|
Post by timothyq on Sept 5, 2014 9:40:27 GMT
Just saying something make it true crazytrain. I've asked for a reason why the sharing of youth facilities, loaning of reserve team players and access of coaches to each others training sessions would result in a SL takeover and one team in Bristol?
At what point did I mention ownership and why would co-operation risk us being taken over? What interest would Landsdown have in destroying a non-league side when it could be used to develop young talent?
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Sept 5, 2014 12:04:50 GMT
Just saying something make it true crazytrain. I've asked for a reason why the sharing of youth facilities, loaning of reserve team players and access of coaches to each others training sessions would result in a SL takeover and one team in Bristol? At what point did I mention ownership and why would co-operation risk us being taken over? What interest would Landsdown have in destroying a non-league side when it could be used to develop young talent? Stop taking the piss.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Sept 5, 2014 12:40:46 GMT
Just saying something make it true crazytrain. I've asked for a reason why the sharing of youth facilities, loaning of reserve team players and access of coaches to each others training sessions would result in a SL takeover and one team in Bristol? At what point did I mention ownership and why would co-operation risk us being taken over? What interest would Landsdown have in destroying a non-league side when it could be used to develop young talent? Stop taking the piss. Exactly. What is being proposed is either an elaborate wind-up, or madly delusional. Or perhaps both. The proposals go against everything that BRFC supporters have stood for over decades, and anyone who knows the mindset of the supporters would know this. If push did come to shove then I would opt for the proposal of a previous poster, who said that we should reform as AFC Rovers of Bristol. At least if we took this route we would retain some kind self-respect, rather than being the whipping boys (and laughing stock) of the other mob. I hope that they don't get wind of it on their forum, things are bad enough as it is without giving them any more ammunition. But it's always interesting to hear what others think, so I suggest that timothyg should float his idea to the members of this forum, in the form of a poll. Now I agree that it would only be a small percentage of active Rovers supporters, but it would give some kind of indication as to how acceptable the proposals might be to the masses. In fact I'm surprised that he hasn't done so already.
|
|
Gas-Ed
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 74
|
Post by Gas-Ed on Sept 5, 2014 12:45:04 GMT
The less we have to do with that lot, the better.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Sept 5, 2014 13:39:06 GMT
Exactly. What is being proposed is either an elaborate wind-up, or madly delusional. Or perhaps both. The proposals go against everything that BRFC supporters have stood for over decades, and anyone who knows the mindset of the supporters would know this. If push did come to shove then I would opt for the proposal of a previous poster, who said that we should reform as AFC Rovers of Bristol. At least if we took this route we would retain some kind self-respect, rather than being the whipping boys (and laughing stock) of the other mob. I hope that they don't get wind of it on their forum, things are bad enough as it is without giving them any more ammunition. But it's always interesting to hear what others think, so I suggest that timothyg should float his idea to the members of this forum, in the form of a poll. Now I agree that it would only be a small percentage of active Rovers supporters, but it would give some kind of indication as to how acceptable the proposals might be to the masses. In fact I'm surprised that he hasn't done so already. Done.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2014 14:37:07 GMT
No brainer for me, options 2, 3 and 4. We can only benefit from a closer relationship in fact I'd go further and actively seek to promote our taking the players who can't get into their first team and play them in ours if they're better than what we've got. I don't see how a ground share would work because of the rugby, but it would be a much better solution for most of our fans than traipsing off to Twerton every second Saturday. UTG
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Sept 5, 2014 15:45:59 GMT
Exactly. What is being proposed is either an elaborate wind-up, or madly delusional. Or perhaps both. The proposals go against everything that BRFC supporters have stood for over decades, and anyone who knows the mindset of the supporters would know this. If push did come to shove then I would opt for the proposal of a previous poster, who said that we should reform as AFC Rovers of Bristol. At least if we took this route we would retain some kind self-respect, rather than being the whipping boys (and laughing stock) of the other mob. I hope that they don't get wind of it on their forum, things are bad enough as it is without giving them any more ammunition.But it's always interesting to hear what others think, so I suggest that timothyg should float his idea to the members of this forum, in the form of a poll. Now I agree that it would only be a small percentage of active Rovers supporters, but it would give some kind of indication as to how acceptable the proposals might be to the masses. In fact I'm surprised that he hasn't done so already. Too late, it's already up and they are asking around who of them has started it !
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2014 15:56:38 GMT
No brainer for me, options 2, 3 and 4. We can only benefit from a closer relationship in fact I'd go further and actively seek to promote our taking the players who can't get into their first team and play them in ours if they're better than what we've got. I don't see how a ground share would work because of the rugby, but it would be a much better solution for most of our fans than traipsing off to Twerton every second Saturday. UTG Seems like you want Bristol United then ? BTW our fans preferred going to Twerton rather than Ashton Gate for home games,check the crowds when Rovers played "home" games at Ashton Gate
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Sept 5, 2014 16:10:43 GMT
timothyq and monstermonster - you've had your laugh, now toddle off back to otib and leave us to get on with it.
It's like someone farting at a funeral.
|
|
jozer
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 365
|
Post by jozer on Sept 5, 2014 16:31:37 GMT
Why would c**y be remotely interested in this (except perhaps to finally finish Rovers off)?
We have nothing they want, and they have nothing we can afford.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Sept 5, 2014 16:31:59 GMT
Of course Curly Wurly, everyone with a differing view is from across the river and having some sort of wind up. It's got nothing to do with City having betting facilities and being a part of the U19/ U21s development leagues, nothing to do with our current financial situation, nothing to do with our wage bill, nothing to do with the looming stadium disaster, nothing to do with securing promotion to the FL and nothing to do with realising the potential of talented lads from the west country.
I'm just here for some healthy debate, it you're unwilling to engage then that's entirely your lookout.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Sept 5, 2014 16:49:20 GMT
Of course Curly Wurly, everyone with a differing view is from across the river and having some sort of wind up. It's got nothing to do with City having betting facilities and being a part of the U19/ U21s development leagues, nothing to do with our current financial situation, nothing to do with our wage bill, nothing to do with the looming stadium disaster, nothing to do with securing promotion to the FL and nothing to do with realising the potential of talented lads from the west country. I'm just here for some healthy debate, it you're unwilling to engage then that's entirely your lookout. I'll engage in the debate to a point, but your proposition is as insulting as would be a ground share at Ashton Gate. Just as insulting to you as suggesting City could be a feeder team to Cardiff....and how you didn't like that suggestion. You may have noticed that I do agree with aspects of a feeder link with a higher league club, but the intensity of the rivalry between the clubs (not just the supporters) means this is a non-starter. There are other clubs that we could align with that have much better facilities than City, much better playing squads, much better youth development and much better finances. I still question your motives in raising the proposition, but maybe it is my prejudice. Long may that continue.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Sept 5, 2014 17:01:31 GMT
I certainly wasn't offended at the suggestion City could be a feeder for Cardiff, but having given it some consideration I didn't think it was logically a good idea given the gap between the clubs and their academies isn't great enough for there to be a big benefit, that is to say that if Cardiff had a quality U21 who wasn't good enough to make it into the first team squad it is unlikely he'd make a huge impact at city. However I would expect city to have a number of U21s who would be very good conference players. Similarly, City are in a strong financial position with the sugar daddy and they aren't under the same pressure to keep the wage bill down as we are. These are logical arguments against and are not the result of 'taking offence'.
I do fear that the rivalry between the clubs may have been diminished following our relegation, but even if this supposed rivalry was to create a barrier to a partnership I would expect the opposition to come from City rather than us.
There may be other good options out there but city represent a very strong option. They've got a well funded academy playing against academies from championship and some premiership clubs, they're local which will allow for good communication between staff and ease of progression between the two youth squads at an academy level. The only real area of negotiation in this regard would be what compensation would be due if a rovers youngster were to progress to the city first team, but I don't think many people on here would want to see a young late from Kingswood falling short of his potential because he's being kicked around in the conference every weekend.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Sept 18, 2014 16:02:43 GMT
As it's been about two weeks since the last post on the matter tim, I'm interested to know how you equate things as they stand?
Remember to take into account when you study the results of the poll that you started, that some of the contributors would have been our friends from south of the river. So tim, the ball's in your court . . . so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Sept 18, 2014 19:41:00 GMT
As it's been about two weeks since the last post on the matter tim, I'm interested to know how you equate things as they stand? Remember to take into account when you study the results of the poll that you started, that some of the contributors would have been our friends from south of the river. So tim, the ball's in your court . . . so to speak. Like the rest of his City chums, he's too busy extracting himself from Colin Daniel's a$$
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Sept 23, 2014 11:32:42 GMT
Hey Brizzle, sorry for late, late reply, I've been out of the country for a couple of weeks and have only been able to keep half an eye on the results coming in.
As things stand we're looking pretty good, always an issue when you lose games early in a new league as a doom and gloom mentality settles in before the league has actually settled down. There's been quite a severe knee jerk reaction to the poor start and that sort of atmosphere will not help us win more games, recruit more players or attract investment.
Re my argument for a closer relationship with City I still believe we could benefit from a community partnership and a pooling of resources to develop young talent. I fail to see the objection fans on this board have to us loaning a young player for no money who bulks up our squad whilst the youngster can get some competitive experience and still train a day a week with City and be looked after by City's medical staff. This would benefit both clubs and talented young guys in general.
The poll result was surprising, I was actually expecting to cop stick for only giving a very dramatic option the 'no relationship' selection, but according to the result I am very, very surprised that many people would rather see the club go pop than pursue a mutually beneficial relationship, I reckon it's likely 'our friends south of the river' were as inclined to tick that box as they would be to beef up the responses for shared youth facilities / a ground share. Personally, I would be far, far happier with a situation where Rovers mid table in league one and city were in the Championship than a situation where we're a place above City in League 2.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Sept 23, 2014 16:11:33 GMT
Hey Brizzle, sorry for late, late reply, I've been out of the country for a couple of weeks and have only been able to keep half an eye on the results coming in. As things stand we're looking pretty good, always an issue when you lose games early in a new league as a doom and gloom mentality settles in before the league has actually settled down. There's been quite a severe knee jerk reaction to the poor start and that sort of atmosphere will not help us win more games, recruit more players or attract investment. Re my argument for a closer relationship with City I still believe we could benefit from a community partnership and a pooling of resources to develop young talent. I fail to see the objection fans on this board have to us loaning a young player for no money who bulks up our squad whilst the youngster can get some competitive experience and still train a day a week with City and be looked after by City's medical staff. This would benefit both clubs and talented young guys in general. The poll result was surprising, I was actually expecting to cop stick for only giving a very dramatic option the 'no relationship' selection, but according to the result I am very, very surprised that many people would rather see the club go pop than pursue a mutually beneficial relationship, I reckon it's likely 'our friends south of the river' were as inclined to tick that box as they would be to beef up the responses for shared youth facilities / a ground share. Personally, I would be far, far happier with a situation where Rovers mid table in league one and city were in the Championship than a situation where we're a place above City in League 2. Many thanks for the reply timothy. Without going over the ground again, I am happy to accept the result of the poll irrespective of any spin that may be placed upon the result. It proves to me that the lesson that I have learnt for well over 60 years now, is that BRFC and B*FC are two separate entities . . . and ne'er the twain shall meet.
|
|