Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 20:39:34 GMT
One thing they have not got is their dignity in 1982 they owed a lot of people a lot of money which was never paid they even had to tear up players contracts telling them if they didn't accept a pittance they would get nothing.We will always have the moral high ground over those guttersnipes. 1982. 33 years ago. Are you serious man?? Most who ran Bristol City then are all dead.
|
|
|
Post by tbonegas on Jan 27, 2015 20:46:21 GMT
Its the boards fault. SACK THE BOARD. Sack them now.
|
|
|
Post by creationblue on Jan 27, 2015 20:49:08 GMT
Its the boards fault. SACK THE BOARD. Sack them now. And who's gonna put their hands in their pockets then?
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,428
|
Post by harrybuckle on Jan 27, 2015 20:52:11 GMT
Its the boards fault. SACK THE BOARD. Sack them now. And who's gonna put their hands in their pockets then? tbone is a wealthy individual and known to be a recent euro millions winner...our future is safe ..at long last !
|
|
|
Post by christianandersen on Jan 27, 2015 20:55:43 GMT
Its the boards fault. SACK THE BOARD. Sack them now. And who's gonna put their hands in their pockets then? MPS Capital ?
|
|
|
Post by tbonegas on Jan 28, 2015 0:04:27 GMT
This is the Anti Bristol Rovers board forum. They should be sacked.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 0:26:27 GMT
This is the Anti Bristol Rovers board forum. They should be sacked. Tbone has a small bone.
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on Jan 28, 2015 0:48:08 GMT
The C**y. Watching the game on Sunday on TV, we are absolutely miles behind them in everything we do and have been for years. It will be a long, long time before we can ever be considered anywhere near them in infastructure or on the pitch. If ever. Sad. They are owned by a billionaire. No brainer. And yet his £55m loss in 5 yes of business merely gained them relegation and he couldn't even get them a new stadium. The massive irony of course is that we do have permission for an innovative stadium, and the £30m we need is literally pocket change to him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 1:27:43 GMT
The C**y. Watching the game on Sunday on TV, we are absolutely miles behind them in everything we do and have been for years. It will be a long, long time before we can ever be considered anywhere near them in infastructure or on the pitch. If ever. Sad. They are owned by a billionaire. No brainer. And yet his £55m loss in 5 yes of business merely gained them relegation and he couldn't even get them a new stadium. The massive irony of course is that we do have permission for an innovative stadium, and the £30m we need is literally pocket change to him. I've always liked Steve, steve you lurvley man , I love you! your the best. Can we join your lovely franchise you lovely man you! 30 mil is nothing to you pleasssse??? love nick.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jan 28, 2015 3:03:55 GMT
But it was Lansdown's money which bought Baldock in the first place? No, Baldock was part exchange in the deal that saw MaynaYou go to West Ham. You lot are so easily co fused by the past aren't you. Check the records when did Maynard leave & when did Baldock arrive? Pretty sure you will see it was at different times. As wildly reported you got Baldock in lieu of what West Ham owed on the Maynard contract. What next 1982 actually happened in the 1800s?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jan 28, 2015 3:10:31 GMT
The C**y. Watching the game on Sunday on TV, we are absolutely miles behind them in everything we do and have been for years. It will be a long, long time before we can ever be considered anywhere near them in infastructure or on the pitch. If ever. Sad. They are owned by a billionaire. No brainer. And yet his £55m loss in 5 yes of business merely gained them relegation and he couldn't even get them a new stadium. The massive irony of course is that we do have permission for an innovative stadium, and the £30m we need is literally pocket change to him. Stop quoting facts you twat! The irony is why people are supporting a loss making future when they criticise the board for making losses every year. The further irony is why want to be like a mediocre loss making team that have won nothing (actually they've been relegated in that time), s**t it's Man City we need to be like they are the team that everyone in football should envy & want to be like .....
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jan 28, 2015 4:00:08 GMT
One thing they have not got is their dignity in 1982 they owed a lot of people a lot of money which was never paid they even had to tear up players contracts telling them if they didn't accept a pittance they would get nothing.We will always have the moral high ground over those guttersnipes. 1982. 33 years ago. Are you serious man?? Most who ran Bristol City then are all dead. And that comment shows why you & all those like you will always be scum. Shouldn't your first thoughts be for the Ashton Gate Eight without whom Bristol wouldn't be sullied by the existence of your club?
|
|
Alveston Gas
Brucie Bannister
Once a Gashead always a Gashead
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 746
|
Post by Alveston Gas on Jan 28, 2015 7:12:00 GMT
I could be wrong but didn't cotterell say that all the signings this year were funded by the sale of baldock so we can't even say it was all lansdowns money this year Thats absolutely correct. Agard was about 800k. Freeman was out of contract, Wilbrahams was free, Korey Smith, Mark Little, Ayling all out of contract. The freeing up for the highly paid Fontaine, Elliott, Pearson etc funded the wage increases and then Baldock went for the best part of 2m+ The transfer business was pretty much self funded through this summer. That made a change then after years of squandering sack loads of tax free cash!
|
|
cobra1
Joined: July 2014
Posts: 7
|
Post by cobra1 on Jan 28, 2015 7:49:21 GMT
But it was Lansdown's money which bought Baldock in the first place? No, Baldock was part exchange in the deal that saw Maynard go to West Ham. City were owed 1million for Maynard so used that to buy baldock then sold h for 2 million good bit of business whatever way you look at it. The worrying thing is they have learnt by previous mistakes and gone are the days of paying silly money for old has beens they now have a young squad with sell on value
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Jan 28, 2015 9:25:17 GMT
Its the boards fault. SACK THE BOARD. Sack them now. And who's gonna put their hands in their pockets then? The supporters - AGAIN
|
|
|
Post by badbloodash on Jan 28, 2015 9:36:38 GMT
The C**y. Watching the game on Sunday on TV, we are absolutely miles behind them in everything we do and have been for years. It will be a long, long time before we can ever be considered anywhere near them in infastructure or on the pitch. If ever. Sad. They are owned by a billionaire. No brainer. And yet his £55m loss in 5 yes of business merely gained them relegation and he couldn't even get them a new stadium. The massive irony of course is that we do have permission for an innovative stadium, and the £30m we need is literally pocket change to him. Yes all true but at the end of the day he is a turncoat I can understand inbreds from darkest Somerset following that pile of s**te but those who stood on the tote and then changed I have no time for .the man is obviously highly intelligent and successful but who in their right mind would swap the black swan on Stapleton rd for the ship and castle
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on Jan 28, 2015 9:44:41 GMT
No, Baldock was part exchange in the deal that saw Maynard go to West Ham. City were owed 1million for Maynard so used that to buy baldock then sold h for 2 million good bit of business whatever way you look at it. The worrying thing is they have learnt by previous mistakes and gone are the days of paying silly money for old has beens they now have a young squad with sell on value sadly we can all pretty much agree that City have finally sorted themselves out and have a decent team, are not paying silly money, have clearly gone for and started the refurb of Trashton rather than a new stadium, and have mgr who, let's be honest, has been a revelation. £2m for Baldock is one of those figures that gets quoted and then requoted even though it is wrong, and the circle perpetuates. It was no-where near that. If people read the BEP reports at the time the difference between the money they paid for Agard and the money they were paid for Baldock was small. Yes, there are some extra clauses on Baldock's sale that might come to fruition but it is still not a lot of difference, even if they get all the add-ons. Whether it was spun deliberately to sound like a lot of money and thus claim they are finally living almost within their means, or has just been an accident, is currently unknown.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 10:08:15 GMT
City were owed 1million for Maynard so used that to buy baldock then sold h for 2 million good bit of business whatever way you look at it. The worrying thing is they have learnt by previous mistakes and gone are the days of paying silly money for old has beens they now have a young squad with sell on value sadly we can all pretty much agree that City have finally sorted themselves out and have a decent team, are not paying silly money, have clearly gone for and started the refurb of Trashton rather than a new stadium, and have mgr who, let's be honest, has been a revelation. £2m for Baldock is one of those figures that gets quoted and then requoted even though it is wrong, and the circle perpetuates. It was no-where near that. If people read the BEP reports at the time the difference between the money they paid for Agard and the money they were paid for Baldock was small. Yes, there are some extra clauses on Baldock's sale that might come to fruition but it is still not a lot of difference, even if they get all the add-ons. Whether it was spun deliberately to sound like a lot of money and thus claim they are finally living almost within their means, or has just been an accident, is currently unknown. Look Mehew Thats far to reasonable a summation. There is no place here for that kind of thing
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 17:41:29 GMT
They are owned by a billionaire. No brainer. And yet his £55m loss in 5 yes of business merely gained them relegation and he couldn't even get them a new stadium. The massive irony of course is that we do have permission for an innovative stadium, and the £30m we need is literally pocket change to him. Yes all true but at the end of the day he is a turncoat I can understand inbreds from darkest Somerset following that pile of s***e but those who stood on the tote and then changed I have no time for .the man is obviously highly intelligent and successful but who in their right mind would swap the black swan on Stapleton rd for the ship and castle I think the days of being from a particular area are long gone. I'm from Downend and grew up in Fishponds yet watch all my football in BS3 and always have. Fair play if Lansdown chose to do the same. He's a sound bloke though, really down to earth despite all his wealth.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 17:47:40 GMT
City were owed 1million for Maynard so used that to buy baldock then sold h for 2 million good bit of business whatever way you look at it. The worrying thing is they have learnt by previous mistakes and gone are the days of paying silly money for old has beens they now have a young squad with sell on value sadly we can all pretty much agree that City have finally sorted themselves out and have a decent team, are not paying silly money, have clearly gone for and started the refurb of Trashton rather than a new stadium, and have mgr who, let's be honest, has been a revelation. £2m for Baldock is one of those figures that gets quoted and then requoted even though it is wrong, and the circle perpetuates. It was no-where near that. If people read the BEP reports at the time the difference between the money they paid for Agard and the money they were paid for Baldock was small. Yes, there are some extra clauses on Baldock's sale that might come to fruition but it is still not a lot of difference, even if they get all the add-ons. Whether it was spun deliberately to sound like a lot of money and thus claim they are finally living almost within their means, or has just been an accident, is currently unknown. It has to be run better as a business. It just had to, irrelevant to the new FFP rules. I was at the Lansdown Q&A he held in Crewe earlier in the season and he pointed out that if we continued to squander tens of millions on rubbish and wages, ignoring what was coming in, we'd be in trouble with the FA but also probably end up in L2 - which is where we were heading last season under that last idiot. So it needs to be run better as a business. That means getting additional revenue from the rugby club, halving the costs of the ticket and back office by sharing it with other clubs, spending that savings on wages for better players than we had, being more sensible in the market for up and coming players like Agard and Freeman than older hasbeens we saw in the past like Jody Morris or Pearson. Baldock would be 2m if we add in all the extra clauses of sell-on, goals tally, appearances etc. 800k for Agard is also subject to other clauses - the best estimate I heard that it was about 650k up front for him and 1.3m for Baldock. Either way thats alright by me, because we didn't spend anything on the others. The only downside of this season is that when ticket demands are at their height, we have a reduced capacity and a limit on what we can sell making it a b'stard for people like me who dont get a ST to buy tickets ahead of time. I got my Sheffield United tickets weeks and weeks ago for Feb 14th and I am sitting all over the ground these days as a result. Such is life though. I'd take that than the s**te I saw start of last season.
|
|