Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 19:46:25 GMT
That has to be the most offensive and downright insulting statement ive ever read on this forum. Two relegations under Higgs FACT, lies about moving to Cheltenham FACT, no planning of how to run a club professionally over 6 bloody years FACT, running roughshod gambling with suspect lenders FACT, saying without him there would be no Rovers INSULTING, failing to see he is a custodian and not an owner FACT. Complete failure to build bridges with certain situations FACT, no sign of any logical plan on his watch FACT. The man is gambling with the club FACT, failed to get any investment on board FACT. The man makes mine and plenty of other people's blood boil FACT. Try as much spin and bull as you like but plenty (but not enough) fans can see he is rank amateur, a thorn in the side of the club and cannot wait to see the back of the bloke, too right it's personal for plenty of reasons mentioned above. Fingers crossed for another DD or RC to get some dignity, respect and professionalism back around the place to give the club the chance to be back to where it was in the middle of the entire professional football spectrum. You forgot to mention one small point in that NH's money has kept the club in business. Without it all your points are mute!!! Either stop insulting my intelligence or take me straight to a link where it says that Higgs is owner of MSP Capital and he doesn't want the money back, and while your at it take me to the link where Higgs says he is going to pay £8m out of his own pocket to pay off the huge losses incurred while he has rode roughshod over the 'fans' club, you can't because it won't happen so do us a favour and take your shyte elsewhere, you did the same with Dunford on the old forum and he has been paid up, walked away from the shambles and decided to write a book about it, you couldn't make it up. Anyway off out for a beer and toast to a great day today let's hope that the next two weeks get us back to where we should be despite Higgs not because of him.
|
|
|
Post by Gas Since 1957 on Apr 25, 2015 19:46:43 GMT
Can somebody answer me a simple question ? Why are you lot debating something that will not go to court on the MOST IMPORTANT day in the recent history our our club Did any of you go to the game today ? Careful, you don't want to offend the sensitive anti-board folks on this forum! But exactly what i was thinking - can't you miserable b**tards leave it alone till after the play-offs?
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Apr 25, 2015 19:48:47 GMT
No one on here knows anything other than the date of the hearing. As for you Bamber, do you have shares in Sainsburys? The only truth is BRFC and some of the developers believe they have a strong enough case to go to the High Court
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Apr 25, 2015 19:51:20 GMT
What am I missing here??? It is plain and simple. If Sainsburys still had massive balance sheets and high turnovers they would still be developing the Mem and would not be trying to get out of buying the Mem by the Tradesmans entrance. The get out clauses are/were caused by them because of just that. delaying tactics the No.1. If people have personal issues with Higgs then fair enough but take the blinkers off for 5 minutes.
So, your position is actually that you think that in certain market conditions Sainsbury's may have stepped outside of the contracted terms to complete the deal, but you are cross with them because they aren't doing that, and think that people who want to understand what's actually happened are only doing so because they have an issue with the FC's chairman. You literally couldn't make this up.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Apr 25, 2015 20:02:26 GMT
What am I missing here??? It is plain and simple. If Sainsburys still had massive balance sheets and high turnovers they would still be developing the Mem and would not be trying to get out of buying the Mem by the Tradesmans entrance. The get out clauses are/were caused by them because of just that. delaying tactics the No.1. If people have personal issues with Higgs then fair enough but take the blinkers off for 5 minutes.
So, your position is actually that you think that in certain market conditions Sainsbury's may have stepped outside of the contracted terms to complete the deal, but you are cross with them because they aren't doing that, and think that people who want to understand what's actually happened are only doing so because they have an issue with the FC's chairman. You literally couldn't make this up. Bamber I think what the person means is 'if there's a will there's a way'. If Sainsbury's wanted to proceed with the contract they would of found a solution in a legal way. However: they no longer want to continue due to organisational changes. The question is can we proof they broke the contract ??. It is my view the judge may find 'flaws' on both sides and recommend a settlement . Sainsbury's may decide to go to court because of two issues. One: they can avoid paying out £30 million on a site they no longer want. Secondly: it challenges other organisations to take Sainsbury's to court. So even if the judge awards Rovers £10 million because Sainsbury's too broke the contract . I personally think Sainsbury's will see this as a result. But the fact is the ground is free for Sainsbury's to start building but they won't and don't. A Bristol City fan who is a window cleaner told me " even I can see this but it;s proving it"...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 20:29:57 GMT
So, your position is actually that you think that in certain market conditions Sainsbury's may have stepped outside of the contracted terms to complete the deal, but you are cross with them because they aren't doing that, and think that people who want to understand what's actually happened are only doing so because they have an issue with the FC's chairman. You literally couldn't make this up. Bamber I think what the person means is 'if there's a will there's a way'. If Sainsbury's wanted to proceed with the contract they would of found a solution in a legal way. However: they no longer want to continue due to organisational changes. The question is can we proof they broke the contract ??. It is my view the judge may find 'flaws' on both sides and recommend a settlement . Sainsbury's may decide to go to court because of two issues. One: they can avoid paying out £30 million on a site they no longer want. Secondly: it challenges other organisations to take Sainsbury's to court. So even if the judge awards Rovers £10 million because Sainsbury's too broke the contract . I personally think Sainsbury's will see this as a result. But the fact is the ground is free for Sainsbury's to start building but they won't and don't. A Bristol City fan who is a window cleaner told me " even I can see this but it;s proving it"... Golly, where to start with that. So, there are 2 reasons, no more, no less that Sainsbury's are defending the claim against them? I have no idea why Sainsbury's haven't completed the deal. Maybe Rovers can't give the guarantees required that UWE is fully funded, maybe a hundred other things. Oh, but hang on, you've stated as fact that you know that the reason they won't / can't complete is due to organisational changes. Sorry, but that's just opinion presented as fact. We can sit here and guess until the cows come home. I suspect that they were left high and dry in BS3 when City couldn't get the permissions required for their new stadium, but that contract had T&Cs, they were bound by them and ended up without the site, that's just how the cookie crumbles.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Apr 25, 2015 20:43:08 GMT
So if no-one knows and we are all making assumptions ( which I agree). Why do you constantly try to prove your point ??.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 20:53:43 GMT
So if no-one knows and we are all making assumptions ( which I agree). Why do you constantly try to prove your point ??. maybe because people keep saying things like, So, people are protesting in orange shirts based on assumptions?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 25, 2015 21:13:03 GMT
Bamber I think what the person means is 'if there's a will there's a way'. If Sainsbury's wanted to proceed with the contract they would of found a solution in a legal way. However: they no longer want to continue due to organisational changes. The question is can we proof they broke the contract ??. It is my view the judge may find 'flaws' on both sides and recommend a settlement . Sainsbury's may decide to go to court because of two issues. One: they can avoid paying out £30 million on a site they no longer want. Secondly: it challenges other organisations to take Sainsbury's to court. So even if the judge awards Rovers £10 million because Sainsbury's too broke the contract . I personally think Sainsbury's will see this as a result. But the fact is the ground is free for Sainsbury's to start building but they won't and don't. A Bristol City fan who is a window cleaner told me " even I can see this but it;s proving it"... Golly, where to start with that. So, there are 2 reasons, no more, no less that Sainsbury's are defending the claim against them? I have no idea why Sainsbury's haven't completed the deal. Maybe Rovers can't give the guarantees required that UWE is fully funded, maybe a hundred other things. Oh, but hang on, you've stated as fact that you know that the reason they won't / can't complete is due to organisational changes. Sorry, but that's just opinion presented as fact. We can sit here and guess until the cows come home. I suspect that they were left high and dry in BS3 when City couldn't get the permissions required for their new stadium, but that contract had T&Cs, they were bound by them and ended up without the site, that's just how the cookie crumbles. If you want to know why Sainsbury's don't want to proceed perhaps you should send an email to their PR dept and ask them the question? No doubt they will respond as it seems only Rovers apparently hide behind confidentiality clauses? Whilst Sainsbury's may well be within their contractual rights to walk away, whether you support Rovers or not it still seems unreasonable to lead the club up the garden path, when it comes to spending millions on planning a new ground only to then just walk away. Clearly Tesco in Bridgwater found it wasn't that easy to throw in the towel.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Apr 25, 2015 21:13:29 GMT
So if no-one knows and we are all making assumptions ( which I agree). Why do you constantly try to prove your point ??. maybe because people keep saying things like, So, people are protesting in orange shirts based on assumptions? I think these assumptions are the same ones that allowed the case to be fast-tracked because there was a genuine case to be answered, despite Sainsbury's objections. You are so relentlessly negative about everything concerning the club and any posters who disagree with your bitterness. Are you trying to save us all from something which you understand better than the mere mortals on here, or are you so far gone down your crusade that you no longer remember your roots, which I assume used to be something resembling a Bristol Rovers supporter? You seem to have moved some way from that.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Apr 25, 2015 21:14:32 GMT
Bamber
Everyone makes assumptions but that shouldn't stop protesting campaigning and pressure. It didn't stop TRASH campaigning even though they failed twice in a fair legal system. And still they attack Helen Holland and the democratic vote.
If I want to put pressure on I will and have via my union links and both at National and local level with the Labour party. I encourage others to do so in their links or political likes. I really don't see your issue.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Apr 25, 2015 21:23:25 GMT
So if no-one knows and we are all making assumptions ( which I agree). Why do you constantly try to prove your point ??. maybe because people keep saying things like, So, people are protesting in orange shirts based on assumptions? Probably...... or perhaps all those wearing orange shirts really do know but are bound by confidentiality clauses and can't tell us ? As for me I know a nothing, other than Bamber's speculations that a lot of people are making assumptions and of course he may well be right ?
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Apr 25, 2015 22:28:52 GMT
You forgot to mention one small point in that NH's money has kept the club in business. Without it all your points are mute!!! Either stop insulting my intelligence or take me straight to a link where it says that Higgs is owner of MSP Capital and he doesn't want the money back, and while your at it take me to the link where Higgs says he is going to pay £8m out of his own pocket to pay off the huge losses incurred while he has rode roughshod over the 'fans' club, you can't because it won't happen so do us a favour and take your shyte elsewhere, you did the same with Dunford on the old forum and he has been paid up, walked away from the shambles and decided to write a book about it, you couldn't make it up. Anyway off out for a beer and toast to a great day today let's hope that the next two weeks get us back to where we should be despite Higgs not because of him. I hope you have some deep pockets as GD has NOT been repaid all of his loans. He is still owed far more than what he has been repaid.
Clearly you do not know the facts and your whole email is a deluded rant. Suggest you come back when you have read the recent accounts of BRFC.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 23:02:03 GMT
maybe because people keep saying things like, So, people are protesting in orange shirts based on assumptions? I think these assumptions are the same ones that allowed the case to be fast-tracked because there was a genuine case to be answered, despite Sainsbury's objections. You are so relentlessly negative about everything concerning the club and any posters who disagree with your bitterness. Are you trying to save us all from something which you understand better than the mere mortals on here, or are you so far gone down your crusade that you no longer remember your roots, which I assume used to be something resembling a Bristol Rovers supporter? You seem to have moved some way from that. I don't think you actually understand why the date was set at short notice. Negative, I guess that's a label that a dreamer may assign to a realist. Do you have some kind of leaflet or handbook that you can show us so that we know what's required to support Bristol Rovers?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 0:29:07 GMT
maybe because people keep saying things like, So, people are protesting in orange shirts based on assumptions? I think these assumptions are the same ones that allowed the case to be fast-tracked because there was a genuine case to be answered, despite Sainsbury's objections. You are so relentlessly negative about everything concerning the club and any posters who disagree with your bitterness. Are you trying to save us all from something which you understand better than the mere mortals on here, or are you so far gone down your crusade that you no longer remember your roots, which I assume used to be something resembling a Bristol Rovers supporter? You seem to have moved some way from that. so if im reading this right, anti board = not a brfc supporter ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 7:21:23 GMT
What am I missing here??? It is plain and simple. If Sainsburys still had massive balance sheets and high turnovers they would still be developing the Mem and would not be trying to get out of buying the Mem by the Tradesmans entrance. The get out clauses are/were caused by them because of just that. delaying tactics the No.1. If people have personal issues with Higgs then fair enough but take the blinkers off for 5 minutes.
So, your position is actually that you think that in certain market conditions Sainsbury's may have stepped outside of the contracted terms to complete the deal, but you are cross with them because they aren't doing that, and think that people who want to understand what's actually happened are only doing so because they have an issue with the FC's chairman. You literally couldn't make this up. How the hell did you come to that conclusion my condescending friend? You are unreal.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 26, 2015 8:29:07 GMT
I think these assumptions are the same ones that allowed the case to be fast-tracked because there was a genuine case to be answered, despite Sainsbury's objections. You are so relentlessly negative about everything concerning the club and any posters who disagree with your bitterness. Are you trying to save us all from something which you understand better than the mere mortals on here, or are you so far gone down your crusade that you no longer remember your roots, which I assume used to be something resembling a Bristol Rovers supporter? You seem to have moved some way from that. so if im reading this right, anti board = not a brfc supporter ? I think Bamber goes more than anti board he seems anti anything Rovers related from his posts, whether it be Board, Sainsbury's, DC or even the players, not sure if he likes playing devil's advocate on here, if not you do wonder why he spends so much time of here when he clearly has little love left for the club.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 9:01:45 GMT
so if im reading this right, anti board = not a brfc supporter ? I think Bamber goes more than anti board he seems anti anything Rovers related from his posts, whether it be Board, Sainsbury's, DC or even the players, not sure if he likes playing devil's advocate on here, if not you do wonder why he spends so much time of here when he clearly has little love left for the club. Goodness me How on earth does "love" come into it, its completely OTT and embarrassing. How on earth does casting a critical eye over the performance of the BoD make one any less of a fan / supporter than the next man / lady?
A straight question, for those who get tetchy over this stuff
In one word, describe the relative performance of the BoD and the subsequent outcomes as witnessed by all of us that showed up for games (and those who made efforts for an alternative approach behind the scenes) I will start it off, in two words.
Shambolic disaster.
And yes, I was at Dover and at the Mem yesterday, and I hosted a dinner for a group of very interested rovers fans on Friday night, does that make me a better fan anyone else? Don't be so bloody silly.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Apr 26, 2015 9:57:02 GMT
So if no-one knows and we are all making assumptions ( which I agree). Why do you constantly try to prove your point ??. Don't worry about poor old Bamber, he was certain that this would never go to court. That's a fact that he will deny in his opinion. His track record of getting things wrong is growing.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Apr 26, 2015 10:02:45 GMT
I think Bamber goes more than anti board he seems anti anything Rovers related from his posts, whether it be Board, Sainsbury's, DC or even the players, not sure if he likes playing devil's advocate on here, if not you do wonder why he spends so much time of here when he clearly has little love left for the club. Goodness me How on earth does "love" come into it, its completely OTT and embarrassing. How on earth does casting a critical eye over the performance of the BoD make one any less of a fan / supporter than the next man / lady?
A straight question, for those who get tetchy over this stuff
In one word, describe the relative performance of the BoD and the subsequent outcomes as witnessed by all of us that showed up for games (and those who made efforts for an alternative approach behind the scenes) I will start it off, in two words.
Shambolic disaster.
And yes, I was at Dover and at the Mem yesterday, and I hosted a dinner for a group of very interested rovers fans on Friday night, does that make me a better fan anyone else? Don't be so bloody silly.
The question is why do you feel the need to mention that? I'm only guessing it's because you believe that you are a better fan than others. It is hilarious though to see you and Jack Napier being best bum chums.
|
|