Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 21:06:06 GMT
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. Ha ha. Just referring to facts. I honestly have no reason or inkling to hang on to the past, but if you are going to quote it, just get it right.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 21:06:35 GMT
Again? That's twice, now. Don't let it go to your head, Kegan. 🤣🤣😎
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Jan 20, 2020 21:10:08 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. The BP suggested it was only the FM developers in exclusive talks, interesting they are reporting in today's Q&A with readers that a deal could be done this month, although with just 11 days to go somebody will have to get a move. Wishful thinking suggests if a deal was imminent then that was why MS wasn't questioned about the FM/a new stadium but if it was why did bother appearing on the show anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 21:15:11 GMT
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. The BP suggested it was only the FM developers in exclusive talks, interesting they are reporting in today's Q&A with readers that a deal could be done this month, although with just 11 days to go somebody will have to get a move. Wishful thinking suggests if a deal was imminent then that was why MS wasn't questioned about the FM/a new stadium but if it was why did bother appearing on the show anyway. Yes, interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 21:40:48 GMT
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. Ha ha. Just referring to facts. I honestly have no reason or inkling to hang on to the past, but if you are going to quote it, just get it right. It was right. To the best of my understanding. I know you had a disagreement, but you most certainly didn't predict how the scheme would fold, as a result of a boardroom split causing the SC executive to resign. I'm half expecting Anagram Boy to make an appearance soon and tell us who has this correct, I don't actually care that much, but it seems to be important to you. Anyway, let's not fall out, Parliament Square, 11pm, Jan 31st, you coming?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 20, 2020 21:45:10 GMT
I think we can take it that Dwane Sports will realise their asset and walk away which will be the end game for them but not for us. I fully understand that “someone has to step up and actually do it” but Bamber has the right idea with a high profile highly professional social media presence. Whatever I could do from a distance I certainly would. If nothing else it is worth discussing whether there is someone out there who could achieve, at our level, what the Arsenal man has and if so how he or she can be located and what would be needed to get the idea off the Ground. Have you employed Irish as your script writer? You've moved a step on from what I thought we were discussing. I thought we were still at the stage of trying to find a way of challenging these owners not to leave a bankrupt club behind. Or selling the stadium and having undeliverable plans for a new ground which they hand over to new owners, then when it all goes tits up pretending that it's nothing to do with them. I've slimmed the reply down to help save the planet. Top of the morning to you. I'm still convinced the Mem will be sold to repay Dwane Sports loan and although Stockport Council did buy Edgeley Park and lease it back to the football club the reported figure was only 2 million which is far away from the value of the Mem and the loan secured by it. Once they sell the club and the land they are out of it and recriminations won't do Rovers any good so we have to look forward. The big danger is that new owners are virtually gifted the club but don't have the wherewithal to make a success of it which means the next failure will be even quicker because there is nothing to sell as an "escape exit". This is why I'm proposing that if we want the new owners to succeed we will have to push and prod them like never before and that means using more up to date methods than the traditional supporters clubs. phone in's and forums etc. Just imagine the scenario if a properly funded and professionally presented You Tube channel had been up and running back then ... "Ere Nick, got your bucket and spade ready for that desert trip", "Ha bl**dy Ha Tone, I just bin for me injections and they were ever so pleased, they said it was dead easy to find me vain", "Tell ee what though, I'm a bit worried about what that Bamber's gonna come up with on thick UHU computer channel all our fans are watching now", Get on to that bloke at Grant Thornton will ee and find out what they Arabs are gonna ask me and what I gotta say"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 21:50:36 GMT
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? The Share Scheme was up and running well before John's election to the SC chair though, as the sums of money involved therein were cited as a reason change was due in the SC and FC, which John was surely elected to implement in the former and to press for in the latter. He held the chair for only a short time before the splits. Isn't it though?
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jan 20, 2020 22:45:06 GMT
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. Sure if it's just a charity case then that's clearly completely wrong but that shouldn't happen. It's not just do I pay this teacher or do I lob money at the football club (excusing the fact that fewer and fewer teachers are being paid by local authorities anyway)? It's not like it comes out of their protected services budgets - they'd have borrowed or used their reserves; money that exists specifically for them to make investments. Provided that it's at least cost neutral in the longer term and done on the right terms it should be a benefit to the council - if not they deserve to be chucked out. Many things councils put money towards are surely designed to make or save them more money in the long term;regenerating a Town Centre space, major road system investments etc. I don't see why that shouldn't apply to football clubs occasionally. Doesn't mean clubs should get a blank cheque or you end up with the US model of wealthy sports teams holding taxpayers over a barrell. But in certain circumstances it can make sense and has done elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 23:18:34 GMT
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? The Share Scheme was up and running well before John's election to the SC chair though, as the sums of money involved therein were cited as a reason change was due in the SC and FC, which John was surely elected to implement in the former and to press for in the latter. He held the chair for only a short time before the splits. Isn't it though? Yes, correct.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 23:20:22 GMT
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? The Share Scheme was up and running well before John's election to the SC chair though, as the sums of money involved therein were cited as a reason change was due in the SC and FC, which John was surely elected to implement in the former and to press for in the latter. He held the chair for only a short time before the splits. Isn't it though? Come on, are you seriously suggesting that it wasn't John's side of the argument that was pushing for change. Seriously. Jim's side of the room didn't exactly embrace the idea of anything other than putting cash in a bucket and handing it over. Here's an idea, we can form a committee to discuss whether the Trust committee or the SC committee was the best committee. Maybe a conclusion will be reached in the next 18 years, because here we are, 18 years after the event, and some people still don't seem to be able to let go. I think this is called fiddling whilst Rome burns.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 23:20:44 GMT
Ha ha. Just referring to facts. I honestly have no reason or inkling to hang on to the past, but if you are going to quote it, just get it right. It was right. To the best of my understanding. I know you had a disagreement, but you most certainly didn't predict how the scheme would fold, as a result of a boardroom split causing the SC executive to resign. I'm half expecting Anagram Boy to make an appearance soon and tell us who has this correct, I don't actually care that much, but it seems to be important to you. Anyway, let's not fall out, Parliament Square, 11pm, Jan 31st, you coming? Ha ha. Jan 31. Let's wait and see how it pans out.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 23:22:17 GMT
The Share Scheme was up and running well before John's election to the SC chair though, as the sums of money involved therein were cited as a reason change was due in the SC and FC, which John was surely elected to implement in the former and to press for in the latter. He held the chair for only a short time before the splits. Isn't it though? Come on, are you seriously suggesting that it wasn't John's side of the argument that was pushing for change. Seriously. Jim's side of the room didn't exactly embrace the idea of anything other than putting cash in a bucket and handing it over. Here's an idea, we can form a committee to discuss whether the Trust committee or the SC committee was the best committee. Maybe a conclusion will be reached in the next 18 years, because here we are, 18 years after the event, and some people still don't seem to be able to let go. I think this is called fiddling whilst Rome burns. Lets not get into that debate again. Just accept you were not there and your nuanced opinion is not entirely accurate.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 23:25:30 GMT
Come on, are you seriously suggesting that it wasn't John's side of the argument that was pushing for change. Seriously. Jim's side of the room didn't exactly embrace the idea of anything other than putting cash in a bucket and handing it over. Here's an idea, we can form a committee to discuss whether the Trust committee or the SC committee was the best committee. Maybe a conclusion will be reached in the next 18 years, because here we are, 18 years after the event, and some people still don't seem to be able to let go. I think this is called fiddling whilst Rome burns. Lets not get into that debate again. Just accept you were not there and your nuanced opinion is not entirely accurate. Just accept that you didn't get your own way and have been bitter ever since. Remember, I've had you and John in the same place whilst it was discussed, I know what happened. But here's the thing. I think that Swiss is wrong to write off any chance of applying public pressure to these owners and focus just on the relationship with whoever replaces them, you and me bickering about something that has no bearing whatsoever on that is pure distraction today.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 23:34:44 GMT
Come on, are you seriously suggesting that it wasn't John's side of the argument that was pushing for change? No. He was elected to implement change in the SC and press for it in the SC, as I said. Just that this was well after the Share Scheme started taking large sums monthly. Jim's side of the room didn't exactly embrace the idea of anything other than putting cash in a bucket and handing it over. Probably. Certainly a conservative force. Here's an idea, we can form a committee to discuss whether the Trust committee or the SC committee was the best committee. Maybe a conclusion will be reached in the next 18 years, because here we are, 18 years after the event, and some people still don't seem to be able to let go. I think this is called fiddling whilst Rome burns. Do you? Aren't they reconciled, yet? I always thought they were both on the right side. I think this is called learning from history. Go to bed, Bambi.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 23:45:59 GMT
Come on, are you seriously suggesting that it wasn't John's side of the argument that was pushing for change? No. He was elected to implement change in the SC and press for it in the SC, as I said. Just that this was well after the Share Scheme started taking large sums monthly. Jim's side of the room didn't exactly embrace the idea of anything other than putting cash in a bucket and handing it over. Probably. Certainly a conservative force. Here's an idea, we can form a committee to discuss whether the Trust committee or the SC committee was the best committee. Maybe a conclusion will be reached in the next 18 years, because here we are, 18 years after the event, and some people still don't seem to be able to let go. I think this is called fiddling whilst Rome burns. Do you? Aren't they reconciled, yet? I always thought they were both on the right side. I think this is called learning from history. Go to bed, Bambi. Go to bed? It's just getting interesting. We could bat that back and forth all night long, no doubt Anagram Boy will correct either you or me in due course. The real point is this. If I were the owner of a football club and was waiting to see if the support base had it about them to organise something that would put public pressure on me and I were reading this, I would pop my PJs on, sip my Ovaltine, and go to sleep without too many worries.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 23:49:43 GMT
It's just getting interesting... If I were the owner of a football club and was waiting to see if the support base had it about them to organise something that would put public pressure on me and I were reading this, I would pop my PJs on, sip my Ovaltine, and go to sleep without too many worries. What do you propose?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 20, 2020 23:50:15 GMT
Lets not get into that debate again. Just accept you were not there and your nuanced opinion is not entirely accurate. Just accept that you didn't get your own way and have been bitter ever since. Remember, I've had you and John in the same place whilst it was discussed, I know what happened. But here's the thing. I think that Swiss is wrong to write off any chance of applying public pressure to these owners and focus just on the relationship with whoever replaces them, you and me bickering about something that has no bearing whatsoever on that is pure distraction today. What would we be asking Hani Al-Qadi to do ? If the stadium was of a reasonable standard I could see a case for asking him to sell it to an owner group which would continue to base the club there and this group could possibly get support from the Council. But the consensus is that the Mem has limited potential for revenue generation and it would take a large amount of cash to bring it to an acceptable level. However one factor in in favor of this would be that the land value may not be as high as many, including me, had previously thought.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jan 21, 2020 2:25:05 GMT
The Share Scheme was up and running well before John's election to the SC chair though, as the sums of money involved therein were cited as a reason change was due in the SC and FC, which John was surely elected to implement in the former and to press for in the latter. He held the chair for only a short time before the splits. Isn't it though? Come on, are you seriously suggesting that it wasn't John's side of the argument that was pushing for change. Seriously. Jim's side of the room didn't exactly embrace the idea of anything other than putting cash in a bucket and handing it over. Here's an idea, we can form a committee to discuss whether the Trust committee or the SC committee was the best committee. Maybe a conclusion will be reached in the next 18 years, because here we are, 18 years after the event, and some people still don't seem to be able to let go. I think this is called fiddling whilst Rome burns. Judean People's Front v. People's Front of Judea
|
|
TaiwanGas
Paul Bannon
Tom Ramasuts Left Foot.
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,337
|
Post by TaiwanGas on Jan 21, 2020 4:31:44 GMT
Have you employed Irish as your script writer? You've moved a step on from what I thought we were discussing. I thought we were still at the stage of trying to find a way of challenging these owners not to leave a bankrupt club behind. Or selling the stadium and having undeliverable plans for a new ground which they hand over to new owners, then when it all goes tits up pretending that it's nothing to do with them. I've slimmed the reply down to help save the planet. Top of the morning to you. I'm still convinced the Mem will be sold to repay Dwane Sports loan and although Stockport Council did buy Edgeley Park and lease it back to the football club the reported figure was only 2 million which is far away from the value of the Mem and the loan secured by it. Once they sell the club and the land they are out of it and recriminations won't do Rovers any good so we have to look forward. The big danger is that new owners are virtually gifted the club but don't have the wherewithal to make a success of it which means the next failure will be even quicker because there is nothing to sell as an "escape exit". This is why I'm proposing that if we want the new owners to succeed we will have to push and prod them like never before and that means using more up to date methods than the traditional supporters clubs. phone in's and forums etc. Just imagine the scenario if a properly funded and professionally presented You Tube channel had been up and running back then ... "Ere Nick, got your bucket and spade ready for that desert trip", "Ha bl**dy Ha Tone, I just bin for me injections and they were ever so pleased, they said it was dead easy to find me vain", "Tell ee what though, I'm a bit worried about what that Bamber's gonna come up with on thick UHU computer channel all our fans are watching now", Get on to that bloke at Grant Thornton will ee and find out what they Arabs are gonna ask me and what I gotta say" The first paragraph is how I see it, I am convinced this will happen, the second paragraph will be the challenge going forward as athough Rovers may only cost the new owner a bag of chips, and hopefully the ALQ's walk away not leaving any hidden debt, a huge amount of money will be required at the outset to fund the club on a day to day basis, with a dwindling fan base, and gates of 6-8,000 on average, who would be likely to front such a risk and venture?. The mere thought of desperately trying to negotiate a groundshare, training ground, player and staff wages, relocation and all the many extras make my mind boggle, and even if that is achieved and somehow we manage to stabalise, it's still only temporary is it not?. Sorry, but I do not see any White Knight on the horizon, as I have said in previous posts, we have attemped to build a stadium multiple times, and now that most of the 'reason's' are fairly well known why those attempts have failed, my guess is that anybody considering involvement will weigh up their chances and think, Nah.... Money is scarce, those with it are holding on to it, those who are owed want it back sharpish.
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Jan 21, 2020 7:05:58 GMT
Dont be silly Mike. We do need a proper discussion. 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 Again. I agree with Harry!
|
|