The Elephant In The Room

[scoobydoogas]

Dec 30, 2017 22:03:46 GMT eric said:

Dec 30, 2017 21:33:42 GMT gasstrictband said:

Just sat at home having a few glasses of , actually quite a good single malt, have a soft spot for Wolverhampton , what a sweet kick in the Bollocks for the sh** , safe trip home to the Midlands all you guys that traveled,UTG.

Loved the Wolves manager celebrating in amongst the red and white scarfs - they didn't look happy!!!

Saw that on the C5 highlights. Absolute quality watching him fist pumping at the red wankers in the directors area.

[bradfordmeyerbiggs]

Hahahahaha the sh** lost.

Going up are they? Hahahahaha

That has made my year. UTFG FTS!

Some Man Utd medicine rammed back down their throats.

Watch the bubble burst now....

Watch their away support drop now too.

Hahahahahaha

Better cancel their obsessed with Rovers thread now.

The 🎁 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[socrates]

Dec 31, 2017 11:57:19 GMT bradfordmeyerbiggs said:

Hahahahaha the sh** lost.

Going up are they? Hahahahaha

That has made my year. UTFG FTS!

Some Man Utd medicine rammed back down their throats.

Watch the bubble burst now....

Watch their away support drop now too.

Hahahahahaha

Better cancel their obsessed with Rovers thread now.

The 🎁 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I take it you don’t like them then lol
UTG

[gashead1981]

Dec 31, 2017 11:37:59 GMT knowall said:

Dec 31, 2017 10:20:42 GMT gashead1981 said:

With the UWE/Mem built that could have been a closer reality than any of us could dream of.

Above all of this, I really want to know the exact reasons why it collapsed. None of us really know, and neither side has pointed the finger.

shops all over the country are closing down because the terms required by the landlords are too expensive for the businesses to survive - same problem with UWE - if the terms and conditions mean you cannot make money and survive then the deal is not acceptable - simple as

That is no more than a rough stab in the dark. If a stadium was that much of a loss leader I doubt that Brighton, Bournemouth et al would have built them.

We don’t actually know that no money could be made. We have never been given any satisfactory answers to any questions regarding why it wasn’t sustainable, if that was the reason. Chances are it could be the fact that we haven’t got the money. The only answer we have gotten out that has any symphony between owner and chairman is “we are in it for the long term”. Well that could be absolutely anything.

[chippenhamgas]

Dec 31, 2017 18:39:53 GMT gashead1981 said:

Dec 31, 2017 11:37:59 GMT knowall said:

shops all over the country are closing down because the terms required by the landlords are too expensive for the businesses to survive - same problem with UWE - if the terms and conditions mean you cannot make money and survive then the deal is not acceptable - simple as

That is no more than a rough stab in the dark. If a stadium was that much of a loss leader I doubt that Brighton, Bournemouth et al would have built them.

We don’t actually know that no money could be made. We have never been given any satisfactory answers to any questions regarding why it wasn’t sustainable, if that was the reason. Chances are it could be the fact that we haven’t got the money. The only answer we have gotten out that has any symphony between owner and chairman is “we are in it for the long term”. Well that could be absolutely anything.

What we do know is that the feasibility study came back positive and it was all systems go and then it wasn't. That indicates the owners either changed their minds about spending the money or uwe moved the goalposts.

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2017 20:00:32 GMT chippenhamgas said:

Dec 31, 2017 18:39:53 GMT gashead1981 said:

That is no more than a rough stab in the dark. If a stadium was that much of a loss leader I doubt that Brighton, Bournemouth et al would have built them.

We don’t actually know that no money could be made. We have never been given any satisfactory answers to any questions regarding why it wasn’t sustainable, if that was the reason. Chances are it could be the fact that we haven’t got the money. The only answer we have gotten out that has any symphony between owner and chairman is “we are in it for the long term”. Well that could be absolutely anything.

What we do know is that the feasibility study came back positive and it was all systems go and then it wasn't. That indicates the owners either changed their minds about spending the money or uwe moved the goalposts.

Or that the investors which they had lined up pulled out as it was never the Familys money being ploughed into the UWE in the first place, they made that clear from the start.
That’s why a hotel and casino? were being incorporated somehow, to help generate the returns. That was my understanding, although I could be wrong. Usually am. So the wife says. Bitch.

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2017 20:20:01 GMT @cc52 said:

Dec 31, 2017 20:00:32 GMT chippenhamgas said:

What we do know is that the feasibility study came back positive and it was all systems go and then it wasn't. That indicates the owners either changed their minds about spending the money or uwe moved the goalposts.

Or that the investors which they had lined up pulled out as it was never the Familys money being ploughed into the UWE in the first place, they made that clear from the start.
That’s why a hotel and casino? were being incorporated somehow, to help generate the returns. That was my understanding, although I could be wrong. Usually am. So the wife says. Bitch.

If that was the case wouldn't the VC at UWE have come out and had something to say? Rovers had basically said it was the UWE's delays, moving goalposts etc that caused the deal to breakdown. If I was being wrongly blamed I'd want to set the record straight. Call me the ultimate blue tinted optimist but I'm not sure the deal is dead yet!!!!

[aghast]

Dec 31, 2017 20:00:32 GMT chippenhamgas said:

Dec 31, 2017 18:39:53 GMT gashead1981 said:

That is no more than a rough stab in the dark. If a stadium was that much of a loss leader I doubt that Brighton, Bournemouth et al would have built them.

We don’t actually know that no money could be made. We have never been given any satisfactory answers to any questions regarding why it wasn’t sustainable, if that was the reason. Chances are it could be the fact that we haven’t got the money. The only answer we have gotten out that has any symphony between owner and chairman is “we are in it for the long term”. Well that could be absolutely anything.

What we do know is that the feasibility study came back positive and it was all systems go and then it wasn't. That indicates the owners either changed their minds about spending the money or uwe moved the goalposts.

Or it might indicate the feasibility study said it was feasible if the Al Qadis owned the land (sold to them at a knockdown price), and kept all the revenues from gate receipts, catering, entertainment, car parking, and any other premises our owners chose to build on the site, free from any interference from UWE.

To which UWE might have said "no".

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2017 20:31:05 GMT eric said:

Dec 31, 2017 20:20:01 GMT @cc52 said:

Or that the investors which they had lined up pulled out as it was never the Familys money being ploughed into the UWE in the first place, they made that clear from the start.
That’s why a hotel and casino? were being incorporated somehow, to help generate the returns. That was my understanding, although I could be wrong. Usually am. So the wife says. Bitch.

If that was the case wouldn't the VC at UWE have come out and had something to say? Rovers had basically said it was the UWE's delays, moving goalposts etc that caused the deal to breakdown. If I was being wrongly blamed I'd want to set the record straight. Call me the ultimate blue tinted optimist but I'm not sure the deal is dead yet!!!!

I thought UWE had already said Rovers had pulled out after agreeing to sign? Rovers day it was UWE Doing and vice Versa. Either side has said nothing worthwhile unless I’ve missed it but the Stadium was never going to be built with Alquadis money solely, they did make that very clear.

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2017 20:35:58 GMT aghast said:

Dec 31, 2017 20:00:32 GMT chippenhamgas said:

What we do know is that the feasibility study came back positive and it was all systems go and then it wasn't. That indicates the owners either changed their minds about spending the money or uwe moved the goalposts.

Or it might indicate the feasibility study said it was feasible if the Al Qadis owned the land (sold to them at a knockdown price), and kept all the revenues from gate receipts, catering, entertainment, car parking, and any other premises our owners chose to build on the site, free from any interference from UWE.

To which UWE might have said "no".

Good point.

[garystash]

Dec 31, 2017 18:39:53 GMT gashead1981 said:

Dec 31, 2017 11:37:59 GMT knowall said:

shops all over the country are closing down because the terms required by the landlords are too expensive for the businesses to survive - same problem with UWE - if the terms and conditions mean you cannot make money and survive then the deal is not acceptable - simple as

That is no more than a rough stab in the dark. If a stadium was that much of a loss leader I doubt that Brighton, Bournemouth et al would have built them.

We don’t actually know that no money could be made. We have never been given any satisfactory answers to any questions regarding why it wasn’t sustainable, if that was the reason. Chances are it could be the fact that we haven’t got the money. The only answer we have gotten out that has any symphony between owner and chairman is “we are in it for the long term”. Well that could be absolutely anything.

I recently re-watched the interview with Wael post uwe announcement. Think I was too angry at the time to listen to what he says.

He's actually quite clear. The UWE kept revisiting commercial terms that had already been agreed. In other words, they kept wanting to re-negotiate more and more of the revenue.

These negotiations were costing the club money, and an end had to be brought to it. Hence the deadline set by Dwane for agreement.

The UWE, despite reminders of the importance of the deadline, failed to contact Dwane. It seems Dwane then had no choice but to pull the plug.

He also mentions not being willing to agree terms that would jeopardise the clubs future.

It's all there if you listen:

[Antonio Fargas]

Dec 31, 2017 20:00:32 GMT chippenhamgas said:

Dec 31, 2017 18:39:53 GMT gashead1981 said:

That is no more than a rough stab in the dark. If a stadium was that much of a loss leader I doubt that Brighton, Bournemouth et al would have built them.

We don’t actually know that no money could be made. We have never been given any satisfactory answers to any questions regarding why it wasn’t sustainable, if that was the reason. Chances are it could be the fact that we haven’t got the money. The only answer we have gotten out that has any symphony between owner and chairman is “we are in it for the long term”. Well that could be absolutely anything.

What we do know is that the feasibility study came back positive and it was all systems go and then it wasn't. That indicates the owners either changed their minds about spending the money or uwe moved the goalposts.

We don't know that. I imagine the feasibility study came back with what was feasible. It doesn't make much sense to negotiate a contract and then check whether it's feasible. It makes more sense to see what's feasible and then try to negotiate towards that.

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2017 21:13:36 GMT garystash said:

Dec 31, 2017 18:39:53 GMT gashead1981 said:

That is no more than a rough stab in the dark. If a stadium was that much of a loss leader I doubt that Brighton, Bournemouth et al would have built them.

We don’t actually know that no money could be made. We have never been given any satisfactory answers to any questions regarding why it wasn’t sustainable, if that was the reason. Chances are it could be the fact that we haven’t got the money. The only answer we have gotten out that has any symphony between owner and chairman is “we are in it for the long term”. Well that could be absolutely anything.

I recently re-watched the interview with Wael post uwe announcement. Think I was too angry at the time to listen to what he says.

He's actually quite clear. The UWE kept revisiting commercial terms that had already been agreed. In other words, they kept wanting to re-negotiate more and more of the revenue.

These negotiations were costing the club money, and an end had to be brought to it. Hence the deadline set by Dwane for agreement.

The UWE, despite reminders of the importance of the deadline, failed to contact Dwane. It seems Dwane then had no choice but to pull the plug.

He also mentions not being willing to agree terms that would jeopardise the clubs future.

It's all there if you listen:

Shortly after the announcement UWE VC gave a number of media interviews expressing surprise and disappointment at the DS statement. He said they still wanted to proceed and welcomed Rovers back to the negotiating table - since then not a thing. This seems odd as he was happy to be interviewed back then, the press, radio and TV would have been seeking follow up interviews. Why has he not spoken to confirm Rovers never came back to the table?

[ashtop]

Dec 31, 2017 21:28:57 GMT eric said:

Dec 31, 2017 21:13:36 GMT garystash said:

I recently re-watched the interview with Wael post uwe announcement. Think I was too angry at the time to listen to what he says.

He's actually quite clear. The UWE kept revisiting commercial terms that had already been agreed. In other words, they kept wanting to re-negotiate more and more of the revenue.

These negotiations were costing the club money, and an end had to be brought to it. Hence the deadline set by Dwane for agreement.

The UWE, despite reminders of the importance of the deadline, failed to contact Dwane. It seems Dwane then had no choice but to pull the plug.

He also mentions not being willing to agree terms that would jeopardise the clubs future.

It's all there if you listen:

Shortly after the announcement UWE VC gave a number of media interviews expressing surprise and disappointment at the DS statement. He said they still wanted to proceed and welcomed Rovers back to the negotiating table - since then not a thing. This seems odd as he was happy to be interviewed back then, the press, radio and TV would have been seeking follow up interviews. Why has he not spoken to confirm Rovers never came back to the table?

[socrates]

Dec 31, 2017 20:31:05 GMT eric said:

Dec 31, 2017 20:20:01 GMT @cc52 said:

Or that the investors which they had lined up pulled out as it was never the Familys money being ploughed into the UWE in the first place, they made that clear from the start.
That’s why a hotel and casino? were being incorporated somehow, to help generate the returns. That was my understanding, although I could be wrong. Usually am. So the wife says. Bitch.

If that was the case wouldn't the VC at UWE have come out and had something to say? Rovers had basically said it was the UWE's delays, moving goalposts etc that caused the deal to breakdown. If I was being wrongly blamed I'd want to set the record straight. Call me the ultimate blue tinted optimist but I'm not sure the deal is dead yet!!!!

I heard that when WAQ bought the club UWE moved the goalposts and wanted more of the profits made than the original deal Higgs had struck.
I heard that from a supporter who had spoken to him in person before the club announced the deal had collapsed.
Could be bullshit I don’t know to be honest I’ve almost given up caring.
I’m just going to keep supporting Rovers on the pitch and all the crap off it will come out in the wash.
Some call it blindly supporting but I think that’s bullshit too.
I’ve got my eyes wide open but at the end of the day I started supporting our club in 1986, we had a hell of a lot less then than we do now I followed the Gas to the championship and all the way through our conference season and back up to league 1.
It’s not blindly supporting its staying loyal to your club through thick and thin no matter what joker of an owner or jokers of players you’ve got dragging your club down you staying strong keeping your head up and keep going.
Those 4000 at Coventry are doing it, Wimbledon have done
It , we did it at Twerton early years and again in the conference.
The sh** went bust because they haven’t got it , f**k them.
Up The Gas.

[aghast]

Dec 31, 2017 21:25:44 GMT Antonio Fargas said:

Dec 31, 2017 20:00:32 GMT chippenhamgas said:

What we do know is that the feasibility study came back positive and it was all systems go and then it wasn't. That indicates the owners either changed their minds about spending the money or uwe moved the goalposts.

We don't know that. I imagine the feasibility study came back with what was feasible. It doesn't make much sense to negotiate a contract and then check whether it's feasible. It makes more sense to see what's feasible and then try to negotiate towards that.

That's what I said, basically.

But I added in some made-up stuff, because this is Gaschat, and that is what we do here.

[stuart1974]

Dec 31, 2017 21:13:36 GMT garystash said:

Dec 31, 2017 18:39:53 GMT gashead1981 said:

That is no more than a rough stab in the dark. If a stadium was that much of a loss leader I doubt that Brighton, Bournemouth et al would have built them.

We don’t actually know that no money could be made. We have never been given any satisfactory answers to any questions regarding why it wasn’t sustainable, if that was the reason. Chances are it could be the fact that we haven’t got the money. The only answer we have gotten out that has any symphony between owner and chairman is “we are in it for the long term”. Well that could be absolutely anything.

I recently re-watched the interview with Wael post uwe announcement. Think I was too angry at the time to listen to what he says.

He's actually quite clear. The UWE kept revisiting commercial terms that had already been agreed. In other words, they kept wanting to re-negotiate more and more of the revenue.

These negotiations were costing the club money, and an end had to be brought to it. Hence the deadline set by Dwane for agreement.

The UWE, despite reminders of the importance of the deadline, failed to contact Dwane. It seems Dwane then had no choice but to pull the plug.

He also mentions not being willing to agree terms that would jeopardise the clubs future.

It's all there if you listen:

I didn't say so at the time because of the anger on here but I would certainly recommend watching or listening to these types of interviews twice and at least once after reading the comments here. Even SH's verbals come across better than expected.

In terms of the interview, I haven't listened for a while but from memory he stated that the lack of announcement prior to the leak was because he was hoping the UWE would come back.

Mind you, in my more cynical thoughts I've wondered if the UWE were actually stonewalling

[stuart1974]

Dec 31, 2017 22:26:09 GMT aghast said:

Dec 31, 2017 21:25:44 GMT Antonio Fargas said:

We don't know that. I imagine the feasibility study came back with what was feasible. It doesn't make much sense to negotiate a contract and then check whether it's feasible. It makes more sense to see what's feasible and then try to negotiate towards that.

That's what I said, basically.

But I added in some made-up stuff, because this is Gaschat, and that is what we do here

If someone told you they were a compulsive liar, would you believe them?

[garystash]

Dec 31, 2017 21:28:57 GMT eric said:

Dec 31, 2017 21:13:36 GMT garystash said:

I recently re-watched the interview with Wael post uwe announcement. Think I was too angry at the time to listen to what he says.

He's actually quite clear. The UWE kept revisiting commercial terms that had already been agreed. In other words, they kept wanting to re-negotiate more and more of the revenue.

These negotiations were costing the club money, and an end had to be brought to it. Hence the deadline set by Dwane for agreement.

The UWE, despite reminders of the importance of the deadline, failed to contact Dwane. It seems Dwane then had no choice but to pull the plug.

He also mentions not being willing to agree terms that would jeopardise the clubs future.

It's all there if you listen:

Shortly after the announcement UWE VC gave a number of media interviews expressing surprise and disappointment at the DS statement. He said they still wanted to proceed and welcomed Rovers back to the negotiating table - since then not a thing. This seems odd as he was happy to be interviewed back then, the press, radio and TV would have been seeking follow up interviews. Why has he not spoken to confirm Rovers never came back to the table?

Not sure, but it has been reiterated a couple of times by the club that it's definitely over.

[bradfordmeyerbiggs]

Dec 31, 2017 17:56:18 GMT socrates said:

Dec 31, 2017 11:57:19 GMT bradfordmeyerbiggs said:

Hahahahaha the sh** lost.

Going up are they? Hahahahaha

That has made my year. UTFG FTS!

Some Man Utd medicine rammed back down their throats.

Watch the bubble burst now....

Watch their away support drop now too.

Hahahahahaha

Better cancel their obsessed with Rovers thread now.

The 🎁 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I take it you don’t like them then lol
UTG

I love Sir Rickie Lambert. I love Dean Windass.

They are the biggest bunch of deluded supporters the football league has ever seen.

They go around acting like they are a massive club. All Teds have massive chips on their shoulders, and always have. That is why we hate the sh**.

As Gasheads we took an oath not to bite when we got relegated to the conference and simply stay silent and not mention Teds, but recently they have been unbearable.

I prayed for them to lose against Wolves. At least there is a god!