|
Post by Westcountry Gas on Jun 9, 2016 18:43:04 GMT
Big UWE announcement coming tomorrow or Monday.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 18:49:33 GMT
Big UWE announcement coming tomorrow or Monday.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 19:22:46 GMT
I must be missing the line in that story that says Al Qadi is selling the ground and buggering off I'm more concerned with the idea of regional leagues!
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 9, 2016 19:28:34 GMT
I must be missing the line in that story that says Al Qadi is selling the ground and buggering off I'm more concerned with the idea of regional leagues! ah OK. Just that it doesn't relate to your original post in the slightest.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 19:32:51 GMT
I'm more concerned with the idea of regional leagues! ah OK. Just that it doesn't relate to your original post in the slightest. I agree, other than the 'we don't know anything about them'. Turns out Mr Hamer is a raving regionalist.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 19:42:36 GMT
Keep the football league national, please.
This is the sort of thing that needs to end the right way, e.g: It was a suggestion that would be of benefit to lower division clubs. It would save these clubs and their supporters money. And make for more competitive regional fixtures. But having listened to supporters, I'm happy to withdraw the idea. There seems to be no appetite for this change amoung supporters. A lot of them like following us the length of the country. They must be mad! Ha ha... But either way, it matters, so let's explore other alternatives.
Or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Jun 9, 2016 19:56:41 GMT
Hamer OUT!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 20:05:36 GMT
Bit extreme. Hamer have a rethink! And possibly promise not to suggest it again.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 20:07:19 GMT
While I am nowhere near calling for such AT ALL, it's a relief that we now have a chairman who is not the majority shareholder, who can be replaced, and who must prove his capability and worth to remain incumbent. His predecessor had to answer only to himself. And he was a pillock.
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Jun 9, 2016 20:09:41 GMT
Keep the football league national, please. This is the sort of thing that needs to end the right way, e.g: It was a suggestion that would be of benefit to lower division clubs. It would save these clubs and their supporters money. And make for more competitive regional fixtures. But having listened to supporters, I'm happy to withdraw the idea. There seems to be no appetite for this change amoung supporters. A lot of them like following us the length of the country. They must be mad! Ha ha... But either way, it matters, so let's explore other alternatives. Or something like that. I agree. There is absolutely no need to regionalise the lower leagues in order to stop Rovers playing at Hartlepool on a Tuesday night - or Carlisle at Plymouth etc. Just for the League to have a little bit of f****g common sense.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 20:14:59 GMT
To be fair, Rovers at Hartlepool on a Tuesday night is surely on many people's "bucket lists". Mr Hamer would deny them that ambition. I think that's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Jun 9, 2016 20:21:47 GMT
Bit extreme. Hamer have a rethink! And possibly promise not to suggest it again. I was kinda being tongue in cheek with it's extremity, but even though he is entitled to his opinion, I respectfully disagree. There are other ways of dealing with long distance night matches, without the cull of geographically furthest teams, so I'm wondering if Hamer's statement is bordering on irresponsible?
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Jun 9, 2016 21:16:22 GMT
It is worrying that our chairman can set sail and express a view such as this and not really be in touch with the fans. To a degree Hartlepool on a Tuesday night was on my list to do and I only achieved it this season having only been there on Saturdays. The away end was practically full and I think he has not really gauged the passion of the Gas.
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Jun 9, 2016 21:38:14 GMT
"There are other ways of dealing with long distance night matches" - go on, then......
"It is worrying that our chairman can set sail and express a view such as this and not really be in touch with the fans" - go on, then...which fans?
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Jun 9, 2016 21:43:42 GMT
"There are other ways of dealing with long distance night matches" - go on, then...... "It is worrying that our chairman can set sail and express a view such as this and not really be in touch with the fans" - go on, then...which fans? Don't schedule long distance matches for a Tuesday night? Me for one.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 22:03:33 GMT
"There are other ways of dealing with long distance night matches" - go on, then...... "It is worrying that our chairman can set sail and express a view such as this and not really be in touch with the fans" - go on, then...which fans? Those of us who feel strongly that the Football League should be a national competition? You could deal with long distance night matches by not playing them midweek. But then the occasional long distance midweek game isn't really a problem, is it? Better things to worry about in football. The colour of player's boots, for a start.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 22:05:12 GMT
I have too admit I'm a fan of regionalisation,though I would go Conference and league 2, not league 1. Makes sense in a way make the 3 leagues 20 a season, 5 leagues( Including Premier) league 3 I'm guessing it would be called (fifth tier) split in to two with the whole conference and the bottom twelve of league 2 with twenty teams each. Which makes 36 teams so either have the jocks plus two, or promote four from S/N to league five or give in and let 8 Prem b in those regional divisions but not allow the b teams promotion. Tin hat time I think........ What is wrong with it as it is?
|
|
|
Post by optogas1976 on Jun 9, 2016 22:12:37 GMT
I have too admit I'm a fan of regionalisation,though I would go Conference and league 2, not league 1. Makes sense in a way make the 3 leagues 20 a season, 5 leagues( Including Premier) league 3 I'm guessing it would be called (fifth tier) split in to two with the whole conference and the bottom twelve of league 2 with twenty teams each. Which makes 36 teams so either have the jocks plus two, or promote four from S/N to league five or give in and let 8 Prem b in those regional divisions but not allow the b teams promotion. Tin hat time I think........ What is wrong with it as it is? Nothing till you get down to th conference and the smaller clubs in league 2. That's why I said conference and bottom of league 2. For teams like Braintree,FGR,Woking and even Yeovil,Cheltenham and Torquay regionalisation would save them tens of thousands a year in costs which may just be the difference between surviving or going bust.For the teams with bigger supporter bases doesn't make such financial sense as you will be playing teams with low away support even though more would attend due to lower costs and shorter distances. However like everyone I love night matches and losing them is a cost to high.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jun 9, 2016 22:16:10 GMT
I don't like regionalisation and I'm not worried about it either because I think it would be non-starter as the Football League is not geographically balanced enough for it to make much sense. Even with regionalisation you'd end up with a ton of weird anomalies anyway. Plus I don't really get the impression there's a massive clamour for it unless you're Plymouth or Carlisle. However, I do like more relegation and promotion - I honestly think we should at least go to 4 up/4 down across all league (and I'd hear an argument for more). I believe this would increase parity but also make relegation less of an utter disaster for clubs. It's only every discussed in the context of increasing interest for more clubs at the end of the season - I don't really care about that but I do think there's a good general case for increasing movement for all clubs - it boosts interest.
On the broader point - I actually entirely agree with astafjevs. I don't mean it in a negative Eeyorish sense but some of the hero worship of the new ownership strikes me as premature. They have made a great start and their PR has been superb but I think I'll carry on sitting on the fence with a bit of critical detachment because, to me, nothing really changed in terms of the relationship between owners and fans when we were sold. We had a set of owners who very much moved away from the idea of the club being a kind of collective community resource that they were custodians of towards a 'it's my club and I'll do what I want with it' attitude in which fans became merely consumers. All selling to the Jordanians has done is embed that permanently as the way our club is. Now, fine, you can say that's the reality of modern football etc and these guys look like good owners and I think that's true - they have been very impressive so far. But, unless I see something otherwise, I have no particular reason to judge them on anything other than results - and so fence sitting critical detachment remains the boring order of the day for me.
This was the argument I always had with Padstow - who would say that we should all support Nick Higgs because otherwise the club would end up being taken away from us and run by foreigners. That argument ignored the fact that as soon as a board acts and behaves like owners (which the previous lot did) then that process has already happened, it's just a matter of when, not if, the club is run by 'outsiders' (and by that I mean non-Rovers people - they equally well of come from Swindon) - the nationality and identity of those owners matters little to the dynamic of that relationship. As soon as the club is generally recognised and treated primarily as a private asset for the owners to do what they like with then we are basically just people buying a product - there's no real input or sense that Rovers is ultimately a community. It is nothing personal against Nick Higgs, Wael or anyone else. But the reality is we are just paying customers now - the Twerton spirit, the idea of a community club with everyone pitching in that's gone completely. We have a professional business minded ownership - fine, a lot of people like and want that. But, for me, I see no particular need to cheerlead owners on that basis and I still find it quite sad that a group of Jordanian businessman have come in and instantly shown better instincts for what it is that Gasheads want to see and hear from the club than a set of local owners managed in a decade. That is not a reason to jump up and down celebrating for me- it's quite depressing in many ways.
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Jun 9, 2016 22:28:22 GMT
"There are other ways of dealing with long distance night matches" - go on, then...... "It is worrying that our chairman can set sail and express a view such as this and not really be in touch with the fans" - go on, then...which fans? Presumably those in the full away end last September...
|
|