|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 22, 2020 19:27:36 GMT
How is a balanced cash flow radical? Nah. What would be radical is enforcing that and fans accepting the resulting league position. That acceptance would indeed be radical. Would you accept it Knowall? Read what I put again Oldie I wish I could read what you put about the number of members of the wish-I-were-President Club
|
|
knowall
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 162
|
Post by knowall on Nov 22, 2020 20:16:43 GMT
Read what I put again Oldie - 'in football terms' it is radical - meaning outside of football what Swissgas says is normal good business - so we are in agreement! For the record I would always advocate following good business practice but I guess most football club directors find that difficult when all around seem to operate to the limits of their cash flow. Operate to their limits of cash flow? Did you mean to say that? BRFC certainly do not, like most clubs they burn their cash at an alarming rate. So my question remains to you. Would you accept BRFC playing in L2 or non league if we limited our expenditure to within the constraints of our cash flow? 'In for me - he has it in for me' to quote Kenneth Williams. Not sure why Oldie? when we appear to be saying the same thing? Albeit in different ways. Yes, I am sure BRFC is working to the limit of their available cash unless you know otherwise? As for your direct question which is a fair one - re playing L2 or non league? I would accept, however, my fear is that with the current debit approaching £25/30million by the time the virus has had it's day. it could be all over for BRFC. UNLESS, our owner(s) (we have yet to find out for sure who actually owns the Company - see Companies House) have more money than so far disclosed. IF what we are told is the true situation, and the owner(s) is/are prepared to continue to fund the debts then we must all get behind them and the team and help them get to where we have all longed for for years. However, I happen to believe Swissgas sums it up perfectly in his earlier post and it will be interesting to see how far off the mark he is,
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2020 20:20:44 GMT
Read what I put again Oldie I wish I could read what you put about the number of members of the wish-I-were-President Club Is it eleven?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Nov 22, 2020 21:02:25 GMT
we are throwing millions of this scarce commodity called cash at a very questionable property development called the Quarters. If we look candidly at the way Rovers is run we see that cash has been spent in a profligate way to serve purposes other than creating a football club which provides supporters with enjoyment and at the same time is sustainable within the owners resources. At two clubs which in our own haughtiness we might consider inferior to ourselves, Wrexham and Wycombe, new owners have come in fairly recently and caused great excitement with the promise of investment in the 2 - 3 million range. At Rovers over the past four years, leaving aside monies paid to NH and MSP, over 20 million has been put in with (if we are honest with ourselves) no tangible improvement. Something is clearly wrong with the way Rovers are managed and the way I’m thinking now is somewhat in line with your recent post about the Al-Qadi era playing out. I think the best we can do is to try to persuade fans that when the new era starts we should not continue with the mistake of treating our leaders as if they were some kind of demi-gods and start taking the common sense approach which we do in every other aspect of our lives. Swiss One of the big issues the football club has had for years is the lack of a training ground. In truth, its been a bit of a disaster area for Rovers since we had to sell Hambrook. Frys, Golden Hill, Knowle, Cribbs, I would love to know how much we have spent on rent over the last 30 years. Remember the fiasco at Filton, which was supposed to be a game changer. You speak to anyone in the game and they will tell you how important the training ground is. Its where the players and managers do their work Mon - Fri. Having decent pitches is where you can develop the players, the academy, and potentially bring many aspects of the club together. Just because we didn't have this 30 years ago doesn't mean its not the right thing to do now. Re Oldies question to Knowall above, I wonder what your response would be too - would you accept non league if we were sustainable year after year?? I'm not too sure you acknowledge how the game has moved on (not in a good way sadly) from days gone by. Wage inflation, Bosman Ruling, the collapse of the transfer market at the lower levels, the greater reliance on commercial income, corporate hospitality etc. These issues were not so critical at Twerton 30 years ago. I recall Gouldy saying he kept is in League 1 on a wage budget of £150k in that first year at Twerton. Now just think about that figure and then consider that a couple of years later Martyn & Penrice went for £1.5 m. Thats like JCH going for £15 million nowadays. And we continued to sell to survive as that was the only model possible. Ollie 250k, Yates £750k, Gareth £1m then onto Marcus £1m Hayles £1m, Roberts £2m the list is endless. But that model was closed off to a large degree, the PL and Bosman changed all that and now its much harder to get the big fees at our level. So that selling to survive model has been replaced by owners subsidising the club, be it Wael or Lansdown or the Accrington owner, they all have to put their hand in the pocket as otherwise clubs simply will not be competitive at their level, simple as. (Obviously I exclude the PL, as thats in a different universe.) Thankfully we have a dedicated owner, a football person, and after years and years we have finally got a good place of our own in which to do our work during the week. Oldie is implying that if less cash is put into the club by the owners then the team performance will deteriorate and we will end up in League 2 or non-league again. But he is assuming that the level of management competency will remain constant. My proposal is that with an improved management performance and with the level of income Rovers receive from supporters and sponsorship we should be competitive in league 1 with a realistic level of subsidy from the owners and far below the 3 - 4 million needed now. And this answers the question Gasheads often ask “ how do they do it when their crowds are less than half of ours ?”. Good management means making the best possible use of the resources we have and I am afraid we have got used to putting up with incompetent management and then looking for excuses in another direction. I am aware of the importance of the training ground but for me it is a question of prioritizing resources and not putting the cart before the horse. And I am sorry if this sounds churlish but the best possible outcome currently is that we end up with a barely adequate training ground. Gasheads have a predisposition to want everything Rovers related to be good but that clouds our judgement. The plans are for two pitches, a goalkeeper training area, a club house originally designed for a rugby team and a gym in an old barn. Even if this is a cobbled together plan I find it very strange that no layouts or artists sketches have been revealed to fans and perhaps the inadequacies of the development are the reason details are being hidden. That leaves the two beautiful pitches which everyone is admiring and falling back to for comfort. Again, if you look at it in terms of harsh commercial reality are they worth it ? Firstly we play 50 % of games away from the Mem so no advantage there. Secondly we play 23 games at the Mem each season whereas our opponents only play once so in terms of pitch familiarity isn’t a 23 to 1 advantage enough for us ? If we go back to the time that Wael received his inheritance I don’t think he put much thought into what he was going to do with it. There were many other options available which I suspect weren’t even considered with the main one being how much more could that cash have leveraged. Now we have a half built training ground, are facing a cash crisis and have decided to change managers with the new one being given no scope to bring in his own coaches or new players. I hate to say it but this was predicted as a possible outcome back in June. In your post you make a strong case saying how difficult it is to sell players at a profit these days and yet this is supposed to be the main plank of Wael’s business strategy? The open letter is mainly focused on good deeds in the community and the morale boosting training ground with no detail at all on how the business can survive without a short term cash bail out. I agree with you that Wael is a football person and he may well be dedicated to Rovers but in trying to be an owner/ manager he is failing. We can either wait for a new era to begin or try to find a way to help him turnaround the business but IMO encouraging him to carry on in this erratic and illogical way will only harm Rovers.
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Nov 22, 2020 21:11:54 GMT
Well I suspect like Trump they still think they are influential and the numbers don't really matter. I am not a betting man but I suspect fewer than a dozen..... Kind regards John Malyckyj Is this some kind of Secret Society?, surely somebody at Rovers knows the actual number other than the Presidents Men themselves, I just don't get it!. Well, given that they have been highly critical of the current owners, I suspect they won't know. I cycled past an empty and abandoned phone box near Sodbury Common this morning and immediately thought of this thread........
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 22, 2020 21:15:08 GMT
I wish I could read what you put about the number of members of the wish-I-were-President Club Is it eleven? absolute tops, according to received wisdom on here
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Nov 22, 2020 21:19:34 GMT
Operate to their limits of cash flow? Did you mean to say that? BRFC certainly do not, like most clubs they burn their cash at an alarming rate. So my question remains to you. Would you accept BRFC playing in L2 or non league if we limited our expenditure to within the constraints of our cash flow? 'In for me - he has it in for me' to quote Kenneth Williams. Not sure why Oldie? when we appear to be saying the same thing? Albeit in different ways. Yes, I am sure BRFC is working to the limit of their available cash unless you know otherwise? As for your direct question which is a fair one - re playing L2 or non league? I would accept, however, my fear is that with the current debit approaching £25/30million by the time the virus has had it's day. it could be all over for BRFC. UNLESS, our owner(s) (we have yet to find out for sure who actually owns the Company - see Companies House) have more money than so far disclosed. IF what we are told is the true situation, and the owner(s) is/are prepared to continue to fund the debts then we must all get behind them and the team and help them get to where we have all longed for for years. However, I happen to believe Swissgas sums it up perfectly in his earlier post and it will be interesting to see how far off the mark he is, Very interesting points of view, so as you are engaging in this thread, let me ask you yet again.....HOW MANY MEMBERS DOES THE PRESIDENTS CLUB HAVE AT PRESENT? Regards John Malyckyj
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2020 22:48:12 GMT
Ten, maybe?
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Nov 22, 2020 23:13:35 GMT
Thanks Swiss, for a thoughtful and considered response. I’m not sure I would necessarily regard this as a wasted opportunity for a number of reasons. Since the withdrawal of UWE from the second round of talks about a new stadium, we appear to have been kept in tick over mode, until Wael acquired effective control of the club from his family. There is clearly a plan for future phases (no idea how much, if anything, is based upon any Evans Jones work), with a 3G pitch and another grass pitch intended to follow as the next step. While there may be other local facilities available to rent, there are none with the high quality fibre sand pitches now in use at The Quarters. I don’t think I would describe the gym as remote, it’s the same distance from the pitches as the future clubhouse. While the distance between the two buildings might be regarded as an inconvenience (around 70m), it’s a relatively minor one. There is a lot to commend in your longer term view of developing the training ground, however by making use of existing permissions and permitted development rights, we are constructing the first club/owner funded building since probably the south stand at Eastville in the 1920s. The psychological impact of that, after decades of attractive artist’s impressions and absolutely zero outcome, is considerable. I entirely agree that we need a long term plan, and that the training ground should provide an income stream - but there is evidence that that is what is intended, but perhaps not in quite as neatly organised a way as you suggest. To me this is an interesting subject to discuss, although I realize many will say the decision is made so let them get on with it, so thanks for replying. When in 2017 we first saw the old plans I was struck by the number of parking spaces which had been approved and this is something you drew attention to fairly recently. What this said to me was that the planners saw no major traffic issues with the development although I’m no expert so you may correct me there. And if traffic wasn’t seen as a problem then there should be scope for limited sports related commercial activity on the site provided a development was planned carefully and in close cooperation with South Glos. I actually missed a trick with my earlier post because I should have described it as the “Swissquote Training Centre and Sports Science Park”. With good planning such a venture could have conserved a considerable amount of cash for Rovers, made the training facilities we would use cost neutral, potentially provided an extra income stream for the club and enhanced our commercial reputation ready for the next step ... the stadium. I agree about the positive psychological impact but is the uplift in spirits based on something real or imagined ? Which is better an owned but cobbled together training ground and a cash crisis or a leased training ground and an ability to financially weather the storm ? I believe the true Gashead psyche is more in tune with the Gerry Francis and Denis Dunford honest philosophy of blood tears toil and sweat than the “don’t worry, we know best, everything will be all right” which we have had for the last ten years. The planners had a big problem with the traffic generated by the 2001 permission, which is why they attached a condition only allowing use out of school hours to avoid conflict with school traffic. Rovers successfully had this condition removed, as in the intervening period the Hortham Hospital housing development had funded improvements to the road and a traffic light controlled junction with the A38. This, and the fact that the planners thought that Rovers' plans would generate less traffic than the rugby ones, led to approval for removal of the operating hours restriction. It appears the car park will hold around 100 cars rather than the rather extravagant initial permission of 214 cars and 8 coaches. The site is in the green belt so that tightly controls uses on the site - we would be highly unlikely to get permission for a pizzeria a la Fleetwood, although I know that's not what you're suggesting. I think the planners might be quite sensitive about intensification of use (I'm not a planner), as although the access is decent from Almondsbury, it's poor from the Frampton Cottrell direction, with the road being single track in quite a few places. There is certainly room between the clubhouse site and the drainage channel across the site, to at least double, and probably quadruple (assuming two storeys), the floor area of the clubhouse. It might be possible to re-integrate the gym with the centrally located facilities and return the gym to its original storage function, or into accommodation for which there was already permission. I can certainly envision a steady stream of users for a 3G pitch and any 5 a side pitches, which is what I assume Shaun Roberts was alluding to when he mentioned 'community use' in an interview. I'm not sure what sort of room there is for commercial sponsorship/investment, that's something you know way more about than me. We're not exactly a national brand, there is little passing traffic, and although the site is alongside the M5, it's largely invisible from it.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Nov 22, 2020 23:31:32 GMT
I am aware of the importance of the training ground but for me it is a question of prioritizing resources and not putting the cart before the horse. And I am sorry if this sounds churlish but the best possible outcome currently is that we end up with a barely adequate training ground. Gasheads have a predisposition to want everything Rovers related to be good but that clouds our judgement. The plans are for two pitches, a goalkeeper training area, a club house originally designed for a rugby team and a gym in an old barn. Even if this is a cobbled together plan I find it very strange that no layouts or artists sketches have been revealed to fans and perhaps the inadequacies of the development are the reason details are being hidden. That leaves the two beautiful pitches which everyone is admiring and falling back to for comfort. Again, if you look at it in terms of harsh commercial reality are they worth it ? Firstly we play 50 % of games away from the Mem so no advantage there. Secondly we play 23 games at the Mem each season whereas our opponents only play once so in terms of pitch familiarity isn’t a 23 to 1 advantage enough for us ? I am inclined to think that South Glos planners slow turnaround (Covid related), is the most likely reason for the lack of artist's impressions as the final internal/external appearance is still waiting for approval. The relatively straightforward request for approval for brick/roof tile type, was submitted on August 6th and is still pending a decision. The original plan was for grey bricks and red roof tiles. The application is to reverse this. The foundations are in and the block work is up to the damp proof course. It seems that we are waiting on the planners, who also need to attach the plans from the 2001 approval to the 2016 approved amendments as a condition, so that we can formalise the internal alterations and any other alterations we would like to make to the original permission. The original appearance and layout are below. Wael did show the amended layout on this phone during the fan online Q&A. We appear to be getting a kitchen plus dining/rest area. Three or four offices, a boot room, an analysis room, a media room and three or four changing rooms. Sufficient for the first team plus U23s, but as has been stated, further phases will be needed to base the academy there as well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2020 17:21:47 GMT
Swiss One of the big issues the football club has had for years is the lack of a training ground. In truth, its been a bit of a disaster area for Rovers since we had to sell Hambrook. Frys, Golden Hill, Knowle, Cribbs, I would love to know how much we have spent on rent over the last 30 years. Remember the fiasco at Filton, which was supposed to be a game changer. You speak to anyone in the game and they will tell you how important the training ground is. Its where the players and managers do their work Mon - Fri. Having decent pitches is where you can develop the players, the academy, and potentially bring many aspects of the club together. Just because we didn't have this 30 years ago doesn't mean its not the right thing to do now. Re Oldies question to Knowall above, I wonder what your response would be too - would you accept non league if we were sustainable year after year?? I'm not too sure you acknowledge how the game has moved on (not in a good way sadly) from days gone by. Wage inflation, Bosman Ruling, the collapse of the transfer market at the lower levels, the greater reliance on commercial income, corporate hospitality etc. These issues were not so critical at Twerton 30 years ago. I recall Gouldy saying he kept is in League 1 on a wage budget of £150k in that first year at Twerton. Now just think about that figure and then consider that a couple of years later Martyn & Penrice went for £1.5 m. Thats like JCH going for £15 million nowadays. And we continued to sell to survive as that was the only model possible. Ollie 250k, Yates £750k, Gareth £1m then onto Marcus £1m Hayles £1m, Roberts £2m the list is endless. But that model was closed off to a large degree, the PL and Bosman changed all that and now its much harder to get the big fees at our level. So that selling to survive model has been replaced by owners subsidising the club, be it Wael or Lansdown or the Accrington owner, they all have to put their hand in the pocket as otherwise clubs simply will not be competitive at their level, simple as. (Obviously I exclude the PL, as thats in a different universe.) Thankfully we have a dedicated owner, a football person, and after years and years we have finally got a good place of our own in which to do our work during the week. Oldie is implying that if less cash is put into the club by the owners then the team performance will deteriorate and we will end up in League 2 or non-league again. But he is assuming that the level of management competency will remain constant. My proposal is that with an improved management performance and with the level of income Rovers receive from supporters and sponsorship we should be competitive in league 1 with a realistic level of subsidy from the owners and far below the 3 - 4 million needed now. And this answers the question Gasheads often ask “ how do they do it when their crowds are less than half of ours ?”. Good management means making the best possible use of the resources we have and I am afraid we have got used to putting up with incompetent management and then looking for excuses in another direction. I am aware of the importance of the training ground but for me it is a question of prioritizing resources and not putting the cart before the horse. And I am sorry if this sounds churlish but the best possible outcome currently is that we end up with a barely adequate training ground. Gasheads have a predisposition to want everything Rovers related to be good but that clouds our judgement. The plans are for two pitches, a goalkeeper training area, a club house originally designed for a rugby team and a gym in an old barn. Even if this is a cobbled together plan I find it very strange that no layouts or artists sketches have been revealed to fans and perhaps the inadequacies of the development are the reason details are being hidden. That leaves the two beautiful pitches which everyone is admiring and falling back to for comfort. Again, if you look at it in terms of harsh commercial reality are they worth it ? Firstly we play 50 % of games away from the Mem so no advantage there. Secondly we play 23 games at the Mem each season whereas our opponents only play once so in terms of pitch familiarity isn’t a 23 to 1 advantage enough for us ? If we go back to the time that Wael received his inheritance I don’t think he put much thought into what he was going to do with it. There were many other options available which I suspect weren’t even considered with the main one being how much more could that cash have leveraged. Now we have a half built training ground, are facing a cash crisis and have decided to change managers with the new one being given no scope to bring in his own coaches or new players. I hate to say it but this was predicted as a possible outcome back in June. In your post you make a strong case saying how difficult it is to sell players at a profit these days and yet this is supposed to be the main plank of Wael’s business strategy? The open letter is mainly focused on good deeds in the community and the morale boosting training ground with no detail at all on how the business can survive without a short term cash bail out. I agree with you that Wael is a football person and he may well be dedicated to Rovers but in trying to be an owner/ manager he is failing. We can either wait for a new era to begin or try to find a way to help him turnaround the business but IMO encouraging him to carry on in this erratic and illogical way will only harm Rovers. We seem to be going round in circles just for a change. If less money is put into the playing side then 99% certain playing performance will reflect that. We all know this, because you would be paying less and therefore miss out on the best players. Its why the teams with the best budgets are usually at the top of the league. We also know there will be short term exceptions, but they wont be sustained. We also know teams can similarly underperform for various reasons. Re your point about attendances we have discussed a million times before - gate money is only part of the story because we cant generate income 24/7 at the Mem and its why we need a new ground. Your comments re the Training Ground are a bit out of order. Why would you wish for it to be "barely adequate" and why would that be "a good outcome" ? Its almost as if you want it to be to justify another dig at the owners. Shall we start wishing for the team to get thrashed every week too? You then go on to talk about Wael having an inheritance and you "dont think he put much thought into what to do with it" This is Bang out of order - its nothing to do with you, me or anyone else. You then go on to make quite critical comments about the training ground. Have you seen it? Doesn't sound like you have seen some of the documents Womble has kindly posted or spoken to anyone close to the project. But you feel its "cobbled together". I'm sure if the club had put in for a separate planning permission you would have moaned about a waste of resources for not using existing permissions. Maybe you just don't like Wael ?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Nov 24, 2020 14:53:32 GMT
Oldie is implying that if less cash is put into the club by the owners then the team performance will deteriorate and we will end up in League 2 or non-league again. But he is assuming that the level of management competency will remain constant. My proposal is that with an improved management performance and with the level of income Rovers receive from supporters and sponsorship we should be competitive in league 1 with a realistic level of subsidy from the owners and far below the 3 - 4 million needed now. And this answers the question Gasheads often ask “ how do they do it when their crowds are less than half of ours ?”. Good management means making the best possible use of the resources we have and I am afraid we have got used to putting up with incompetent management and then looking for excuses in another direction. I am aware of the importance of the training ground but for me it is a question of prioritizing resources and not putting the cart before the horse. And I am sorry if this sounds churlish but the best possible outcome currently is that we end up with a barely adequate training ground. Gasheads have a predisposition to want everything Rovers related to be good but that clouds our judgement. The plans are for two pitches, a goalkeeper training area, a club house originally designed for a rugby team and a gym in an old barn. Even if this is a cobbled together plan I find it very strange that no layouts or artists sketches have been revealed to fans and perhaps the inadequacies of the development are the reason details are being hidden. That leaves the two beautiful pitches which everyone is admiring and falling back to for comfort. Again, if you look at it in terms of harsh commercial reality are they worth it ? Firstly we play 50 % of games away from the Mem so no advantage there. Secondly we play 23 games at the Mem each season whereas our opponents only play once so in terms of pitch familiarity isn’t a 23 to 1 advantage enough for us ? If we go back to the time that Wael received his inheritance I don’t think he put much thought into what he was going to do with it. There were many other options available which I suspect weren’t even considered with the main one being how much more could that cash have leveraged. Now we have a half built training ground, are facing a cash crisis and have decided to change managers with the new one being given no scope to bring in his own coaches or new players. I hate to say it but this was predicted as a possible outcome back in June. In your post you make a strong case saying how difficult it is to sell players at a profit these days and yet this is supposed to be the main plank of Wael’s business strategy? The open letter is mainly focused on good deeds in the community and the morale boosting training ground with no detail at all on how the business can survive without a short term cash bail out. I agree with you that Wael is a football person and he may well be dedicated to Rovers but in trying to be an owner/ manager he is failing. We can either wait for a new era to begin or try to find a way to help him turnaround the business but IMO encouraging him to carry on in this erratic and illogical way will only harm Rovers. We seem to be going round in circles just for a change. If less money is put into the playing side then 99% certain playing performance will reflect that. We all know this, because you would be paying less and therefore miss out on the best players. Its why the teams with the best budgets are usually at the top of the league. We also know there will be short term exceptions, but they wont be sustained. We also know teams can similarly underperform for various reasons. Re your point about attendances we have discussed a million times before - gate money is only part of the story because we cant generate income 24/7 at the Mem and its why we need a new ground. Your comments re the Training Ground are a bit out of order. Why would you wish for it to be "barely adequate" and why would that be "a good outcome" ? Its almost as if you want it to be to justify another dig at the owners. Shall we start wishing for the team to get thrashed every week too? You then go on to talk about Wael having an inheritance and you "dont think he put much thought into what to do with it" This is Bang out of order - its nothing to do with you, me or anyone else. You then go on to make quite critical comments about the training ground. Have you seen it? Doesn't sound like you have seen some of the documents Womble has kindly posted or spoken to anyone close to the project. But you feel its "cobbled together". I'm sure if the club had put in for a separate planning permission you would have moaned about a waste of resources for not using existing permissions. Maybe you just don't like Wael ? Always plenty of excuses for our lack of success but any discussion of the real reasons is out of order.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2020 18:41:04 GMT
We seem to be going round in circles just for a change. If less money is put into the playing side then 99% certain playing performance will reflect that. We all know this, because you would be paying less and therefore miss out on the best players. Its why the teams with the best budgets are usually at the top of the league. We also know there will be short term exceptions, but they wont be sustained. We also know teams can similarly underperform for various reasons. Re your point about attendances we have discussed a million times before - gate money is only part of the story because we cant generate income 24/7 at the Mem and its why we need a new ground. Your comments re the Training Ground are a bit out of order. Why would you wish for it to be "barely adequate" and why would that be "a good outcome" ? Its almost as if you want it to be to justify another dig at the owners. Shall we start wishing for the team to get thrashed every week too? You then go on to talk about Wael having an inheritance and you "dont think he put much thought into what to do with it" This is Bang out of order - its nothing to do with you, me or anyone else. You then go on to make quite critical comments about the training ground. Have you seen it? Doesn't sound like you have seen some of the documents Womble has kindly posted or spoken to anyone close to the project. But you feel its "cobbled together". I'm sure if the club had put in for a separate planning permission you would have moaned about a waste of resources for not using existing permissions. Maybe you just don't like Wael ? Always plenty of excuses for our lack of success but any discussion of the real reasons is out of order. I think people can draw their own conclusions from your posts to be honest
|
|