|
Post by scoobydoogas on Oct 13, 2017 12:44:56 GMT
Build it and we will all come!!!!! In more ways than you think.... Not while looking at your avatar. That's gross. Which one is she? Sandra or Tracey (viz)?
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Oct 13, 2017 12:46:34 GMT
In more ways than you think.... Not while looking at your avatar. That's gross. Which one is she? Sandra or Tracey (viz)? Neither, that's actually Henbury.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Oct 13, 2017 12:49:01 GMT
Just a small point. Heads of Terms were never drawn up. This was confirmed by Steven West the vice chancellor on radio bristol the morning after the rushed announcement that the deal was off.
He said that he was surprised at the turn of events as he was expecting heads of terms to be issued. That in itself tells you that they were pretty close to overall agreement.
The article states that we were nowhere near any sort of agreement with UWE, due to all the outstanding issues. Steve Hamer also issued his infamous 'landing lights' statement. So those two utterances tell you that both sides were close, albeit not over the line.
So make your choice: were the UWE and Steve Hamer lying, or is NR? I prefer to believe UWE and SH not some hack muddying the waters. In reality, it seems like a propaganda piece deliberately printed to confuse.
What Rippington is stating, is the position we would have been in had Nick Higgs been allowed to complete selling out our future. It's not the position we were in when it was finally called off.
The reason UWE was cancelled was quite simple. The lack of funding.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Oct 13, 2017 12:52:34 GMT
Just a small point. Heads of Terms were never drawn up. This was confirmed by Steven West the vice chancellor on radio bristol the morning after the rushed announcement that the deal was off. He said that he was surprised at the turn of events as he was expecting heads of terms to be issued. That in itself tells you that they were pretty close to overall agreement. The article states that we were nowhere near any sort of agreement with UWE, due to all the outstanding issues. Steve Hamer also issued his infamous 'landing lights' statement. So those two utterances tell you that both sides were close, albeit not over the line. So make your choice: were the UWE and Steve Hamer lying, or is NR? I prefer to believe UWE and SH not some hack muddying the waters. In reality, it seems like a propaganda piece deliberately printed to confuse. What Rippington is stating, is the position we would have been in had Nick Higgs been allowed to complete selling out our future. It's not the position we were in when it was finally called off. The reason UWE was cancelled was quite simple. The lack of funding. Wasn't lack of funding, was lack of a deal best for us.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Oct 13, 2017 12:54:14 GMT
You know that how?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Oct 13, 2017 13:06:35 GMT
Just a small point. Heads of Terms were never drawn up. This was confirmed by Steven West the vice chancellor on radio bristol the morning after the rushed announcement that the deal was off.He said that he was surprised at the turn of events as he was expecting heads of terms to be issued. That in itself tells you that they were pretty close to overall agreement. The article states that we were nowhere near any sort of agreement with UWE, due to all the outstanding issues. Steve Hamer also issued his infamous 'landing lights' statement. So those two utterances tell you that both sides were close, albeit not over the line. So make your choice: were the UWE and Steve Hamer lying, or is NR? I prefer to believe UWE and SH not some hack muddying the waters. In reality, it seems like a propaganda piece deliberately printed to confuse. What Rippington is stating, is the position we would have been in had Nick Higgs been allowed to complete selling out our future. It's not the position we were in when it was finally called off. The reason UWE was cancelled was quite simple. The lack of funding. That's actually not what was said. He said (and reiterated on Twitter) that HoT were not issued in a form he felt they could respond to. He did not say they were not issued. As to the rest of it, you're as confused as Topper. Why does anyone have to be lying? I don't see any difference in the narratives we've heard: Hamer - we're close to agreeing a deal but still negotiating some points UWE - we were negotiating a deal but HoT weren't finalised NR just points out what he believes to be the sticking points. Where does that contradict either of the other two? Where does it say we were nowhere near? It doesn't - the only person making distortions of anything is you.
|
|
|
Promising
Oct 13, 2017 13:09:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by baggins on Oct 13, 2017 13:09:09 GMT
Decent reporting. Decent forumers. Now you tell us how that wasn't correct.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Oct 13, 2017 13:10:00 GMT
In more ways than you think.... Not while looking at your avatar. That's gross. Which one is she? Sandra or Tracey (viz)? Found "her" patrolling the streets of Aston Gate on the look for some action. I was on my way to get some Clarks Pies from Bedminster..........
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Oct 13, 2017 13:10:42 GMT
Not while looking at your avatar. That's gross. Which one is she? Sandra or Tracey (viz)? Neither, that's actually Henbury. Thats my other job
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Oct 13, 2017 13:12:06 GMT
Just a small point. Heads of Terms were never drawn up. This was confirmed by Steven West the vice chancellor on radio bristol the morning after the rushed announcement that the deal was off. He said that he was surprised at the turn of events as he was expecting heads of terms to be issued. That in itself tells you that they were pretty close to overall agreement. The article states that we were nowhere near any sort of agreement with UWE, due to all the outstanding issues. Steve Hamer also issued his infamous 'landing lights' statement. So those two utterances tell you that both sides were close, albeit not over the line. So make your choice: were the UWE and Steve Hamer lying, or is NR? I prefer to believe UWE and SH not some hack muddying the waters. In reality, it seems like a propaganda piece deliberately printed to confuse. What Rippington is stating, is the position we would have been in had Nick Higgs been allowed to complete selling out our future. It's not the position we were in when it was finally called off. The reason UWE was cancelled was quite simple. The lack of funding. Pot. Black comes to mind
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Oct 13, 2017 13:32:51 GMT
Just a small point. Heads of Terms were never drawn up. This was confirmed by Steven West the vice chancellor on radio bristol the morning after the rushed announcement that the deal was off. He said that he was surprised at the turn of events as he was expecting heads of terms to be issued. That in itself tells you that they were pretty close to overall agreement. The article states that we were nowhere near any sort of agreement with UWE, due to all the outstanding issues. Steve Hamer also issued his infamous 'landing lights' statement. So those two utterances tell you that both sides were close, albeit not over the line. So make your choice: were the UWE and Steve Hamer lying, or is NR? I prefer to believe UWE and SH not some hack muddying the waters. In reality, it seems like a propaganda piece deliberately printed to confuse. What Rippington is stating, is the position we would have been in had Nick Higgs been allowed to complete selling out our future. It's not the position we were in when it was finally called off. The reason UWE was cancelled was quite simple. The lack of funding. This isn't yours by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Oct 13, 2017 13:35:25 GMT
Just a small point. Heads of Terms were never drawn up. This was confirmed by Steven West the vice chancellor on radio bristol the morning after the rushed announcement that the deal was off. He said that he was surprised at the turn of events as he was expecting heads of terms to be issued. That in itself tells you that they were pretty close to overall agreement. The article states that we were nowhere near any sort of agreement with UWE, due to all the outstanding issues. Steve Hamer also issued his infamous 'landing lights' statement. So those two utterances tell you that both sides were close, albeit not over the line. So make your choice: were the UWE and Steve Hamer lying, or is NR? I prefer to believe UWE and SH not some hack muddying the waters. In reality, it seems like a propaganda piece deliberately printed to confuse. What Rippington is stating, is the position we would have been in had Nick Higgs been allowed to complete selling out our future. It's not the position we were in when it was finally called off. The reason UWE was cancelled was quite simple. The lack of funding. So Nick was selling out our future for signing the UWE deal and the AQs are selling out our future by not signing the UWE deal?? Or are you are suggesting that Nick had the Mem and a massive wonga debt but could still afford the funding for UWE and the AQs had the Mem and no wonga debt but can't afford it??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 14:23:29 GMT
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. So the £6m + TV rights is not worth having to put up with a bit of banter............. i feel sorry for you No need to feel sorry me - £6m in that league is chicken feed - rather stay where we are for now and be reasonably succesful on the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Oct 13, 2017 14:35:22 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 15:01:00 GMT
Why have both major projects collapsed? Surely the obvious strategy for the club after the huge anti-climax of the UWE stadium would be for the club to rapidly progress with the state of the art training facility to get it ready at least in part for next season. Its obvious that the owners either do not have the funds or will not spend the funds. Any research by the owners of the world of football would have shown them that profitability is rare and could only be hoped for sometime in the future if at all. I know "gasincider" can be negative but his "lack of funds" line makes perfect sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Oct 13, 2017 15:02:25 GMT
Why have both major projects collapsed? Surely the obvious strategy for the club after the huge anti-climax of the UWE stadium would be for the club to rapidly progress with the state of the art training facility to get it ready at least in part for next season. Its obvious that the owners either do not have the funds or will not spend the funds. Any research by the owners of the world of football would have shown them that profitability is rare and could only be hoped for sometime in the future if at all. I know "gasincider" can be negative but his "lack of funds" line makes perfect sense to me. Have they both collapsed then? Must have missed that.
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 13, 2017 15:07:06 GMT
Just because deals and plans take ages and we haven't had an update doesn't mean they've collapsed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 15:13:57 GMT
Why have both major projects collapsed? Surely the obvious strategy for the club after the huge anti-climax of the UWE stadium would be for the club to rapidly progress with the state of the art training facility to get it ready at least in part for next season. Its obvious that the owners either do not have the funds or will not spend the funds. Any research by the owners of the world of football would have shown them that profitability is rare and could only be hoped for sometime in the future if at all. I know "gasincider" can be negative but his "lack of funds" line makes perfect sense to me. Have they both collapsed then? Must have missed that. Sorry one of them has collapsed the other massively delayed with no explanation as to why i meant to say.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 13, 2017 15:17:10 GMT
Just a small point. Heads of Terms were never drawn up. This was confirmed by Steven West the vice chancellor on radio bristol the morning after the rushed announcement that the deal was off. He said that he was surprised at the turn of events as he was expecting heads of terms to be issued. That in itself tells you that they were pretty close to overall agreement. The article states that we were nowhere near any sort of agreement with UWE, due to all the outstanding issues. Steve Hamer also issued his infamous 'landing lights' statement. So those two utterances tell you that both sides were close, albeit not over the line. So make your choice: were the UWE and Steve Hamer lying, or is NR? I prefer to believe UWE and SH not some hack muddying the waters. In reality, it seems like a propaganda piece deliberately printed to confuse. What Rippington is stating, is the position we would have been in had Nick Higgs been allowed to complete selling out our future. It's not the position we were in when it was finally called off. The reason UWE was cancelled was quite simple. The lack of funding. So Nick was selling out our future for signing the UWE deal and the AQs are selling out our future by not signing the UWE deal?? Or are you are suggesting that Nick had the Mem and a massive wonga debt but could still afford the funding for UWE and the AQs had the Mem and no wonga debt but can't afford it?? Hugo you of all people should know full well NH only took on the wonga loan after Sainsbury's pulled the plug on buying the Mem, to be fair to NH despite his failings he does seem a genuine Gashead, so would he really have agreed a deal with the UWE which would lead to us eventually going bankrupt.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 13, 2017 15:27:19 GMT
Just a small point. Heads of Terms were never drawn up. This was confirmed by Steven West the vice chancellor on radio bristol the morning after the rushed announcement that the deal was off.He said that he was surprised at the turn of events as he was expecting heads of terms to be issued. That in itself tells you that they were pretty close to overall agreement. The article states that we were nowhere near any sort of agreement with UWE, due to all the outstanding issues. Steve Hamer also issued his infamous 'landing lights' statement. So those two utterances tell you that both sides were close, albeit not over the line. So make your choice: were the UWE and Steve Hamer lying, or is NR? I prefer to believe UWE and SH not some hack muddying the waters. In reality, it seems like a propaganda piece deliberately printed to confuse. What Rippington is stating, is the position we would have been in had Nick Higgs been allowed to complete selling out our future. It's not the position we were in when it was finally called off. The reason UWE was cancelled was quite simple. The lack of funding. That's actually not what was said. He said (and reiterated on Twitter) that HoT were not issued in a form he felt they could respond to. He did not say they were not issued. As to the rest of it, you're as confused as Topper. Why does anyone have to be lying? I don't see any difference in the narratives we've heard: Hamer - we're close to agreeing a deal but still negotiating some points UWE - we were negotiating a deal but HoT weren't finalised NR just points out what he believes to be the sticking points. Where does that contradict either of the other two? Where does it say we were nowhere near? It doesn't - the only person making distortions of anything is you. 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
These are hardly sticking points, to be honest if there's no truth in what is being suggested then they could well be libellous comments.
|
|