Bristol R*vers dustbin thread

[Bristol Rob]

18 hours ago, MrGerard said:

Rob,

Thought you ought to know it’s spelt buses, only due to your comments on the intelligence of others

I'd blame autocorrect, but the chances are, I've spelt it incorrectly previously and my misspelling is now stored! So entirely my fault. 

18 hours ago, MrGerard said:

Rob,

Thought you ought to know it’s spelt buses, only due to your comments on the intelligence of others

I'd blame autocorrect, but the chances are, I've spelt it incorrectly previously and my misspelling is now stored! So entirely my fault. 

(Blimey. It's getting worse, I'm now double posting!)

Edited April 10, 2023 by Bristol Rob
I'm a stupid.

[Port Said Red]

I know we constantly make jibes about them being "squatters" or "travellers", but they really do seem to have an aversion to owning things don't they? 

They owned Eastville until their directors sold it to the greyhound company while everyone was distracted by the WWll, (most were also directors of the greyhound company as well btw). So then they rented there for many years before having to squat in Bath and even at Ashton Gate, before finding themselves owning the Mem, through another shady looking deal. 

So they finally own a ground again, logically you would think that you would set about making it your own, modernise, make it suitable for your own purposes etc, but no they have launched into two attempts to move. One that would have put them at the behest of the UWE Board and now one that, IF successful, would see them back renting again. 

It seems a bizarre philosophy to me, and I can't understand why the Gasheads aren't seeing this as a repeat of the Eastville deal, one which a handful of people made a nice profit at the cost of their long term future.

[Barrs Court Red]

34 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I know we constantly make jibes about them being "squatters" or "travellers", but they really do seem to have an aversion to owning things don't they? 

They owned Eastville until their directors sold it to the greyhound company while everyone was distracted by the WWll, (most were also directors of the greyhound company as well btw). So then they rented there for many years before having to squat in Bath and even at Ashton Gate, before finding themselves owning the Mem, through another shady looking deal. 

So they finally own a ground again, logically you would think that you would set about making it your own, modernise, make it suitable for your own purposes etc, but no they have launched into two attempts to move. One that would have put them at the behest of the UWE Board and now one that, IF successful, would see them back renting again. 

It seems a bizarre philosophy to me, and I can't understand why the Gasheads aren't seeing this as a repeat of the Eastville deal, one which a handful of people made a nice profit at the cost of their long term future.

It’s the ownership aspect that baffles me as well, especially as it was flagged by the guy with a nice watch as a reason to walk away from the UWE deal. 
 

Rent but keep all non-Matchday revenue doesn’t seem terrible.  Rent and the stadium operator keeps non-matchday revenue seems pointless.  

[GrahamC]

57 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I know we constantly make jibes about them being "squatters" or "travellers", but they really do seem to have an aversion to owning things don't they? 

They owned Eastville until their directors sold it to the greyhound company while everyone was distracted by the WWll, (most were also directors of the greyhound company as well btw). So then they rented there for many years before having to squat in Bath and even at Ashton Gate, before finding themselves owning the Mem, through another shady looking deal. 

So they finally own a ground again, logically you would think that you would set about making it your own, modernise, make it suitable for your own purposes etc, but no they have launched into two attempts to move. One that would have put them at the behest of the UWE Board and now one that, IF successful, would see them back renting again. 

It seems a bizarre philosophy to me, and I can't understand why the Gasheads aren't seeing this as a repeat of the Eastville deal, one which a handful of people made a nice profit at the cost of their long term future.

Been said before but when you also add that when Horfield seems a perfect location in terms of a club that started out in Eastville, to voluntarily give up a site that could easily be developed piecemeal over time like we did with AG for something that is nowhere near their core support, can only lead to the conclusion that they currently don’t have the money to redevelop, & seems like madness to me.

[1960maaan]

13 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

It’s the ownership aspect that baffles me as well, especially as it was flagged by the guy with a nice watch as a reason to walk away from the UWE deal. 
 

Rent but keep all non-Matchday revenue doesn’t seem terrible.  Rent and the stadium operator keeps non-matchday revenue seems pointless.  

I could never understand why the UWE deal was even considered , Renting and no other revenue. Could only be blinded by the thought of a "free" stadium.

This new one does raise questions too. 
Even if it is a straight land swap, even if they get lots of help and subsidies . Coventry's Sky Blue Trust looked into the cost of a new 20,000 seater stadium last year. They came up with a cost, based on stadiums built over the last 19 years, of £52 million. Now I know the Squatters would cut a few corners, but they would surely have to find a minimum of £30+ million . Plus £millions on Architects and Plans and permissions and with building costs spiralling it ain't getting any cheaper.

I've said before. I wonder if Wael is trying to get it to look like everything is in place for a new ground, then try a sell to an excitable buyer. A bit like when he jumped in and bought it when the UWE was proposed.

[italian dave]

16 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Been said before but when you also add that when Horfield seems a perfect location in terms of a club that started out in Eastville, to voluntarily give up a site that could easily be developed piecemeal over time like we did with AG for something that is nowhere near their core support, can only lead to the conclusion that they currently don’t have the money to redevelop, & seems like madness to me.

If memory serves, Notts County managed to completely replace a whole three sides in one close season back in the 1990s. It’s a country mile short of AG level capacity or quality - but it would be a huge improvement on what they’ve got. (Mind you, what Notts County knocked down was an improvement on what R###s  currently have.)

And tick those other boxes. 

My feeling is that @1960maaan may be right: it’s just an attempt by Wael offload and to find someone who’s going to get caught out the same way he was. 

[redsquirrel]

22 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

 

I've said before. I wonder if Wael is trying to get it to look like everything is in place for a new ground, then try a sell to an excitable buyer. A bit like when he jumped in and bought it when the UWE was proposed.

that bit is the only reason i can think why he is doing it, to possibly get out before losing too much more change from his piggy bank. the planning and consultations would cost more than hes prepared to spend on players etc, i really couldnt see him doing anything other than buy himself more time to get bought out

 

EDIT,Italian Dave beat me to it

Edited April 10, 2023 by redsquirrel

[Port Said Red]

1 minute ago, italian dave said:

If memory serves, Notts County managed to completely replace a whole three sides in one close season back in the 1990s. It’s a country mile short of AG level capacity or quality - but it would be a huge improvement on what they’ve got. (Mind you, what Notts County knocked down was an improvement on what R###s  currently have.)

And tick those other boxes. 

My feeling is that @1960maaan may be right: it’s just an attempt by Wael offload and to find someone who’s going to get caught out the same way he was. 

Yes @1960maaan makes an interesting point, as P T Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute, Wael of Fortune must be hoping this is true and he's not the only one.

[GrahamC]

18 minutes ago, italian dave said:

If memory serves, Notts County managed to completely replace a whole three sides in one close season back in the 1990s. It’s a country mile short of AG level capacity or quality - but it would be a huge improvement on what they’ve got. (Mind you, what Notts County knocked down was an improvement on what R###s  currently have.)

And tick those other boxes. 

My feeling is that @1960maaan may be right: it’s just an attempt by Wael offload and to find someone who’s going to get caught out the same way he was. 

Notts County’s current ground is something they can only dream of, all seater, all covered, with just under 20,000 capacity.

I’ll be amazed if they are ever playing in a stadium on a par with it.

[Barrs Court Red]

40 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I could never understand why the UWE deal was even considered , Renting and no other revenue. Could only be blinded by the thought of a "free" stadium.

This new one does raise questions too. 
Even if it is a straight land swap, even if they get lots of help and subsidies . Coventry's Sky Blue Trust looked into the cost of a new 20,000 seater stadium last year. They came up with a cost, based on stadiums built over the last 19 years, of £52 million. Now I know the Squatters would cut a few corners, but they would surely have to find a minimum of £30+ million . Plus £millions on Architects and Plans and permissions and with building costs spiralling it ain't getting any cheaper.

I've said before. I wonder if Wael is trying to get it to look like everything is in place for a new ground, then try a sell to an excitable buyer. A bit like when he jumped in and bought it when the UWE was proposed.

Interestingly I got a text last week saying he’s off, before this news broke. 
 

Maybe he’s copying Nicks Higgs approach to offloading the football club onto the next mark. 

[Open End Numb Legs]

Would it be possible to asset strip the Mem land value whilst leaving the club with a new stadium but a big rental bill for the privilege and only ticket price income? I am sure the owners would never do that, just a hypothetical question.

[ExiledAjax]

29 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

Interestingly I got a text last week saying he’s off, before this news broke. 

Wael's been shopping them around a bit. He's certainly not averse to selling.

[Bristol Rob]

15 minutes ago, Open End Numb Legs said:

Would it be possible to asset strip the Mem land value whilst leaving the club with a new stadium but a big rental bill for the privilege and only ticket price income? I am sure the owners would never do that, just a hypothetical question.

Thought that had already been done and that the loans Wally had made were secured against the stadium.

[Eddie Hitler]

9 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Thought that had already been done and that the loans Wally had made were secured against the stadium.

 

That was the case in the early days when there was more in the way of family ownership.

There is one outstanding charge secured against the current ground for £10m.  This is in favour of Dwane Sports and was set up in 2017.

There was much speculation, including by myself, about what would happen when this £10m in debt to DS was reached.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04501223/charges

Well it was massively exceeded and at June 2020 it stood at £19.5m.

At June 2021 it stood at £4.5m (note 18 of the accounts).

This big reduction was accompanied by a large equity issuance so effectively a debt for equity swap as the Lansdown family regularly do for our club.

 

I know this has been frequently debated but boiled down Wael (and the Lansdowns) are effectively writing off their money when they do this swap.  They may marginally increase their holding percentage but the pre-existing debts were money owed to them, paying interest, and repayable without any tax implications.   Shorthand they are writing ofrf 95 - 99% of their money by doing this.

 

Returning to your post, yes the current debts will lie within the £10 charge secured upon the stadium but Wael / Dwane Sports has written off over £15m of debt which he / they won't see back again.

Wael is acting as the beneficient owner in the same manner as the Lansdowns, albeit on a smaller scale as the club is smaller.

You can't knock that.

 

[glynriley]

**** me, they’re on about chartering trains now…

[OneCity]

[View from the Dolman]

Hope they've given Bristol Airport air traffic control a heads-up about the increase in private jets as the great and the good flock to their games - forget the Vegas Grand Prix, Rovers vs Port Vale is the place to be spotted.

[Open End Numb Legs]

I can see it now, beautiful people drinking champagne in a flotilla of super yachts moored up by Totterdown Bridge for home games, it will be just like the Monaco F1 GP.

[alexukhc]

3 hours ago, OneCity said:

The David Pipe stadium?

[Malago]

Cod Army 1 Clod Army 0

[RedLionLad]

1 minute ago, Malago said:

Cod Army 1 Clod Army 0

Come on Fleetwood. You’ve got one job…

[Lanterne Rouge]

I wonder if they do beat the blue few Jailbird Joey will be brave enough to have a pop at their manager - Scott Brown.

[The Gasbuster]

2 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

I wonder if they do beat the blue few Jailbird Joey will be brave enough to have a pop at their manager - Scott Brown.

Ideally they knock each other out (if that’s possible?).

Pair of *****

[petehinton]

22 points off the play offs that they were on the March to after deadline day. 
 

But I’m sure consolidating this season was always the aim they’ll say, Bristol Live included 

[Bar BS3]

5 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Notts County’s current ground is something they can only dream of, all seater, all covered, with just under 20,000 capacity.

I’ll be amazed if they are ever playing in a stadium on a par with it.

They will do. Just every other week, at away games..!

 

Why spend your own money to play at decent stadiums when other clubs will spend there's & that's where they will play half their games anyway.?!

Gas ambition/logic

[GrahamC]

34 minutes ago, petehinton said:

22 points off the play offs that they were on the March to after deadline day. 
 

But I’m sure consolidating this season was always the aim they’ll say, Bristol Live included 

At half time BBC Radio Bristol have tweeted Fleetwood haven’t created much, Rovers started the game brightly & could be level.

Guess what? They aren’t.

Bit like the other week when they lost 2-0 at home & they tweeted one was possibly offside, the other a penalty. They still lost, no matter how hard you try & spin in their favour.

Embarrassing.

[pillred]

Bugger they have equalised.

[Lanterne Rouge]

1-1. Boo.

[The Gasbuster]

2015 winning 2-1

[pillred]

It gets worse now their winning.