|
Post by droitwichgas on Jan 20, 2020 18:31:24 GMT
So please let me get this right... Someone be the saviour, but not... John, Kim (who doesn't go to games anymore), Swiss (abroad), BG (not a big enough social media star). Who would want to put their head above the parapet with such toxicity within the Club and within the fan-base? Why is no-one asking about the existence / validity of the so-called clause that prevents us selling the Mem until we have a home in Bristol? Why is the fan-base not enlisting the help of BCC to make sure we do not get sold down the river? Isn't that what the SC should be focused on, rather than Ken Masters? Just cast your mind back to that odd interview Marvin Rees did with R Bristol when he seemed to imply he was becoming frustrated with the owners, perhaps the SC via KM has already enlisted the help of BCC. What was odd about Starnes interview on Saturday was not a word was said about the FM, less than 6 months ago Wael was suggesting it was the club's preferred site and we'd be in within 2 years, now 18 months, although I appreciate that was always a farcical time scales. Why didn't GT question MS about the FM or even any stadium/training ground news, was he warned before not to ask any questions/only agreed to appear if Q's weren't asked? www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/what-mayor-marvin-rees-say-3536699
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 18:33:42 GMT
Irish said
"I may be wrong about some of the exact details but my understanding is that at some point during this period they did a deal with the council and the owner of the ground involving an agreement by the council to put some kind of covenant on the land to prevent development followed by a loan to buy out the owner of the ground at a knock down rate. This all took years."
So Irish, not a success, just the burden passed to local tax payers?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 18:34:20 GMT
We have had similar arguments or postings before, I certainly recall pointing out that the constitution of the SC starts: To create and develop active support and lively interest in the activities of Bristol Rovers Football Club, so it cannot challenge the club. The name of the club is a misnomer as it does not canvas the views of supporters or an individual and then represent them. So true my friend
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 18:34:48 GMT
So please let me get this right... Someone be the saviour, but not... John, Kim (who doesn't go to games anymore), Swiss (abroad), BG (not a big enough social media star). Who would want to put their head above the parapet with such toxicity within the Club and within the fan-base? Why is no-one asking about the existence / validity of the so-called clause that prevents us selling the Mem until we have a home in Bristol? Why is the fan-base not enlisting the help of BCC to make sure we do not get sold down the river? Isn't that what the SC should be focused on, rather than Ken Masters? Just cast your mind back to that odd interview Marvin Rees did with R Bristol when he seemed to imply he was becoming frustrated with the owners, perhaps the SC via KM has already enlisted the help of BCC. What was odd about Starnes interview on Saturday was not a word was said about the FM, less than 6 months ago Wael was suggesting it was the club's preferred site and we'd be in within 2 years, now 18 months, although I appreciate that was always a farcical time scales. Why didn't GT question MS about the FM or even any stadium/training ground news, was he warned before not to ask any questions/only agreed to appear if Q's weren't asked? www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/what-mayor-marvin-rees-say-3536699 Perhaps GT has been informed that the Fruit Market plan is dead as far as current plans are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Jan 20, 2020 18:39:03 GMT
I dont know that for a fact, but given some of the names are the same, I would not doubt it. They claim the high ground based on their the history that they perceive. We made a huge mistake in 2003. That was to choose them as a vehicle with Geoff's encouragement. It still makes me shiver to look back and think we promoted a scheme that realised £1,000,000 and put that in the hands of that lot. If only three were people saying those very things at the time... Oh yeah, there was. I went on Radio Bristol on the day of the Share Scheme launch warning that the SC was the wrong vehicle and that there was already an established mechanism on Supporters Trusts. Poor old Steve Burns didn’t have a clue how to answers put to him later that day. And we were the ones accused of playing politics.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,394
|
Post by harrybuckle on Jan 20, 2020 18:48:41 GMT
Maybe form a keyboard warrior association KWA sure has a ring about it Call me old fashioned if you like but the fanzine generation is over owners are oblivious to fans outrage. Rr Not going to persuade you Mike, I fully get that. But would you agree the club cannot carry on, with any sense of reality or future, the way it is operating right now? As I get older some say wiser I become cynical about the club I love but feel the heart and soul has been allowed to die. It has now become a virtual real estate option in order for the current owners to walk away with some proceeds from their investment. Of course us fans will always be there but it pains me to hear the owners critics they they just want change without really knowing what that means. I am still coming to terms with the loss in the elf trophy against Stevenage it really was a low point for myself. Currently the toxic nature of our fan base particularly this coming Saturday will not help the coming together mentality Ben Garnet et al craves for. That’s my view on the situation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 18:48:43 GMT
I dont know that for a fact, but given some of the names are the same, I would not doubt it. They claim the high ground based on their the history that they perceive. We made a huge mistake in 2003. That was to choose them as a vehicle with Geoff's encouragement. It still makes me shiver to look back and think we promoted a scheme that realised £1,000,000 and put that in the hands of that lot. If only three were people saying those very things at the time... Oh yeah, there was. I went on Radio Bristol on the day of the Share Scheme launch warning that the SC was the wrong vehicle and that there was already an established mechanism on Supporters Trusts. Poor old Steve Burns didn’t have a clue how to answers put to him later that day. And we were the ones accused of playing politics. I presume we know each other?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 18:49:51 GMT
Not going to persuade you Mike, I fully get that. But would you agree the club cannot carry on, with any sense of reality or future, the way it is operating right now? As I get older some say wiser I become cynical about the club I love but feel the heart and soul has been allowed to die. It has now become a virtual real estate option in order for the current owners to walk away with some proceeds from their investment. Of course us fans will always be there but it pains me to hear the owners critics they they just want change without really knowing what that means. I am still coming to terms with the loss in the elf trophy against Stevenage it really was a low point for myself. Currently the toxic nature of our fan base particularly thus coming Saturday will not help the coming together mentality Ben Garnet et al craves for. Thanks Well said Mike.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 18:54:41 GMT
Yes it is, jump down turn around, no backsies. If we are talking about the Directors continuing to fund things, can I produce, as exhibit A, the speed at which the ones that remained all wrote cheques for the Rights Issue. The view we had in 2003 came to pass. The objectors to that view are still institu or sadly passed away. The Rights Issue was just poorly constructed Beaver Dam on top of the waterfall. By the way, too many of the objectors abstained at the EGM that really counted. I get that you like to say that the SS would fail, but it raised well over a million quid, so although it didn't meet it's stated objectives, it was pretty successful as a fund raiser. I never heard a single person predict the reason why the SS would hit the buffers. You were there, in that hotel room in Swindon, trying to assess the wreckage and work out what could be done. Had you of seen it coming you would have had 4 years to formulate a plan, like the rest of us, we were just left desperately investigating minority shareholder interests etc, but we knew that the game was up.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jan 20, 2020 18:55:21 GMT
Just cast your mind back to that odd interview Marvin Rees did with R Bristol when he seemed to imply he was becoming frustrated with the owners, perhaps the SC via KM has already enlisted the help of BCC. What was odd about Starnes interview on Saturday was not a word was said about the FM, less than 6 months ago Wael was suggesting it was the club's preferred site and we'd be in within 2 years, now 18 months, although I appreciate that was always a farcical time scales. Why didn't GT question MS about the FM or even any stadium/training ground news, was he warned before not to ask any questions/only agreed to appear if Q's weren't asked? www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/what-mayor-marvin-rees-say-3536699 Perhaps GT has been informed that the Fruit Market plan is dead as far as current plans are concerned. if that is the case, doesn't it follow logically that there are currently no negotiations for the sale of the club - at least temporarily?
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jan 20, 2020 18:57:28 GMT
Irish said "I may be wrong about some of the exact details but my understanding is that at some point during this period they did a deal with the council and the owner of the ground involving an agreement by the council to put some kind of covenant on the land to prevent development followed by a loan to buy out the owner of the ground at a knock down rate. This all took years." So Irish, not a success, just the burden passed to local tax payers? Not necessarily. I have no great problem with councils issuing loans to clubs to safeguard their future provided it's done in a sustainable way and not as a blank cheque to underwrite poor management or incompetent ownership. There's examples of councils getting loans from clubs paid back with interest etc, not to mention the wider economic benefits it can stimulate - worked very well for all parties in Swansea and Hull for example. Unlike with incompetent club owners those local taxpayers can chuck the council out if they don't like what they've done with their money and Stockport Council has always been a 3 party marginal which changes hands regularly so we're not talking about a one party state that can act with impunity here. In any case, we can argue about the politics of it but, even if you do see it as an example wreckless public spending, it's surely still a successful result from the football club's point of view?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 19:06:34 GMT
Perhaps GT has been informed that the Fruit Market plan is dead as far as current plans are concerned. if that is the case, doesn't it follow logically that there are currently no negotiations for the sale of the club - at least temporarily? I thought the press reported that there were two or three interested parties so no it wouldn't mean that there were no negotiations at present.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 19:11:16 GMT
I dont know that for a fact, but given some of the names are the same, I would not doubt it. They claim the high ground based on their the history that they perceive. We made a huge mistake in 2003. That was to choose them as a vehicle with Geoff's encouragement. It still makes me shiver to look back and think we promoted a scheme that realised £1,000,000 and put that in the hands of that lot. If only three were people saying those very things at the time... Oh yeah, there was. I went on Radio Bristol on the day of the Share Scheme launch warning that the SC was the wrong vehicle and that there was already an established mechanism on Supporters Trusts. Poor old Steve Burns didn’t have a clue how to answers put to him later that day. And we were the ones accused of playing politics. I think that we all know that Steve didn't understand what was happening, although I wasn't there at the time, I'm told that he released funds to the FC before the SS agreement was formalised, and although it didn't need in itself to cause a major problem, factions allowed that to become an arguing point, so, whilst Steve is most definitely one of life's good guys, he probably shouldn't have been put in that position of responsibility. As for the rest of it; My understanding was that John's SC made a pitch to the FC, the Trust put their proposal forward, one was chosen, the other wasn't? I wasn't involved at the time and totally understand that people will have different points of view, but what is there here that I've missed?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 19:18:23 GMT
If only three were people saying those very things at the time... Oh yeah, there was. I went on Radio Bristol on the day of the Share Scheme launch warning that the SC was the wrong vehicle and that there was already an established mechanism on Supporters Trusts. Poor old Steve Burns didn’t have a clue how to answers put to him later that day. And we were the ones accused of playing politics. I think that we all know that Steve didn't understand what was happening, although I wasn't there at the time, I'm told that he released funds to the FC before the SS agreement was formalised, and although it didn't need in itself to cause a major problem, factions allowed that to become an arguing point, so, whilst Steve is most definitely one of life's good guys, he probably shouldn't have been put in that position of responsibility. As for the rest of it; My understanding was that John's SC made a pitch to the FC, the Trust put their proposal forward, one was chosen, the other wasn't? I wasn't involved at the time and totally understand that people will have different points of view, but what is there here that I've missed? Most of it Bamber. There is only one point going over old ground, and that is to learn from it. A lot of what has been said on this thread suggests lessons have not been learned.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jan 20, 2020 19:29:59 GMT
if that is the case, doesn't it follow logically that there are currently no negotiations for the sale of the club - at least temporarily? I thought the press reported that there were two or three interested parties so no it wouldn't mean that there were no negotiations at present. fair point, but I thought the others sounded very lightweight/just about thought about it
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 20:32:36 GMT
I think that we all know that Steve didn't understand what was happening, although I wasn't there at the time, I'm told that he released funds to the FC before the SS agreement was formalised, and although it didn't need in itself to cause a major problem, factions allowed that to become an arguing point, so, whilst Steve is most definitely one of life's good guys, he probably shouldn't have been put in that position of responsibility. As for the rest of it; My understanding was that John's SC made a pitch to the FC, the Trust put their proposal forward, one was chosen, the other wasn't? I wasn't involved at the time and totally understand that people will have different points of view, but what is there here that I've missed? Most of it Bamber. There is only one point going over old ground, and that is to learn from it. A lot of what has been said on this thread suggests lessons have not been learned. Whatever. As long as we have you to adjudicate, we'll be just fine. I know that The Trust were quite bitter at the time, but I don't know much about them, other than there was a Woman involved whose name escapes me right now, but every time I saw her she was totally bladdered, and didn't they have something to do with that farcical balloon launch?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 20:37:28 GMT
Irish said "I may be wrong about some of the exact details but my understanding is that at some point during this period they did a deal with the council and the owner of the ground involving an agreement by the council to put some kind of covenant on the land to prevent development followed by a loan to buy out the owner of the ground at a knock down rate. This all took years." So Irish, not a success, just the burden passed to local tax payers? Not necessarily. I have no great problem with councils issuing loans to clubs to safeguard their future provided it's done in a sustainable way and not as a blank cheque to underwrite poor management or incompetent ownership. There's examples of councils getting loans from clubs paid back with interest etc, not to mention the wider economic benefits it can stimulate - worked very well for all parties in Swansea and Hull for example. Unlike with incompetent club owners those local taxpayers can chuck the council out if they don't like what they've done with their money and Stockport Council has always been a 3 party marginal which changes hands regularly so we're not talking about a one party state that can act with impunity here. In any case, we can argue about the politics of it but, even if you do see it as an example wreckless public spending, it's surely still a successful result from the football club's point of view?
It's not a level.playing field when cash, in very short supply when it comes to local services, is spent on the enjoyment of what, 5,000 people, at best. Tell the teachers in Stockport that was money well spent.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 20:40:08 GMT
Most of it Bamber. There is only one point going over old ground, and that is to learn from it. A lot of what has been said on this thread suggests lessons have not been learned. Whatever. As long as we have you to adjudicate, we'll be just fine. I know that The Trust were quite bitter at the time, but I don't know much about them, other than there was a Woman involved whose name escapes me right now, but every time I saw her she was totally bladdered, and didn't they have something to do with that farcical balloon launch? Not whatever. We are discussing fan involvement here, no point in floating balloons that never got off the ground at the first time of asking, or ignoring the rank ignorance and incompetence that characterised previous attempts. Is there?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 20:45:13 GMT
Whatever. As long as we have you to adjudicate, we'll be just fine. I know that The Trust were quite bitter at the time, but I don't know much about them, other than there was a Woman involved whose name escapes me right now, but every time I saw her she was totally bladdered, and didn't they have something to do with that farcical balloon launch? Not whatever. We are discussing fan involvement here, no point in floating balloons that never got off the ground at the first time of asking, or ignoring the rank ignorance and incompetence that characterised previous attempts. Is there? But we aren't actually discussing fan involvement, because we don't have a vehicle, just pub talk, and a couple of people who appear desperate to prove that they were right about something that happened the thick end of 2 decades ago. And people call Bamber a ridiculous character. I try, but geez, the bar is set pretty high some days.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 20:45:57 GMT
Again? That's twice, now. Don't let it go to your head, Kegan.
|
|