|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 12, 2017 15:11:53 GMT
Back to the OP what would people prefer at the mem? Gym, Bakery, Bar, Community centre, Micro-brewery? I don't live anywhere near the Mem so I'm only really interested in the things I could use on a match day like a big bar, but maybe some of us closer to the Mem might like a local gym? As a local, a gym would probably be good for me. Although, to be fair, I doubt I'll still be able to run/train by the time it's built. A few hire-able rooms for club type events would be good, too.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 12, 2017 15:14:22 GMT
If Rovers fans had voted in a binding poll to see whether we should to go to UWE, then UWE would have had us over a barrel, too. Can you back that statement up? Neither Party has given any formal reason why the talks failed. How can it not be backed up? Had we entered negotiations without any room to manoeuvre on the final point we were obliged to reach then that's a virtually impossible negotiating position. By definition.
|
|
|
Promising
Oct 12, 2017 15:21:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by madgas on Oct 12, 2017 15:21:31 GMT
So the ALQ's are happy to meet and discuss the plans with a tw@t like Carstairs but keep Rovers fans totally in the dark. I'd love to know how the ALQ's intend making a 20,000 capacity self funding. Sounds a bit negative. With regards to self funding I suppose this means that there would be no outside investment. Ie no Sainsbury's situation
|
|
|
Promising
Oct 12, 2017 15:27:10 GMT
via mobile
Post by pepsi on Oct 12, 2017 15:27:10 GMT
Am I the only deluded one who thinks this is all a ploy and we're still waiting for a booty call from UWE? No your not the only one. Unfortunately 😳😳
|
|
|
Post by abbeygas on Oct 12, 2017 15:32:29 GMT
So the ALQ's are happy to meet and discuss the plans with a tw@t like Carstairs but keep Rovers fans totally in the dark. I'd love to know how the ALQ's intend making a 20,000 capacity self funding. Sounds a bit negative. With regards to self funding I suppose this means that there would be no outside investment. Ie no Sainsbury's situation I have no idea what self-funded means either but as far as I am aware it was Carstairs lot who put this statement out there, it is not a club statement or Wael's words as far as I am aware. I am taking it all with a large pinch of salt until news comes from the horses mouth.
|
|
|
Post by dinsdale on Oct 12, 2017 15:54:07 GMT
So the ALQ's are happy to meet and discuss the plans with a tw@t like Carstairs but keep Rovers fans totally in the dark. I'd love to know how the ALQ's intend making a 20,000 capacity self funding. Put football to one side and remember how passionate many of you are about the forces and the sacrafices made. If someone football aside wanted to build a supermarket on a war memorial what would you say? Its a very positive sounding meeting, we need the locals on side
|
|
|
Promising
Oct 12, 2017 16:39:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 12, 2017 16:39:20 GMT
So the ALQ's are happy to meet and discuss the plans with a tw@t like Carstairs but keep Rovers fans totally in the dark. I'd love to know how the ALQ's intend making a 20,000 capacity self funding. Put football to one side and remember how passionate many of you are about the forces and the sacrafices made. If someone football aside wanted to build a supermarket on a war memorial what would you say? Its a very positive sounding meeting, we need the locals on side In my view it stopped being a "war memorial" when the rugby club but a stadium on the ground stopped the locals using it as a sports ground. The Sainsbury's plans of having a war memorial garden seemed a sensible idea.
|
|
|
Post by miamigas on Oct 12, 2017 17:02:19 GMT
Trouble is we have heard it all before ,would be good if Wael and Co went public with something positive! Yeah, same way when I'm playing poker, I show my cards to everyone else at the table. UTG!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2017 17:52:19 GMT
Its fortunate that the owners follow the sensible line and not the draw the battle lines approach many on here seem to favour when concerning local groups and their concerns. Communicating low key with concerned parties is important. No need to announce it to every one and anyone ,just those concerned. As I suggested in the past it is better for local groups to be involved in the future of the stadium ,to hear their views and ask for their suggestions. Allow people to become excited about the project for various reasons ,not just as BRFC followers. After all Rovers would like these people and their friends and family to become future customers/visitors at the New Mem. Create a venue that everybody wants.
As an add to some suggestions about transport links to the mem. How about if Rovers ran a few shuttle buses to certain locations which not only were in popular rovers areas but also had other attractions there. For an example: Longwell green ( cinema,pool,shopping venue). Rovers have a pick up point there,that also stops somewhere else on route. Great for rovers fans. Maybe two runs could be made ? The interesting option might be that.... locals around the stadium can use the empty journey (to longwell from mem) for free.
With a free ride back to the mem later in the evening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Promising
Oct 12, 2017 19:35:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2017 19:35:32 GMT
Appeasing the likes of Carstairs is one thing especially regarding his whole hypocrisy regarding the Sainsburys application but there is also the prospect of dealing with the original nimby pressure group 'Rose'. Perhaps Wael should set up a meeting with them and all , keeping your friends close and your enemies even closer so to speak .
|
|
|
Post by justin blue on Oct 12, 2017 22:53:55 GMT
Why Stadium Deal Was So Wrong By Nick Rippington Why Stadium Deal Was So Wrong By Nick Rippington What's being said in the forum now? Click to join the Vital Bristol Rovers forum! BRISTOL ROVERS dodged a bullet when they pulled out of the deal for a new stadium. The more I learn, the more I believe the club could have been fatally compromised by agreeing to the terms that University trustees were demanding for a joint venture on their land near Frenchay. Everything, I believe, was stacked in the University`s favour. And while many Rovers fans were under the impression we were getting our very own purpose-built stadium, the way I understand it the arrangement would have been little different from when we rented Eastville from the Greyhound Company. In fact, if just a few things had gone wrong there was a good possibility that we would have been dumped out on our ear with no alternative home to go to, having already offloaded the Mem. The sticking points on which the University wouldn`t budge included things like security for games and revenue from external events like Conferences, concerts and even car parking. It was imperative to the club that they would have control over these things if they were to develop from ragbag Rovers to a self-sustaining football force. If anything, rather than blame the board for another so-called 'failure`, we should be glad they were looking out for our long-term interests rather than being swayed by a short-term rise in popularity. It`s an interesting paradox, because while the previous owners had been Rovers supporters long before the Al-Qadi family had even HEARD of the club, it seems glaringly obvious to me that the old regime were prepared to gamble our entire future in a bid to regain some kudos with fans. The more I look at it, the more I think the Sainsbury`s decision to pull out of the Mem deal was a blessing in disguise. Scrutinise the decisions Nick Higgs and Co made towards the end of their reign and you have a roadmap which could only have led to catastrophe. I recall writing a blog for the Bristol Post after we dropped out of the Football League saying that I felt alienated from the club I had followed for nearly 40 years. The more our stock fell on the pitch, the more a wedge was driven between those in Box One and those spending their hard-earned cash to watch pitiful fayre on the pitch. Rather than erect a new stadium, day by day they built a wall between themselves and the fans. Life-long supporters who didn`t share their views were barred, a popular fans online forum was shut down and the deafening demand for answers was ignored. When the Sainsbury`s decision came through, they were even prepared to risk everything and take out a high-interest loan - like the type you see advertised on daytime TV - to continue a fight that many felt had already been lost. Darrell Clarke, who I admit I criticised early in his reign, helped reignite my love affair with Rovers by guiding us back into the Football League but that might have been a short-term fix had the ownership not changed. For Darrell, at least, we can thank Mr Higgs - and there is one more significant thing, too. Like other owners who have fled sinking ships, he could have sold us to the first cash-waving charlatan that came along. Instead he handed over to owners many have come to trust and respect. If anyone doubts the Al-Qadi family have given us our Rovers back, look at this weekend as a case in point. As I stood on the Northampton terraces overcome with emotion as we rattled in our sixth goal I looked a few feet to my right to see our president Wael Al-Qadi dancing a merry jig. He could have quite easily been with his chairman in the directors` box but chose instead to share the moment with fans on the terraces. Later, he caught the train back to London, not in first class but with those same supporters, happily discussing the match and his long-term plans. Anyone witnessing that would find it hard to question his commitment to the club and his desire to take it in the right direction. The new owners are pragmatists, not dreamers... and for that I am grateful. For while dreams take centre stage when we belt out Goodnight Irene, sometimes it`s nice to wake up to a healthy dose of reality. Nick Rippington is a national newspaper journalist based in London. He is also award-winning author of UK gangland fiction thrillers Crossing The Whitewash and Spark Out Read more: www.bristolrovers.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=507964#ixzz4vEYjV9wPThe more I see or hear the more I think there is a propaganda war going on. The time to say that Rovers dodged a bullet is when we are in a regenerated stadium not while we are still in a delapidated rugby ground. The collapse of the UWE represented for me the Last chance of Rovers competing in this city and I don't think I am the only one who thinks that way. I think many have clung to the hope of watching Rovers playing in a shiny new stadium capable of hosting top class football. My fear is that many will drift away and we will struggle to attract new support if the regeneration does not happen soon. As much as I am enjoying Rovers and the fantatistic job that DC is doing on the field, he won't be here forever and we are being left for dead in terms of progress off of the field.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 4:46:55 GMT
Why Stadium Deal Was So Wrong By Nick Rippington Why Stadium Deal Was So Wrong By Nick Rippington What's being said in the forum now? Click to join the Vital Bristol Rovers forum! BRISTOL ROVERS dodged a bullet when they pulled out of the deal for a new stadium. The more I learn, the more I believe the club could have been fatally compromised by agreeing to the terms that University trustees were demanding for a joint venture on their land near Frenchay. Everything, I believe, was stacked in the University`s favour. And while many Rovers fans were under the impression we were getting our very own purpose-built stadium, the way I understand it the arrangement would have been little different from when we rented Eastville from the Greyhound Company. In fact, if just a few things had gone wrong there was a good possibility that we would have been dumped out on our ear with no alternative home to go to, having already offloaded the Mem. The sticking points on which the University wouldn`t budge included things like security for games and revenue from external events like Conferences, concerts and even car parking. It was imperative to the club that they would have control over these things if they were to develop from ragbag Rovers to a self-sustaining football force. If anything, rather than blame the board for another so-called 'failure`, we should be glad they were looking out for our long-term interests rather than being swayed by a short-term rise in popularity. It`s an interesting paradox, because while the previous owners had been Rovers supporters long before the Al-Qadi family had even HEARD of the club, it seems glaringly obvious to me that the old regime were prepared to gamble our entire future in a bid to regain some kudos with fans. The more I look at it, the more I think the Sainsbury`s decision to pull out of the Mem deal was a blessing in disguise. Scrutinise the decisions Nick Higgs and Co made towards the end of their reign and you have a roadmap which could only have led to catastrophe. I recall writing a blog for the Bristol Post after we dropped out of the Football League saying that I felt alienated from the club I had followed for nearly 40 years. The more our stock fell on the pitch, the more a wedge was driven between those in Box One and those spending their hard-earned cash to watch pitiful fayre on the pitch. Rather than erect a new stadium, day by day they built a wall between themselves and the fans. Life-long supporters who didn`t share their views were barred, a popular fans online forum was shut down and the deafening demand for answers was ignored. When the Sainsbury`s decision came through, they were even prepared to risk everything and take out a high-interest loan - like the type you see advertised on daytime TV - to continue a fight that many felt had already been lost. Darrell Clarke, who I admit I criticised early in his reign, helped reignite my love affair with Rovers by guiding us back into the Football League but that might have been a short-term fix had the ownership not changed. For Darrell, at least, we can thank Mr Higgs - and there is one more significant thing, too. Like other owners who have fled sinking ships, he could have sold us to the first cash-waving charlatan that came along. Instead he handed over to owners many have come to trust and respect. If anyone doubts the Al-Qadi family have given us our Rovers back, look at this weekend as a case in point. As I stood on the Northampton terraces overcome with emotion as we rattled in our sixth goal I looked a few feet to my right to see our president Wael Al-Qadi dancing a merry jig. He could have quite easily been with his chairman in the directors` box but chose instead to share the moment with fans on the terraces. Later, he caught the train back to London, not in first class but with those same supporters, happily discussing the match and his long-term plans. Anyone witnessing that would find it hard to question his commitment to the club and his desire to take it in the right direction. The new owners are pragmatists, not dreamers... and for that I am grateful. For while dreams take centre stage when we belt out Goodnight Irene, sometimes it`s nice to wake up to a healthy dose of reality. Nick Rippington is a national newspaper journalist based in London. He is also award-winning author of UK gangland fiction thrillers Crossing The Whitewash and Spark Out Read more: www.bristolrovers.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=507964#ixzz4vEYjV9wPThe more I see or hear the more I think there is a propaganda war going on. The time to say that Rovers dodged a bullet is when we are in a regenerated stadium not while we are still in a degenerated Rugby ground. The collapse of the UWE represented for me the Last chance of Rovers competing in this city and I don't think I am the only one who thinks that way. I think many have clung to the hope of watching Rovers playing in a shiny new stadium capable of hosting top class football. My fear is that many will drift away and we will struggle to attract new support if the regeneration does not happen soon. As much as I am enjoying Rovers and the fantatistic job that DC is doing on the field, he won't be here forever and we are being left for dead in terms of progress off of the field. I don't think that Nick Rippington would let himself be used as part of a propaganda war, and he's too experienced as a journalist to be an unwitting participant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 5:33:51 GMT
Why Stadium Deal Was So Wrong By Nick Rippington Why Stadium Deal Was So Wrong By Nick Rippington What's being said in the forum now? Click to join the Vital Bristol Rovers forum! BRISTOL ROVERS dodged a bullet when they pulled out of the deal for a new stadium. The more I learn, the more I believe the club could have been fatally compromised by agreeing to the terms that University trustees were demanding for a joint venture on their land near Frenchay. Everything, I believe, was stacked in the University`s favour. And while many Rovers fans were under the impression we were getting our very own purpose-built stadium, the way I understand it the arrangement would have been little different from when we rented Eastville from the Greyhound Company. In fact, if just a few things had gone wrong there was a good possibility that we would have been dumped out on our ear with no alternative home to go to, having already offloaded the Mem. The sticking points on which the University wouldn`t budge included things like security for games and revenue from external events like Conferences, concerts and even car parking. It was imperative to the club that they would have control over these things if they were to develop from ragbag Rovers to a self-sustaining football force. If anything, rather than blame the board for another so-called 'failure`, we should be glad they were looking out for our long-term interests rather than being swayed by a short-term rise in popularity. It`s an interesting paradox, because while the previous owners had been Rovers supporters long before the Al-Qadi family had even HEARD of the club, it seems glaringly obvious to me that the old regime were prepared to gamble our entire future in a bid to regain some kudos with fans. The more I look at it, the more I think the Sainsbury`s decision to pull out of the Mem deal was a blessing in disguise. Scrutinise the decisions Nick Higgs and Co made towards the end of their reign and you have a roadmap which could only have led to catastrophe. I recall writing a blog for the Bristol Post after we dropped out of the Football League saying that I felt alienated from the club I had followed for nearly 40 years. The more our stock fell on the pitch, the more a wedge was driven between those in Box One and those spending their hard-earned cash to watch pitiful fayre on the pitch. Rather than erect a new stadium, day by day they built a wall between themselves and the fans. Life-long supporters who didn`t share their views were barred, a popular fans online forum was shut down and the deafening demand for answers was ignored. When the Sainsbury`s decision came through, they were even prepared to risk everything and take out a high-interest loan - like the type you see advertised on daytime TV - to continue a fight that many felt had already been lost. Darrell Clarke, who I admit I criticised early in his reign, helped reignite my love affair with Rovers by guiding us back into the Football League but that might have been a short-term fix had the ownership not changed. For Darrell, at least, we can thank Mr Higgs - and there is one more significant thing, too. Like other owners who have fled sinking ships, he could have sold us to the first cash-waving charlatan that came along. Instead he handed over to owners many have come to trust and respect. If anyone doubts the Al-Qadi family have given us our Rovers back, look at this weekend as a case in point. As I stood on the Northampton terraces overcome with emotion as we rattled in our sixth goal I looked a few feet to my right to see our president Wael Al-Qadi dancing a merry jig. He could have quite easily been with his chairman in the directors` box but chose instead to share the moment with fans on the terraces. Later, he caught the train back to London, not in first class but with those same supporters, happily discussing the match and his long-term plans. Anyone witnessing that would find it hard to question his commitment to the club and his desire to take it in the right direction. The new owners are pragmatists, not dreamers... and for that I am grateful. For while dreams take centre stage when we belt out Goodnight Irene, sometimes it`s nice to wake up to a healthy dose of reality. Nick Rippington is a national newspaper journalist based in London. He is also award-winning author of UK gangland fiction thrillers Crossing The Whitewash and Spark Out Read more: www.bristolrovers.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=507964#ixzz4vEYjV9wPThe more I see or hear the more I think there is a propaganda war going on. The time to say that Rovers dodged a bullet is when we are in a regenerated stadium not while we are still in a delapidated rugby ground. The collapse of the UWE represented for me the Last chance of Rovers competing in this city and I don't think I am the only one who thinks that way. I think many have clung to the hope of watching Rovers playing in a shiny new stadium capable of hosting top class football. My fear is that many will drift away and we will struggle to attract new support if the regeneration does not happen soon. As much as I am enjoying Rovers and the fantatistic job that DC is doing on the field, he won't be here forever and we are being left for dead in terms of progress off of the field. The UWE was never viable in the medium to long term because, as the previous owners did not have enough capital to build it, even with a "Sainsbury's purchase, they mortgaged the balance against future revenue streams. That would have left virtually no money to finance the current rate of cash burn, let alone develop the club. I believe this was what was being renegotiated and fell over because the USE would not budge. As things go it does appear that the current owners have provided a much needed working capital injection which has not only stabilised the finances but provided funds for club development. Being sensible they of course can see the day when that runs out unless progress on all fronts is made. You cannot make progress by giving away your future potential revenues from a major development deal. UWE. It may appear slow, but it makes sense. Unlike most of what went before. In the meantime we are a couple of points off the play off places in Div1. Some people need to get a grip.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Oct 13, 2017 5:54:37 GMT
The more I see or hear the more I think there is a propaganda war going on. The time to say that Rovers dodged a bullet is when we are in a regenerated stadium not while we are still in a delapidated rugby ground. The collapse of the UWE represented for me the Last chance of Rovers competing in this city and I don't think I am the only one who thinks that way. I think many have clung to the hope of watching Rovers playing in a shiny new stadium capable of hosting top class football. My fear is that many will drift away and we will struggle to attract new support if the regeneration does not happen soon. As much as I am enjoying Rovers and the fantatistic job that DC is doing on the field, he won't be here forever and we are being left for dead in terms of progress off of the field. The UWE was never viable in the medium to long term because, as the previous owners did not have enough capital to build it, even with a "Sainsbury's purchase, they mortgaged the balance against future revenue streams. That would have left virtually no money to finance the current rate of cash burn, let alone develop the club. I believe this was what was being renegotiated and fell over because the USE would not budge. As things go it does appear that the current owners have provided a much needed working capital injection which has not only stabilised the finances but provided funds for club development. Being sensible they of course can see the day when that runs out unless progress on all fronts is made. You cannot make progress by giving away your future potential revenues from a major development deal. UWE. It may appear slow, but it makes sense. Unlike most of what went before. In the meantime we are a couple of points off the play off places in Div1. Some people need to get a grip. The award for best post on a UWE thread goes to......
|
|
|
Promising
Oct 13, 2017 6:47:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 13, 2017 6:47:59 GMT
The UWE was never viable in the medium to long term because, as the previous owners did not have enough capital to build it, even with a "Sainsbury's purchase, they mortgaged the balance against future revenue streams. That would have left virtually no money to finance the current rate of cash burn, let alone develop the club. I believe this was what was being renegotiated and fell over because the USE would not budge. As things go it does appear that the current owners have provided a much needed working capital injection which has not only stabilised the finances but provided funds for club development. Being sensible they of course can see the day when that runs out unless progress on all fronts is made. You cannot make progress by giving away your future potential revenues from a major development deal. UWE. It may appear slow, but it makes sense. Unlike most of what went before. In the meantime we are a couple of points off the play off places in Div1. Some people need to get a grip. The award for best post on a UWE thread goes to...... But that doesn't answer Gasincider's point, if that was the case then why did we get as far as exchanging Heads of Terms, which suggests both sides must have thought a deal was still possible after 18 months of talks. The big question now is developing the Mem anymore viable.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Oct 13, 2017 7:00:26 GMT
The award for best post on a UWE thread goes to...... But that doesn't answer Gasincider's point, if that was the case then why did we get as far as exchanging Heads of Terms, which suggests both sides must have thought a deal was still possible after 18 months of talks. The big question now is developing the Mem anymore viable. Did we get as far as heads of terms? Who gave you that information and have they been able to provide evidence for that or any other claims they've made? The Mem is little more than a piece of land. Just as UWE is. Just as Filton Avenue is. It's what's on the land/its location that governs it's viability. So to make sure your land has something on it that will make money you would probably do something like engage with the local community to see what they want/need/use. But of course those evil AQs would never entertain doing such a.....oh wait. So far on one side we have had scaremongering, lies and sh** stirring with nothing to back it up. On the other side there has been promises about the future backed up with slow but steady investment, progression and change. It's up to you which you believe in I suppose. We've all been sh** on in the past, but as yet not by our current owners.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Oct 13, 2017 7:49:22 GMT
The award for best post on a UWE thread goes to...... But that doesn't answer Gasincider's point, if that was the case then why did we get as far as exchanging Heads of Terms, which suggests both sides must have thought a deal was still possible after 18 months of talks. The big question now is developing the Mem anymore viable. Why are you so hung up on the fact Heads of Terms were exchanged? HoT is still only a pre-contract agreement. There are miles of negotiations still to be had after that stage. The fact that HoT weren't agreed tells us all we need to know. From experience the way someone acts in the pre-negotiations and HoT phase is a pretty good indicator of what they'll be like throughout. If they're nit picking or unresponsive now that's not going to change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Promising
Oct 13, 2017 9:36:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 9:36:21 GMT
But that doesn't answer Gasincider's point, if that was the case then why did we get as far as exchanging Heads of Terms, which suggests both sides must have thought a deal was still possible after 18 months of talks. The big question now is developing the Mem anymore viable. Why are you so hung up on the fact Heads of Terms were exchanged? HoT is still only a pre-contract agreement. There are miles of negotiations still to be had after that stage. The fact that HoT weren't agreed tells us all we need to know. From experience the way someone acts in the pre-negotiations and HoT phase is a pretty good indicator of what they'll be like throughout. If they're nit picking or unresponsive now that's not going to change. Precisely My Lord
|
|
|
Post by BrightonGas on Oct 13, 2017 9:37:50 GMT
The UWE was never viable in the medium to long term because, as the previous owners did not have enough capital to build it, even with a "Sainsbury's purchase, they mortgaged the balance against future revenue streams. That would have left virtually no money to finance the current rate of cash burn, let alone develop the club. I believe this was what was being renegotiated and fell over because the USE would not budge. As things go it does appear that the current owners have provided a much needed working capital injection which has not only stabilised the finances but provided funds for club development. Being sensible they of course can see the day when that runs out unless progress on all fronts is made. You cannot make progress by giving away your future potential revenues from a major development deal. UWE. It may appear slow, but it makes sense. Unlike most of what went before. In the meantime we are a couple of points off the play off places in Div1. Some people need to get a grip. The award for best post on a UWE thread goes to...... Surely deserving of its own thread
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 9:57:24 GMT
The UWE was never viable in the medium to long term because, as the previous owners did not have enough capital to build it, even with a "Sainsbury's purchase, they mortgaged the balance against future revenue streams. That would have left virtually no money to finance the current rate of cash burn, let alone develop the club. I believe this was what was being renegotiated and fell over because the USE would not budge. As things go it does appear that the current owners have provided a much needed working capital injection which has not only stabilised the finances but provided funds for club development. Being sensible they of course can see the day when that runs out unless progress on all fronts is made. You cannot make progress by giving away your future potential revenues from a major development deal. UWE. It may appear slow, but it makes sense. Unlike most of what went before. In the meantime we are a couple of points off the play off places in Div1. Some people need to get a grip. The award for best post on a UWE thread goes to...... Nowhere near the best post. Disparaging to say the least ("some people need to get a grip") to posters who have a different opinion and what this forum should be about - posting opinions. Personally i hope we stay adrift of the play offs until we have a stadium worthy of a team good enough to play in the Championship and not be subject to continual ridicule for having to play in a carbuncle - a blot on the landscape of Bristol that can be only be loosely described as a football venue. Let's get the infrastructure right or at least commited to, before even thinking about a quantum leap which will only end up in tears if we get there too early. According to our Manager we are overachieving even now and I agree - we are at our level at best and will be for a few years yet - any thoughts of playing in the Championship and staying there IMO are delusional.
|
|