A controversial thread from the old forum

Somebody please tell me I didn't read that. The advantages of Rovers being City's feeder club FFS!! Defo a wind up LOL.
Hop aboard the crazy train Tim. A one way ticket out of town.

I will say two words which will lead to there being only ONE team in Bristol if what you are suggesting happens..Steve Lansdown!
Surely any Rovers supporter can see that?

Well I have to commend you for thinking outside the box but as crazytrain has alluded to this would eventually see the death knell to Rovers.
Keep your idea's coming though.

And there lies the crux of the matter in your last sentence and why the majority of Gasheads would be unable to accept your proposal.
SL wouldn't be allowed to own two clubs, and we can't work together, we're rivals remember !

Makes I laff!

One of the many things we can thank Lawd Dunfukawl for is the almost total withdrawal of Rovers from the development of football. Under GoD & his disciple Higgs we have become a club that regards that 'football' stuff as something you buy in from elsewhere, with hilarious results!

Time was when Rovers had a team of scouts & trainers who would scour the lower leagues (i.e. the one we're in now) and unearth potential players, who would do a job for us for a couple of years while getting better & better, and then sell on at a hearty profit. With the outstanding exception of Lambert it has been a long time since this happened.

Now Higgs 'strategy' is to throw 'one of the largest budgets in this division' at his latest manager so [insert name here] can buy in a load of journeymen from whatever club he was at before, who are left to amble aimlessly around the pitch without any training or development, and then Higgs can sack [insert name here] six months later when this groundbreaking approach has somehow inexplicably failed to drive Rovers to the top of the [insert name here] League Table.

The idea that we are in a fit state to be a feeder club for ourselves, let alone anyone else, really doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. The one thing you can predict with utter certainty about any player who comes to Rovers, however good they might be, is that while they are with us they won't get any better.

Appreciate the effort it must have taken to write such a lengthy post, but I gave it two lines and packed it in.

Feeder club? Partnership?

What on f***ing earth are these suggestions?

7,200+ posts & counting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's face it they'd be gutted to lose us. The only thing that makes them look any good at all is being stood next to Rovers.

6/7 years back they were one game away from the Prem and about to start building a 30,000 seater new gaff. Roll on to today, & they're still at Trashton, stuck in Div 3 and sugar daddy is losing patience. Plus they can lose a whole 5,000 seater end for the season without any effect on their attendances.

If Rovers went under they'd still be sh1t, and they'd have no one else left to laugh at.

I Thought about logging in to that forum to give 'em some back, but then I just couldn't be bothered.

Okay, evidently people see the threat of a 'merger' as a problem, however I don't see this as being the case. There is a strong argument that both Bristol teams are stronger when the other is strong, although this is purely speculative, I wouldn't be surprised if our recruitment struggled when City got relegated as we were in competition for players and their youth / reserve players were suddenly getting more football when they otherwise might have looked for a new club without relocating. Likewise, a strong Rovers will improve the talent development in Bristol and give the City youngsters a strong team in which to continue their development whilst doing a good job for. I do not feel that this would lead to any sort of merger, although I understand many people subscribe to the fallacy that if you step onto the slope you automatically slide to the bottom and will oppose any sort of co-operation. So can someone please explain exactly how you see a 'feeder' (although I hate the word) relationship with city will damage our identity as a club and risk a merger? I simply don't see the threat and if such a threat existed I think our future would be more at risk from doing nothing when such a good opportunity could be on our doorstep. 

Also, as another poster pointed out, the nature of football support isn't always logical, but when we're operating at a loss, getting to grips with a new league with a possible legal battle on the horizon and with only directors loans keeping the club solvent it is probably the time to think logically rather than emotionally. If the UWE deal falls through, the future of the club could still be secured by selling the Mem if another buyer was found, if this happens and we have to find a new, perhaps temporary home, can someone put forward a logical, sensible objection to Ashton Gate (if a compromise can be worked with City and the rugby club of course)? Would you really rather be at Bath or back at Twerton just because of our historic rivalry with a club 2 tiers above us on the pyramid? 

Perhaps some people see the term "feeder club" as another name for reserve team ?..Real Madrids B team is called Real Castilla I don't think that they have a separate identity though,more realistic is Barcelonas Barcelona B...is that what Rovers would become Citys B team ? then no thank you.

I have discussed the idea of a return to Twerton and come to the conclusion that A.a lot of money would have to be spent on the stadium,and B.the fans who travelled there are now 20 years older and I think less likely to do it again long term ( both could be wrong).

I don't think that Ashton Gate would be a long term solution either,maybe a ground share with Clifton rugby club ? if Rovers could find the money to buy in and develop the "stadium".

Other than that I don't know,Rovers have been looking for a home since the 70s ( perhaps before that) and bought the Hambrook training ground hoping to develop it,maybe if a decent council would have ear marked a site for both clubs to build and share a ground in the past the future would look a bit more secure now.