Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 12:24:51 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. I guess the intention was always to move in which case you could sorta understand not ploughing money into the mem...problem is the mem has become the most permanent temporary home in human history and will stay that way for most of our lifetimes if not all. |
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 7, 2019 12:32:11 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. I guess the intention was always to move in which case you could sorta understand not ploughing money into the mem...problem is the mem has become the most permanent temporary home in human history and will stay that way for most of our lifetimes if not all. il n'y a que le provisoire qui dure |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 12:36:22 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. I guess the intention was always to move in which case you could sorta understand not ploughing money into the mem...problem is the mem has become the most permanent temporary home in human history and will stay that way for most of our lifetimes if not all. Well, I'm personally looking forward to celebrating the 20th Anniversary of the South Stand next season. Absolutely incredible. |
|
|
|
Post by Colyton Gas. on Mar 7, 2019 13:10:35 GMT
 Do you think our Board get embarrassed when they visit other clubs all of whom are seemingly making progress? No-one else has one tent let alone three!!!! Every August at our first home game I look around and wonder what structural changes will have taken place in the next twelve months but nothing of consequence ever happens. The total lack of anything isn't helped by the 'Confidentiality'nonsense compounded by,comments about consultation with leading world renowned experts' on Stadium design etc .Remember when UWE was still on we were hoping to have a webcam to see it progressing.Not sure how long the lack of any progress can be allowed to go on without the EFL stepping in but if we go down I will despair about our ability or desire to recover. |
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372 
|
Post by irishrover on Mar 7, 2019 13:40:06 GMT
Do you think our Board get embarrassed when they visit other clubs all of whom are seemingly making progress? No-one else has one tent let alone three!!!! Every August at our first home game I look around and wonder what structural changes will have taken place in the next twelve months but nothing of consequence ever happens. The total lack of anything isn't helped by the 'Confidentiality'nonsense compounded by,comments about consultation with leading world renowned experts' on Stadium design etc .Remember when UWE was still on we were hoping to have a webcam to see it progressing.Not sure how long the lack of any progress can be allowed to go on without the EFL stepping in but if we go down I will despair about our ability or desire to recover. Personally I thought the new family stand was a very good addition to ground and I'm sure the one family that can fit in it have seen a considerable improvement to their matchday experience..... |
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on Mar 7, 2019 13:49:45 GMT
Don't forget the bit of land they sold off for housing...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 14:26:10 GMT
View AttachmentDo you think our Board get embarrassed when they visit other clubs all of whom are seemingly making progress? No-one else has one tent let alone three!!!! Every August at our first home game I look around and wonder what structural changes will have taken place in the next twelve months but nothing of consequence ever happens. The total lack of anything isn't helped by the 'Confidentiality'nonsense compounded by,comments about consultation with leading world renowned experts' on Stadium design etc .Remember when UWE was still on we were hoping to have a webcam to see it progressing.Not sure how long the lack of any progress can be allowed to go on without the EFL stepping in but if we go down I will despair about our ability or desire to recover. The webcam comment reminds me of when I was working at Brighton University and from the window we could see them starting work on the land at the far end of what is now the Amex stadium. The building I was working in was roughly where the centre circle would be. That seems like a lifetime ago and what have Rovers built in that time? A tent and a lick of paint in the bogs. I can think of other fanbases that would have mutinied long before now yet Rovers fans docilely accept a pat on the head whilst they open another pack of lies. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 15:19:51 GMT
Don't forget the bit of land they sold off for housing... The old rugby club sold it, Rovers received the money. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 15:23:02 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.Good to see that the rebuild cost of the Mem has fallen nearly 30% since 2006. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 15:32:30 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.I know exactly where this information has come from and I’ve heard that last paragraph recently. It’s where we are and I don’t think anybody knows the future. Unless we here anything positive from the horses mouth in the near future then I share Swissgas’s pessimism and note his warnings. |
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Mar 7, 2019 16:20:19 GMT
Higgs gave a lot away to UWE in terms of revenue from the car park and food nd drink outlets. Also Rovers had to provide a creche, study rooms and jogging track for students to use. Plus they would not sell that land, and the stadium had to be named The UWE Community Stadium, and that is why Rovers pulled out. Like May, Higgs deal gave too much away
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 16:23:25 GMT
Higgs gave a lot away to UWE in terms of revenue from the car park and food nd drink outlets. Also Rovers had to provide a creche, study rooms and jogging track for students to use. Plus they would not sell that land, and the stadium had to be named The UWE Community Stadium, and that is why Rovers pulled out. Like May, Higgs deal gave too much away *Could not. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 16:53:15 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.Good to see that the rebuild cost of the Mem has fallen nearly 30% since 2006. Even on those figures, which are all rounded favourably (example, Sainsbury's deal wasn't £30m, it was just over £28m, also ignored is the MSP loan which existed when the new owners arrived) but even on these figures, £12m over 3 years would require an additional £11,000 per-day nett 365 days just to stand still. But of course it's not that because whoever put that £12m up would be looking for a return, of course. I know it's tempting to just round £28.5 into £30, but we are talking about millions of pounds here, it's not as if we are letting the bloke in the kebab shop off of giving us 50p back because he's run out of change. No mention either of any interest or return for whoever it is that has the other £38m (rising) ''invested''. Can't remember exactly, but a figure of £5m was being mentioned at the time for fitting out, not £2m, we were all asking each other where that £5m was coming from? I'm not sure about those numbers quoted above at all. It all looks like wishful thinking to try to make a point. Wish Mike was here, he'd work it out in about 10 seconds. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 18:48:57 GMT
Good to see that the rebuild cost of the Mem has fallen nearly 30% since 2006. Even on those figures, which are all rounded favourably (example, Sainsbury's deal wasn't £30m, it was just over £28m, also ignored is the MSP loan which existed when the new owners arrived) but even on these figures, £12m over 3 years would require an additional £11,000 per-day nett 365 days just to stand still. But of course it's not that because whoever put that £12m up would be looking for a return, of course. I know it's tempting to just round £28.5 into £30, but we are talking about millions of pounds here, it's not as if we are letting the bloke in the kebab shop off of giving us 50p back because he's run out of change. No mention either of any interest or return for whoever it is that has the other £38m (rising) ''invested''. Can't remember exactly, but a figure of £5m was being mentioned at the time for fitting out, not £2m, we were all asking each other where that £5m was coming from? I'm not sure about those numbers quoted above at all. It all looks like wishful thinking to try to make a point. Wish Mike was here, he'd work it out in about 10 seconds. Nick, “It’s going to cost £35m” Mike “It ain’t going to get f****** built then” Nick, “But we could get it done for £25m” Rolling of heads, sniggering and total bewilderment. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 19:03:36 GMT
Even on those figures, which are all rounded favourably (example, Sainsbury's deal wasn't £30m, it was just over £28m, also ignored is the MSP loan which existed when the new owners arrived) but even on these figures, £12m over 3 years would require an additional £11,000 per-day nett 365 days just to stand still. But of course it's not that because whoever put that £12m up would be looking for a return, of course. I know it's tempting to just round £28.5 into £30, but we are talking about millions of pounds here, it's not as if we are letting the bloke in the kebab shop off of giving us 50p back because he's run out of change. No mention either of any interest or return for whoever it is that has the other £38m (rising) ''invested''. Can't remember exactly, but a figure of £5m was being mentioned at the time for fitting out, not £2m, we were all asking each other where that £5m was coming from? I'm not sure about those numbers quoted above at all. It all looks like wishful thinking to try to make a point. Wish Mike was here, he'd work it out in about 10 seconds. Nick, “It’s going to cost £35m” Mike “It ain’t going to get f****** built then” Nick, “But we could get it done for £25m” Rolling of heads, sniggering and total bewilderment. Hmmm. Let's assess the evidence. In one corner we have a bloke who inherited a company and guessed right by selling at the right time. In the other we have a self made Man who creates SMEs for a pastime and just 'sees' numbers in a forensic way. Who should we go with do you think? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 20:24:48 GMT
Is anyone going to tell the uninformed who Mike is?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 21:04:25 GMT
Higgs gave a lot away to UWE in terms of revenue from the car park and food nd drink outlets. Also Rovers had to provide a creche, study rooms and jogging track for students to use. Plus they would not sell that land, and the stadium had to be named The UWE Community Stadium, and that is why Rovers pulled out. Like May, Higgs deal gave too much away That’s the excuse being swallowed. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 21:09:25 GMT
Is anyone going to tell the uninformed who Mike is? Ex director Mike Turl who worked on the Memorial Stadium regeneration project before he resigned in 2006. |
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 7, 2019 21:18:22 GMT
Higgs gave a lot away to UWE in terms of revenue from the car park and food nd drink outlets. Also Rovers had to provide a creche, study rooms and jogging track for students to use. Plus they would not sell that land, and the stadium had to be named The UWE Community Stadium, and that is why Rovers pulled out. Like May, Higgs deal gave too much away That’s the excuse being swallowed. What do you think is the truth philton? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 21:22:38 GMT
That’s the excuse being swallowed. What do you think is the truth philton? After listening to the old guard side of the argument a couple of weeks ago I would say lack of desire to go ahead with the scheme. Of course we haven’t heard the current owners side of why they pulled out to make a balanced view. |
|
