Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 11:49:54 GMT
Its not about 'how much' you spend, just that you do in whatever way you can, provide income for a club. If you do nothing other than follow results then you 'follow' or have a soft spot for a club. What is the defining line between a supporter and everyone else otherwise? Supporter = Man love for Nick Higgs & the Board Follower = People who moan a lot about the club Fools = People who don't ask questions and are gullible enough to believe everything that they are told by exposed liars.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 12:44:17 GMT
Supporter = Man love for Nick Higgs & the Board Follower = People who moan a lot about the club Fools = People who don't ask questions and are gullible enough to believe everything that they are told by exposed liars. Want to give a pithy one-line definition of someone banned from a stadium supposidly being held by custodians for the benefit of future generations of supporters?
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on May 30, 2015 14:54:57 GMT
Correct! Even if Lansdown sold City and bought us, every single one of us would still support Rovers. You may not like it, you may not go to watch, you may spend every Saturday afternoon moaning about it online - but you would still support the club you love! I obviously hope it never happens, but I think the result wouldn't be the way you write it. depends on the word support i guess.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 15:58:05 GMT
Correct! Even if Lansdown sold City and bought us, every single one of us would still support Rovers. You may not like it, you may not go to watch, you may spend every Saturday afternoon moaning about it online - but you would still support the club you love! I obviously hope it never happens, but I think the result wouldn't be the way you write it. depends on the word support i guess. Well I know both Lansdown and Higgs and I would do cartwheels if that ever happened.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 15:59:14 GMT
Fools = People who don't ask questions and are gullible enough to believe everything that they are told by exposed liars. Want to give a pithy one-line definition of someone banned from a stadium supposidly being held by custodians for the benefit of future generations of supporters? Principled = Somebody who keeps on trying to make their point.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,293
|
Post by kingswood Polak on May 30, 2015 17:20:31 GMT
Correct! Even if Lansdown sold City and bought us, every single one of us would still support Rovers. You may not like it, you may not go to watch, you may spend every Saturday afternoon moaning about it online - but you would still support the club you love! That is something I would have to really think about. Let's face it, not going to happen BUT what if SL said here is the funds, go build the stadium, how would the majority react ? Fishponds gashead. Used to walk in with his older lot but got hammered for telling the story. People really do not like the truth if it clashes with their version of it.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,293
|
Post by kingswood Polak on May 30, 2015 17:24:13 GMT
Its not about 'how much' you spend, just that you do in whatever way you can, provide income for a club. If you do nothing other than follow results then you 'follow' or have a soft spot for a club. What is the defining line between a supporter and everyone else otherwise? Supporter = Man love for Nick Higgs & the Board Follower = People who moan a lot about the club Still far to simplified Ian. There are many Grey areas and I believe that we could really push on, if we get a positive outcome. UTFG
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,293
|
Post by kingswood Polak on May 30, 2015 17:34:53 GMT
Bristol RFC allowed themslves / sold themeslves to the devil. And now they are playing in red, what the **** is that about ? I laughed when Worcester came back to beat Lansdown RFC, what a couple of weeks UTG They play in blue, but have a red.change shirt like they have in the past. If SL wants them to wear red its up to their fans to complain or accept it. I dont give a s*** I used to care as it was my game. Well, fencing for the county & country and Rugby for a few sides. Barts, Kingswood, Old Reds and a couple of games for Bristol Utd, before I just pissed it away. I did enjoy going to the Mem, my Brother, Tony, used to take me and there were always girls there. I have lost any interest now and not due to SL but the way Rugby has followed the money, much the same as Football. I used to love standing on the then open terrace, now North stand.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on May 30, 2015 18:40:30 GMT
Thing is like Bristol Rovers will ALWAYS be my team so will the Bristol Rugby team no matter who owns them, or where they play or where I'll be.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,432
|
Post by harrybuckle on May 30, 2015 18:54:29 GMT
Thing is like Bristol Rovers will ALWAYS be my team so will the Bristol Rugby team no matter who owns them, or where they play or where I'll be. got to admire your choices ...but you are a bit of a glory hunter !
|
|
dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872
|
Post by dagnogo on May 30, 2015 18:57:18 GMT
Thing is like Bristol Rovers will ALWAYS be my team so will the Bristol Rugby team no matter who owns them, or where they play or where I'll be. Fair play to you. No-one wants anyone to change their minds or dump their team and no-one should be judged for the teams they follow. But for a lot of Rovers fans, Bristol are just City in rugby shirts now so I can't wosh them success. Doesn't mean either camp is right or wrong, all about opinions ain't it.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on May 30, 2015 19:36:35 GMT
Not sure it was so wise a move, whilst we would have lost equity in the ground we would have gained a new stand, as it is we may well finish up with the old stands and also in administration, if the Sainsbury's judgement goes against us. With a new East Stand and an extended West Stand we would have a fairly reasonable ground, if we could have also financed a new small South Stand. The most sensible thing to have done would have been to let the rugby club have half of the stadium back along with half of its debt. The UWE could have still gone ahead but without the concern about funding both before and after the build. I don't believe that Malcolm Pearce ever asked for 50% of the stadium in fact he refused to go 50/50 on a new ticketing system so he was hardly willing to get into bed over owning the ground. I don't think GD trusted Malcom Pearce. Apart from a scheme to move Bristol to Oxford, he came quite close to merging Bristol with Bath at one point.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on May 30, 2015 19:58:15 GMT
Thing is like Bristol Rovers will ALWAYS be my team so will the Bristol Rugby team no matter who owns them, or where they play or where I'll be. Fair play to you. No-one wants anyone to change their minds or dump their team and no-one should be judged for the teams they follow. But for a lot of Rovers fans, Bristol are just City in rugby shirts now so I can't wosh them success. Doesn't mean either camp is right or wrong, all about opinions ain't it. It is all about opinions but it is also all about choices. Just imagine if you had owners who you disliked (and lets be honest there are plenty of Rovers supporters who dislike the current owners and board), would Bristol Rovers still be 'your' team ? You either choose to disown them or you choose to retain them as your team.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on May 30, 2015 20:02:16 GMT
The most sensible thing to have done would have been to let the rugby club have half of the stadium back along with half of its debt. The UWE could have still gone ahead but without the concern about funding both before and after the build. I don't believe that Malcolm Pearce ever asked for 50% of the stadium in fact he refused to go 50/50 on a new ticketing system so he was hardly willing to get into bed over owning the ground. I don't think GD trusted Malcom Pearce. Apart from a scheme to move Bristol to Oxford, he came quite close to merging Bristol with Bath at one point. Don't worry I don't think there were too many Bristol Rugby supporters who trusted Malcolm Pearce at the end either !
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on May 30, 2015 20:04:06 GMT
Thing is like Bristol Rovers will ALWAYS be my team so will the Bristol Rugby team no matter who owns them, or where they play or where I'll be. got to admire your choices ...but you are a bit of a glory hunter ! Dam, there was me thinking I'd hidden my approach to supporting my teams so well
|
|
dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872
|
Post by dagnogo on May 30, 2015 20:09:31 GMT
Fair play to you. No-one wants anyone to change their minds or dump their team and no-one should be judged for the teams they follow. But for a lot of Rovers fans, Bristol are just City in rugby shirts now so I can't wosh them success. Doesn't mean either camp is right or wrong, all about opinions ain't it. It is all about opinions but it is also all about choices. Just imagine if you had owners who you disliked (and lets be honest there are plenty of Rovers supporters who dislike the current owners and board), would Bristol Rovers still be 'your' team ? You either choose to disown them or you choose to retain them as your team. Rovers have owners that I dislike immensely but they're my team for as long as I or they are still knocking about. I'm not really into club rugby so I never had to turn my back on Bristol, but pre-Lansdown I'd certainly have wished them every success. If I was a big fan I'd probably have stuck with them, you're right there.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 21:56:36 GMT
If he made a no strings attached offer to give us 30 million, most people would think he was a genuine bloke who actually cared about "bristol sport", but he isn't and he won't.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2015 11:09:07 GMT
The most sensible thing to have done would have been to let the rugby club have half of the stadium back along with half of its debt. The UWE could have still gone ahead but without the concern about funding both before and after the build. I don't believe that Malcolm Pearce ever asked for 50% of the stadium in fact he refused to go 50/50 on a new ticketing system so he was hardly willing to get into bed over owning the ground. I don't think GD trusted Malcom Pearce. Apart from a scheme to move Bristol to Oxford, he came quite close to merging Bristol with Bath at one point. Ha, that is so ironic.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2015 11:11:49 GMT
If he made a no strings attached offer to give us 30 million, most people would think he was a genuine bloke who actually cared about "bristol sport", but he isn't and he won't. How long have you known him? He once offered to pay 50% towards a new stadium and even put the first payment into a bank account to start the process.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on May 31, 2015 11:48:48 GMT
I don't think GD trusted Malcom Pearce. Apart from a scheme to move Bristol to Oxford, he came quite close to merging Bristol with Bath at one point. Ha, that is so ironic. It might indeed be regarded as ironic, but the description of Malcolm Pearce's actions is factually correct.
|
|