|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 25, 2016 14:22:05 GMT
I'll play along as well then. No idea about the regional meetings, though I thought I read somewhere that Ken dealt with those. Not being Jim's stalker I don't know who he talks to or shakes hands with, last time I had his company he launched into a tedious story about Gordon Bennett so I left. As to what I thought your point was (Jim talking to supporters to gauge their feelings) wouldn't that happen just as well in the clubhouse bar as at regional meetings? Or our you saying fans at regional meetings are more important? Either way Jim is there if you want to have a chat. Ken and BSS clearly have a vested interest in attending those meetings, but that's another story for another day. Interesting to note that although Harry insists that there are regular meetings involving them and the FC hierarchy, when questioned in a recent radio interview, although he was across all other subjects, the Chairman seemed totally unaware of what the role of the SC directors was. It's nothing for you and I to fall out over, just a question of perception. I would have thought that the Chairman of the SC should do a little more than sit in the same bar on a match day, shouldn't he be out and about, meeting the membership? I guess the question is, should the SC be what the EC think it should be, or should they find out what the supporters want and, as far as possible, mould the SC around that? Don't know where Jim is supposed to go to meet supporters but I'll have a guess that there are more supporters in the clubhouse bars after a match than turn up at any regional meetings. If the EC and Chairman aren't doing what the supporters want then the supporters should vote them out at the next elections. Simples. As to the supporters directors I'll guess they'll be allowed no more input to the running of the club than they were allowed under the old board. Which I guess is supported by the radio interview you heard. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 25, 2016 14:02:04 GMT
He's often in the clubhouse bar if you actually want to talk him, probably not before August though Thanks for that, but it wasn't the question. But I'll play along with you, just for the heck of it. Does he make an effort to shake hands, introduce himself, ask for opinions and ideas, then find the same people a couple of weeks later when they've had a chance to think things over, or at the very least, give people a SC business card with the SC website address on it and point them towards the 'suggestions' area where they can leave feedback? I'll play along as well then. No idea about the regional meetings, though I thought I read somewhere that Ken dealt with those. Not being Jim's stalker I don't know who he talks to or shakes hands with, last time I had his company he launched into a tedious story about Gordon Bennett so I left. As to what I thought your point was (Jim talking to supporters to gauge their feelings) wouldn't that happen just as well in the clubhouse bar as at regional meetings? Or our you saying fans at regional meetings are more important? Either way Jim is there if you want to have a chat. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 25, 2016 12:05:31 GMT
Hi all, forum lurker here - just felt this is a good point to reply: I would join online, definitely. Looking at an online membership form page and then seeing 'cheque' and a bunch of dots to put your information in is bizarre to me. Using modern technology to fill out mail order forms. Also, I would think that a change of e-mail address would be a good idea, the current one on that page looks like a freebie from someone's home internet connection 15 years ago. I don't understand why it's not something like admin@bristolroverssc.co.uk Edit: an article there from yesterday quotes: "Over the last few months we have been improving the BRSC online membership facility. In June you will once again be able to join BRSC online as well as by phone or through personal contact." So I assume in a week or so we'll see fully integrated online membership forms. Questions not directed at you, just following on from the points you raise. Are the SC still doing the regional social 'meet ups'? If so, does Jim attend so that he's in touch with what us great unwashed are actually thinking? He's already said that he's busy on match days, so probably not much opportunity for him to 'press the flesh' then. He's often in the clubhouse bar if you actually want to talk him, probably not before August though |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 23, 2016 20:22:14 GMT
DC would be mad to go to Leeds. He has built a team and now has the chance to build a club with BRFC. Those opportunities do not come along very often. Would a £1m salary tempt you to the frozen North ?
I'd go to North Korea for £1m. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 23, 2016 19:50:29 GMT
Sorry, got that wrong. It was mentioned on another page he was with the players, but he is not it seems. Think his planned trip is totally seperate to the players & setup for his stag before Wael splashed the cash on players. Pity could be helpful if he was uncontactable on a five day bender in Vegas |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 23, 2016 19:11:08 GMT
Been tweeted that Rovers have given permission for DC to speak to Leeds. Well as he is in Vegas with the lads that could be a bit interesting. Is he? |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 23, 2016 18:12:55 GMT
Well go ask the question of what happens to the 50/50 money or anything else they raise. Simple enough to look in the accounts if you're a member. Oddly your point succinctly somes up what a s***fest this thread is, if you need to know how BRSC operates get involved or actually ask those that give up there time to run BRSC. If not carry on sitting safely behind your keyboard. Well we all know what happens to the 50 50 but again not the point as you well know. If we are talking about the SC moving forward whether its Jim Tom Dick Harry in charge obviously the organisation need to change The SC dont have a benefactor to underwrite the losses do they? A few years ago i would have got involed and was starting to but than 2006 happened. Now i dont have time unfortunatley with finishing my house and hopefully starting a family Hopefully in years to come i can be involved Last i checked though i was still entitled to an opinion Fully understand you've got your excuses in. Keep that keyboard working. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 23, 2016 17:49:00 GMT
Fair enough then faggoty come the start of next instead of spending 2 or 3 quid on fifty fifty tickets, which I hope will make a small contribution to improving the club I support, I'll spend it down William Hill instead. Thank god with have an amazing new owner who has promised to pay for everything, oh hang on that's something he's never said.... Of course better still when we reach the premiership I'll just be able to give my money straight to Sky and BT, obviously far more deserving causes. I notice you didn't respond to me
because that's what I said isn't it. Hence my last sentence which has been known to happen
Aren't the SC a loss making organisation it's self. So apart from the Share Scheme agreement which is separate what facility do BRSC have to give the club any money?
I think the SC only made money last year to the sale of 199
Well go ask the question of what happens to the 50/50 money or anything else they raise. Simple enough to look in the accounts if you're a member. Oddly your point succinctly somes up what a s**tfest this thread is, if you need to know how BRSC operates get involved or actually ask those that give up there time to run BRSC. If not carry on sitting safely behind your keyboard. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 23, 2016 14:00:51 GMT
That will all cost more than the £300 my season ticket cost so on your logic they may as well let me in for free. It's like people really believe money grows on trees. Don't be silly. Buying a product from a billionaire is not the same as making an essentially charitable donation to a billionaire. Fair enough then faggoty come the start of next instead of spending 2 or 3 quid on fifty fifty tickets, which I hope will make a small contribution to improving the club I support, I'll spend it down William Hill instead. Thank god with have an amazing new owner who has promised to pay for everything, oh hang on that's something he's never said.... Of course better still when we reach the premiership I'll just be able to give my money straight to Sky and BT, obviously far more deserving causes. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 23, 2016 11:29:51 GMT
Why is there no point? Have I missed the bit where the owners have said they will underwrite a loss making operation or that they don't (or won't) accept income from outside the football club? I'd be very interested if they have said the above if you could post a link to that effect. All I know is that they (or the chairman on their behalf) has spoken of looking for financial investors to fund the stadium which suggests they are financially astute enough not to look a gift horse in the mouth. But things have changed and I'd have thought it in the interests of both the owners and BRSC to clarify the role of brsc, I certainly if running BRSC at present would be unwilling to be told by the owners what that role was though. well that is what needs clarifying and discussions between the board and The SC/SC directors. Maybe there have been initial communications or maybe not.
That's why I say If. The club have made noises about training facilities, academies etc which are going to cost money. A far sight more than what The SC could ever contribute.
At best you would hope even if the club wants The SCs money, it wont be on a club demand it, you supply it basis
That will all cost more than the £300 my season ticket cost so on your logic they may as well let me in for free. It's like people really believe money grows on trees. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 23, 2016 11:02:17 GMT
I think it will be interesting going forward. If the club take back all or most of the functions that the SC provide that cannot be a bad thing easing the burden and the reliance on the SC to do things for the club. If that happens than The SC has to re-evaluate it’s position and what it intends to do/be. It can still choose to support the club, but the fashion in which it does so will have to change. SC events, fund raising can all remain an aspect, but what happens with any money will have to be decided. Presumably if this takeover is as real as it is seemed, handing over a few grand whenever will not be required if talk of Academies, Training facilities etc all come to fruition as money will be in place. Any pressures to raise X for the club and to bail it out must surely be welcome That has to be right, the Supporters Club no longer has to donate money to the FC - there's no point. Instead, the SC has to refocus on the members of the SC, areas that the FC would not cover, i.e. fan experience, travel, fan events etc
Why is there no point? Have I missed the bit where the owners have said they will underwrite a loss making operation or that they don't (or won't) accept income from outside the football club? I'd be very interested if they have said the above if you could post a link to that effect. All I know is that they (or the chairman on their behalf) has spoken of looking for financial investors to fund the stadium which suggests they are financially astute enough not to look a gift horse in the mouth. But things have changed and I'd have thought it in the interests of both the owners and BRSC to clarify the role of brsc, I certainly if running BRSC at present would be unwilling to be told by the owners what that role was though. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 23, 2016 8:31:45 GMT
It's an interesting one. There are people who put in a lot of time and effort on a voluntary basis under the auspice of BRFC SC. This obviously has to be applauded. Excellent work, well done. However - does the SC engage with all fans and do they represent those views to the Board? NO. I've written to JC, no reply. I asked if I could join the SC a couple of months back and was told in the office I was "too late". (BSS said he would follow up for me, again no reply). The structure of the SC looks antiquated, over-complicated, and there are obviously still allegiances to the 'old Board' (remember them?). New owners look at businesses with a fresh pair of eyes. Here's what they ask: "Are you part of the problem - or are you part of the solution?" BRFC SC - for all it's good voluntary work looks part of the problem. The SC Chairman going to print, sniping at Wael Al-Qadi and alienating a large % of the support is plain stupid. We are not in "the official SC gang" (I cannot tell a lie - I drank cider in the Wellie and enjoyed the post-match celebrations. I really didn't think I was upsetting the SC. I am sooooooo sorry). Since the takeover I thought that inclusivity and togetherness would be the way forward. I am pretty sure that was what Wael Al-Qadi was promoting. I don't think the SC see it that way. So get rid of the 'old guard' and start again. The SC is not fit for purpose. It is outdated. A new constitution is required. It's a view you and others are entitled to hold but if the only people willing to volunteer to run BRSC don't hold that view why would they change things? I don't get the feeling that any election of BRSC officers is a hotly contested affair. As to the new board reviewing the role and operation of the BRSC wasn't their always a lot of hostility when the old board tried to meddle in things ie closing the old official forum? Guess it's now one rule for some and a different rule for others. Would also be keen to know if the new board would be willing to pick up the cost of covering all the jobs done by BRSC. All the above is said as a non-member of BRSC, indeed the only season in 20 years I've been s member was the season before last (?) when I specifically joined so I could vote for Rod as supporters director. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 22, 2016 8:18:28 GMT
Reading this thread lots of people including you shoveller seem to give a s**t. And actually Jim Chappell isn't one of the people on here giving a s**t . Perhaps those who are objecting to Jim's view can let us know if they intend on doing anything other than sit behind their keyboard? I'd be happy to vote for anyone on here who wishes to stand as BRSC chairman. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 21, 2016 17:32:44 GMT
the first post ive ever seen on here from jim chappel, as someone else said how come he kept quiet while higgs ran us aground ? theres always one Pretty sure you'll find that Jim Chappell hasn't posted on this forum, Kevin Spencer has just copied this (presumably) from the BRSC website. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 21, 2016 9:26:42 GMT
dead man walking (or running ) me thinks Really Henbury? Let's be honest people will moan & slag Jim Chappell off on here much like they do to BSS & KM but as we know when it's come to election time for the Supporters Director you can barely get anyone to stand and nearly as few people to be bothered to vote. I imagine once everyone has vented their feelings apathy will return and Jim will be very safe in his job. And I thought he only reluctantly took over the role after John M quit it. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 20, 2016 21:35:17 GMT
Surely NL clubs can have any opinion they want, much like Europeans they don't have a vote. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 20, 2016 12:48:58 GMT
It was the end of the world. The top 3 (or 4) should go up. Imagine finishing 3rd and the 6th place goes up. Farcical. I'm with PP, I think. It's an interesting idea and some of the negative response seems to be based on 'nothing must change' or 'it's probably a con'. The problem is it seems to be a bit arse about elbow, with a solution looking for a problem. Knock out 8 league games and: we can lose long mid-week journeys AND have a mid-season break AND have more cup games AND have fitter players (from div 4) for the World Cup in the summer. Um, not really. Having and eating of cake going on there. Which of those (or the 8 league games) would we rather have? Explain all that, show how this is best way to deliver it, and I'd be happy with the change. Meanwhile, however, re mid-week games, rig the fixtures (as they already are on many criteria) to select the nearest non-contentious derby fixtures for each club and set it that they're all scheduled for a midweek. That's that problem solved without wringing your hands when you schedule Carlisle v Plymouth for midweek and then using that as an excuse for something else. They certainly have gone about it arse about face.
I don't think anything should be dismissed until the full facts are out there and the clubs get to debate them. The clubs will have their own ideas how they will be affected and what they would need to not lose out.
As it stands it sounds as though the clubs have been taken unaware and the FL say they have sent everyone the proposals.
Right now I don't think anything would be voted through, but change is worth discussing.
20 years ago I think this sort of idea would have been easier to accept and be dealt with but now with the ridiculous amounts of money and wages...
Certainly taken unawares if it's true that 2 Championship chairman found out through the media release |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 20, 2016 12:44:43 GMT
A 5000 gate at say £15 per head x 4 games equals £300000. Can't see many lower league clubs being able to cope with this loss of revenue. Nail on head. Now they could compensate clubs for that if someone comes up with the money but that would then open another can of worms because if you took 2 clubs like Accrington and Portsmouth then Portsmouth would probably be looking at nearly 10 times the compensation. Wouldn't really seem fair to give teams in the same division different amounts. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 20, 2016 10:25:33 GMT
If clubs do a Man U and include cup games in a season ticket, they have to be more expensive as these games, according to the genius of the FL, make up for the loss of 3 home league games. There will always be a 12 v 15 at the end of a season and, I may be wrong, these places have usually been set for some time with little movement in the mid 1/3 of a table towards the end. We are talking FLT games here, not Champions League or FA Cup. and as you would be losing games sticking the 2,3,4 group games on the St wouldn’t make much difference surely.
You will get dead rubber games whatever, but if the current format remains with 9 spots affecting promotion/relegation you will have fewer dead rubber games
Standardising the divisions doesn’t seem outrageous. I would be against the Jocks or B teams being put in the divisions because that would dimish the integrity of the league system.
I think the play-off system needs a shake-up as I suggested above. Change doesn't have to be bad, just different
You're obviously in favour, which is fair enough. So it's being sold to avoid fixture congestion and that clubs wouldn't lose out financially. So why add back in new games if you're aim is to avoid fixture congestion, do these games become optional in some weird way? As to the finance I haven't seen anything to explain how clubs won't lose out financially, indeed the BBC carries an interview with a Championship chairman today where he thinks his club would be out of pocket by a £1m pounds a season. Money talks and the Football League haven't talked money until they do I would expect this idea to be dead in the water. Either the Premier league will need to pay for this or players accept less money, which of those do you think will happen? |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 20, 2016 9:11:59 GMT
I didn't notice this so I guess we wouldn't lose as many games and the FLT would be mid week The Football League Trophy would also see a new format introduced to include a group structure of three games followed by a knockout stage. Group games would be played over the middle weekend of international breaks to “provide the competition with its own identity”.
65 out of 72 have to vote the measures through. So swap the 'poorly' attended midweek league games for more JPT midweek games that no-one attends. That helps the congestion then. Until the league come up with big cash to support/subsidise this idea then I don't see a hope in hell that clubs will vote to lose 4 home games a season. |
|
