Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 14:49:14 GMT
From memory, there was a bit of a fuss in Hartcliffe in 1992 when the Police deliberately crashed into and killed 2 people on a stolen Police motorcycle. Then there was a slight commotion in St Pauls in 1980. The lads loved a riot in the 1830's too, so much so that Izzy Brunel became a pig for the day. I don't remember that. Probably all drunken smoking Hartcliffians frustrated because the DSS hadn't been built yet so they didn't have any away supporters to attack. Actually, come to think of it, Hartcliife didn't exist in 1830, but I'm still right and everybody else is still wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 14:56:42 GMT
The lads loved a riot in the 1830's too, so much so that Izzy Brunel became a pig for the day. I don't remember that. Probably all drunken smoking Hartcliffians frustrated because the DSS hadn't been built yet so they didn't have any away supporters to attack. Actually, come to think of it, Hartcliife didn't exist in 1830, but I'm still right and everybody else is still wrong. I've only briefly looked into it, but I understand it was something to do with Bristol not being on the list of cities that 4G would be rolled out too first.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2019 18:35:46 GMT
I don't remember that. Probably all drunken smoking Hartcliffians frustrated because the DSS hadn't been built yet so they didn't have any away supporters to attack. Actually, come to think of it, Hartcliife didn't exist in 1830, but I'm still right and everybody else is still wrong. I've only briefly looked into it, but I understand it was something to do with Bristol not being on the list of cities that 4G would be rolled out too first. Also known as The G Spot Riots.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2019 22:57:59 GMT
I've only briefly looked into it, but I understand it was something to do with Bristol not being on the list of cities that 4G would be rolled out too first. Also known as The G Spot Riots. Very few turned up.
|
|
RiversGas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,064
|
Post by RiversGas on Feb 16, 2019 23:35:25 GMT
Also known as The G Spot Riots. Very few turned up. Can't find the C1170R15 let alone the G Spot. Famous last words of the EX.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2019 11:17:56 GMT
Also known as The G Spot Riots. Very few turned up. They tried to but they couldn’t find the exact location.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2019 11:18:36 GMT
Can't find the C1170R15 let alone the G Spot. Famous last words of the EX. I thought that was a grid reference for a moment. 😂😂
|
|
|
Post by johnjohnblue on Feb 28, 2019 13:17:52 GMT
Back to the original subject of the thread I started. I'm afraid I just don't get Bamber Gasgroin's point of view at all. Does he have any senior corporate experience? The fact that there were various publicly stated agreements for the UWE Stadium project does not in any way prove that there was not a "negative" party in a position of influence on UWE BoG. Any such party would obviously keep a low profile when such high profile public statements were made. There were many more subtle ways in which the successful conclusion of such a complex project could be obstructed further down the process, and importantly much less visible to the public. Why cant some people wake up and smell the coffee? It is quite ludicrous that a Director Of Bristol Sport Ltd, who was also a self confessed life long fan of Bristol City and Bristol Rugby was entitled to sit in on confidential Board Of Governors meetings at UWE discussing the Stadium Project. These meetings were considered that confidential that they were the only agenda items whose minutes were not published. This meant he was seeing and hearing matters that not even the Rovers Board would have access to, and that the situation was allowed the persist from 2012 (formation of Bristol Sport Ltd) to late 2016/early 2017. A clear conflict of interests if there ever was one. (We do not know the date that he actually left the BoG. For some reason UWE were keen to keep the date and reasons very quiet). Given that Bristol Sport have proven they are happy to take advantage of any opportunity at Bristol Rovers expense, it is beyond any defense or comprehension, that they were allowed to keep a Director on the UWE BOG who to attended confidential project meetings without a conflict of interests being declared. I do wonder if some people can't see this because they are obsessed with disparaging Rovers Board at every opportunity, and this explanation, at least partially lets them off the hook. Finally, just check out the list of Merchants Venturers, and draw your own conclusions about influences. Johnjohnblue
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Feb 28, 2019 13:26:16 GMT
Back to the original subject of the thread I started. I'm afraid I just don't get Bamber Gasgroin's point of view at all. Does he have any senior corporate experience? The fact that there were various publicly stated agreements for the UWE Stadium project does not in any way prove that there was not a "negative" party in a position of influence on UWE BoG. Any such party would obviously keep a low profile when such high profile public statements were made. There were many more subtle ways in which the successful conclusion of such a complex project could be obstructed further down the process, and importantly much less visible to the public. Why cant some people wake up and smell the coffee? It is quite ludicrous that a Director Of Bristol Sport Ltd, who was also a self confessed life long fan of Bristol City and Bristol Rugby was entitled to sit in on confidential Board Of Governors meetings at UWE discussing the Stadium Project. These meetings were considered that confidential that they were the only agenda items whose minutes were not published. This meant he was seeing and hearing matters that not even the Rovers Board would have access to, and that the situation was allowed the persist from 2012 (formation of Bristol Sport Ltd) to late 2016/early 2017. A clear conflict of interests if there ever was one. (We do not know the date that he actually left the BoG. For some reason UWE were keen to keep the date and reasons very quiet). Given that Bristol Sport have proven they are happy to take advantage of any opportunity at Bristol Rovers expense, it is beyond any defense or comprehension, that they were allowed to keep a Director on the UWE BOG who to attended confidential project meetings without a conflict of interests being declared. I do wonder if some people can't see this because they are obsessed with disparaging Rovers Board at every opportunity, and this explanation, at least partially lets them off the hook. Finally, just check out the list of Merchants Venturers, and draw your own conclusions about influences. Johnjohnblue Quality Post Sir, agree 100% of your assumptions
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,143
|
Post by eppinggas on Feb 28, 2019 13:35:42 GMT
Back to the original subject of the thread I started. I'm afraid I just don't get Bamber Gasgroin's point of view at all. Does he have any senior corporate experience? The fact that there were various publicly stated agreements for the UWE Stadium project does not in any way prove that there was not a "negative" party in a position of influence on UWE BoG. Any such party would obviously keep a low profile when such high profile public statements were made. There were many more subtle ways in which the successful conclusion of such a complex project could be obstructed further down the process, and importantly much less visible to the public. Why cant some people wake up and smell the coffee? It is quite ludicrous that a Director Of Bristol Sport Ltd, who was also a self confessed life long fan of Bristol City and Bristol Rugby was entitled to sit in on confidential Board Of Governors meetings at UWE discussing the Stadium Project. These meetings were considered that confidential that they were the only agenda items whose minutes were not published. This meant he was seeing and hearing matters that not even the Rovers Board would have access to, and that the situation was allowed the persist from 2012 (formation of Bristol Sport Ltd) to late 2016/early 2017. A clear conflict of interests if there ever was one. (We do not know the date that he actually left the BoG. For some reason UWE were keen to keep the date and reasons very quiet). Given that Bristol Sport have proven they are happy to take advantage of any opportunity at Bristol Rovers expense, it is beyond any defense or comprehension, that they were allowed to keep a Director on the UWE BOG who to attended confidential project meetings without a conflict of interests being declared. I do wonder if some people can't see this because they are obsessed with disparaging Rovers Board at every opportunity, and this explanation, at least partially lets them off the hook. Finally, just check out the list of Merchants Venturers, and draw your own conclusions about influences. Johnjohnblue Whilst it's an interesting narrative... it's just history. What are you actually trying to achieve? What do you want 'done' about it? Have any laws actually been broken? If the meetings were confidential and no notes exist - then how do you know a conflict of interest was not declared? It all smells a bit admittedly. Well a sh*thead was involved so it was bound to.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Feb 28, 2019 13:36:10 GMT
I have been told that BG's experience is in the retail sector, not corporate governance. He has developed a sharp quill for all things Gorringe.
Your theory has some plausibility. We will never know.
According to the moustache of my favourite player on other site, we have a new site and Steve is upbeat. All we need is Knowall (we know who you are) wading in with another exclusive and we could be speculating again.
Meanwhile, I keep thinking about the new Family Stand.
Call me a cynic. Guilty as charged.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 15:17:47 GMT
Back to the original subject of the thread I started. I'm afraid I just don't get Bamber Gasgroin's point of view at all. Does he have any senior corporate experience? The fact that there were various publicly stated agreements for the UWE Stadium project does not in any way prove that there was not a "negative" party in a position of influence on UWE BoG. Any such party would obviously keep a low profile when such high profile public statements were made. There were many more subtle ways in which the successful conclusion of such a complex project could be obstructed further down the process, and importantly much less visible to the public. Why cant some people wake up and smell the coffee? It is quite ludicrous that a Director Of Bristol Sport Ltd, who was also a self confessed life long fan of Bristol City and Bristol Rugby was entitled to sit in on confidential Board Of Governors meetings at UWE discussing the Stadium Project. These meetings were considered that confidential that they were the only agenda items whose minutes were not published. This meant he was seeing and hearing matters that not even the Rovers Board would have access to, and that the situation was allowed the persist from 2012 (formation of Bristol Sport Ltd) to late 2016/early 2017. A clear conflict of interests if there ever was one. (We do not know the date that he actually left the BoG. For some reason UWE were keen to keep the date and reasons very quiet). Given that Bristol Sport have proven they are happy to take advantage of any opportunity at Bristol Rovers expense, it is beyond any defense or comprehension, that they were allowed to keep a Director on the UWE BOG who to attended confidential project meetings without a conflict of interests being declared. I do wonder if some people can't see this because they are obsessed with disparaging Rovers Board at every opportunity, and this explanation, at least partially lets them off the hook. Finally, just check out the list of Merchants Venturers, and draw your own conclusions about influences. Johnjohnblue Whilst it's an interesting narrative... it's just history. What are you actually trying to achieve? What do you want 'done' about it? Have any laws actually been broken? If the meetings were confidential and no notes exist - then how do you know a conflict of interest was not declared? It all smells a bit admittedly. Well a sh*thead was involved so it was bound to. Spot on Epping. One of our own ex directors and Merchant Venturers points the blame of the collapse of UWE firmly with the current owners. It's all history now. Dead, deceased, it's f*****g snuffed it!!
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 28, 2019 15:20:31 GMT
Back to the original subject of the thread I started. I'm afraid I just don't get Bamber Gasgroin's point of view at all. Does he have any senior corporate experience? The fact that there were various publicly stated agreements for the UWE Stadium project does not in any way prove that there was not a "negative" party in a position of influence on UWE BoG. Any such party would obviously keep a low profile when such high profile public statements were made. There were many more subtle ways in which the successful conclusion of such a complex project could be obstructed further down the process, and importantly much less visible to the public. Why cant some people wake up and smell the coffee? It is quite ludicrous that a Director Of Bristol Sport Ltd, who was also a self confessed life long fan of Bristol City and Bristol Rugby was entitled to sit in on confidential Board Of Governors meetings at UWE discussing the Stadium Project. These meetings were considered that confidential that they were the only agenda items whose minutes were not published. This meant he was seeing and hearing matters that not even the Rovers Board would have access to, and that the situation was allowed the persist from 2012 (formation of Bristol Sport Ltd) to late 2016/early 2017. A clear conflict of interests if there ever was one. (We do not know the date that he actually left the BoG. For some reason UWE were keen to keep the date and reasons very quiet). Given that Bristol Sport have proven they are happy to take advantage of any opportunity at Bristol Rovers expense, it is beyond any defense or comprehension, that they were allowed to keep a Director on the UWE BOG who to attended confidential project meetings without a conflict of interests being declared. I do wonder if some people can't see this because they are obsessed with disparaging Rovers Board at every opportunity, and this explanation, at least partially lets them off the hook. Finally, just check out the list of Merchants Venturers, and draw your own conclusions about influences. Johnjohnblue Whilst I think your case is valid, I think the owners were never going to build this unless 2 things changed. 1. They were given the opportunity to buy the land 2. They got to build their hotel. Neither happened and so I see digging this up as making no difference and would not benefit us in any way. I had my doubts about the owners from day 1 & because of the business they are in. Only at Rovers could we get the only skint and tight Arabs lol. I laugh but it’s a resigned laughter. As padstow has said, those of us in our 50’s will not see us in a new stadium but I fully expect to hear of more experts onboard. These things take time don’t ya know 😂😱
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 1, 2019 19:51:53 GMT
Eric at the other place says that the UWE plan was back on in the autumn, but Rovers pulled out
|
|