kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Oct 31, 2014 14:01:49 GMT
Why does everyone get so worked up about a non entity ! UWE will not happen because Sainsburys will / have .... pull / pulled out of the deal. Higgs is waiting for us to be up near the top of the League, where fans minds will be thinking of promotion and he will announce that plans will be to revamp the Mem ... he can then dine out off of that lie for the next three years. The fact he has bluffed and blustered his way to this point is proof to the mans lack of emotional intelligence about the damage he has caused this club. Keep taking the happy pills, life will get better I so hope your enthusiasm and positivity is priced right Ian, Regardless of those who believe I want this to fail, the opposite is true. The only bugbear I have is the side tracking and lies told along the way and that our fans have had to find out stuff via other ways than than our own club. s**t, I've even prayed for a good outcome.
|
|
|
Post by mancgas has left the building on Oct 31, 2014 14:27:53 GMT
I doubt the right hand not knowing what the left hand at Bristol Rovers is a surprise to anyone
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2014 14:33:21 GMT
The Pegasus group posted the amendments to the application on the 15 th of October on the Bristol City Planning portal, of the four changes 2 involved the removal of trellis work and sound barriers as they were considered to be redundant as the acceptable noise levels could be achieved without them 24Accoustics then posted their final report on the 20th.what I am trying to illustrate here is that these reports are available for all to see Last Saturday when this thread was first posted it was made to appear that something significant had gone on behind the scenes.It hasn't ,just read what is available in the public domain and that will explain a lot.I don't believe our board are the slightest bit concerned by this issue Dave Yeah. For the record, I wasn't trying to make it look like stuff had gone on behind the scenes. The letter from BCC summarised the changes in a way that looked to me like 'oh, you know those noise reduction things we promised, well we're not going to do that.' So I asked a genuine question, here. It wasn't until I dug up the study on the BCC site (a study that wasn't actually referenced in the letter, btw), that it became clear enough why those measures were considered unnecessary. We were told that BRFC weren't aware of the changes, but that was clearly a misunderstanding/miscommunication. Fwiw, istm, the changes should have been summarised better by BCC, and the way they were put, just seemed to be asking for objections from the public. After all, the letter was literally asking for comments from the public. It confused me and I've been following the matter, and am sympathetic to the planning application. For a local not paying full attention, but negatively inclined towards the planning, istm this would be a red rag. Good stuff, but to be fair to BCC, they follow standard protocol. If changes are made to the application, they have to tell people who have commented on it in case they'd like to comment again. The change can be summarised (istm) as they seem to have told you, so that's what they said. i like your 'misunderstanding / miscommunication' description of the Statement that the club didn't know. Of course they knew. Someone then mentioned BSS in that process. Accepting that might be another 'misunderstanding / miscommunication', IF a Director doesn't know exactly what the position is, and is fobbed off by the Chairman when he asks, that would be 'extraordinary'. So the only intrigue to me re the amendment is why - especially as we were told (probably groundlessly) by those who claim to be ITK that it was already rock solid and a shoe in (to the extent that it wouldn't even go to committee). Swiss had a good thought - maybe to get it under the £40k mentioned in the contract as it might be considered that figure was a measure of the scale of the work, not what Sainsbury's would have to pay - in which case, even though the club has said it would pay, it would still be an onerous condition. Totally ridiculous that the club pretend none of this is happening, or matters requiring public record are 'confidential', and we're all left to speculate. At the very least it means many of us no longer take anything they say at face value.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2014 14:42:26 GMT
Yeah. For the record, I wasn't trying to make it look like stuff had gone on behind the scenes. The letter from BCC summarised the changes in a way that looked to me like 'oh, you know those noise reduction things we promised, well we're not going to do that.' So I asked a genuine question, here. It wasn't until I dug up the study on the BCC site (a study that wasn't actually referenced in the letter, btw), that it became clear enough why those measures were considered unnecessary. We were told that BRFC weren't aware of the changes, but that was clearly a misunderstanding/miscommunication. Fwiw, istm, the changes should have been summarised better by BCC, and the way they were put, just seemed to be asking for objections from the public. After all, the letter was literally asking for comments from the public. It confused me and I've been following the matter, and am sympathetic to the planning application. For a local not paying full attention, but negatively inclined towards the planning, istm this would be a red rag. Good stuff, but to be fair to BCC, they follow standard protocol. If changes are made to the application, they have to tell people who have commented on it in case they'd like to comment again. The change can be summarised (istm) as they seem to have told you, so that's what they said. i like your 'misunderstanding / miscommunication' description of the Statement that the club didn't know. Of course they knew. Someone then mentioned BSS in that process. Accepting that might be another 'misunderstanding / miscommunication', IF a Director doesn't know exactly what the position is, and is fobbed off by the Chairman when he asks, that would be 'extraordinary'. So the only intrigue to me re the amendment is why - especially as we were told (probably groundlessly) by those who claim to be ITK that it was already rock solid and a shoe in (to the extent that it wouldn't even go to committee). Swiss had a good thought - maybe to get it under the £40k mentioned in the contract as it might be considered that figure was a measure of the scale of the work, not what Sainsbury's would have to pay - in which case, even though the club has said it would pay, it would still be an onerous condition. Totally ridiculous that the club pretend none of this is happening, or matters requiring public record are 'confidential', and we're all left to speculate. At the very least it means many of us no longer take anything they say at face value. I'm beginning to think Seth that your are one of the gang of six - founder members of the HA Club...
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 31, 2014 14:59:44 GMT
It’s a gang of 6 now is it Henbury. Pray do tell us who they all are so we can all keep an eye out for the Hidden Agenda.
I am not sure not trusting a thing the club says is much of a hidden agenda or out to bring them down. Quite frankly the history, the passing on of disinformation and the bare faced **** on the radio, mean the club have pretty much brought that on themselves.
Does it matter though? The stadium is no nearer, we are safe if unspectacular in the conference and if anything the dissenting voices are fewer than ever
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Oct 31, 2014 15:09:47 GMT
I think the HA Club exists only in henbury's imagination
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 31, 2014 15:21:02 GMT
Yeah. For the record, I wasn't trying to make it look like stuff had gone on behind the scenes. The letter from BCC summarised the changes in a way that looked to me like 'oh, you know those noise reduction things we promised, well we're not going to do that.' So I asked a genuine question, here. It wasn't until I dug up the study on the BCC site (a study that wasn't actually referenced in the letter, btw), that it became clear enough why those measures were considered unnecessary. We were told that BRFC weren't aware of the changes, but that was clearly a misunderstanding/miscommunication. Fwiw, istm, the changes should have been summarised better by BCC, and the way they were put, just seemed to be asking for objections from the public. After all, the letter was literally asking for comments from the public. It confused me and I've been following the matter, and am sympathetic to the planning application. For a local not paying full attention, but negatively inclined towards the planning, istm this would be a red rag. Good stuff, but to be fair to BCC, they follow standard protocol. If changes are made to the application, they have to tell people who have commented on it in case they'd like to comment again. The change can be summarised (istm) as they seem to have told you, so that's what they said. i like your 'misunderstanding / miscommunication' description of the Statement that the club didn't know. Of course they knew. Someone then mentioned BSS in that process. Accepting that might be another 'misunderstanding / miscommunication', IF a Director doesn't know exactly what the position is, and is fobbed off by the Chairman when he asks, that would be 'extraordinary'. So the only intrigue to me re the amendment is why - especially as we were told (probably groundlessly) by those who claim to be ITK that it was already rock solid and a shoe in (to the extent that it wouldn't even go to committee). Swiss had a good thought - maybe to get it under the £40k mentioned in the contract as it might be considered that figure was a measure of the scale of the work, not what Sainsbury's would have to pay - in which case, even though the club has said it would pay, it would still be an onerous condition. Totally ridiculous that the club pretend none of this is happening, or matters requiring public record are 'confidential', and we're all left to speculate. At the very least it means many of us no longer take anything they say at face value. To be fair to the club it's never been said officially they weren't aware of the changes just by The Gas on here and i'm not sure who he's actually speaking for? Although there are so many posters on the forum apparently speaking on behalf of the club, it's difficult to follow who knows what, as far as the HA think that should be SC or Scepitcal Club?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2014 15:50:26 GMT
It’s a gang of 6 now is it Henbury. Pray do tell us who they all are so we can all keep an eye out for the Hidden Agenda. I am not sure not trusting a thing the club says is much of a hidden agenda or out to bring them down. Quite frankly the history, the passing on of disinformation and the bare faced **** on the radio, mean the club have pretty much brought that on themselves. Does it matter though? The stadium is no nearer, we are safe if unspectacular in the conference and if anything the dissenting voices are fewer than ever Works every time - just to wake me up on a boring afternoon fixing computers I'm sure there is no Hidden Agenda
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Oct 31, 2014 16:21:32 GMT
It’s a gang of 6 now is it Henbury. Pray do tell us who they all are so we can all keep an eye out for the Hidden Agenda. I am not sure not trusting a thing the club says is much of a hidden agenda or out to bring them down. Quite frankly the history, the passing on of disinformation and the bare faced **** on the radio, mean the club have pretty much brought that on themselves. Does it matter though? The stadium is no nearer, we are safe if unspectacular in the conference and if anything the dissenting voices are fewer than ever Works every time - just to wake me up on a boring afternoon fixing computers I'm sure there is no Hidden Agenda That feels like a zero sum game to me
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Oct 31, 2014 23:07:50 GMT
Of course if the UWE wanted to extend, then perhaps the Mem would be worth them buying? After all they know that they would get planning permission for a faculty, and student flats, which in a long term would be an investment.
or am I just talking bollox?
|
|
|
Post by Blue Mist on Oct 31, 2014 23:57:56 GMT
Of course if the UWE wanted to extend, then perhaps the Mem would be worth them buying? After all they know that they would get planning permission for a faculty, and student flats, which in a long term would be an investment. or am I just talking bollox? I think you answered your own question LP. Being polite, that would be a pretty odd business decision.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Nov 1, 2014 0:16:16 GMT
It’s a gang of 6 now is it Henbury. Pray do tell us who they all are so we can all keep an eye out for the Hidden Agenda. I am not sure not trusting a thing the club says is much of a hidden agenda or out to bring them down. Quite frankly the history, the passing on of disinformation and the bare faced **** on the radio, mean the club have pretty much brought that on themselves. Does it matter though? The stadium is no nearer, we are safe if unspectacular in the conference and if anything the dissenting voices are fewer than ever I've noticed your posting is getting more and more miserable. I do wonder why you post at all. Hey, we won 7-1 last week-end! Perhaps that is the problem. You were much more of a happy bunny on here when Rovers form was wretched and the results were dire. Hidden Agenda? No I don't think so. Miserably Agenda? Yep. Forget HA, refer to poster of having a MA from now on.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 1, 2014 7:46:29 GMT
It’s a gang of 6 now is it Henbury. Pray do tell us who they all are so we can all keep an eye out for the Hidden Agenda. I am not sure not trusting a thing the club says is much of a hidden agenda or out to bring them down. Quite frankly the history, the passing on of disinformation and the bare faced **** on the radio, mean the club have pretty much brought that on themselves. Does it matter though? The stadium is no nearer, we are safe if unspectacular in the conference and if anything the dissenting voices are fewer than ever I've noticed your posting is getting more and more miserable. I do wonder why you post at all. Hey, we won 7-1 last week-end! Perhaps that is the problem. You were much more of a happy bunny on here when Rovers form was wretched and the results were dire. Hidden Agenda? No I don't think so. Miserably Agenda? Yep. Forget HA, refer to poster of having a MA from now on. More miserable? I must have dreamt all those posts defending the team in general and Matt Taylor, and praising Ellis over recent weeks. Not sure that is particular miserable. If i am miserable about anything its the tiresome ITK and hidden agenda wind up bollox
|
|