|
|
Post by badbloodash on Jul 15, 2019 22:05:48 GMT
No, because he has no answer to the financial problems that are piling up, and plays the fool - which he no doubt is. So, has Wael blocked the latest rumour of a future so bright that our corneas will be damaged? Your opinion mate or something you’ve been told .?wont be the first man to go from hero to villain r |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920 
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 16, 2019 11:56:19 GMT
Are we back to Wael blocking takeovers and consortiums again?
How does he managed this when people tell us Hani controls the money and Wael is only one of the owners, who presumably can be outvoted?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2019 12:38:28 GMT
Are we back to Wael blocking takeovers and consortiums again? How does he managed this when people tell us Hani controls the money and Wael is only one of the owners, who presumably can be outvoted? Oh stop it, being all sensible and exposing the BS that Knowall/Fanatical has been spouting for years. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 16, 2019 13:30:38 GMT
Are we back to Wael blocking takeovers and consortiums again? How does he managed this when people tell us Hani controls the money and Wael is only one of the owners, who presumably can be outvoted? Because Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd and Bristol Rovers FC are two separate companies. Hani will only be interested in Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd because that company owns the Mem and so long as the loan secured against the Mem was performing (interest accruing) and the loan didn't exceed the value of the asset he would have been relatively content. But as the loan reaches the value of the asset he will clearly want to cash it in to prevent a loss on the deal done in 2016. What happens to Bristol Rovers FC will not be of major concern to Hani. If a developer is offering a deal on the Mem, wants the football club, can build us a new stadium and take us forward but doesn't want Wael then that is a good deal for Rovers but not a good one for Wael. So if another developer is offering the same deal on the Mem but doesn't want the football club then Hani will presumably go for that option because it gives his brother what he wants with no financial disadvantage to the Al-Qadi family. Which is the scenario I painted in an earlier post where Wael, as sole 92% owner of the football club, works with the Council and encourages fans to crowdfund in order to get a modest rented stadium for the club. And with him using the same management technique we have witnessed over the past 3 1/2 years Rovers will soon be lurching from crisis to crisis with that "potential" we like to talk about finally disappearing for ever. |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 16, 2019 13:56:35 GMT
Are we back to Wael blocking takeovers and consortiums again? How does he managed this when people tell us Hani controls the money and Wael is only one of the owners, who presumably can be outvoted? Because Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd and Bristol Rovers FC are two separate companies. Hani will only be interested in Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd because that company owns the Mem and so long as the loan secured against the Mem was performing (interest accruing) and the loan didn't exceed the value of the asset he would have been relatively content. But as the loan reaches the value of the asset he will clearly want to cash it in to prevent a loss on the deal done in 2016. What happens to Bristol Rovers FC will not be of major concern to Hani. If a developer is offering a deal on the Mem, wants the football club, can build us a new stadium and take us forward but doesn't want Wael then that is a good deal for Rovers but not a good one for Wael. So if another developer is offering the same deal on the Mem but doesn't want the football club then Hani will presumably go for that option because it gives his brother what he wants with no financial disadvantage to the Al-Qadi family. Which is the scenario I painted in an earlier post where Wael, as sole 92% owner of the football club, works with the Council and encourages fans to crowdfund in order to get a modest rented stadium for the club. And with him using the same management technique we have witnessed over the past 3 1/2 years Rovers will soon be lurching from crisis to crisis with that "potential" we like to talk about finally disappearing for ever. ok. so let me reframe the question then
Who is lining up to take on a FC with ZERO assets?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2019 14:17:14 GMT
Are we back to Wael blocking takeovers and consortiums again? How does he managed this when people tell us Hani controls the money and Wael is only one of the owners, who presumably can be outvoted? Because Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd and Bristol Rovers FC are two separate companies. Hani will only be interested in Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd because that company owns the Mem and so long as the loan secured against the Mem was performing (interest accruing) and the loan didn't exceed the value of the asset he would have been relatively content. But as the loan reaches the value of the asset he will clearly want to cash it in to prevent a loss on the deal done in 2016.
What happens to Bristol Rovers FC will not be of major concern to Hani. If a developer is offering a deal on the Mem, wants the football club, can build us a new stadium and take us forward but doesn't want Wael then that is a good deal for Rovers but not a good one for Wael. So if another developer is offering the same deal on the Mem but doesn't want the football club then Hani will presumably go for that option because it gives his brother what he wants with no financial disadvantage to the Al-Qadi family. Which is the scenario I painted in an earlier post where Wael, as sole 92% owner of the football club, works with the Council and encourages fans to crowdfund in order to get a modest rented stadium for the club. And with him using the same management technique we have witnessed over the past 3 1/2 years Rovers will soon be lurching from crisis to crisis with that "potential" we like to talk about finally disappearing for ever. Don't get this at all. In what sane world are company owners passive until liabilities exceed asset value? Every £ lost reduces the nett worth of the investment. OK, we've sent Gorringe off to ask customers if they want pasties hotter or colder or some other meaningless tripe, but what's been done to deal with the losses? If anything, based on what's been said on here, they seem to be accelerating. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 16, 2019 14:19:59 GMT
Because Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd and Bristol Rovers FC are two separate companies. Hani will only be interested in Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd because that company owns the Mem and so long as the loan secured against the Mem was performing (interest accruing) and the loan didn't exceed the value of the asset he would have been relatively content. But as the loan reaches the value of the asset he will clearly want to cash it in to prevent a loss on the deal done in 2016. What happens to Bristol Rovers FC will not be of major concern to Hani. If a developer is offering a deal on the Mem, wants the football club, can build us a new stadium and take us forward but doesn't want Wael then that is a good deal for Rovers but not a good one for Wael. So if another developer is offering the same deal on the Mem but doesn't want the football club then Hani will presumably go for that option because it gives his brother what he wants with no financial disadvantage to the Al-Qadi family. Which is the scenario I painted in an earlier post where Wael, as sole 92% owner of the football club, works with the Council and encourages fans to crowdfund in order to get a modest rented stadium for the club. And with him using the same management technique we have witnessed over the past 3 1/2 years Rovers will soon be lurching from crisis to crisis with that "potential" we like to talk about finally disappearing for ever. ok. so let me reframe the question then
Who is lining up to take on a FC with ZERO assets?
I don't really understand the question PP. A lot of people take on a football club knowing there are no assets only liabilities and do so because they see potential and relish the challenge of trying to fulfill it. They are willing to risk their own surplus cash on following a dream and accept that if it all goes belly up they lose their money and will have to pass the club on for someone else to have a try. |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 16, 2019 14:27:54 GMT
ok. so let me reframe the question then
Who is lining up to take on a FC with ZERO assets?
I don't really understand the question PP. A lot of people take on a football club knowing there are no assets only liabilities and do so because they see potential and relish the challenge of trying to fulfill it. They are willing to risk their own surplus cash on following a dream and accept that if it all goes belly up they lose their money and will have to pass the club on for someone else to have a try. Yes there are mad people that do
maybe I should rephrase the question again slightly.
What are the names of these real people that Wael is preventing taking over a FC with no assets and potentially no revenue creation?
|
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 16, 2019 14:29:35 GMT
Because Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd and Bristol Rovers FC are two separate companies. Hani will only be interested in Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd because that company owns the Mem and so long as the loan secured against the Mem was performing (interest accruing) and the loan didn't exceed the value of the asset he would have been relatively content. But as the loan reaches the value of the asset he will clearly want to cash it in to prevent a loss on the deal done in 2016.
What happens to Bristol Rovers FC will not be of major concern to Hani. If a developer is offering a deal on the Mem, wants the football club, can build us a new stadium and take us forward but doesn't want Wael then that is a good deal for Rovers but not a good one for Wael. So if another developer is offering the same deal on the Mem but doesn't want the football club then Hani will presumably go for that option because it gives his brother what he wants with no financial disadvantage to the Al-Qadi family. Which is the scenario I painted in an earlier post where Wael, as sole 92% owner of the football club, works with the Council and encourages fans to crowdfund in order to get a modest rented stadium for the club. And with him using the same management technique we have witnessed over the past 3 1/2 years Rovers will soon be lurching from crisis to crisis with that "potential" we like to talk about finally disappearing for ever. Don't get this at all. In what sane world are company owners passive until liabilities exceed asset value? Every £ lost reduces the nett worth of the investment. OK, we've sent Gorringe off to ask customers if they want pasties hotter or colder or some other meaningless tripe, but what's been done to deal with the losses? If anything, based on what's been said on here, they seem to be accelerating. Wael explained all this at the beginning. It was an incredible deal he said, we got the club (and the stadium land) through debt absorption. So what he meant was that he could try his hand at running a football club and it wouldn't cost a penny until the debt absorbed had increased to the level of the asset value which it is probably close to doing now. If Dwane Sports Ltd had been property developers of course they wouldn't have carried on with a loss making football club. They would have developed the site as quickly as possible and turned in a handy profit. But they were set up as a vehicle to provide Wael with an outlet for his football fantasies so they have been content with steady interest accrual as their return on investment. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2019 14:41:17 GMT
Don't get this at all. In what sane world are company owners passive until liabilities exceed asset value? Every £ lost reduces the nett worth of the investment. OK, we've sent Gorringe off to ask customers if they want pasties hotter or colder or some other meaningless tripe, but what's been done to deal with the losses? If anything, based on what's been said on here, they seem to be accelerating. Wael explained all this at the beginning. It was an incredible deal he said, we got the club (and the stadium land) through debt absorption. So what he meant was that he could try his hand at running a football club and it wouldn't cost a penny until the debt absorbed had increased to the level of the asset value which it is probably close to doing now. If Dwane Sports Ltd had been property developers of course they wouldn't have carried on with a loss making football club. They would have developed the site as quickly as possible and turned in a handy profit. But they were set up as a vehicle to provide Wael with an outlet for his football fantasies so they have been content with steady interest accrual as their return on investment. Sorry but that makes no sense. So, the explanation is that £10 earned through interest justifies losing £20 running the show. Is it just me or would only a complete moron run a company in that way? |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 16, 2019 14:52:18 GMT
I don't really understand the question PP. A lot of people take on a football club knowing there are no assets only liabilities and do so because they see potential and relish the challenge of trying to fulfill it. They are willing to risk their own surplus cash on following a dream and accept that if it all goes belly up they lose their money and will have to pass the club on for someone else to have a try. Yes there are mad people that do
maybe I should rephrase the question again slightly.
What are the names of these real people that Wael is preventing taking over a FC with no assets and potentially no revenue creation?
I don't know names and my posts are speculation but I hope you will agree there is reasoning and logic behind them. Regarding revenue creation. I think it is generally accepted, and Nick Higgs used to talk about it a lot, that "an enabling development" is often the key to the viability of sports stadium construction. A local authority will look kindly on plans for ambitious commercial development when they include provision for facilities which are beneficial to the community. So a developer or group of developers may see advantages in building a stadium but they will need a sports club to play there to make it work financially. And, as we see at Ashton Gate, once you have a modern stadium you can develop those infamous seven day a week revenue streams. Wael has had 3 1/2 years to put himself in a position where developers would be falling over themselves to bring him on board. "We like your style" "You've done a great job of turning that club around" " Come and join us". But he hasn't has he ? He's fooled around with fans, his communication has been infrequent and incoherent and he's financially mismanaged the club to the point where we are making 3 million pa losses. It would hardly be surprising if a developer preferred not to have Wael on board. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 16, 2019 15:00:26 GMT
Wael explained all this at the beginning. It was an incredible deal he said, we got the club (and the stadium land) through debt absorption. So what he meant was that he could try his hand at running a football club and it wouldn't cost a penny until the debt absorbed had increased to the level of the asset value which it is probably close to doing now. If Dwane Sports Ltd had been property developers of course they wouldn't have carried on with a loss making football club. They would have developed the site as quickly as possible and turned in a handy profit. But they were set up as a vehicle to provide Wael with an outlet for his football fantasies so they have been content with steady interest accrual as their return on investment. Sorry but that makes no sense. So, the explanation is that £10 earned through interest justifies losing £20 running the show. Is it just me or would only a complete moron run a company in that way? But they won't have lost anything in running the show. Initial 7.2 million to repay the previous board and MSP Capital Further say 8.3 million to cover trading losses (running the show) excluding interest Interest say 2.0 million Total 17.5 million Mem sold for 17.5 million and loan of 17.5 million repaid |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 16, 2019 15:52:16 GMT
Yes there are mad people that do
maybe I should rephrase the question again slightly.
What are the names of these real people that Wael is preventing taking over a FC with no assets and potentially no revenue creation?
I don't know names and my posts are speculation but I hope you will agree there is reasoning and logic behind them. Regarding revenue creation. I think it is generally accepted, and Nick Higgs used to talk about it a lot, that "an enabling development" is often the key to the viability of sports stadium construction. A local authority will look kindly on plans for ambitious commercial development when they include provision for facilities which are beneficial to the community. So a developer or group of developers may see advantages in building a stadium but they will need a sports club to play there to make it work financially. And, as we see at Ashton Gate, once you have a modern stadium you can develop those infamous seven day a week revenue streams. Wael has had 3 1/2 years to put himself in a position where developers would be falling over themselves to bring him on board. "We like your style" "You've done a great job of turning that club around" " Come and join us". But he hasn't has he ? He's fooled around with fans, his communication has been infrequent and incoherent and he's financially mismanaged the club to the point where we are making 3 million pa losses. It would hardly be surprising if a developer preferred not to have Wael on board. I understand your hypothesis, but that is all it is a hypothesis, but feel we are talkinga long parallel lines
You are basically saying Wael is incapable (he may well be)
I am asking the real question (regardless of Wael's capabiliies) which is what/how is or how has Wael actually very really stopped anything as a mere 25% of Dwane Sports
|
|
|
|
Post by badbloodash on Jul 16, 2019 15:56:41 GMT
Sorry but that makes no sense. So, the explanation is that £10 earned through interest justifies losing £20 running the show. Is it just me or would only a complete moron run a company in that way? But they won't have lost anything in running the show. Initial 7.2 million to repay the previous board and MSP Capital Further say 8.3 million to cover trading losses (running the show) excluding interest Interest say 2.0 million Total 17.5 million Mem sold for 17.5 million and loan of 17.5 million repaid I think we are all missing something here bristol city council could in theory block any development of the site and maybe even put something in place to state it must be a sports facility and I don’t think Marvin and co would relish the thought of the gas dying on their watch and Hani and co could have a very expensive white elephant let’s hope it doesn’t come to that time will tell UTG |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2019 16:59:02 GMT
Wael hugs tom nichols.
Total guesswork and speculation thread restarts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2019 18:38:18 GMT
Total guesswork and speculation thread restarts. The Total Guesswork and Speculation thread is a vital component of the Guzzler, Bluesky. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2019 22:19:41 GMT
Sorry but that makes no sense. So, the explanation is that £10 earned through interest justifies losing £20 running the show. Is it just me or would only a complete moron run a company in that way? But they won't have lost anything in running the show. Initial 7.2 million to repay the previous board and MSP Capital Further say 8.3 million to cover trading losses (running the show) excluding interest Interest say 2.0 million Total 17.5 million Mem sold for 17.5 million and loan of 17.5 million repaid I think you have been out in the sun  They had the equity in the stadium, it was there, realisable, now most of it is will need to be used to cover trading losses. That looks like a loss to me. This is beginning to feel a bit like trying to discuss actually running a business, rather than just reading a book about it, with our dear friend Oldie. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2019 22:23:23 GMT
Wael hugs Tom Nichols. Total guesswork and speculation thread restarts. It's not all guesswork. The losses are itemised in the accounts. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2019 22:49:32 GMT
This is beginning to feel a bit like trying to discuss actually running a business, rather than just reading a book about it, with our dear friend Oldie. The Guzzler needs Lesley back. Last I heard he was cheating on us over there. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 17, 2019 0:16:37 GMT
I don't know names and my posts are speculation but I hope you will agree there is reasoning and logic behind them. Regarding revenue creation. I think it is generally accepted, and Nick Higgs used to talk about it a lot, that "an enabling development" is often the key to the viability of sports stadium construction. A local authority will look kindly on plans for ambitious commercial development when they include provision for facilities which are beneficial to the community. So a developer or group of developers may see advantages in building a stadium but they will need a sports club to play there to make it work financially. And, as we see at Ashton Gate, once you have a modern stadium you can develop those infamous seven day a week revenue streams. Wael has had 3 1/2 years to put himself in a position where developers would be falling over themselves to bring him on board. "We like your style" "You've done a great job of turning that club around" " Come and join us". But he hasn't has he ? He's fooled around with fans, his communication has been infrequent and incoherent and he's financially mismanaged the club to the point where we are making 3 million pa losses. It would hardly be surprising if a developer preferred not to have Wael on board. I understand your hypothesis, but that is all it is a hypothesis, but feel we are talkinga long parallel lines
You are basically saying Wael is incapable (he may well be)
I am asking the real question (regardless of Wael's capabiliies) which is what/how is or how has Wael actually very really stopped anything as a mere 25% of Dwane Sports
Two developers want to buy the Mem, both offer the same price but as part of the deal one wants the football club and has the means to take it forward and provide a new stadium. This is in Rovers best interests but not Wael’s so understandably from the Al Qadi family standpoint they take the other deal which leaves Wael with the football club. Wael says ways he wants to act in the best interests of the football club and Nick Higgs spoke along similar lines. But at the end of the day most people act in what they perceive as their own interests. I would not be at all surprised if Nick had approaches from people who were far better placed than the Al Qadi family, financially and skill wise, to take Rovers forward but these people were not offering such generous compensation to the Rovers shareholders. We may be in a situation now where Wael could say “I’ve had a go and it hasn’t worked out so let someone with a better chance than me take over the club” If he did that he might be legitimately classed as a passionate Gashead with the club’s best interests at heart. |
|
