weeble

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

This tallies with what I was told in January, that Conygar had told Rovers that they had to let them know this year whether they wanted to be involved in the site, or not. 

Conygar are obviously keen to progress things, and have a number of viable development options for the site. One of which includes a new stadium.

The option agreement will apply a bit of time pressure to Rovers and other potential stakeholders. It'll flush out the timewasters, one of whom could certainly be Rovers; as their statement doesn't say much. 

A one year option is interesting, as there's no way they'll get planning permission through in Bristol in that time period. Yes, they can be extended, but one year feels a little light and non-committal for such a large development site. 

According to the Post, the requirement is that planning permission be applied for within a year, rather than granted within a year. That is a much less difficult target.

8 hours ago, Stortz said:

I'm old enough to remember back in the dim mists of time (2018), when the area around Temple Meads was deemed so utterly unsuitable for an arena that one had to be built by Rees's dodgy Malaysian mates in South Gloucestershire.

I wonder if the owner has seen the way the wind is blowing with the trial and wants to get out some good news sharpish- before his crazy decision to appoint Barton is shown up for the awful error of judgement it clearly is.

Yet another pipe dream imo.

Actually Marvin considered Temple Meads unsuitable, the planners who gave it permission and the intended arena operators (one of the world’s largest) did not. Marvin’s friends YTL, are building the arena in Bristol, if only by about 50m or so. 

Never seen that before. Nice to watch, apart from the result. Rovers’ keeper Dick Sheppard was never the same after his fractured skull. That was the last league game he ever played. Died at only 53 years of age.

1 minute ago, daored said:

@weeblecan’t believe you lost the ‘Windass Derby’ 

I can.

34 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Why the **** is a fewer on our forum when his own teams playing . Pathetic

It was half time and I needed something to take my mind off the impending second half!

6 hours ago, bert tann said:

 Rovers have started to use the magnificent new training ground at Almondsbury and Mr Al-Quidi has just announced through his Instagram account (36 million devotees) that it is to be named “The Quarter”.

I understand this is because only a quarter of it will ever be finished.

This would be the training ground that wasn’t going to be completed, because we were negotiating an extension to the lease at our previous base? The name is “The Quarters” by the way. I’m surprised a committed Rovers fan like yourself didn’t know that. 

7 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Not doubting what you've written Bert but if it's true that's most odd (and I've delivered a few major building projects in my time.)

For those who don't understand Bert's subtleties. In normal practice were the land on which the training facilities to stand be owned by Wael (not the club,) the club would enter into a pre-lease or service supply contract with the owner who, through their contractor, would have constructed the facility at their risk in accordance with Rovers requirements (Design & Build.) No funding for Cat A & B works is payable until the facility has practical completion and lease commenced, though CAT C & D may be paid prior to use (then such assets may be removed and used/sold elsewhere ) No freeholder in their right mind would allow somebody to construct on their land without guarantees of completion or reinstatement and the price of such indemnities render such proposals unaffordable to the end user. 

The club wouldn't have an issue in explaining why they needed to fund the 'lease or service cost' of Training and Development facilities as Cat A&B capital costs would be recouped by the owner over the length of the contract (unless the lessee has time restricted cash to flash and that needs some me explaining.) Nobody in their right mind would finance improvements in an asset over which they have no control.

One point I'd take issue with is the notion that monies currently expended are 'enhancing the value of the land'. One assumes Use Case Consent does not allow for construction other than that for the purpose stated and building consent approved (one assumes minor sporting premises.) In such case the quality of the grass matters little to a developer other than he'd have turf to sell prior to breaking it. Land value is intrinsically linked to Use Case Consent.

From the pictures I've seen whilst the pitches look great there's otherwise a shipping container (for the groundsman's equipment?) and a canvas marquee (in which the players are expected to change?) Not exactly tangible assets in my book....

 

It’s in the green belt and has permission for use as a sports training facility. It has a gym and will have changing rooms/offices within the next 6 months or so. Not exactly likely to cause a huge increase in value unless you know someone desperate to buy a football training ground.

19 hours ago, wendyredredrobin said:

So the new ground is a dead duck, the training ground is a tip and the current ground resembles a 1050s camp site. 

1950s camp site, I’ll give you. But 1050s?

4 hours ago, bert tann said:

The shares are 10p each so this new resolution allows the company to allot 4.95 million more shares.

In June Mr Al-Quidi said he had swapped the Dwane Sports loan for shares in BRFC 1883 Ltd, which had capitalised the loan, but he hadn't.

When eventually the Bristol Post was pressured into confronting the club about this false statement Mr Starnes response was that they first needed to have an AGM to pass a resolution to allot more shares.

The AGM took place on September 28th and the resolution was passed but no new shares have been allotted to Dwane Sports and the loan remains in place as does the charge over the Memorial Ground.

We constantly hear that Mr Al-Quidi has saved the club by capitalising the debt. 

But he hasn't.   

In six months time that would be a potential cause for worry. But not two weeks after the resolution was passed.

10 hours ago, Matthew me said:

Before my time, but my parents and grandparents often told me how they watched city one week and the gas the next. Apparently lots of people did it. 

Joking aside, were my family unique or was that more common place when football was the equivalent of £2 a ticket?

I can't imagine any circumstance in modern football where that would happen. 

Perhaps the tribal rivalry wasn't as intense back then?

The shared experience of the war years produced a lot of social cohesion that persisted probably into the sixties. The pathe news footage of Rovers v City games in the fifties doesn’t seem to show any fan segregation and games passed without trouble. I remember speaking to some people at Eastville who watched Rovers one week and City the next, something I can’t imagine doing.

While rivalry/banter between teams is part of being a football fan, the illogical vitriol that can be found on any of the football forums, towards people who enjoy the same sport and come from the same city, I have to say I find rather saddening.

2 hours ago, Gazred said:

Which player off of the conveyor belt of international footballers they've sold to the world are they referring to?

He’s referring to Rovers’ keeper, who was on the bench for Finland.

1 hour ago, Rich said:

Looks to me as if it's still about the other conditions imposed in November 2001. If not, why are they referred to?

Proposal

Discharge of condition 1 (materials) attached to planning permission PT16/4965/RVC. Erection of clubhouse, floodlights and store. Construction of vehicular and pedestrian access and car park. Removal of conditions 7 and 13 attached to planning permission PT01/2726/F dated 13.11.01, (which relate to building opening hours and the personal, non-professional and specific users of the site by Bristol Combination Trustees.)

Status

Awaiting decision

The original application in 2001 to convert the site to a rugby training centre, is the one being used. Sufficient progress was made at the time for the planners to consider it had been started and South Glos have confirmed it is still extant.

The PT16/4965/RVC is an application (in 2016), to change two of the conditions attached to the 2001 permission. One condition (no. 13) was to change the wording referring to Bristol Combination Trustees, as this was no longer relevant. The other (no. 7) limited the use of the site until after 6pm on school days. This was because in 2001, the planners were worried about the effect the extra traffic might have on the junction with the A38 during school hours. However in the meantime, the Hortham hospital site has been developed for housing, and the road improved and a traffic light controlled junction with the A38 installed as part of it. Therefore the condition was regarded as irrelevant and has been removed.

The remaining conditions generally refer to things that have to be completed before the buildings are used. It is normal practice to deal with these as the development proceeds. If you want to bore yourself silly, take a look at the BCC planning website, where you can find dozens of examples of planning conditions applied for, for buildings that are already underway.

I hope this is clear, if somewhat tedious.

3 minutes ago, Jim Davey said:

Bricks and roof tiles thats a first.

If only that wasn’t true ...

2 hours ago, Rich said:

It would appear that conditions are still in place from 13/11/01 and an application for their removal was received August 6th. Awaiting decision. Perhaps all is not as it would appear re the planning process. Surely the conditions would refer to a more recent application.

The August 6th application is to meet the condition on specifying the types of brick and roof tiles to be used. The two conditions asked to be removed have already been agreed. The other conditions are very straight forward and will not be an issue, however much BertTann apparently would like them to be.

10 minutes ago, bert tann said:

So you are sure no request has been made to extend the agreement with the current training centre venue till May 2021.

And you have heard of no communications taking place which have included the phrase “uncertainty over whether the Almondsbury Training Centre will be completed” ?

I have no idea whether a request has been made to extend the agreement with the current training centre. The  pitches at Almondsbury are already structurally complete. The first grass cut was yesterday.

As for the clubhouse building, architects are working through the planning conditions, which would seem to be a little odd if there is uncertainty over its completion.

1 hour ago, View from the Dolman said:

When a sheep is only worth marginally less than your club record signing...

 

Can it play up front?

1 hour ago, bert tann said:

 

Have Rovers asked to extend the current temporary training venue arrangement till May 2021 because construction of the four male changing rooms, four female changing rooms and lounge bar is running behind schedule ? 

The construction of the changing rooms isn't due to be finished until December (and that was always the case). As players are not recommended to share changing rooms at the moment where possible, because of Covid-19, we have the perfect excuse to ask them to turn up already changed.

The internal layout of the clubhouse has changed from the original rugby layout, so will not have the arrangement you describe.

2 hours ago, Rich said:

I was under the impression that there was a hold up with the local authority and some of the planning criteria not met. Therefore it wouldn't be useable until those conditions were met. 

Not that I’m aware of. It’s being constructed under an already existing planning permission. The only change Rovers asked for (and had approved), was that the training ground could be used during school hours - which wasn’t the case with the originally intended rugby pitches.

3 hours ago, daored said:

Which year ?

This one 

10 minutes ago, Rich said:

If they get an offer, he'll go. It's their only chance of income for months to come. Wael has tried to make out that he's been investing in the club, in an attempt to get on board with some serious players/developers. They can play hardball and make him sweat, that's if they're at all interested in having that club as tenants. In the mean time, he has to either put his own money in, or, generate some to keep them turning over. Their new manager/coach is probably realising about now, that he has to make do and mend, more than he thought. Wael of course has the benefit of being able to blame the covid situation for any financial problems. Why has the training ground come to a halt?

If we get a reasonable offer he'll be off. One year left on his contract and he hasn't signed the extension on offer. The training ground hasn't come to a halt, it's under construction. First pitch ready by September, second by October.

6 hours ago, bert tann said:

 

But does he own the club and Dwane Sports Ltd ?

Or is his family still in control ?

This is what was said on June 19th.

But the £ 18.4 million loan owed to Dwane Sports by Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd has not been capitalised. 

 

Firstly, Club President Wael Al Qadi has reached agreement for the acquisition of a controlling stake in our holding Company Dwane Sports from the other members of his family. This provides him with full control over Bristol Rovers (1883) Limited (BRFC1883) and Bristol Rovers Football Club Limited(BRFC).

As part of this process, Wael has agreed to capitalise £18.4m of loans owed to Dwane Sports from BRFC 1883 and £16.5m owed by BRFC to BRFC1883. In addition to the above, he has also agreed to write off £2.1m in interest that was charged on these loans, leaving the club (apart from our ordinary trade creditors, leasing and HP agreements) substantively debt free.

 

Dwane Sports is owned 90% by Wael Al Qadi, 10% by his brother Samir. BRFC (the football club) after the capitalisation, is 96% owned by Wael, the remainder held by the Supporters Club and other small shareholders.

If BRFC(1883)Ltd‘s  next set of accounts don’t show the loan dealt with, then that would be a concern, but somehow I don’t think that’s likely.

As with Bristol Sport’s labyrinthine set up, money passes between companies, but in the end it’s all Steve Lansdown’s.

In this case it’s all Wael’s, just not so much of it.

3 hours ago, nebristolred said:

I've no basis for this, but I always assumed it worked so that the owner takes a larger slice of the club, diluting the value of other shareholders in the process.

So let's say there are 100 shares of Bristol Rovers. Wael owns 49 shares and other investors own 51 shares. So 49% v 51%.

The club has racked up debts to Wael.

Instead of calling in the debt, Wael can capitalise it as equity instead. So the club will create maybe 20 extra shares, all going to Wael (so it's now 69 shares v 51 shares). This leaves the split at 57.5% v 42.5%. So the other investors own the same number of shares as before, but they are now worth less as Wael has taken a bigger chunk of the pie as part of the debt capitalisation.

The club's value remains exactly the same theoretically. It's just distributed differently internally.

I could be way, way off but this is how I assumed it works, and I think it's this practice which has allowed Wael to take control of Rovers.

Fully prepared to be ripped to shreds here now!

Wael took effective sole control by negotiating the acquisition of the other family shareholdings in Dwane Sports after the death of his father. He now holds 90% of the family share holding and his brother Sami 10%.

Although I’m no expert on capitalising debt, I think your description is pretty much spot on. By issuing more shares that he then acquires, Wael can remove the outstanding debt, but this also dilutes the percentage held by other people. I believe it’s the process SL has used at City to remove debt, although I stand to be corrected.

49 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

Am I right in saying they never reached full capacity at Eastville or is that rubbish?

The theoretical capacity of Eastville was 39,000. The safety at sports ground act reduced that to 12,500.  The record attendance was 38,472 against Preston in the FA cup in 1960.

I watched a league cup game against Stoke as a youngster in the seventies. The crowd was over 33,000 and it was scarily packed. The idea that you could legally still squash  in another 6,000 horrifies me. It’s amazing that there weren’t more crowd fatalities than there were over the years.

2 hours ago, Reddie The Eagle Edwards said:

Surely he cant just spend taxpayers money supporting one club?!

No they shouldn’t (and I’m from the blue side), however if their role is to help organise various parties to sort out land deals etc, without investing as such,  then that would be acceptable. Projects such as Cabot Circus, had council input with the assembly of the site, without direct financial support.

11 minutes ago, Spoons said:

Basically he's cleared the debt off and bought out his own family for one reason. The fruit market deal has been signed he will redo the benefits of memorial stadium being sold to Bristol city council for affordable housing etc. 

Watch this space. 

As the rumoured price for the fruit market site is £65m and the Mem is worth probably less than a third of that, how do the numbers stack up?