RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Jun 13, 2016 7:13:06 GMT
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Jun 13, 2016 7:16:08 GMT
I'm guessing the Thursday meeting wasn't as successful as hoped .. Still a lot of twists and turns in this story I think!
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jun 13, 2016 7:22:46 GMT
We are big friends
Bit of an anti climax
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 7:28:02 GMT
That's disappointing, in light of Steve Hamer's teaser last week. If he hadn't led us to believe more, today's statement would be a reasonable update; as he did, it's a disappointment.
|
|
JeffNZ
Administrator
Jimmy Morgan
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,407
|
Post by JeffNZ on Jun 13, 2016 7:36:34 GMT
Disappointing but I'm still optimistic we'll get our stadium....eventually.
|
|
|
Post by gasheadpirate on Jun 13, 2016 8:17:47 GMT
I feel as flat as at the end of the England game. Expectation flattened again. :-(
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Jun 13, 2016 8:29:18 GMT
First major PR 'own goal' of the new regime? (I'm not counting 'JimsJottingsGate' of course) I'm surprised SH heightened expectations before an agreement was reached. I may be being melodramatic but wouldn't be surprised if UWE never built and an alternative sought as clearly both sides expectations of the deal are different to each other.
|
|
|
Post by gasheadpirate on Jun 13, 2016 9:43:08 GMT
Steve Hamer has said in a reply on another matter to me that the announcement is cautious to say the least but that things had moved on considerably over the last few months.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,236
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jun 13, 2016 9:58:16 GMT
Did anyone really expect a building schedule, really ? I repeat what I've always said on this. I will believe it when it's built and I am in it, watching us play in it. This is Bristol Rovers we are talking about. We should all know better than to deal in definitives. Having said that, I do feel more comfortable with the new regime. At least I believe what comes out of the club now but there was no need to build this up, not at all
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Jun 13, 2016 10:07:41 GMT
First major PR 'own goal' of the new regime? (I'm not counting 'JimsJottingsGate' of course) I'm surprised SH heightened expectations before an agreement was reached. I may be being melodramatic but wouldn't be surprised if UWE never built and an alternative sought as clearly both sides expectations of the deal are different to each other. yes you are - and pathetic too
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 10:17:09 GMT
First major PR 'own goal' of the new regime? (I'm not counting 'JimsJottingsGate' of course) I'm surprised SH heightened expectations before an agreement was reached. I may be being melodramatic but wouldn't be surprised if UWE never built and an alternative sought as clearly both sides expectations of the deal are different to each other. yes you are - and pathetic too harsh
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Jun 13, 2016 10:20:21 GMT
That's disappointing, in light of Steve Hamer's teaser last week. If he hadn't led us to believe more, today's statement would be a reasonable update; as he did, it's a disappointment. They must at least be getting close to an agreement for him to say that last week. Perhaps it was a deliberate ploy to try to put some pressure on UWE to conclude things quickly?
|
|
c4h10
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 476
|
Post by c4h10 on Jun 13, 2016 10:30:54 GMT
Oops! Move over Nick Higgs. Make room for Steve Hamer on the pillory steps.
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Jun 13, 2016 10:36:13 GMT
First major PR 'own goal' of the new regime? (I'm not counting 'JimsJottingsGate' of course) I'm surprised SH heightened expectations before an agreement was reached. I may be being melodramatic but wouldn't be surprised if UWE never built and an alternative sought as clearly both sides expectations of the deal are different to each other. yes you are - and pathetic too Whoah easy tiger, calm your horses fella! :-D Collect your dummy back from the floor and chill a little. Let me qualify myself as maybe my reasoning was unclear as to why I feel this way - it seems to me that the 'deal' that UWE thought they had with Rovers has seen the goalposts moved under the new regime who have themselves stated that the deal needs to be right for BRFC. The business case for the new owners might be different to the business case the old regime were working under - and reappraisal of current projects is commonplace when ownership or leadership changes in companies. It might be that the new owners feel the terms under which the new stadium would be built at UWE are not sufficient to warrant the investment and UWE feel, for their part, that the Rovers preferred terms do not work for them. In this instance it might just be easier for a friendly parting of the ways and for the club to seek an alternative site. Just my views. Not saying it's right. Hopefully I'm very wrong. Just reading between the lines that securing a mutually acceptable deal seems to be protracted - it's not as though this is a new project is it?
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Jun 13, 2016 10:47:05 GMT
yes you are - and pathetic too Whoah easy tiger, calm your horses fella! :-D Collect your dummy back from the floor and chill a little. Let me qualify myself as maybe my reasoning was unclear as to why I feel this way - it seems to me that the 'deal' that UWE thought they had with Rovers has seen the goalposts moved under the new regime who have themselves stated that the deal needs to be right for BRFC. The business case for the new owners might be different to the business case the old regime were working under - and reappraisal of current projects is commonplace when ownership or leadership changes in companies. It might be that the new owners feel the terms under which the new stadium would be built at UWE are not sufficient to warrant the investment and UWE feel, for their part, that the Rovers preferred terms do not work for them. In this instance it might just be easier for a friendly parting of the ways and for the club to seek an alternative site. Just my views. Not saying it's right. Hopefully I'm very wrong. Just reading between the lines that securing a mutually acceptable deal seems to be protracted - it's not as though this is a new project is it? Nick was over a barrel with his pants down.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 11:01:54 GMT
Whoah easy tiger, calm your horses fella! :-D Collect your dummy back from the floor and chill a little. Let me qualify myself as maybe my reasoning was unclear as to why I feel this way - it seems to me that the 'deal' that UWE thought they had with Rovers has seen the goalposts moved under the new regime who have themselves stated that the deal needs to be right for BRFC. The business case for the new owners might be different to the business case the old regime were working under - and reappraisal of current projects is commonplace when ownership or leadership changes in companies. It might be that the new owners feel the terms under which the new stadium would be built at UWE are not sufficient to warrant the investment and UWE feel, for their part, that the Rovers preferred terms do not work for them. In this instance it might just be easier for a friendly parting of the ways and for the club to seek an alternative site. Just my views. Not saying it's right. Hopefully I'm very wrong. Just reading between the lines that securing a mutually acceptable deal seems to be protracted - it's not as though this is a new project is it? Nick was over a barrel with his pants down.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 13, 2016 11:11:00 GMT
yes you are - and pathetic too harsh That's fanatics for you
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 13:08:59 GMT
Steve Hamer has said in a reply on another matter to me that the announcement is cautious to say the least but that things had moved on considerably over the last few months. That would tally wth my thought. They're crossing the line. A joint statement was to be made, the club was expecting to say 'we're about to cross the line', but UWE wanted the more technically correct 'we haven't yet crossed the line'. I think the next announcement probably won't be pre-announced.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 13:18:46 GMT
yes you are - and pathetic too Whoah easy tiger, calm your horses fella! :-D Collect your dummy back from the floor and chill a little. Let me qualify myself as maybe my reasoning was unclear as to why I feel this way - it seems to me that the 'deal' that UWE thought they had with Rovers has seen the goalposts moved under the new regime who have themselves stated that the deal needs to be right for BRFC. The business case for the new owners might be different to the business case the old regime were working under - and reappraisal of current projects is commonplace when ownership or leadership changes in companies. It might be that the new owners feel the terms under which the new stadium would be built at UWE are not sufficient to warrant the investment and UWE feel, for their part, that the Rovers preferred terms do not work for them. In this instance it might just be easier for a friendly parting of the ways and for the club to seek an alternative site. Just my views. Not saying it's right. Hopefully I'm very wrong. Just reading between the lines that securing a mutually acceptable deal seems to be protracted - it's not as though this is a new project is it? I think that was all v reasonable, but today's announcement has at least said they're both still working on the idea and intention of a revised agreement and plan for UWE. Back to S Glos for amendment to planning permission, though - at least for the stadium: the car park can probably go ahead on existing plans, so the prospect of us, underwhelmingly, initially building a car park is strong. Still, at least it would be progress.
|
|
|
Post by alloutofgas on Jun 13, 2016 13:20:54 GMT
Whoah easy tiger, calm your horses fella! :-D Collect your dummy back from the floor and chill a little. Let me qualify myself as maybe my reasoning was unclear as to why I feel this way - it seems to me that the 'deal' that UWE thought they had with Rovers has seen the goalposts moved under the new regime who have themselves stated that the deal needs to be right for BRFC. The business case for the new owners might be different to the business case the old regime were working under - and reappraisal of current projects is commonplace when ownership or leadership changes in companies. It might be that the new owners feel the terms under which the new stadium would be built at UWE are not sufficient to warrant the investment and UWE feel, for their part, that the Rovers preferred terms do not work for them. In this instance it might just be easier for a friendly parting of the ways and for the club to seek an alternative site. Just my views. Not saying it's right. Hopefully I'm very wrong. Just reading between the lines that securing a mutually acceptable deal seems to be protracted - it's not as though this is a new project is it? Nick was over a barrel with his pants down. Pulp Fiction style?
|
|