|
Promising
Oct 13, 2017 15:30:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by LJG on Oct 13, 2017 15:30:37 GMT
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. But that's not true is it? That's just your perception. Pre-planning consultation for the training ground is underway. We've had an announcement about that. How long does that pre-planning consultation phase take and what is the cut-off point for concluding it? If your answer to either of those questions is anything like "It depends" or "I don't know" then on what basis are you saying it is massively delayed without explanation?
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Oct 13, 2017 15:31:41 GMT
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. If it meant getting all his loans back? Plus interest? I'm fairly sure he had the Club at heart from day one, but the more you hear and read, done correctly?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Oct 13, 2017 15:40:09 GMT
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.
What on earth are you talking about? Everything you've highlighted is NR's comment on what might have happened had the deal gone through. What has that got to do with how or whether or not the deal progressed as between the parties? Where is there any reference in that entire piece to how close or not BRFC and UWE were to finalising Heads? You can't just read something, totally misunderstand what it says and then say "Well someone must be lying then". Also - the law of defamation clearly doesn't work in the way you think it does. Giving your opinion on what might have happened had a set of circumstances come to pass which ultimately did not is no more libellous than saying "If you'd dropped that bag of shopping I believe the eggs would have broken".
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Oct 13, 2017 16:25:15 GMT
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. Yes, I know why he took the loan. I was just questioning gasinciders claim was that Nick could do the deal but the AQs couldn't afford it when in reality NHs financial situation appeared much worse. The weaker the hand you have the more likely you are to accept a worse deal right?? I would take the AQs pulling out of a poor deal as a sign of financial strength not of them being broke like some want to keep peddling on here. There is a lot of disinformation being pushed on here and many are happy to lap it up and repeat it as fact. Some of us are just starting to dispute this. The burden of proof lies with the people making the claims. So far not a single shred of evidence has been provided to say we are broke, the family want out, the training ground has fallen through or there is a white knight and yet you and others cling to this crap. I will agree that the training ground seems to be dragging but more plausible reasons have already been offered for that. The AQs HAVE been spending on staff and infrastructure as well as improvements in the match day experience.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 13, 2017 16:30:03 GMT
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.
What on earth are you talking about? Everything you've highlighted is NR's comment on what might have happened had the deal gone through. What has that got to do with how or whether or not the deal progressed as between the parties? Where is there any reference in that entire piece to how close or not BRFC and UWE were to finalising Heads? You can't just read something, totally misunderstand what it says and then say "Well someone must be lying then". Also - the law of defamation clearly doesn't work in the way you think it does. Giving your opinion on what might have happened had a set of circumstances come to pass which ultimately did not is no more libellous than saying "If you'd dropped that bag of shopping I believe the eggs would have broken". Suggest you read what I posted again, if the comments I highlighted have a grain of truth in them then surely the ALQ's wouldn't have even commenced talks with the UWE, or even bought the club, let alone get anywhere near a HoT. As far as his final paragraph, that seems a clear statement he's making with no real proof, unless someone has broken the confidentiality agreement by saying too much to NR. The Bristol Post usually publish NR's blogs, I wonder if they are brave enough to publish this?
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Oct 13, 2017 16:51:44 GMT
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. You've just confirmed yourself that heads weren't issued. You even confirm that SH said 'we're close to agreeing a deal' In light of Rippingtons propaganda piece, what part of the word close am I misunderstanding?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 16:57:26 GMT
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. Yep
|
|
|
Promising
Oct 13, 2017 16:58:27 GMT
via mobile
Post by LJG on Oct 13, 2017 16:58:27 GMT
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. You've just confirmed yourself that heads weren't issued. You even confirm that SH said 'we're close to agreeing a deal' In light of Rippingtons propaganda piece, what part of the word close am I misunderstanding? No I haven't. I doubt you're misunderstanding anything. You're just desperately trying to misrepresent what has been said by not 1 not 2 but 3 different parties. To that end my only suggestion is you're just confusing yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Big Jock on Oct 13, 2017 17:00:15 GMT
Why does Goofy stand erect while Pluto remains on all fours? They're both dogs!
|
|
|
Promising
Oct 13, 2017 17:03:43 GMT
via mobile
Post by LJG on Oct 13, 2017 17:03:43 GMT
What on earth are you talking about? Everything you've highlighted is NR's comment on what might have happened had the deal gone through. What has that got to do with how or whether or not the deal progressed as between the parties? Where is there any reference in that entire piece to how close or not BRFC and UWE were to finalising Heads? You can't just read something, totally misunderstand what it says and then say "Well someone must be lying then". Also - the law of defamation clearly doesn't work in the way you think it does. Giving your opinion on what might have happened had a set of circumstances come to pass which ultimately did not is no more libellous than saying "If you'd dropped that bag of shopping I believe the eggs would have broken". Suggest you read what I posted again, if the comments I highlighted have a grain of truth in them then surely the ALQ's wouldn't have even commenced talks with the UWE, or even bought the club, let alone get anywhere near a HoT. As far as his final paragraph, that seems a clear statement he's making with no real proof, unless someone has broken the confidentiality agreement by saying too much to NR. The Bristol Post usually publish NR's blogs, I wonder if they are brave enough to publish this? I've read what you posted. Simple question: tell me where in that piece it makes any mention of how similar or dissimilar either party's negotiating position was. It doesn't. It gives an opinion on whether the deal on the table was a good one or not. I don't mean to be rude but you've made it completely clear time and again you don't know what you're talking about so your suppositions on whether the al Qadis would have bought the club or not based on your imagination of what happens in commercial negotiations is totally meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Oct 13, 2017 17:21:38 GMT
Why does Goofy stand erect while Pluto remains on all fours? They're both dogs! There is an answer to that which may get me banned so I will leave well alone....
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 13, 2017 17:25:40 GMT
Suggest you read what I posted again, if the comments I highlighted have a grain of truth in them then surely the ALQ's wouldn't have even commenced talks with the UWE, or even bought the club, let alone get anywhere near a HoT. As far as his final paragraph, that seems a clear statement he's making with no real proof, unless someone has broken the confidentiality agreement by saying too much to NR. The Bristol Post usually publish NR's blogs, I wonder if they are brave enough to publish this? I've read what you posted. Simple question: tell me where in that piece it makes any mention of how similar or dissimilar either party's negotiating position was. It doesn't. It gives an opinion on whether the deal on the table was a good one or not. I don't mean to be rude but you've made it completely clear time and again you don't know what you're talking about so your suppositions on whether the al Qadis would have bought the club or not based on your imagination of what happens in commercial negotiations is totally meaningless. "It gives an opinion on whether the deal on the table was a good one or not." A simple question for you, do you believe that an hack from London has done something nobody else seems to have done outside the club's BoD and seen the full terms of the contract UWE were proposing? If he has then I still don't see the attraction to the UWE of having an unused 22,000 seat stadium on their land once they forced us into bankruptcy. Let alone the bad publicity it would bring on them locally if they had done that to us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 17:27:31 GMT
Sorry one of them has collapsed the other massively delayed with no explanation as to why i meant to say. But that's not true is it? That's just your perception. Pre-planning consultation for the training ground is underway. We've had an announcement about that. How long does that pre-planning consultation phase take and what is the cut-off point for concluding it? If your answer to either of those questions is anything like "It depends" or "I don't know" then on what basis are you saying it is massively delayed without explanation? Somewhere the club talked of training ground up and running for 2018-19 at least partially.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Oct 13, 2017 17:28:52 GMT
Why does Goofy stand erect while Pluto remains on all fours? They're both dogs! I can do both!!
|
|
|
Promising
Oct 13, 2017 17:29:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by LJG on Oct 13, 2017 17:29:05 GMT
But that's not true is it? That's just your perception. Pre-planning consultation for the training ground is underway. We've had an announcement about that. How long does that pre-planning consultation phase take and what is the cut-off point for concluding it? If your answer to either of those questions is anything like "It depends" or "I don't know" then on what basis are you saying it is massively delayed without explanation? Somewhere the club talked of training ground up and running for 2018-19 at least partially. You haven't answered my question.
|
|
|
Promising
Oct 13, 2017 17:29:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by LJG on Oct 13, 2017 17:29:31 GMT
I've read what you posted. Simple question: tell me where in that piece it makes any mention of how similar or dissimilar either party's negotiating position was. It doesn't. It gives an opinion on whether the deal on the table was a good one or not. I don't mean to be rude but you've made it completely clear time and again you don't know what you're talking about so your suppositions on whether the al Qadis would have bought the club or not based on your imagination of what happens in commercial negotiations is totally meaningless. "It gives an opinion on whether the deal on the table was a good one or not." A simple question for you, do you believe that an hack from London has done something nobody else seems to have done outside the club's BoD and seen the full terms of the contract UWE were proposing? If he has then I still don't see the attraction to the UWE of having an unused 22,000 seat stadium on their land once they forced us into bankruptcy. Let alone the bad publicity it would bring on them locally if they had done that to us. You haven't answered my question.
|
|
|
Post by Big Jock on Oct 13, 2017 17:33:10 GMT
Why does Goofy stand erect while Pluto remains on all fours? They're both dogs! I can do both!! Oh, while yer hear Scoob, why is it when you blow in a dog's face, he gets mad at you, but when you take him for a car ride, he sticks his head out the chuffkin window?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 17:35:07 GMT
Somewhere the club talked of training ground up and running for 2018-19 at least partially. You haven't answered my question. If its not open at running for 2018-19 its delayed clearly.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Oct 13, 2017 17:46:50 GMT
Oh, while yer hear Scoob, why is it when you blow in a dog's face, he gets mad at you, but when you take him for a car ride, he sticks his head out the chuffkin window? You just don't blow hard enough
|
|
|
Promising
Oct 13, 2017 18:00:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by LJG on Oct 13, 2017 18:00:09 GMT
You haven't answered my question. If its not open at running for 2018-19 its delayed clearly. You haven't answered my question.
|
|