see the figure for the year to summer 18 - which won't, I presume, include 'considerable' expenditure on the new site which was announced wasn't proceeding just before Christmas |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,979
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Mar 5, 2019 9:39:28 GMT
When I read about these discussions with 'recent ex-directors' I know that there is an agenda behind what they say and they obviously want to turn fans against the current owners. I am sure the current owners can do that for themselves, they don't need an 'ex-director' who was party to us nearly becoming bankrupt. 'tis a good point. Doesn't mean that the content is untrue, or true, though we lost £3m in the year to summer 2017, due largely to exceptional items it will be interesting to see the figure for the year to summer 18 - which won't, I presume, include 'considerable' expenditure on the new site which was announced wasn't proceeding just before Christmas Indeed it will be interesting to see the next set of accounts as the owners will have no one else to blame for any losses nor have the excuse of writing off previous directors mistakes. I'm not defending the current owners they have enough questions to answer! I do however object to the constant dripping of poison and sh!t stirring by people who had their chance and wasted it and those people who are still in the business now being disloyal. |
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 5, 2019 9:47:02 GMT
I do however object to the constant dripping of poison and sh!t stirring by people who had their chance and wasted it and those people who are still in the business now being disloyal. I think that's a fair point the other side of it is that the new team haven't covered themselves in glory when they have spoken - the Colony 'planning permission would be submitted in 6 weeks' as the Colony was 'definitely going ahead', the charge on the stadium vagueness, the 'wonderful piece of land' distraction, the lamentable radio interview which said nothing, 'landing lights', 'crazy gang', 'people don't understand the separation between DS and the football side', KM's distracting historic waffling, the UWE announcement (albeit SH did give some recent insight on that) to name but a few.... |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,979
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Mar 5, 2019 14:26:26 GMT
I do however object to the constant dripping of poison and sh!t stirring by people who had their chance and wasted it and those people who are still in the business now being disloyal. I think that's a fair point the other side of it is that the new team haven't covered themselves in glory when they have spoken - the Colony 'planning permission would be submitted in 6 weeks' as the Colony was 'definitely going ahead', the charge on the stadium vagueness, the 'wonderful piece of land' distraction, the lamentable radio interview which said nothing, 'landing lights', 'crazy gang', 'people don't understand the separation between DS and the football side', KM's distracting historic waffling, the UWE announcement (albeit SH did give some recent insight on that) to name but a few.... The points you raise indicate that often it is better to say nothing until you have something to say. The problem is the longer you stay silent the more people make up rubbish to fill the void. The next pronouncements from the Board will be key. We cannot stand still as that invariably means being left behind others ~ see Accrington and Exeter who are taking steps to improve their stadia with permanent structures rather than temporary ones. Whether that's sooner rather than later is a matter for debate but Gasheads won't wait for ever and it will be attendances that start to get hit. And if City82 continue to be around the top of the Championship or (heaven forbid) get promoted then we will be in real trouble. History shows that ~ see Port Vale and Stoke! |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2019 17:30:52 GMT
'tis a good point. Doesn't mean that the content is untrue, or true, though we lost £3m in the year to summer 2017, due largely to exceptional items it will be interesting to see the figure for the year to summer 18 - which won't, I presume, include 'considerable' expenditure on the new site which was announced wasn't proceeding just before Christmas Indeed it will be interesting to see the next set of accounts as the owners will have no one else to blame for any losses nor have the excuse of writing off previous directors mistakes. I'm not defending the current owners they have enough questions to answer! I do however object to the constant dripping of poison and sh!t stirring by people who had their chance and wasted it and those people who are still in the business now being disloyal. Hope that wasn’t aimed at me Chesh. I have absolutely no axe to grind with the current owners but I had an immense amount of distain for the previous ones. The point about what happened at Eastville was that the right to renew the lease was lost due to selling the rights off. The reason that the owners were able to massively inflate the rent was because it was a completely new lease. |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,979
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Mar 6, 2019 8:36:50 GMT
Indeed it will be interesting to see the next set of accounts as the owners will have no one else to blame for any losses nor have the excuse of writing off previous directors mistakes. I'm not defending the current owners they have enough questions to answer! I do however object to the constant dripping of poison and sh!t stirring by people who had their chance and wasted it and those people who are still in the business now being disloyal. Hope that wasn’t aimed at me Chesh. I have absolutely no axe to grind with the current owners but I had an immense amount of distain for the previous ones. The point about what happened at Eastville was that the right to renew the lease was lost due to selling the rights off. The reason that the owners were able to massively inflate the rent was because it was a completely new lease. Philton, I can assure you that it is not aimed at you. I just get fed up with some of the rubbish that is banded about which stirs up and angers Gasheads but then proves to be totally unfounded in fact. The current Board only have themselves to blame as they should understand we live in a 'want info now' world that doesn't understand the value of patience or the fact that there simply might be nothing to actually say.... Anyhow have a good day buddy. |
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Mar 6, 2019 18:31:54 GMT
As far as I remember it wasn't the selling of Eastville that was the issue nor the selling of the lease. It was the significantly high rent increase demanded by the owners (including some who are close to 'ex-directors') that forced Rovers out. As for UWE if we had become leasehold tenants giving up a significant amount of car park and match day income how would we have had the money to progress? When I read about these discussions with 'recent ex-directors' I know that there is an agenda behind what they say and they obviously want to turn fans against the current owners. I am sure the current owners can do that for themselves, they don't need an 'ex-director' who was party to us nearly becoming bankrupt. It was the building of the M32 that was our downfall because the moment it was built with the eastville junction the land became seriously expensive |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2019 19:21:14 GMT
The current Board only have themselves to blame as they should understand we live in a 'want info now' world that doesn't understand the value of patience or the fact that there simply might be nothing to actually say.... If there's nothing to say then there's something to say, tell us that they have no stadium plans other than to make do and mend what we have. I think we would all be a bit relieved in honestly that the sham was over and we knew for sure where we stood. Ref your previous post. It would take huge investment in Rovers or a catastrophic failure at the DSS Stadium for us to catch them any time soon. Sadly, neither seem likely. For evidence can I present Lansdown's plans to build an arena adjacent to the ground in BS3, which I believe will happen, contrasted with a temporary stand which we couldn't even organise the correct safety certificates for. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 10:12:45 GMT
Hope that wasn’t aimed at me Chesh. I have absolutely no axe to grind with the current owners but I had an immense amount of distain for the previous ones. The point about what happened at Eastville was that the right to renew the lease was lost due to selling the rights off. The reason that the owners were able to massively inflate the rent was because it was a completely new lease. Philton, I can assure you that it is not aimed at you. I just get fed up with some of the rubbish that is banded about which stirs up and angers Gasheads but then proves to be totally unfounded in fact. The current Board only have themselves to blame as they should understand we live in a 'want info now' world that doesn't understand the value of patience or the fact that there simply might be nothing to actually say.... Anyhow have a good day buddy. With respect, you say that but then make the claim further up that Rovers would have been giving away a large portion of match day income to the UWE, where/what/who is your source for this? As far as I am aware there are no concrete details of the deal with UWE in the public domain and the deal itself seems to be wrapped up tight in confidentiality clauses. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 10:55:17 GMT
If you ain't having a s**t, get off the pot.
|
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 7, 2019 11:20:52 GMT
this from gashead1981 at the other place - a big step up from the usual drivel on forums I thought....
From what I know, the problem of rebuilding the mem lies within its location, restrictions on height for stands, what the site can offer for alternative income streams and any investment would be for a long term return, meaning the club would be heavily in debt, which, if the owners aren't prepared to service, then it means it isn't financially viable.
First problem is its location. The site is surrounded by housing which means residents are likely to oppose any form build which will bring extra traffic and people to the Mem outside what it already has. So if we start putting bars, restaurants and accommodation on the site, with that brings its own set of issues for residents. In some ways I can sympathise with this, I live close to a rugby club who have late licensing on weekends until 1am. Sometimes the noise is tedious, and there are only a couple of hundred people around there. Not to mention the likes of TRASH, ROSE and other nimbys who like to oppose, just because they can.
Second issue is planning restrictions. To make use of the full footprint of the mem would mean moving the Poplar stand back into the carpark, the housing the other side of the car park needs a set amount of light meaning the stand can only be so high.. To erect a South stand would would either mean having a small lower stand because of light issues to the housing estate behind also. That limits what you can build.
Third is cost. To rebuild the Mem onsite stand by stand would cost circa £15-20m. I think we have all worked out by now our owners have no interest in spending that money, investing that money, or doing anything to plan to. If so, we would have at least had a vision on the table by now. But lets not go over the feckless bunch for now. Instead, lets look at the figure and use £20m as a guide. That puts the club roughly £35m to the red taking into account current debts. We know that the owners are charging interest too on all moneys owed. There is a grant available from the FA which would entitle us to around £2.5m of funding for a full ground redevelopment thats on site. So there is a net debt of £32.5m cost that needs to be reduced quickly once the stadia is built. To make it cost effective the ground would need to return £2m per year back to the ALQ's before the first team actually see any of it invested. Now recouping that debt depends on all of the first 2 points and what we would be allowed to build.
Is a move more cost effective?
Potentially. If we use the UWE as the guide at the time and our debt pre ALQ's.
Cost of land was negotiated at £1m per acre (24 acres) with 150 year lease on the freehold with a renegotiation clause after 5 years. Cost of build £25m for basic stadium build. £2m fit out costs for exec boxes and bars. Debt at the time was around £7m. Total £58m.
£6m grant available from the FA for new stadia build. Recouped costs for supermarket, creche and other facilities were estimated at £10m. Sale of Mem site £30m.
Leaves £12m hole to fill. The sponsorship, conferencing facilities and match day revenues were estimated to fill that gap inside 3 years as well as tapping in to the potential of campus based students increasing our attendances, thus increasing our revenue.
On those basic figures a new stadium certainly makes sense. We would be in less debt with a much better property to return. If that stadium had been built which coincided with our rapid rise to L1, who knows where, as a club, we may have been. You could lay some of the blame at the door of Higgs/our lawyers for not making the contract watertight but equal blame lays at the feet of the ALQs for not running with it. The whole reason Micheal Cunnah was employed on our board of directors was because it was him who contacted Hamer, who introduced the ALQ's. Cunnah could see the vision and the opportunity to build it and make it work.
Problem we now have is finding another 25 acre or so site to build that kind of opportunity again. Will that happen in Bristol? Certainly not within our home boundaries (which was one of the reasons for not going to the UWE according to our President), simply because, there isn't the site available.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,619
|
Post by eppinggas on Mar 7, 2019 11:31:53 GMT
In response, I would concur with Chewbacca.
"If you ain't having a s***, get off the pot".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 11:50:06 GMT
I keep going on about it but the real issue stems from the complete lack of investment in the Mem post-1997. Every improvement has been paid for buy us and successive boards have let the club down in that aspect. The lack of investment in our home since the purchase 22 years ago is utterly shameful.
|
|
