BTRFTG

Methinks Wael would get on better with their other celebrity 'fan' (sic); the one familiar with bankruptcy, the proven liar, criminal and serial fantasist whose tens of millions secured to free those with an uncertain future transpired to be little more than chump change. Step forward the ever fragrant Lord Archer of WSM.

As you are the King of Trivia Slarti I'm sure you won't need reminding that, as Kermode reminds, the original working proposal for 'Slade in Flame' was ' Quite A Mess..' Apposite I'd say.....

BR Exit mastermind.... I like the sound of that......

Are you certain you've the right name? I thought Reach's Rovers Reporter was called Sam Frost, though in all other respects you're spot on....... From his utter tripe yesterday about the positive things Garner had done for the club during his tenure. Introduced nutritionists (he needed to what with the amount of comfort eating that's occured during the past year,) strength & conditioning coaches (sure as hell need to be resilient to consistently deliver performances wholly lacking in quality,) and as for deploying analysts, presumably they were scatologists all. He's cheap, knows sod all about football & preaches tripe to an ever insignificant following. Frost's yet man.......

Thanks, that was my reasoning.

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....

They need that money to continue the folly they've constructed these past decades. There is a much easier and cheaper solution. Have the whole EFL enter an agreed CVA putting the owners at the bottom of the pile and start from scratch. Establish an agreed wage and sustainability structure. Not good for players, managers, agents and hangers-on but best for fans and football. Handouts will only line the pockets of those who've ruined the game.

Not quite. Although those you mention take first dibs there are other forms of registered interest that may take likewise (anything with a charge, for example.) Ditto shares which may be preferential (i.e. must be repaid first - sometimes distinguished A,B,C....) Gas net debt is circa £25m and the freehold and canvas assets are worth nothing of that quantum. If they shut up shop today the present owners would lose money, same as us. Inflating loan fees to self advanced loans has no merit once net assets turn red. Revaluing assets likewise leads to capital gain, hence the reason we went a couple of decades not revaluing AG. You only do so when you must. Business loans are like any other forms of credit taken. Most will understand it's a pain having to fill in all those forms when seeking a loan, credit or mortgage but there is a good reason lenders are required so to do. They first must assure themselves that the entity taking out the credit is in a position to repay. That doesn't mean there's no risk of non-repayment, (that's why charges, arrangement fees and interest rates vary according to any likelihood of default.) Rather, if one lends money in the clear knowledge the borrower is unlikely to be in a position to repay there are solid legal grounds by which the borrower may apply to have such debt written off given they should not have been placed in the position of indebtedness in the first place. That's what I was alluding to. Say Wael's loan (secured against assets) was expiring and he needed to borrow a replacement sum for working capital. It could be commercially difficult (or mega expensive, see their Sainsbury's legal borrowing,) for him to arrange. Should he fund himself and if there's little prospect of repayment then he'd be at the bottom of the creditors pile given he should not have advanced himself monies he knew he couldn't repay. They wouldn't be secured and that's good money after bad. Some folks on here may be aware of the Loan Charge (Rangers players for one,) in which punters instead of taking a salary were paid (or paid themselves,) a loan - no tax or NI arising. The scam was when they loan came to be repaid it instead was written off. HMRC won a landmark ruling in which because they'd demonstrated it was obvious the loans were never to be repaid de facto they could not have been loans. The problem most folks have in grasping the concept of large debt is they think it doesn't count, that it doesn't need repaying. It does and the latter is only true when the owner of the debt writes it off as a loss. Now if you're as wealthy as Mr Lansdown, having monies owed when one dies isn't such a problem as such debt and losses written off are a useful way to reduce any tax burden payable upon death. I fully expect there's a planned element within our creative accountancy that has included such thinking. I also suspect the value of Wael's assets are declining. The property sector isn't great and with Government pretty much giving free reign on planning to developers in an attempt to boost the economy, if anything, freehold prices are likely to drop. Recall there's a shed load of land developers are already sitting on which they thought they could turn a buck on in a growing property market, so whilst short term house prices have held up (bouyed by lower end tax concessions,) that's all going to cease. That land under certain regulations now comes with a 'use it or lose it' series of penalties. Even Sainsbury's sussed that out when pulling out of the Mem deal.

Only if the assets are worth more than all debt, especially preferential...... Not sure this is the case at The House Of Tents. Remember loans MUST have a repayment schedule, including end term (else they aren't loans.) One of the main reasons for converting loan to stock is when there are 'obstacles' in taking out replacement loans. Another option, as with Mr Lansdown, is it's a mechanism to ensure any 'investment' (sic) may eventually be 'written off'.

Recall the days when his Mrs was one of our Rockin' Robins....

St George may have been the oldest club but I'd argue since they moved to Almondsbury it's something of a push to describe them being 'in Bristol'. Doubtless The Gas will continue to describe themselves as being a 'Bristol club' should they ever scrape together enough coppers to grass over a patch of derelict landfill on the industrial banks of The Severn.

....Johnny Rotten singing 'No Future'?

PR Chicanery? What, promoting to City fans and the wider footballing world state of the art investments coming to fruition that will develop our club? I can only imagine the impact such PR has on talented yet impressionable players - come here, get a rounded development, receive a first class education with medical and nutritional support, all whilst learning your trade at a prestigious academy. Why would that influence over an alternate offer of changing in the back of the manager's Allegro, having any injury treated courtesy of Poundland's finest sponge and bucket, travelling home caked in mud, whilst stopping off for a discounted, congealed breakfast bap at Snack Box? Surely youth aren't so fickle?

Bus Jokes?

The problem Genghis is your jest goes over my head as I've absolutely no idea what hits JP had, then again I've no idea what hit players the Gas have ever had (if any...) Oh, perhaps that's your point....

Judas Snake? Sounds like an insufferably awful tribute act, the type to be found in the backroom bar of a run down boozer on Muller Road ......

Experience, both domestic and international, the latter of which I gave up given it wasn't worth the bother given the volume of numpties abounds. Probably the best measure is the amount of policing required and investments in reactive intelligence (I used to have done professional dealings with the FIU.) Given successes in combatting thuggery much football related violence and criminality takes place far away from stadia (as those following us away will appreciate,) though football related it remains. But that's to digress from the big issue, that's a virus thugs can't fight other than to act with responsible caution.

Since when have banning orders been a measure of anything meaningful? They're wholly useless, ineffective and exclude such measures as being able to prevent fans from travelling abroad by temporarily restricting passports. I haven't said some will play up to new measures; I did say some wouldn't obey new measures in exactly the same way as they've never previously accepted existing measures. And that's the problem with the virus, it only takes a handful to cause great harm, far moreso than a handbags punch up.

One can identify to who the seat had been sold/allocated but that's it. What chance first game there will be some sad tale of somebody picking up a ban because somebody other than themselves ended up in their seat, else a ST cancelled because the mate they'd lent their ticket to because the couldn't make the game had transgressed? For yonks I've been buying groups of tickets for my mates and I so does that mean should they transgress I pick up the ban?

For starters English football behaviour, both inside and outside stadiums, has long been up there with the worst. I've seen tons of football on the continent and rarely is there the negative attitude that pervades British football. Secondly, if you are so sure you can make it work (and you'd better be sure as lives are at risk,) demonstrate how you would do so? I'm not being negative in highlighting that since this forum started its full of F'wit tales of woe - got thrown out but I wasn't THAT drunk..., ok I may not have been in my seat but what's the issue...., if I want to stand why shouldn't I..., no need to throw me out because I was having a crafty fag, it was only a pyrotechnic they use them in Europe...., I only had a ruck with the steward because I was standing in the exit and he tried to move me on... I could go on but it's preaching to the converted. Fans have never been able to behave inside stadiums in accordance with some fairly innocuous regulations so how they hell will they ever comply with very strict terms. Better to be honest, they won't. But as the price to be paid for failing to comply is people's lives for that reason allowing crowds should not be permitted to return until proven not to be a major risk. So go on, how might that be done?

It's what happens after they go through the turnstile that's the problem. If fans already are unable to sit down in the seats they've been allocated, keep safety exits clear, refrain from smoking inside stadia or wash their hands after visiting the bog, what chance do you think there is of them keeping to severe rules that would be required to keep punters safe? Folks have already shared on here advice as to control flows post Covid in stadia and that requires timed ingress & egress. We've plenty of punters who can't do 90 mins as is, so clearly they'll be happy to hang around for an hour post a drab match, won't they?

I suggest if you review many of the comments made in the Holden/3Lions thread you'll note very sound reasons why fans won't be returning to grounds soon. Matters not what measures the club puts in place if the F'wits decide to ignore them, which given wholesale non-compliance with regulation pre Covid and Trumpesque pronouncements of late of what F'wits will and won't do, is guaranteed. "We do what we want, we do what we want...." Yep, so you do.

If you're going to use my name in vain state what it is you suppose I might not like and be explicit as to which aspects of my posts haven't aged well.

I think it'd make more sense to pump monies into taking back / partner rail operations ( should they seek support) rather than the folly of HS2. This should not however be a bail out, as requested by Fly-Be.

No surprises from the bearded tax fraudster, given that's how he made his money, but there are other ways Governments can help. It's only in the past week both EU and FAA acceded to airline requests to cease having to fly empty planes. My nephew is a long haul Virgin pilot and he's been saying for many weeks how pointless it's been flying planes with cargo only. Transport however has to be an exception, it'll be required once this crisis is over, is essential infrastructure even if in private ownership, so why not have Governments buy back cheaply what is a necessary public service?