Bristol R*vers dustbin thread

[Rudolf Hucker]

4 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Looks like the new stadium for the lock-out lads might take a bit longer than expected. 

Rumours that Wally is looked at tarting up the Mem as the offers to finance the new build aren't as plentiful as hoped. And for a billionaire he doesn't seem to want to pay for it himself. Which if this was the great investment you'd think he would be all over it. Maybe this explains the lack of investors interested.....

Will nobody think of the UWE car park?

[Rudolf Hucker]

4 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Looks like the new stadium for the lock-out lads might take a bit longer than expected. 

Rumours that Wally is looked at tarting up the Mem as the offers to finance the new build aren't as plentiful as hoped. And for a billionaire he doesn't seem to want to pay for it himself. Which if this was the great investment you'd think he would be all over it. Maybe this explains the lack of investors interested.....

Will nobody think of the UWE car park?

[Lanterne Rouge]

3 minutes ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

Will nobody think of the UWE car park?

Could be somewhere to hold those fund raising car boot sales that they`ll soon have to turn to when they can`t get any suckers to lend them money.

[Charliesboots]

2 hours ago, bert tann said:

Nicholas vowed he would only sell Rovers to someone who had the finance to carry out his UWE Stadium plan.

But he must have got himself in a bit of a muddle when he sold the club because it appears Mr Al Qadi doesn't actually have the finance himself which is why he has been looking for outside investors.

However the potential outside investors may well have found that the location on a University campus is a severe hindrance to the type of development which they would need to build to provide them with a satisfactory return on their capital.

So the only way to finance the UWE Stadium would be unsecured venture capital from a risk taker who would be gambling on the football club being transformed into a valuable asset which he could eventually sell at a profit commensurate with the amount of cash he provided and the risk he had taken.

The amount of capital needed to bring the UWE Stadium plans to fruition would be huge compared to the amount of capital which Mr Qadi needed to buy out Nicholas, his friends and MSP Capital.

Therefore, it follows by virtue of the relative amounts invested, the risk taker providing the capital to finance the UWE Stadium would become the majority shareholder in Bristol Rovers FC and the Al Qadi family would be reduced to holding a minority stake.

Is this likely to happen ?

If it did, would Gasheads be "crying like Jim Chapel" ? 

Read a previous post of mine about the hawking around being done by Wael to city financiers  

Nobody wants to touch it. 

Edited May 28, 2016 by Charliesboots

[Smaller than a flea]

2 hours ago, bert tann said:

Nicholas vowed he would only sell Rovers to someone who had the finance to carry out his UWE Stadium plan.

But he must have got himself in a bit of a muddle when he sold the club because it appears Mr Al Qadi doesn't actually have the finance himself which is why he has been looking for outside investors.

However the potential outside investors may well have found that the location on a University campus is a severe hindrance to the type of development which they would need to build to provide them with a satisfactory return on their capital.

So the only way to finance the UWE Stadium would be unsecured venture capital from a risk taker who would be gambling on the football club being transformed into a valuable asset which he could eventually sell at a profit commensurate with the amount of cash he provided and the risk he had taken.

The amount of capital needed to bring the UWE Stadium plans to fruition would be huge compared to the amount of capital which Mr Qadi needed to buy out Nicholas, his friends and MSP Capital.

Therefore, it follows by virtue of the relative amounts invested, the risk taker providing the capital to finance the UWE Stadium would become the majority shareholder in Bristol Rovers FC and the Al Qadi family would be reduced to holding a minority stake.

Is this likely to happen ?

If it did, would Gasheads be "crying like Jim Chapel" ? 

Well that's a load of nonsense. Bankers look for outside investors because the return they get on their investments is higher than the interest they pay for loans for the investment, so long as that loan is secured on a safe source, ie the Al-Qadi family. In other words, it's cheaper for them to borrow the money than to use their own cash to fund the stadium.

[Kingcider]

7 minutes ago, Smaller than a flea said:

Well that's a load of nonsense. Bankers look for outside investors because the return they get on their investments is higher than the interest they pay for loans for the investment, so long as that loan is secured on a safe source, ie the Al-Qadi family. In other words, it's cheaper for them to borrow the money than to use their own cash to fund the stadium.

Does that make any sense,if you borrow money you have to pay interest and pay the capital back,use your own money and you have no interest to pay ! Are you saying that they can make more by using their own money for other things ? If so what was the point of buying a run down club ?

[Smaller than a flea]

5 minutes ago, Kingcider said:

Does that make any sense,if you borrow money you have to pay interest and pay the capital back,use your own money and you have no interest to pay ! Are you saying that they can make more by using their own money for other things ? If so what was the point of buying a run down club ?

It does make sense. A bank wanting to fund a project might need £50m. They might be getting say 7% return by investing that £50m in the stock market. They could borrow the money at 5% if the loan is mega-safe, such as a rich Jordanian banking family. So why would they spend £50m of their cash and lose the 7% interest when they could borrow it and only pay 5%? This of course does not apply to mere mortals like us who pay huge interest rates for loans, but that's why the rich always do well.

[JamesBCFC]

3 minutes ago, Smaller than a flea said:

It does make sense. A bank wanting to fund a project might need £50m. They might be getting say 7% return by investing that £50m in the stock market. They could borrow the money at 5% if the loan is mega-safe, such as a rich Jordanian banking family. So why would they spend £50m of their cash and lose the 7% interest when they could borrow it and only pay 5%? This of course does not apply to mere mortals like us who pay huge interest rates for loans, but that's why the rich always do well.

Still never seen any evidence that these multi zillionaires actually have all the money you lot like to claim

[Charliesboots]

22 minutes ago, Smaller than a flea said:

Well that's a load of nonsense. Bankers look for outside investors because the return they get on their investments is higher than the interest they pay for loans for the investment, so long as that loan is secured on a safe source, ie the Al-Qadi family. In other words, it's cheaper for them to borrow the money than to use their own cash to fund the stadium.

Subsitute 'own cash' for 'None'. 

Nobody in the city (that has been subject to an approach) wants anything to do with the financing of the Stadium.  

I've said previously the meetings have gone "like a scene from The Producers", leaving financiers blushing on behalf of your owner.

Its sad, because you don't see it and sad because owners like this treat football fans with utter contempt.

Add your club to the list of people who shaft clubs, or do something about it and start asking searching questions of your owner whilst you still have the chance. 

[Smaller than a flea]

2 minutes ago, City169 said:

Still never seen any evidence that these multi zillionaires actually have all the money you lot like to claim

I must admit they don't seem to be throwing money around, but they did say it was evolution, not revolution. Darrell Clarke has done all we could have hoped for, and more.  If we're to be a success in L1 and push on to the Championship then a lot of money will have to be produced.  

[Kingcider]

10 minutes ago, Smaller than a flea said:

It does make sense. A bank wanting to fund a project might need £50m. They might be getting say 7% return by investing that £50m in the stock market. They could borrow the money at 5% if the loan is mega-safe, such as a rich Jordanian banking family. So why would they spend £50m of their cash and lose the 7% interest when they could borrow it and only pay 5%? This of course does not apply to mere mortals like us who pay huge interest rates for loans, but that's why the rich always do well.

That makes some sense,the rich get richer etc .But 'shares can go down as well as up' if the Walleys were as clever as that, they would be as rich as some of your more deluded fans seem to think.Looks to me like a very high risk strategy,loan the money against their hotel,stock exchange drops and they loose the lot.I would be starting to worry about finances again if I were you.

[BS2 Red]

I'd rather they built UWE than redevelop the Mem. Get them out of Bristol once and for all.

[JamesBCFC]

2 minutes ago, Smaller than a flea said:

I must admit they don't seem to be throwing money around, but they did say it was evolution, not revolution. Darrell Clarke has done all we could have hoped for, and more.  If we're to be a success in L1 and push on to the Championship then a lot of money will have to be produced.  

I was more referring to that if you try and find anything about them, very little turns up other than they have taken over Rovers. I have found a post on another forum from someone who has done a lot more searching that I (very little in truth).

In the post they said the Al-Qadi bank has assets of 1.7 billion, but also liabilities of 1.5 billion. That leaves 200 million, the family has a 30% stake, so that leaves the Al-Qadi Family with circa 60 million.

These were from 2014 statements, but 60 million total from their main source of money is a far cry from what you lot like to claim.

[1960maaan]

27 minutes ago, Smaller than a flea said:

It does make sense. A bank wanting to fund a project might need £50m. They might be getting say 7% return by investing that £50m in the stock market. They could borrow the money at 5% if the loan is mega-safe, such as a rich Jordanian banking family. So why would they spend £50m of their cash and lose the 7% interest when they could borrow it and only pay 5%? This of course does not apply to mere mortals like us who pay huge interest rates for loans, but that's why the rich always do well.

I'm not into high finance but, aren't  returns on investment very low t the moment while interest rate on loans are also low, mortgage rates etc? In which case the oposite would apply, it would make sense to use your own capital . If you get investors they would want more than if they put money in abank,for example , where there is little or no risk.  I'm sure there are people out there more au fait with banking and finance than me that will be able to say. 

[bert tann]

16 minutes ago, Smaller than a flea said:

It does make sense. A bank wanting to fund a project might need £50m. They might be getting say 7% return by investing that £50m in the stock market. They could borrow the money at 5% if the loan is mega-safe, such as a rich Jordanian banking family. So why would they spend £50m of their cash and lose the 7% interest when they could borrow it and only pay 5%? This of course does not apply to mere mortals like us who pay huge interest rates for loans, but that's why the rich always do well.

Funnily enough the AJIB is paying a 7% dividend this year after a 12% dividend last year.

It has been said the dividend is so high because of the perceived risk.

Are you suggesting that Mr Al Qadi is offering to pay someone 5% interest on a loan of  £30 million to cover the stadium funding shortfall and that Rovers will pay the £1.5 million interest per year out of their profits but if for any inexplicable reason they can't then the Al Qadi family will pay it instead using the dividends received from the AJIB ?

Forgive me but it sounds as though you went to the Nicholas Higgs School of Finance.

I believe if you asked Mr Al Qadi or Mr Hamer they would tell you that they are looking for equity capital and not a loan. 

But if someone is being asked to put up £30 million they are going to demand an extremely convincing business plan plus a very high equity stake.

 

 

[JBFC II]

31 minutes ago, City169 said:

I was more referring to that if you try and find anything about them, very little turns up other than they have taken over Rovers. I have found a post on another forum from someone who has done a lot more searching that I (very little in truth).

In the post they said the Al-Qadi bank has assets of 1.7 billion, but also liabilities of 1.5 billion. That leaves 200 million, the family has a 30% stake, so that leaves the Al-Qadi Family with circa 60 million.

These were from 2014 statements, but 60 million total from their main source of money is a far cry from what you lot like to claim.

All false, he is richer than 'Letdown' didn't you know....

[Charliesboots]

10 minutes ago, bert tann said:

Funnily enough the AJIB is paying a 7% dividend this year after a 12% dividend last year.

It has been said the dividend is so high because of the perceived risk.

Are you suggesting that Mr Al Qadi is offering to pay someone 5% interest on a loan of  £30 million to cover the stadium funding shortfall and that Rovers will pay the £1.5 million interest per year out of their profits but if for any inexplicable reason they can't then the Al Qadi family will pay it instead using the dividends received from the AJIB ?

Forgive me but it sounds as though you went to the Nicholas Higgs School of Finance.

I believe if you asked Mr Al Qadi or Mr Hamer they would tell you that they are looking for equity capital and not a loan. 

But if someone is being asked to put up £30 million they are going to demand an extremely convincing business plan plus a very high equity stake.

 

 

Indeed the capital being asked for versus equity stake is not viable for the finance to be provided. 

Add into it the risk, which in this instance is exceptionally high - an example for you; Fund Managers in particular are not going to part with their investors cash because they would be (a) stupid to do so and (b) are not going to get paid from the deal = ain't going to happen. 

The need for a multi use stadium in Bristol & Greater Bristol area (I include South Gloucestershire in that) is limited as there happens to be one about to be completed in BS3 as we all know. 

If you count in the catchment of The Millennium Stadium to the west, the Madjeski Stadium to the east, the numerous Stadia in Birmingham to the north the business plan fails. 

For Rovers to seek outside funding for a stadium of their own its a very tough sale so the question back to Wael has been is "If you want one of your own then you have to pay for it yourself"

[redfred]

1 hour ago, Smaller than a flea said:

It does make sense. A bank wanting to fund a project might need £50m. They might be getting say 7% return by investing that £50m in the stock market. They could borrow the money at 5% if the loan is mega-safe, such as a rich Jordanian banking family. So why would they spend £50m of their cash and lose the 7% interest when they could borrow it and only pay 5%? This of course does not apply to mere mortals like us who pay huge interest rates for loans, but that's why the rich always do well.

So with Al Qeada's easy access to cheap borrowing from the family bank, why hasn't the building work started at UWE yet (excluding the car park, that is.....)?

[SirColinOfMansfield]

I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding about Wally and his plans for Chelsea Gillingham Rovers. Everyone thought that he had taken on Michael Cunnah, the former chief executive of Wembley Stadium because he would get UWE built. However, it is a little known fact that when he was at school he had a Saturday job in Milletts and what he doesn't know about putting tents up isn't worth knowing.

 

[Miah Dennehy]

9 hours ago, City169 said:

Still never seen any evidence that these multi zillionaires actually have all the money you lot like to claim

Some people on Rovers forums may have got a tad carried away with the wealth of our new owners. However, most  Rovers fans I know, are well aware that they aren't they are not in the league of Russian oligarchs, or for that matter Steve Lansdown.

I am certainly not expecting them to start flashing the cash at big name signings (nor would I want them to).

I do think that they probably have a lot more acumen than Nick Higgs when it comes to the funding of a new stadium, and that the possibility of a new ground is as close as it as ever been. Having said that, I will believe it when I'm sat watching a game in it!

[Barrs Court Red]

The owner is irrelevant if the guy in charge isn't very good.....

[Dolman Block B]

9 hours ago, Smaller than a flea said:

It does make sense. A bank wanting to fund a project might need £50m. They might be getting say 7% return by investing that £50m in the stock market. They could borrow the money at 5% if the loan is mega-safe, such as a rich Jordanian banking family. So why would they spend £50m of their cash and lose the 7% interest when they could borrow it and only pay 5%? This of course does not apply to mere mortals like us who pay huge interest rates for loans, but that's why the rich always do well.

Really? 

Tell me why Steve Lansdown had invested the 45 million or so of HIS own money into the redevelopment of Ashton Gate rather than funding from outside investors or banks?

 Ofcourse SL would have little experience of money matters after becoming a "billionaire" from his business Hargreaves-Lansdown would he now???

Off you go to think up another one!!!

[1960maaan]

35 minutes ago, Miahdennehy said:

Some people on Rovers forums and the staff of the Evening Post may have got a tad carried away with the wealth of our new owners. However, most  Rovers fans I know, are well aware that they aren't they are not in the league of Russian oligarchs, or for that matter Steve Lansdown.

I am certainly not expecting them to start flashing the cash at big name signings (nor would I want them to).

I do think that they probably have a lot more acumen than Nick Higgs (who doesn't) when it comes to the funding of a new stadium, and that the possibility of a new ground is as close as it as ever been. Having said that, I will believe it when I'm sat watching a game in it!

I can understand fans getting carried away when the takeover was originally announced, we're fans , it's what we do. I am however massively disappointed with the Post falling into the trap and making no effort to find out about the new owners, he has a nice watch so he's a billionaire !

As things stand , I think the Rugby ground will be developed. It will be a cheaper option, not necessarily a worse option , and how long will the UWE wait ?  

[pongo88]

10 hours ago, Smaller than a flea said:

Well that's a load of nonsense. Bankers look for outside investors because the return they get on their investments is higher than the interest they pay for loans for the investment, so long as that loan is secured on a safe source, ie the Al-Qadi family. In other words, it's cheaper for them to borrow the money than to use their own cash to fund the stadium.

If the new stadium is going to be a  guaranteed success with no risk, why doesn't Wael Al-Qadi borrow the money from his own bank?  The bank would charge interest, thereby increasing its profits. As he has a stake in the bank his fortune would increase and he would get a new stadium for free. Simple! (I'm using the Nick Higgs version of logic, not the real world version)

I guess the answer is the bank's other owners are not stupid

[BigTone]

12 minutes ago, pongo88 said:

If the new stadium is going to be a  guaranteed success with no risk, why doesn't Wael Al-Qadi borrow the money from his own bank?  The bank would charge interest, thereby increasing its profits. As he has a stake in the bank his fortune would increase and he would get a new stadium for free. Simple! (I'm using the Nick Higgs version of logic, not the real world version)

I guess the answer is the bank's other owners are not stupid

Islamic Banking rules are very different to ours so not as simple as you think. I could try and explain them on here but it will take forever. Look it up on the Internet and you will see what I mean

[northsomersetred]

13 minutes ago, BigTone said:

Islamic Banking rules are very different to ours so not as simple as you think. I could try and explain them on here but it will take forever. Look it up on the Internet and you will see what I mean

Just ask HMRC about them, even they don't know!!

£50m of taxpayers money lost

[BigTone]

44 minutes ago, northsomersetred said:

Just ask HMRC about them, even they don't know!!

£50m of taxpayers money lost

Yep, it is very complicated

[pongo88]

2 hours ago, BigTone said:

Islamic Banking rules are very different to ours so not as simple as you think. I could try and explain them on here but it will take forever. Look it up on the Internet and you will see what I mean

Tone - don't spoil the fun by being sensible. This topic is all we have to keep us amused during the majority of the close season. 

[42nite]

38 minutes ago, pongo88 said:

Tone - don't spoil the fun by being sensible. This topic is all we have to keep us amused during the majority of the close season. 

 

Well, how about............. the gas are rubbish!

[Dolman Block B]

6 hours ago, The New Gate said:

Really? 

Tell me why Steve Lansdown has not invested the 45 million or so of HIS own money into the redevelopment of Ashton Gate rather than funding from outside investors or banks?

 Ofcourse SL would have little experience of money matters after becoming a "billionaire" from his business Hargreaves-Lansdown would he now???

Off you go to think up another one!!!