Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 11:24:36 GMT
My name is Julian Stefan Pirog. Most know me. I have NEVER hidden behind my username. My house is just down from Southey playing field. Pop in sometime. Always happy to discuss Mano a mano You must be Julian Cat Man Pirog of Facebook fame. Hello! Thass the kiddy. Hi mate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 11:31:02 GMT
Rovers have traditionally been a good natured and good humoured club with the ability to be serious about our football but not take it so seriously that our enjoyment was spoiled when things didn't go to plan. These were the characteristics which differentiated us from the other lot but sadly Nick's reign has seen the introduction of a culture not unlike the one at Ashton Gate which we used to despise so much. Lack of sportsmanship, boasting about our massive fan base and biggest budgets, bullying of those perceived as weaker than us, lack of courtesy to people who try to help and constant blaming of others for our failures. It is not the Rovers way and it has been a disaster for the club.
I agree that Nick is doing much much more than anyone else to try to get Rovers a new stadium. But he has also done much much more than anyone else to turn Rovers into a non-league club with a reputation that has been badly tarnished.
If this is called "slagging off" the Chairman then I am guilty as charged
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Oct 7, 2014 12:04:32 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 12:08:17 GMT
Ah HA
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 12:11:12 GMT
Rovers have traditionally been a good natured and good humoured club with the ability to be serious about our football but not take it so seriously that our enjoyment was spoiled when things didn't go to plan. These were the characteristics which differentiated us from the other lot but sadly Nick's reign has seen the introduction of a culture not unlike the one at Ashton Gate which we used to despise so much. Lack of sportsmanship, boasting about our massive fan base and biggest budgets, bullying of those perceived as weaker than us, lack of courtesy to people who try to help and constant blaming of others for our failures. It is not the Rovers way and it has been a disaster for the club. I agree that Nick is doing much much more than anyone else to try to get Rovers a new stadium. But he has also done much much more than anyone else to turn Rovers into a non-league club with a reputation that has been badly tarnished. If this is called "slagging off" the Chairman then I am guilty as charged That's pointing out failings. I have no issue with that.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Ash on Oct 7, 2014 12:39:01 GMT
You must be Julian Cat Man Pirog of Facebook fame. Hello! Thass the kiddy. Hi mate. Hi. Always enjoyed the posts.
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Oct 7, 2014 15:04:38 GMT
I havent read all the posts on this tread, but the longer this business with Sainsburys goes on, then the more worried i am that it will not happen. Its been a year now since planning permission for the supermarket at the mem was approved. All the talk was about building of the UWE stadium starting in the summer. We are now almost into winter and still nothing. This has been allowed to drag on for so long. There is a nice piece of land opposite Rolls Royce at Patchway that is large enough for a new stadium. If UWE falls through, which most of us think will happen, then here is a serious option that has to be considered as there not much free land anywhere else in the Bristol area, unless someone comes up with a plan to build on the runway of Filton Airport! Someone must have the guts to force Sainsburys to give a final answer to the development of the Mem. Are you going to build the supermarket? YES OR NO! Surely whether Sainsburys decide to build the superstore or not is neither here nor there as far as BRFC are concerned, or am I totally missing the point? If all the conditions laid down for Sainsburys to proceed are met, at the moment it appears they are dragging their heels over delivery hours, then they will have to hand over the agreed sum of money plus, hopefully, a substantial sum in compensation for farting around and delaying our plans., Whether they go ahead and build the superstore should be of no matter to us, BRFC will have the contracted money in the bank and the diggers and cranes will be beavering away at the UWE site. As far as I'm concerned Sainsburys can build a hippie commune on the Mem and invite Radice, Scrafton et al along to contemplate their navels and eat lentil bake whilst meditating and chanting "Hommm!" till the full moon rises. I have often wondered, since all this doubt over Sainsburys intentions first surfaced, whether they were secretly donating towards TRASH's legal costs in the hope that planning consent would be refused on appeal. I bet there were some pretty watered-off dudes in the boardroom when we won the day against TRASH.
|
|
|
Post by oddjob on Oct 7, 2014 15:23:44 GMT
As far as I'm concerned Sainsburys can build a hippie commune on the Mem and invite Radice, Scrafton et al along to contemplate their navels and eat lentil bake whilst meditating and chanting "Hommm!" till the full moon rises. Turning a war memorial into a hippie commune. Classy guy.
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Oct 7, 2014 16:58:03 GMT
Oddjob.
The first part of my post was serious, just sharing my view on a discussion regarding the Sainsburys situation.
The final paragraph was, I thought, very obvious tongue-in-cheek humour. I wouldn't have thought any large company would really establish a hippie commune on a £20-odd million piece of real estate, would you? Oh, I see. Classy guy indeed.
|
|
|
Post by philbemmygas on Oct 7, 2014 17:29:35 GMT
What intrigues me most is were these extended delivery hours in the original application, or is it a smoke screen to try & wriggle out of the contract?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 17:46:33 GMT
What intrigues me most is were these extended delivery hours in the original application, or is it a smoke screen to try & wriggle out of the contract? i also wondered this and then assumed they cant have been part of the original planning application and therefore not part of the contract.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 17:48:30 GMT
So its O.K for an anonymous poster to personally attack somebody by name on a public forum. but it is not O.k. for another forum member to attack the poster who is protected by an alias. Surely if you dish it you should be able to take it. My name is Julian Stefan Pirog. Most know me. I have NEVER hidden behind my username. My house is just down from Southey playing field. Pop in sometime. Always happy to discuss Mano a mano KP I did not say you hid behind your username I said that you like all on here are protected by an alias, which in my case is fortunate because I'm an ageing nine stone weakling. However you can obviousely look after yourself and don't need other posters to stick up for you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 18:00:52 GMT
So tell me what you think he said that was a deliberate lie. Can you prove that what he said is not what he believed?. From memory NH was saying the contracts were watetight and he was certain that the staduim would be built, clearly the onerous clause we still have to overcome and the fact Sainsbury's don't want to proceed must bring both those comments into serious doubts. This does not anwer any of the above questions. Do you know for certain that NH did not believe what he said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 18:52:17 GMT
My name is Julian Stefan Pirog. Most know me. I have NEVER hidden behind my username. My house is just down from Southey playing field. Pop in sometime. Always happy to discuss Mano a mano KP I did not say you hid behind your username I said that you like all on here are protected by an alias, which in my case is fortunate because I'm an ageing nine stone weakling. However you can obviousely look after yourself and don't need other posters to stick up for you. But, I don't going pushing my weight around without very good reason. I will be 51 this month and have had a guts full of fighting, nightclub doors and all the crap. I do some light training with the lads at Bristol boxing just to keep trim and as well as I can. I don't think anyone, at this age, actually want to fight. It is sometimes necessary but there are better ways. I am no Neolithic man. I've not had reason to have a row in a good while now. Just how I like it.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 7, 2014 20:12:54 GMT
From memory NH was saying the contracts were watetight and he was certain that the staduim would be built, clearly the onerous clause we still have to overcome and the fact Sainsbury's don't want to proceed must bring both those comments into serious doubts. This does not anwer any of the above questions. Do you know for certain that NH did not believe what he said. If he did he's an idiot when he was in the process of issuing a writ to try and force Sainsbury's to overcome one of the onerous clauses.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Oct 7, 2014 21:14:05 GMT
What intrigues me most is were these extended delivery hours in the original application, or is it a smoke screen to try & wriggle out of the contract? I'm not sure if they were in the original application, but when the planning application was approved, with a few caveats by BCC including the restricted delivery hours, Sainsbury's identified three "store onerous conditions" (i.e. potential future obstacles) which might be an issue for them in the future. The contract was signed after Sainsbury's "waived" two of the three onerous conditions (whatever that actually means contractually). The delivery hours issue was always there. As the project proceeded, NH and co were concerned that Sainsbury's had not appealed against the delivery restrictions, and were going to use it as a get-out. So we funded some research into the effect of sound-proof fencing and offered to pay for the appeal ourselves. This finally led to the writ against Sainsbury's on the basis that they had not progressed the appeal process, and to recover our costs and loss of profit for the delay. That's how I understand it all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 21:17:24 GMT
This does not anwer any of the above questions. Do you know for certain that NH did not believe what he said. If he did he's an idiot when he was in the process of issuing a writ to try and force Sainsbury's to overcome one of the onerous clauses. So you don't know for certain that NH did not believe what he said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 11:32:35 GMT
Thass the kiddy. Hi mate. Hi. Always enjoyed the posts. Thanks mate. I just am who I am. Too old to worry what people think. The Royal archer is my local, Steve ( Shirley) Gallagher is the landlord,good and loyal Rovers boy. Pretty sure you'd have heard of Shirley and the Gallaghers if you go back to tote end days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 11:44:16 GMT
What intrigues me most is were these extended delivery hours in the original application, or is it a smoke screen to try & wriggle out of the contract? I'm not sure if they were in the original application, but when the planning application was approved, with a few caveats by BCC including the restricted delivery hours, Sainsbury's identified three "store onerous conditions" (i.e. potential future obstacles) which might be an issue for them in the future. The contract was signed after Sainsbury's "waived" two of the three onerous conditions (whatever that actually means contractually). The delivery hours issue was always there. As the project proceeded, NH and co were concerned that Sainsbury's had not appealed against the delivery restrictions, and were going to use it as a get-out. So we funded some research into the effect of sound-proof fencing and offered to pay for the appeal ourselves. This finally led to the writ against Sainsbury's on the basis that they had not progressed the appeal process, and to recover our costs and loss of profit for the delay. That's how I understand it all. Playing Devils advocate for one moment and putting aside my Rovers bias If you were one of the affected residents, would you be ok with 11-13 FT fencing on your property ? It would block many hours of sunlight and would obviously impact on your property. Also, the bedrooms will not be soundproofed. I have had to spend a few thousand to acoustically baffle my house as I like to play music at volume. I have had to research this as I was looking at court otherwise. Anyway, I just wonder what others genuinely think, if they were in the homes affected ? Cue for a barrage of being told I am anti supermarket lol.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Oct 8, 2014 11:45:22 GMT
Hi. Always enjoyed the posts. Thanks mate. I just am who I am. Too old to worry what people think. The Royal archer is my local, Steve ( Shirley) Gallagher is the landlord,good and loyal Rovers boy. Pretty sure you'd have heard of Shirley and the Gallaghers if you go back to tote end days. Much though we, well just me really, don't see eye to eye, I know the Archers and I know a few who drink in there, chap called Cheese etc. Heard Shirley wasn't too well, hope he's ok. As you say, salt of the earth Gas.
|
|