aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Sept 19, 2015 21:07:25 GMT
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Aug 29, 2015 21:21:26 GMT
You got quoted on the Orient forum for this, with zero abuse. Nice piece.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Aug 29, 2015 21:15:21 GMT
It might have been me, but I'm not sure if I was there. If I was, then maybe.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Aug 27, 2015 21:27:54 GMT
Makes me weep a bit when I drive past on the M32 and kind of imagine an Eastville Stadium redeveloped like a UWE. Look at IKEA and squint your eyes a bit and it could be one of the stands in the new ground. And then you crash into the bloke in front.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Aug 27, 2015 14:06:09 GMT
If you go to 53:30 you will not only see a great goal from Holloway, but also hear the commentator refer to us as "City". And again 10 seconds later!
EDIT- sorry Ilfracombe just saw your post above. Still a great goal though
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Aug 22, 2015 21:22:33 GMT
38
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Aug 22, 2015 21:18:43 GMT
Is 37 not young for a football manager then? Perhaps not for Managers on Fifa 15 granted but in the real world of football 37 is very young for a manager of a League Club. I'd like to see some stats that proves 37 is young for a football league manager. Of the 92 league clubs, 86 have managers older than him. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Football_League_managers
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Aug 20, 2015 21:05:52 GMT
Whatever happened to those stinky fish scratchings?
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Aug 2, 2015 20:31:10 GMT
If I won say 100M on the Euro millions, once I'd sorted out my family and debt I would invest. Anything to see Rovers above City. You might need a little more to outgun Lansdown. You're quite right there, and I sometimes wonder why the super-mega rich Lansdown tolerates City (despite what their deluded we-are-a-massive-club fans think) being, in reality, a smallish club, registering very, very low on the radar of fame and glory, who hop between the Championship and League 1. As a super-duper rich person he could have made them a success 10 years ago. Don't quote me stats on FFP and all that b*llocks. The super-rich ignore all those rules and do what they want. Maybe it was just a little hobby for him, but he seems to be stepping things up a bit now with the no-longer-Trashton Gate rebuild. If he chooses to do it, C*ty can make the Prem. If he's got a busy few days at the office, or if he decides he's now more interested in rugby, or promoting Ladies' football, or maybe naked Japanese sushi-rolling contests on the pitch, then he might leave them where they are for now until he gets a bit bored. He really is God to them.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Aug 1, 2015 20:31:57 GMT
If there's any truth in this story, it might not be so terrible.
A whole world away from where we thought we might be, but maybe better than where we are now.
UWE - why would they want to build a 15,000 seater stadium? Concerts, athletics (could be the top athletics stadium in the country) and above all else Bristol Rovers as tenants with regular crowds of 6,000 - 10,000.
BRFC - why would we go there? We'd be debt free and playing in a stadium that could double attendances - for which we'd pocket the revenue and perhaps catering. We would be set up to look a far more professional outfit and not a bunch of chancers squatting in an old hovel. Just look at what happened to Brighton, and that was before they got promoted. Maybe we could negotiate a shared ownership position as I believe Swansea have done. At the beginning the council owned 100% of the stadium and they now part-own it themselves. I can't remember the %.
Who knows if this is the legendary Plan B? If it happened, a lot of fans would be happy to be sitting in a 15,000 seater new stadium watching a debt-free club in League 1 in 4 years time.
Of course the whole story and idea might be total nonsense so I've just wasted 5 minutes typing this rubbish.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Aug 1, 2015 20:12:34 GMT
We dont even know if this is true. If it is then we dont even know if we will be asked to be tenants. But if it is true and if we are asked to be tenants then I hope somewhere in the 'watertight' contract between us and UWE that we can buy the stadium or a percentage of the stadium from selling the Memorial Stadium to someone else. Basically keep to the original plan = our stadium! The only difference is the stadium be funded by UWE and we pay them back after selling the Memorial Stadium and of course the capacity will be reduced but even that is not really an issue as 15,000 is more than enough and there could be an option to increase size. It all sounds good to me. Maybe too good to be true. Because of that, I dont believe this will happen and I will only believe it when we are playing in it. I still wouldnt believe it even when the players are on the pitch warming up. If we sold The Mem and paid off all the loans and debts how much do you reckon we would have left to give UWE if we lost this appeal? £867.50, some old sweets and an unpaid parking ticket.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Aug 1, 2015 16:34:00 GMT
What I'm confused about is the bit on bold. The club says Sainsbury's statement was incorrect, but does not then go on to explain what was incorrect about it. Did the Judge not say that we should have accepted it? Or was the amount offered not £1.5M? Or would it not have settled the case? What was incorrect and what was actually correct? Doesn't the following paragraphs about it being derisory answer that? Although it's not clear if the Judge said we should have accepted, although surely £1.5m + costs is better than the zero we now have? No, that doesn't answer it. That bit from the club is just an opinion that the offer was derisory. The club said the statement was incorrect, but not why, so it's ambiguous. I have no idea if it's deliberately or accidentally ambiguous.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Aug 1, 2015 16:12:58 GMT
PUBLISHED 10:56 1st August 2015 Mrs. Justice Proudman's willingness to allow us permission to appeal her judgment against the club further demonstrates the complexity of this case and the fact that the initial decision in favour of Sainsbury's last month was far from clear-cut. The club considers that the judge's decision further vindicates its decision to take action to compel Sainsbury's to complete purchase of the Memorial Stadium site. The case remains very much in the balance and the judge felt it should be considered further by the Court of Appeal. It is clear from the judgment most of the arguments relied upon by Sainsbury’s to justify their refusal to complete were incorrect, and were not accepted by the judge. Our case relied upon at least five points, of which we succeeded with all bar one. The remaining point will form the vanguard of the appeal. The club and our legal team therefore feel confident we can overturn the judgment in the Court of Appeal. In its statement yesterday, Sainsbury's claimed the judge said the club should have accepted the £1.5 million it offered to settle the case.
That statement is INCORRECT.While it is true Sainsbury's made a cash offer to extricate itself from the litigation, the offer was derisory in the context of the value of the claim. It was not acceptable to the club as it did not come close to compensating us for the losses and costs incurred as a result of Sainsbury's refusal to honour the contract, or the lost time in relation to developing the UWE Stadium. Whilst the decision to order the club to make an interim payment of £375,000 in respect of costs is disappointing, this order will be reversed should the club succeed at the Court of Appeal. The figure represents a significant discount on what Sainsbury's could have expected in the usual course of events, and further indicates the judge's difficulties with their claim. In fact the figure is less than half the total costs Sainsbury's were claiming. The board of directors remains focused on delivering the UWE Stadium and securing the long-term future of the club. Read more at www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/rovers-explain-rejection-of-derisory-sainsburys-offer-2585761.aspx#RDdD7JKFAH7RXYbj.99definitely one of the club's better statements IMO, not bad at all What I'm confused about is the bit on bold. The club says Sainsbury's statement was incorrect, but does not then go on to explain what was incorrect about it. Did the Judge not say that we should have accepted it? Or was the amount offered not £1.5M? Or would it not have settled the case? What was incorrect and what was actually correct?
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Jul 30, 2015 21:02:08 GMT
There's one specific poster on here who matches the quote perfectly. You know who you are. I know who I am. Is it me? No! I think you post some very good stuff.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Jul 30, 2015 20:40:48 GMT
There's one specific poster on here who matches the quote perfectly.
You know who you are.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Jul 13, 2015 22:38:34 GMT
KP - there is a lot of your messages that I fundamentally disagree with but in this instance you are correct.
From attending the first five days of the Court case, Sainsbury's QC confirmed that his client wanted to pull out of the contract BEFORE the initial planning permission was granted. This was before Trash/Carstairs got involved, they were a mere sideshow that dragged out this matter and cost us probably a few extra £100k.
I don't see anything bad in disagreeing and it would be a damned dull forum if we all held the same views. I just don't get the personal attacks by some, there are 4 in particular, no point in me naming them, that seem to really rejoice in finding any small point to dive into. I have learned a great deal from using this forum. I can be like an over enthusiastic puppy at times and can sometimes write without proper thought. It's something I am working on, I try hard not to be personal and not to post something that can be taken personally but there are a few that it seems to be their sole purpose. I also have learned that I don't have to have the last word. Sometimes it's just best to withdraw from the conversation and leave it at that it's been good for me tbh, I am an emotional guy but I can also now just leave something. That has been valuable for me. Until il I started to use the iPad, in place of my iPhone, I never even knew you could block certain posters . I have used that particular facility well. I felt cowardly blocking at first as it's just not in my nature to back away from things but it has made my experience of using this place a much nicer one I don't use the forum as often as I would have but that isn't such a bad thing either KP I always read your posts with interest. I don't agree with all you say, but that's just human nature. I would say though that despite some of the abuse you get on here - just from a few - you are always sensible and respectful in your replies. You never rise to the abuse given to you. You also admit when you've got it wrong. Sometimes before anyone else has even suggested it. It takes a lot to admit you might have been wrong, and I think most of us just go silent when that happens. Not you. You have strong opinions and those opinions will attract many to respond, including full-time WUMs who just want a keyboard row. I don't post on here much any more because I can't be arsed with the lack of respect for anyone having an opinion they don't like. I don't mean most posters on here. I still read it all with interest, and it's a good forum. But there are a few professional warriors who spoil it for me. But you carry on mate
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Jul 12, 2015 21:19:43 GMT
He was definitely at Salisbury.We spoke to him in the car park. Was he selling raffle tickets for his Range Rover or driving a new Bentley?
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Jun 23, 2015 16:22:02 GMT
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Jun 11, 2015 21:44:47 GMT
It would represent the amount of wasted brainpower spent postulating about the court case by people not involved in it. Great, when do I get my share? Edit. We know what Sainsbury's will do, don't we? Even if an award is made in Rovers' favour, how long and hard will they argue? They will appeal. They will argue long and hard. Obviously. Why do you cloud so, so, many of your posts with pseudo-intellectual questions? Why not just say what you think?
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on May 31, 2015 20:55:45 GMT
Reforming FIFA is the answer, not UEFA breaking away. Blatter won't be around forever.
UEFA forming an elite with maybe South America would be like the formation of the Premier League when it split from the Football League. FIFA without UEFA would be massively weakened and unable to promote and fund the game in Africa and Asia. UEFA wouldn't give a toss about those nations and it would make the financial imbalances even greater.
FIFA, for all the bungs and corruption, do nevertheless invest a huge amount in coaching, facilities and promotion in lesser nations around the world. The aims and objectives are sound. The custodians of FIFA are not.
|
|