How much more can we take? The last four years of drift...

I missed it, offensive to who?   I posted quite a balanced opinion surely?   Specifically, over 18 months regulars have left the team, new guys have come into the squad, and now teams not performing at the level it was.  And for that the blame is pretty much shared round, 2 managers, recruitment team, players, board.   

With the Garner comment, just ring fencing from start of this season up to his sacking, not a great amount of wins, but many of the draws deserved more on the day.  he persisted with similar formation, personnel and method of playing, after Doncaster debacle bounced back in October showing composure organisation to get the ball down and play out from the back. Tinkering personnel, shape and tactic game by game, players won’t be familiarising with shape and tactic, which will take some degree off every performance until somethings become familiar.   

more than happy to engage in respectful constructive debate on both those paragraphs.        

 

I think you do a disservice to the professional competencies and experience of Karim, Tom, Martyn etc. The phrase “streets ahead” is certainly not one I would use to describe Steve Hamer over Martyn Starnes, that’s for sure. What did Turner, Cunnah, Atkins even do anyway? They lurked in the shadows, I like how people like Tom Gorringe are more accessible and have more clearly defined roles, it’s easier to hold them to account that way.

See I find your argument confusing, you blame Wael’s record of financial failure over his five year period as Club president and trumpet the likes of Cunnah, Atkins, Turner, Hamer as fonts of experience and wisdom, yet most of this so called financial failure happened when they sat on the board, from 2016 onwards until the new lot came in was the period when we were racking up the most debts. In fact, before the pandemic got in the way, we were on course to cut our financial shortfalls with the likes of Starnes and Gorringe in charge.

A mistake is not what I’d describe the Al Qadi takeover in 2016, not from my stand point as a supporter any way. Our managers have been well backed, we’re substantially debt free, the largest infrastructure the club has undertaken in decades is already well under way. I doubt Wael would consider it a mistake either given the passion he’s developed for the club during that time. I’m not painting Hani as a bad guy either, I’m just trying to argue that just because Wael runs things differently, it doesn’t mean he’s necessarily taking the wrong approach.

You know want to know why I think the fan base isn’t critical of the so called root causes as you’d like them to be? I think it’s because they don’t have a big need to. Things aren’t great on the pitch at the moment sure and Wael has definitely made a few mistakes along the way, but it’s part of the parcel of running a football club. We had bad spells under the Dunfords, we certainly had bad spells under Higgs. As long as the managers are continue to be backed and as long as the board know when is right for a change in manager, such as with Garner a few months ago, things will improve eventually. Off the pitch, apart from the pandemic which even the Uniteds and the Liverpools of this world are struggling with, we haven’t been in a stronger position for quite some time.

I think you do a disservice to the professional competencies and experience of Karim, Tom, Martyn etc. The phrase “streets ahead” is certainly not one I would use to describe Steve Hamer over Martyn Starnes, that’s for sure. What did Turner, Cunnah, Atkins even do anyway? They lurked in the shadows, I like how people like Tom Gorringe are more accessible and have more clearly defined roles, it’s easier to hold them to account that way.

See I find your argument confusing, you blame Wael’s record of financial failure over his five year period as Club president and trumpet the likes of Cunnah, Atkins, Turner, Hamer as fonts of experience and wisdom, yet most of this so called financial failure happened when they sat on the board, from 2016 onwards until the new lot came in was the period when we were racking up the most debts. In fact, before the pandemic got in the way, we were on course to cut our financial shortfalls with the likes of Starnes and Gorringe in charge.

A mistake is not what I’d describe the Al Qadi takeover in 2016, not from my stand point as a supporter any way. Our managers have been well backed, we’re substantially debt free, the largest infrastructure the club has undertaken in decades is already well under way. I doubt Wael would consider it a mistake either given the passion he’s developed for the club during that time. I’m not painting Hani as a bad guy either, I’m just trying to argue that just because Wael runs things differently, it doesn’t mean he’s necessarily taking the wrong approach.

You know want to know why I think the fan base isn’t critical of the so called root causes as you’d like them to be? I think it’s because they don’t have a big need to. Things aren’t great on the pitch at the moment sure and Wael has definitely made a few mistakes along the way, but it’s part of the parcel of running a football club. We had bad spells under the Dunfords, we certainly had bad spells under Higgs. As long as the managers are continue to be backed and as long as the board know when is right for a change in manager, such as with Garner a few months ago, things will improve eventually. Off the pitch, apart from the pandemic which even the Uniteds and the Liverpools of this world are struggling with, we haven’t been in a stronger position for quite some time.

Ok what started as a simple post has prompted more questions than I thought! I was simply posting to back up what others had said about options that have been open to the club.
We are now where we are and I can’t and won’t go into details about the wider scheme. I wish I could as my life would be much easier but hopefully the fact I have put my name on here provides some comfort that I’m not an attention seeker / pretend ITK.
The bottom line is the further time passes the less likely it becomes that Rovers can be involved (that is a fact and not an intended bargaining tool).
I don’t have any kind of platform to speak from other than on here but having considered the situation carefully over the last 24 hours i think it’s best to look at a way forward rather than dwell on where we have been and my opinions on why we haven’t got any progress.
The club know who I am and have a good knowledge of what we are trying to achieve. Its very exciting and as a long standing and very passionate Gas Head I could not rest easy knowing that I didn’t do absolutely everything in my power to try and include Bristol Rovers in the wider scheme.
My passion for Bristol Rovers often gets the better of me and in hindsight putting my name on a public forum was maybe not the shrewdest move but sometimes as I said my passion gets the better of me.
This has to be my last post otherwise the situation will just snowball with questions that I can’t answer however I hope my decision to put my name to this results in a positive way forward.
So come on Rovers, re engage with me and we can see if there is a way forward. If not that’s fine but let’s at least see. UTG.

Seriously?

Trying to get some kind of partnership involving a £100m stadium / complex build established with a few posts on a 3rd rate forum?

Best clear your desk, the portfolios from J.P. Morgan and Credit Suisse will be rolling in for your consideration.

Honestly, I despair...

Interesting view on Gorringe, most people aspire to work or play one day for a club in the Premier League, the pinnacle of their career. Gorringe left Brighton in the Premier League with a spanking newish stadium to come and work for a mid table Division 1 side playing in a dilapidated rugby ground. A backward career move if there ever was one, you couldn't see Graham Potter leaving Brighton for Newport County under his own volition.

Oh my post is confusing?

Firstly, I have no idea why you think that before Gorringe arrived losses were hovering around the £200k mark? To give you a picture of what they actually were for a few of the years prior to Gorringe’s appointment in late 2017. 

2010: (1,079,843)
2011: (1,267,207)
2012: (704,020)
2013: (876,720)
2014: (648,845)
2015: (704,020)
2016: (751,001)
2017: (1,301,471)

That covers all kinds of seasons, not just promotion/relegation ones.

I think there is still lots of work to go of course, but credit to Gorringe for helping us post what I believe is our highest ever turnover of £6,461,681 in the latest accounts and I do think they were making a step in the right direction before the pandemic was hit as they were hoping to cut spending by £1.7 million according to Starnes. I believe Gorringe’s job as commercial director is to grow revenue rather than dictate spending, which he has done?

Debt free. Yes we are. BRFC no longer owes BRFC 1883 LTD anything as the previous dept has been capitalised into shares. Regardless of whether you believe the merits of converting debt into equity are good ones, the fact remains that BRFC are debt free, they don’t have to pay any interest on the previous outstanding debt, that was paid off by Wael and there is no risk of the club going into liquidation if Wael was ever going to try to enforce repayment. What money is now owed, the shares satisfy the debt? It makes the club harder to sell down the line sure, but if Wael really wants to sell the club he could always convert equity back into debt and write it off himself.

We weren’t in a better place before Wael arrived. We had a costly wonga loan taken out to fund a costly court case that we were never going to win. Debts were mounting, up to 8 million by June 2015. Why do you think Higgs sold up in 2016? We are now building a new training ground, have a well funded L1 squad, have better income streams such as Gorringe’s idea to keep to keep the 1883 sponsorship draw running but sell the main prize independently. There’s no chance, I’d want the club to go back to being run by Higgs.

It’s good if the club decides to cut it’s spending and become more sustainable, which is what it was trying to do before the COVID pandemic hit. Do you not think the the current board have a business plan? The attempts made to increase turnover would suggest they do.

I’m not the one making the claims that the club is less secure for converting debt into equity, you did that in your original post. You have no idea what Wael’s long term intentions are either so the point is moot, I was just coming from a general business perspective that if a business no longer paying interest on debt or have large amounts of debt liable at some point to enforcement, it tends to be a bit more secure at least in the short term. That’s why capitalisation exists as a business practice, usually as a way for firms to avoid bankruptcy.

The charge on the stadium means the owners could take the stadium in exchange for the debt, as I said, the debt is no more so at this point this becomes little more than an irrelevancy. It could gain importance in the future but honestly it would be counterproductive to activate a charge on the clubs most valuable asset, it would dramatically decrease the value of the club to potential investors.

So you admit that the MSP loan ploy failed regardless of intention. Do you still think the club was more secure back then? I honestly think we were heading for massive trouble regardless of the on the pitch success.

You think that sustained increased losses sat behind increased turnover is good. OK, if you say so. There's a difference between a business plan (1) and an Excel spread sheet. The former comes with a method to deliver. 

You have no idea what mechanism either the previous board may have chosen collectively or Wael individually may employ should he elect to attempt to recoup his investment, so have zero basis on which to claim that the club is any more or less secure than it previously was (2). But what we do now know is that there's a charge on the stadium.

Ref the MSP Capital loan, as I've said at least 10 times on this forum, my reading of that situation is that Higgs personally was well placed to fund that legal action and the loan was a tactic designed to put pressure on Sainsbury's (3). It failed. But we agree that pursuing the court case was silly at best.