gassedup
Frankie Prince
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 210
|
Post by gassedup on Jun 16, 2014 10:44:46 GMT
I was actually hoping you would reply with what those irregularities were. Already been covered mate. Money went straight to the former owner of Wycombe. From memory because of that the agent missed out on commission. I would have thought if godofthunder was a lawyer he would be educated enough to have put THEIR decision in one of his / her earlier posts, not THERE decision. Don't feed the troll fellow Gasheads. empirebaypete Thank you That was also my understanding but I wanted to hear it from godofthunder as he was asking for the link between the sale/contract/sell-on-clause a few years ago (for which WW were fined) and why WW had benefitted in the last season. I'm sure his evasive (or lack of) reply shows he has now answered his own question.
|
|
|
Post by empirebaypete on Jun 16, 2014 10:53:02 GMT
Already been covered mate. Money went straight to the former owner of Wycombe. From memory because of that the agent missed out on commission. I would have thought if godofthunder was a lawyer he would be educated enough to have put THEIR decision in one of his / her earlier posts, not THERE decision. Don't feed the troll fellow Gasheads. empirebaypete Thank you That was also my understanding but I wanted to hear it from godofthunder as he was asking for the link between the sale a few years ago (for which WW were fined) and why WW had benefitted in the last season. I'm sure his evasive (or lack of reply) shows he has now answered his own question.
I would have thought "being a sports lawyer and people talking" he'd have more of an idea about what Rovers are actually alleging. This business of the FA not liking Rovers talking to a banned agent is a load of bollocks. For the record I don't for one minute believe Rovers will get back in the league over this.
|
|
gassedup
Frankie Prince
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 210
|
Post by gassedup on Jun 16, 2014 10:58:45 GMT
empirebaypete Thank you That was also my understanding but I wanted to hear it from godofthunder as he was asking for the link between the sale a few years ago (for which WW were fined) and why WW had benefitted in the last season. I'm sure his evasive (or lack of reply) shows he has now answered his own question.
I would have thought "being a sports lawyer and people talking" he'd have more of an idea about what Rovers are actually alleging. This business of the FA not liking Rovers talking to a banned agent is a load of bollocks. For the record I don't for one minute believe Rovers will get back in the league over this. Neither do I. If the case is proven and WW did wrongly have an advantage we should play in League Two next season; but the FA or the League will bottle it.
I do believe BRFC are (probably) correct in their actions though.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 16, 2014 11:01:11 GMT
Sorry but it is true. The fact that you have consulted with him over this has caused the FA conncern. Understand the bad blood but the Ref called the game off not the Safety Officer. If that is the case I assume the FA will announce today they have completed thier enquiries and WW don't have a case to answer. As far as the abandoned game that's irrelevent to this investigation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 11:09:58 GMT
Sorry but it is true. The fact that you have consulted with him over this has caused the FA conncern. Understand the bad blood but the Ref called the game off not the Safety Officer. The ref called it off because of advice from your safety clown about the lightening,but we are where we deserve to be. I do look forward to the next time our paths cross though,especialy at your place. Hope to see you all soon
|
|
|
Post by mancgas has left the building on Jun 16, 2014 11:17:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Big Dave on Jun 16, 2014 11:26:54 GMT
Can I point out something?
Neither of these posts make sense logically, factually or grammatically (and spellings are sometimes a bit off)...
Why is a 'sports lawyer' on here on a monday morning?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 11:45:53 GMT
Gashead, For info, we are not the same person. Also I have not lost anything, it seems lockleazer has though as I have not said that there are charges coming to BRFC but that the fact that they have been in contact with a banned agent has raised questions in FA Remind me not to use a legal practice whose staff can't follow simple time lines and don't understand the difference between there and their. When the sinks are clean and the floors swept, if you don't mind, I take mine white with 2 sugars. As for the case itself, Rovers' board had no choice but to ask the questions, as you, with you legal background (stop laughing at the back) will be well aware, they have certain legal obligations to the company, failing to investigate the matter would have been a dereliction of that responsibility. So no, there won't be any investigation for wasting anybody's time. The end result will be that Rovers get nowhere, that would require football authorities to admit to being wrong, when did that last happen. Using the term ''Competitive advantage'' was more than unfortunate. Even with their shenanigans Wycombe still had nowhere near the same resources available as Rovers' hopeless board. Lastly, as you have already been told, the decision not to be able to accept that you were going to lose a mid-season match was taken out of the referee's hands when your safety manager, Richard Stanford claimed that a stand containing Rovers' supporters was struck twice by lightning, that later changed to it being struck once, yet he didn't evacuate the stand and allowed ground staff to work on the pitch with pitch forks and allowed players to warm up again on the pitch before deciding that the game couldn't go ahead. All of these things add up, it'll all come back and bite Wycombe in the backside.
|
|
|
Post by godofthunder on Jun 16, 2014 12:12:22 GMT
To empirebaypete,
Sorry I made a typo on "their". I did notice this after the event but let it go. Sorry that it led you to the view that I am not educated.
To Big Dave,
A day off.............and I was bored
Thank you all for the discussion. It will all come out in the next few days, when Higgs has been deposed by his Board colleagues (but I am sure that this has nothing to do with it - heavy sarcasm), and BRFC will prepare for the next season (or two plus) in the Conference.
Best of luck next season, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Big Dave on Jun 16, 2014 12:14:31 GMT
A day off.............and I was bored Thank you all for the discussion. It will all come out in the next few days, when Higgs has been deposed by his Board colleagues (but I am sure that this has nothing to do with it - heavy sarcasm), and BRFC will prepare for the next season (or two plus) in the Conference. Best of luck next season, by the way. PM me your office number, I will call and confirm with your assistant...
|
|
|
Post by beesknees on Jun 16, 2014 12:17:26 GMT
I understand that they feel aggrieved that the game when they were 3-1 up was postponed by the Referee due to lightening.
Definition of Lightening the descent of the uterus into the pelvic cavity, occurring toward the end of pregnancy, changing the contour of the abdomen and facilitating breathing by lessening pressure under the diaphragm.
So the game was abandoned due to the referees pregnancy ?
|
|
lockleazer
Tarki Micalleff
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 411
|
Post by lockleazer on Jun 16, 2014 12:21:09 GMT
To empirebaypete, Sorry I made a typo on "their". I did notice this after the event but let it go. Sorry that it led you to the view that I am not educated. To Big Dave, A day off.............and I was bored Thank you all for the discussion. It will all come out in the next few days, when Higgs has been deposed by his Board colleagues (but I am sure that this has nothing to do with it - heavy sarcasm), and BRFC will prepare for the next season (or two plus) in the Conference. Best of luck next season, by the way. So the big laywer now insinuates that he knows of a forthcoming depature of our chairman (you can read that on numerous posts on numerous forums and the gossip is all over twitter) but the key thing here is that the thundernugget suggests its all over the complaints about WWFC ... what a top lawyer so in the know!
|
|
|
Post by Big Dave on Jun 16, 2014 14:05:29 GMT
A day off.............and I was bored Thank you all for the discussion. It will all come out in the next few days, when Higgs has been deposed by his Board colleagues (but I am sure that this has nothing to do with it - heavy sarcasm), and BRFC will prepare for the next season (or two plus) in the Conference. Best of luck next season, by the way. PM me your office number, I will call and confirm with your assistant... Have I won this one? If it helps (if you're worried that I will publish your work number) I will publish my mobile instead and you can call me...
|
|
gassedup
Frankie Prince
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 210
|
Post by gassedup on Jun 16, 2014 14:22:28 GMT
Gashead, For info, we are not the same person. Also I have not lost anything, it seems lockleazer has though as I have not said that there are charges coming to BRFC but that the fact that they have been in contact with a banned agent has raised questions in FA Remind me not to use a legal practice whose staff can't follow simple time lines and don't understand the difference between there and their. When the sinks are clean and the floors swept, if you don't mind, I take mine white with 2 sugars. As for the case itself, Rovers' board had no choice but to ask the questions, as you, with you legal background (stop laughing at the back) will be well aware, they have certain legal obligations to the company, failing to investigate the matter would have been a dereliction of that responsibility. So no, there won't be any investigation for wasting anybody's time. The end result will be that Rovers get nowhere, that would require football authorities to admit to being wrong, when did that last happen. Using the term ''Competitive advantage'' was more than unfortunate. Even with their shenanigans Wycombe still had nowhere near the same resources available as Rovers' hopeless board. Lastly, as you have already been told, the decision not to be able to accept that you were going to lose a mid-season match was taken out of the referee's hands when your safety manager, Richard Stanford claimed that a stand containing Rovers' supporters was struck twice by lightning, that later changed to it being struck once, yet he didn't evacuate the stand and allowed ground staff to work on the pitch with pitch forks and allowed players to warm up again on the pitch before deciding that the game couldn't go ahead. All of these things add up, it'll all come back and bite Wycombe in the backside. Bamber
You are of course correct on every single point you make.
Having said that if WW "cheated" in some way and they should have been in a slightly less advantageous position than they were then they should have points deducted for the season just finished. It is after all then that they received the advantage not next season.
Please note I am not making a comparison with our position here as there is no doubt BRFC should have been "streets ahead" whatever WW's position.
That is not to say we did not deserve to be relegated but I will take anything available.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 14:55:27 GMT
Remind me not to use a legal practice whose staff can't follow simple time lines and don't understand the difference between there and their. When the sinks are clean and the floors swept, if you don't mind, I take mine white with 2 sugars. As for the case itself, Rovers' board had no choice but to ask the questions, as you, with you legal background (stop laughing at the back) will be well aware, they have certain legal obligations to the company, failing to investigate the matter would have been a dereliction of that responsibility. So no, there won't be any investigation for wasting anybody's time. The end result will be that Rovers get nowhere, that would require football authorities to admit to being wrong, when did that last happen. Using the term ''Competitive advantage'' was more than unfortunate. Even with their shenanigans Wycombe still had nowhere near the same resources available as Rovers' hopeless board. Lastly, as you have already been told, the decision not to be able to accept that you were going to lose a mid-season match was taken out of the referee's hands when your safety manager, Richard Stanford claimed that a stand containing Rovers' supporters was struck twice by lightning, that later changed to it being struck once, yet he didn't evacuate the stand and allowed ground staff to work on the pitch with pitch forks and allowed players to warm up again on the pitch before deciding that the game couldn't go ahead. All of these things add up, it'll all come back and bite Wycombe in the backside. Bamber
You are of course correct on every single point you make.
Having said that if WW "cheated" in some way and they should have been in a slightly less advantageous position than they were then they should have points deducted for the season just finished. It is after all then that they received the advantage not next season.
Please note I am not making a comparison with our position here as there is no doubt BRFC should have been "streets ahead" whatever WW's position.
That is not to say we did not deserve to be relegated but I will take anything available.
The ''cheat'' that actually cost us was at The Mem when one of their players thew himself on the floor as if Lennox Lewis had given him an uppercut, when in fact Clarkeson's hand brushed over the top of his head, then all of their players chased the totally useless referee Sheldrake, who had no idea that anything had happened, so consulted his linesman, who hadn't flagged for a foul, but under pressure from Wycombe's players decided that Clarkeson had to be sent off. They were not going to win that game in a million years if it was 11 Vs 11. Well done Wycombe, just remember that what goes around comes around, and nobody will cry a tear when you end up where you belong, back as a non-League club.
|
|
|
Post by martyhopkirk on Jun 16, 2014 16:11:43 GMT
I therefore fail to see why a Lincoln City fan is trying to generate an environment to alienate Bristol Rovers supporters toward their Board taking this action.
Credit to you for your subtlety.
I doth think you give me far more credit than I deserve - looking at other threads and posts on this board others closer to home are doing a far better job than I ever could ever hope to do, if that was my intention (which it is not) I'd just simply leave it to others. I'm Just trying to offer a pragmatic and unemotional view based an a modest amount of knowledge, on this so called affair. It's of interest because, well you decide. Marty...
|
|
|
Post by martyhopkirk on Jun 16, 2014 16:27:57 GMT
Reminds me of the Lincoln fan trying to tell us our own stadium situation, although to be fair at least his club aren't involved in that. There is probably feck all in the investigation and Wycombe will come out of this smelling like roses, but do read through the 20-page thread on here before telling us what we're trying to investigate. The last place I would look for hard fact would be on this or any other forum. Also as to your stadium I merely was pointing you to construction process and custom & practice - which turned out to be true. Marty...
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jun 16, 2014 17:24:27 GMT
OK. Just to get a little perspctive here. I understand that BR supporters feel aggrieved that they were relegated into the Conference and that WWFC stayed up. I understand that they feel aggrieved that the game when they were 3-1 up was postponed by the Referee due to lightening. But.................... Your Board have been led astary by the agent and have run with something that has very little substance. He is pissed that he has had his licence revoked and that WWFC have received a fine. However, the WWFC Chairman brought this issue to the table and is the only person who came out of the FA Inquiry with any credit. So now what will happen. 1) The FA cannot understand why BRFC have raised transfer in 2010 as giving WWFC an advantage in season 2013/14. 2) They feel WWFC have little to answer because of this 3) The FL will follow any decision the FA make. 4) There is very little communication between the FA and the FL on this 5) The FA/FL are considering taking action against BRFC for consulting an agent who has had his licence revoked. To put things in the open. a) I am a WWFC Supporter b) I work for a team of Sports Lawyers who have not been approached on this issue biut the industry talks Your use of English leads me to disbelieve you about your job and I think you are an out and out bulls**tter who is clutching at straws and looking for information.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jun 16, 2014 17:29:03 GMT
Happy for that. What will be will be, but please do not blame WWFC for your demise when the authorities make there decision. Your relegation (as ours would have been) was down to the lack of performance over the season by the players, together with poor managemant. It is not down to other teams cheating, wearing your kit etc. Good luck in the Conference, by the way. Do you realise how foolish you look with basic spelling errors and not being able to use an instead of a plus their instead of there etc. Your story holds no water not weight. Go play in the motorway.
|
|
jozer
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 365
|
Post by jozer on Jun 16, 2014 18:08:01 GMT
Gashead, For info, we are not the same person. Also I have not lost anything, it seems lockleazer has though as I have not said that there are charges coming to BRFC but that the fact that they have been in contact with a banned agent has raised questions in FA Remind me not to use a legal practice whose staff can't follow simple time lines and don't understand the difference between there and their. When the sinks are clean and the floors swept, if you don't mind, I take mine white with 2 sugars. As for the case itself, Rovers' board had no choice but to ask the questions, as you, with you legal background (stop laughing at the back) will be well aware, they have certain legal obligations to the company, failing to investigate the matter would have been a dereliction of that responsibility. So no, there won't be any investigation for wasting anybody's time. The end result will be that Rovers get nowhere, that would require football authorities to admit to being wrong, when did that last happen. Using the term ''Competitive advantage'' was more than unfortunate. Even with their shenanigans Wycombe still had nowhere near the same resources available as Rovers' hopeless board. Lastly, as you have already been told, the decision not to be able to accept that you were going to lose a mid-season match was taken out of the referee's hands when your safety manager, Richard Stanford claimed that a stand containing Rovers' supporters was struck twice by lightning, that later changed to it being struck once, yet he didn't evacuate the stand and allowed ground staff to work on the pitch with pitch forks and allowed players to warm up again on the pitch before deciding that the game couldn't go ahead. All of these things add up, it'll all come back and bite Wycombe in the backside. But most Rovers shares are held by Directors anyway, and the few other shareholders certainly haven't show any inclination to chase the club up over it's failure to carry out it's responsibilities re- not running the club like a bloody whelk stall. In any other PLC shareholders would have gone to court to get Phoni removed by now, but we know this will never happen at Dunford Rovers.
|
|