|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 7, 2019 17:29:00 GMT
Where though? Is it in print? No because then they would have written it.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 7, 2019 17:32:11 GMT
What, you mean the most vague sentence anyone has ever stated, "The UWE Stadium deal fell through because we didn't feel it was right for the club, that's the only reason"?? Just to further that statement "People keep on saying we don't have a plan B or C, but we do have a plan B, C, D and E. We all know that we need new facilities and we are working hard behind the scenes to achieve that, it's going to take time." Sorry AF, but if you're happy to believe they're doing everything they can then fair enough. But don't go accusing other forum members of not knowing what they want/wanting things not make sense. How can they make sense when they don't say anything? We're then left to guess what on earth is going on at our club! You're stating that your interpretation makes sense, but so do 1000 others. Does it not also make more sense that simply put, they don't have the funds nor the will to invest? Consider DC said the budget is likely to get slashed, considering we're moving backwards, considering we don't have a stadium or training ground on the way - in fact we've moved backwards with the stadium. And this is all considering that UWE actually came out saying they were shocked to see Rovers pull out of the deal, whilst you've now interpreted that "UWE weren't totally serious about the re-negotiations". Ok then. Look, you said: And what's more frustrating is that (for them) it would/could have been so easy to throw the old owners under the bus by saying that they put together a bad deal which wouldn't benefit Bristol Rovers. They'd have then got the backing from fans (within reason) for making the right call for our club. I was responding to that. Your wonderful statement that they should have made and that everything would have been alright, or whatever you were trying to say, is just as useless and vague. But you seem to think that would have solved the problem, weirdly. The idea that throwing the old owners under the bus would have pleased people is really bizarre, and contrary to what you seemed to be saying, wouldn't have helped their integrity, or their standing with fans, imo. Try to come up with a sequence of events that make sense, that's all I'm saying. Perhaps Higgs entered the deal in good faith, and UWE entered the deal in good faith, but it dragged on coz of Sainsbury's who didn't act in good faith, and became less attractive for both parties. Dwane took over in good faith, but decided the deal wasn't what they were after, and wasn't good enough for the long-term future of the club. They tried to re-negotiate the deal but UWE were less interested and felt they had already been messed around with enough, or didn't want to renegotiate what was a better deal for them than it was for us. Dwane commissioned a feasibility to study to see how far they thought they could stretch the re-negotiations, but UWE couldn't meet them there. This all dragged on for 18 months. This seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation that doesn't have any villains (except Sainsbury's) and is consistent with what we know. I'm not saying it's what happened, I'm saying that is the most likely scenario, in my mind, that fits with the facts, and doesn't rely on anyone acting nonsensically. It's a much more coherent explanation than a popular one on this board which seems to go along the lines of: Dwane never wanted to build the UWE, they're just taking us for a ride, WHY> THYEVE GOTNOMONEYS"!"£$??tHta DOUESN:T MAKE SNENNSNEES!!!!! OH NO!!
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Feb 7, 2019 17:43:29 GMT
What, you mean the most vague sentence anyone has ever stated, "The UWE Stadium deal fell through because we didn't feel it was right for the club, that's the only reason"?? Just to further that statement "People keep on saying we don't have a plan B or C, but we do have a plan B, C, D and E. We all know that we need new facilities and we are working hard behind the scenes to achieve that, it's going to take time." Sorry AF, but if you're happy to believe they're doing everything they can then fair enough. But don't go accusing other forum members of not knowing what they want/wanting things not make sense. How can they make sense when they don't say anything? We're then left to guess what on earth is going on at our club! You're stating that your interpretation makes sense, but so do 1000 others. Does it not also make more sense that simply put, they don't have the funds nor the will to invest? Consider DC said the budget is likely to get slashed, considering we're moving backwards, considering we don't have a stadium or training ground on the way - in fact we've moved backwards with the stadium. And this is all considering that UWE actually came out saying they were shocked to see Rovers pull out of the deal, whilst you've now interpreted that "UWE weren't totally serious about the re-negotiations". Ok then. Look, you said: And what's more frustrating is that (for them) it would/could have been so easy to throw the old owners under the bus by saying that they put together a bad deal which wouldn't benefit Bristol Rovers. They'd have then got the backing from fans (within reason) for making the right call for our club. I was responding to that. Your wonderful statement that they should have made and that everything would have been alright, or whatever you were trying to say, is just as useless and vague. But you seem to think that would have solved the problem, weirdly. The idea that throwing the old owners under the bus would have pleased people is really bizarre, and contrary to what you seemed to be saying, wouldn't have helped their integrity, or their standing with fans, imo. Try to come up with a sequence of events that make sense, that's all I'm saying. Perhaps Higgs entered the deal in good faith, and UWE entered the deal in good faith, but it dragged on coz of Sainsbury's who didn't act in good faith, and became less attractive for both parties. Dwane took over in good faith, but decided the deal wasn't what they were after, and wasn't good enough for the long-term future of the club. They tried to re-negotiate the deal but UWE were less interested and felt they had already been messed around with enough, or didn't want to renegotiate what was a better deal for them than it was for us. Dwane commissioned a feasibility to study to see how far they thought they could stretch the re-negotiations, but UWE couldn't meet them there. This all dragged on for 18 months. This seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation that doesn't have any villains (except Sainsbury's) and is consistent with what we know. I'm not saying it's what happened, I'm saying that is the most likely scenario, in my mind, that fits with the facts, and doesn't rely on anyone acting nonsensically. It's a much more coherent explanation than a popular one on this board which seems to go along the lines of: Dwane never wanted to build the UWE, they're just taking us for a ride, WHY> THYEVE GOTNOMONEYS"!"£$??tHta DOUESN:T MAKE SNENNSNEES!!!!! OH NO!! That's about the long and short of it in my opinion. I question whether had they looked hard enough at the proposal before buying they may have seen it was not the deal they wanted and therefore may have made a different decision but the sequence of events you have detailed makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 7, 2019 17:46:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Big Jock on Feb 7, 2019 18:06:53 GMT
I sometimes find things around me an assume its just from my life falling apart
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 18:23:47 GMT
Where though? Is it in print? Sure it's somewhere. It will have been not long after Watola was given the shove We're gonna have to create an archive of what the next owners say from day 1- I never would have thought what this lot came out with could be so important when looking back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 18:28:51 GMT
Ah, so they weren't saying it was a bad deal verbatim, it just wasn't 'right'- which could cover a multitude of 'sins'. Is there any expiry on confidentiality? Not knowing exactly why is like an itch that just can't be scratched and it's frustrating as hell seeing as we are probably not likely to even design a new stadium in my lifetime let alone get it to planning etc.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 7, 2019 18:34:42 GMT
Ah, so they weren't saying it was a bad deal verbatim, it just wasn't 'right'- which could cover a multitude of 'sins'. Is there any expiry on confidentiality? Not knowing exactly why is like an itch that just can't be scratched and it's frustrating as hell seeing as we are probably not likely to even design a new stadium in my lifetime let alone get it to planning etc. Yeah, I knew as I bothered looking for it, that if it didn't say the exact thing, you'd just dismiss it out of hand. Lesson learned. What do you think wasn't right, and wouldn't benefit could mean that is different and relevant? The shade of paint it was due to be painted in clashed with our home shirts?
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Feb 7, 2019 18:37:47 GMT
This board is always good for conspiracy theories. Truth is Higgs, negotiated a bad deal, a very bad deal, it meant that UWE would cream off a certain amount from the football club. What is the point of building a stadium averaging 18k crowds only for the revenue for the club to be worth 14k. UWE wanted a "Community Club" with their name emblazoned everywhere. Higgs was a desperate man, I hope he is feeling a lot better in Italy
|
|
yattongas
Proper Gas
Posts: 13,670
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Feb 7, 2019 18:55:08 GMT
To sum up ...... nobody knows sh1t and everyone is guessing. End of thread .
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 7, 2019 19:16:55 GMT
What, you mean the most vague sentence anyone has ever stated, "The UWE Stadium deal fell through because we didn't feel it was right for the club, that's the only reason"?? Just to further that statement "People keep on saying we don't have a plan B or C, but we do have a plan B, C, D and E. We all know that we need new facilities and we are working hard behind the scenes to achieve that, it's going to take time." Sorry AF, but if you're happy to believe they're doing everything they can then fair enough. But don't go accusing other forum members of not knowing what they want/wanting things not make sense. How can they make sense when they don't say anything? We're then left to guess what on earth is going on at our club! You're stating that your interpretation makes sense, but so do 1000 others. Does it not also make more sense that simply put, they don't have the funds nor the will to invest? Consider DC said the budget is likely to get slashed, considering we're moving backwards, considering we don't have a stadium or training ground on the way - in fact we've moved backwards with the stadium. And this is all considering that UWE actually came out saying they were shocked to see Rovers pull out of the deal, whilst you've now interpreted that "UWE weren't totally serious about the re-negotiations". Ok then. Look, you said: And what's more frustrating is that (for them) it would/could have been so easy to throw the old owners under the bus by saying that they put together a bad deal which wouldn't benefit Bristol Rovers. They'd have then got the backing from fans (within reason) for making the right call for our club. I was responding to that. Your wonderful statement that they should have made and that everything would have been alright, or whatever you were trying to say, is just as useless and vague. But you seem to think that would have solved the problem, weirdly. The idea that throwing the old owners under the bus would have pleased people is really bizarre, and contrary to what you seemed to be saying, wouldn't have helped their integrity, or their standing with fans, imo. Try to come up with a sequence of events that make sense, that's all I'm saying. Perhaps Higgs entered the deal in good faith, and UWE entered the deal in good faith, but it dragged on coz of Sainsbury's who didn't act in good faith, and became less attractive for both parties. Dwane took over in good faith, but decided the deal wasn't what they were after, and wasn't good enough for the long-term future of the club. They tried to re-negotiate the deal but UWE were less interested and felt they had already been messed around with enough, or didn't want to renegotiate what was a better deal for them than it was for us. Dwane commissioned a feasibility to study to see how far they thought they could stretch the re-negotiations, but UWE couldn't meet them there. This all dragged on for 18 months. This seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation that doesn't have any villains (except Sainsbury's) and is consistent with what we know. I'm not saying it's what happened, I'm saying that is the most likely scenario, in my mind, that fits with the facts, and doesn't rely on anyone acting nonsensically. It's a much more coherent explanation than a popular one on this board which seems to go along the lines of: Dwane never wanted to build the UWE, they're just taking us for a ride, WHY> THYEVE GOTNOMONEYS"!"£$??tHta DOUESN:T MAKE SNENNSNEES!!!!! OH NO!! Personally I think that's spot on. I also think they are working in the background to do something somewhere else. I'm really heartened to read your well reasoned post.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 7, 2019 19:28:31 GMT
Where did they actually say this though? It seemed to me that was an assumption that gathered legs on the forums etc... No, they said it. All Wael said when talks collapse was the "UWE kept moving the goal posts" the UWE claimed they were awaiting the return of the Terms of Agreement, even those two statements don't tally up. Whatever NH agreed is pretty irrelevant as that took into consideration we were getting £30m for the Mem, so he had an extra £15m to play with. At the end of the day if the ALQ's have got £50m+ available to buy the land and build a stadium then surely BCC or S Glos would find them a plot of land, there's an whole airfield at Filton, 1,000 acres at Severnside. Meanwhile has a club we are just drifting backwards, gates are already down a 1,000 on last season.
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 7, 2019 19:34:04 GMT
This board is always good for conspiracy theories. Truth is Higgs, negotiated a bad deal, a very bad deal, it meant that UWE would cream off a certain amount from the football club. What is the point of building a stadium averaging 18k crowds only for the revenue for the club to be worth 14k. UWE wanted a "Community Club" with their name emblazoned everywhere. Higgs was a desperate man, I hope he is feeling a lot better in Italy Why didn't you just say that from the beginning? Now that we know this is the truth, we can stop debating
|
|
|
Post by bumble on Feb 7, 2019 19:40:10 GMT
Look, you said: And what's more frustrating is that (for them) it would/could have been so easy to throw the old owners under the bus by saying that they put together a bad deal which wouldn't benefit Bristol Rovers. They'd have then got the backing from fans (within reason) for making the right call for our club. I was responding to that. Your wonderful statement that they should have made and that everything would have been alright, or whatever you were trying to say, is just as useless and vague. But you seem to think that would have solved the problem, weirdly. The idea that throwing the old owners under the bus would have pleased people is really bizarre, and contrary to what you seemed to be saying, wouldn't have helped their integrity, or their standing with fans, imo. Try to come up with a sequence of events that make sense, that's all I'm saying. Perhaps Higgs entered the deal in good faith, and UWE entered the deal in good faith, but it dragged on coz of Sainsbury's who didn't act in good faith, and became less attractive for both parties. Dwane took over in good faith, but decided the deal wasn't what they were after, and wasn't good enough for the long-term future of the club. They tried to re-negotiate the deal but UWE were less interested and felt they had already been messed around with enough, or didn't want to renegotiate what was a better deal for them than it was for us. Dwane commissioned a feasibility to study to see how far they thought they could stretch the re-negotiations, but UWE couldn't meet them there. This all dragged on for 18 months. This seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation that doesn't have any villains (except Sainsbury's) and is consistent with what we know. I'm not saying it's what happened, I'm saying that is the most likely scenario, in my mind, that fits with the facts, and doesn't rely on anyone acting nonsensically. It's a much more coherent explanation than a popular one on this board which seems to go along the lines of: Dwane never wanted to build the UWE, they're just taking us for a ride, WHY> THYEVE GOTNOMONEYS"!"£$??tHta DOUESN:T MAKE SNENNSNEES!!!!! OH NO!! Personally I think that's spot on. I also think they are working in the background to do something somewhere else. I'm really heartened to read your well reasoned post. That is my take on it too.
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 7, 2019 19:43:52 GMT
What, you mean the most vague sentence anyone has ever stated, "The UWE Stadium deal fell through because we didn't feel it was right for the club, that's the only reason"?? Just to further that statement "People keep on saying we don't have a plan B or C, but we do have a plan B, C, D and E. We all know that we need new facilities and we are working hard behind the scenes to achieve that, it's going to take time." Sorry AF, but if you're happy to believe they're doing everything they can then fair enough. But don't go accusing other forum members of not knowing what they want/wanting things not make sense. How can they make sense when they don't say anything? We're then left to guess what on earth is going on at our club! You're stating that your interpretation makes sense, but so do 1000 others. Does it not also make more sense that simply put, they don't have the funds nor the will to invest? Consider DC said the budget is likely to get slashed, considering we're moving backwards, considering we don't have a stadium or training ground on the way - in fact we've moved backwards with the stadium. And this is all considering that UWE actually came out saying they were shocked to see Rovers pull out of the deal, whilst you've now interpreted that "UWE weren't totally serious about the re-negotiations". Ok then. Look, you said: And what's more frustrating is that (for them) it would/could have been so easy to throw the old owners under the bus by saying that they put together a bad deal which wouldn't benefit Bristol Rovers. They'd have then got the backing from fans (within reason) for making the right call for our club. I was responding to that. Your wonderful statement that they should have made and that everything would have been alright, or whatever you were trying to say, is just as useless and vague. But you seem to think that would have solved the problem, weirdly. The idea that throwing the old owners under the bus would have pleased people is really bizarre, and contrary to what you seemed to be saying, wouldn't have helped their integrity, or their standing with fans, imo. Try to come up with a sequence of events that make sense, that's all I'm saying. Perhaps Higgs entered the deal in good faith, and UWE entered the deal in good faith, but it dragged on coz of Sainsbury's who didn't act in good faith, and became less attractive for both parties. Dwane took over in good faith, but decided the deal wasn't what they were after, and wasn't good enough for the long-term future of the club. They tried to re-negotiate the deal but UWE were less interested and felt they had already been messed around with enough, or didn't want to renegotiate what was a better deal for them than it was for us. Dwane commissioned a feasibility to study to see how far they thought they could stretch the re-negotiations, but UWE couldn't meet them there. This all dragged on for 18 months. This seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation that doesn't have any villains (except Sainsbury's) and is consistent with what we know. I'm not saying it's what happened, I'm saying that is the most likely scenario, in my mind, that fits with the facts, and doesn't rely on anyone acting nonsensically. It's a much more coherent explanation than a popular one on this board which seems to go along the lines of: Dwane never wanted to build the UWE, they're just taking us for a ride, WHY> THYEVE GOTNOMONEYS"!"£$??tHta DOUESN:T MAKE SNENNSNEES!!!!! OH NO!! So I can have an opinion that is useless & vague? Coming from a Moderator, that's pretty disgraceful. Clearly you didn't bother to read any of my post because you've taken a completely different end result from one I said they could have used. To further that point, you've just gone on to use a quote I've already put to you & used it as you own. Nice touch. I said that it would/could have been easier for them to throw the old board under the bus. You've now translated that to "But you seem to think that would have solved the problem" - Not sure how you can get that from what I said. But just to entertain the idea anyway, I remember when the GasChat Facts came out that it was a bad deal from the old board, people were congratulating Wael on here. So clearly, it was a good fix for the time, not that they said it anyway. Regarding your last sentence, I haven't seen anyone on here post anything similar, but I'm happy for you to prove otherwise. I just believe that the board were interested, bit off more than they could chew & have now taken a step back as they can't afford it. I haven't seen any proof to show us they can afford to run & take Bristol Rovers forward. Anything else you'd like to misquote me/make up for tonight?
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 7, 2019 19:53:25 GMT
Look, you said: And what's more frustrating is that (for them) it would/could have been so easy to throw the old owners under the bus by saying that they put together a bad deal which wouldn't benefit Bristol Rovers. They'd have then got the backing from fans (within reason) for making the right call for our club. I was responding to that. Your wonderful statement that they should have made and that everything would have been alright, or whatever you were trying to say, is just as useless and vague. But you seem to think that would have solved the problem, weirdly. The idea that throwing the old owners under the bus would have pleased people is really bizarre, and contrary to what you seemed to be saying, wouldn't have helped their integrity, or their standing with fans, imo. Try to come up with a sequence of events that make sense, that's all I'm saying. Perhaps Higgs entered the deal in good faith, and UWE entered the deal in good faith, but it dragged on coz of Sainsbury's who didn't act in good faith, and became less attractive for both parties. Dwane took over in good faith, but decided the deal wasn't what they were after, and wasn't good enough for the long-term future of the club. They tried to re-negotiate the deal but UWE were less interested and felt they had already been messed around with enough, or didn't want to renegotiate what was a better deal for them than it was for us. Dwane commissioned a feasibility to study to see how far they thought they could stretch the re-negotiations, but UWE couldn't meet them there. This all dragged on for 18 months. This seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation that doesn't have any villains (except Sainsbury's) and is consistent with what we know. I'm not saying it's what happened, I'm saying that is the most likely scenario, in my mind, that fits with the facts, and doesn't rely on anyone acting nonsensically. It's a much more coherent explanation than a popular one on this board which seems to go along the lines of: Dwane never wanted to build the UWE, they're just taking us for a ride, WHY> THYEVE GOTNOMONEYS"!"£$??tHta DOUESN:T MAKE SNENNSNEES!!!!! OH NO!! So I can have an opinion that is useless & vague? Coming from a Moderator, that's pretty disgraceful. Clearly you didn't bother to read any of my post because you've taken a completely different end result from one I said they could have used. To further that point, you've just gone on to use a quote I've already put to you & used it as you own. Nice touch. I said that it would/could have been easier for them to throw the old board under the bus. You've now translated that to "But you seem to think that would have solved the problem" - Not sure how you can get that from what I said. But just to entertain the idea anyway, I remember when the GasChat Facts came out that it was a bad deal from the old board, people were congratulating Wael on here. So clearly, it was a good fix for the time, not that they said it anyway. Regarding your last sentence, I haven't seen anyone on here post anything similar, but I'm happy for you to prove otherwise. I just believe that the board were interested, bit off more than they could chew & have now taken a step back as they can't afford it. I haven't seen any proof to show us they can afford to run & take Bristol Rovers forward. Anything else you'd like to misquote me/make up for tonight? No, you said "They'd have then got the backing from fans (within reason) for making the right call for our club." Then you said "You've now translated that to "But you seem to think that would have solved the problem" - Not sure how you can get that from what I said." Obviously I'm referring to the problem of getting the backing from the fans. Obviously. Then it follows exactly and you can see how I got that from what you said. I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, but if you think I'm using your quote as my own, then you've misunderstood me and that wasn't my intention. I didn't misquote you. I think you've misunderstood what I was intending. Yes, you're right I did make up the WHY> THYEVE GOTNOMONEYS"!"£$??tHta DOUESN:T MAKE SNENNSNEES!!!!! OH NO!!. Well spotted. But people have said similar on here, obviously without all the Caps and the deliberate typos.
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 7, 2019 19:56:42 GMT
So I can have an opinion that is useless & vague? Coming from a Moderator, that's pretty disgraceful. Clearly you didn't bother to read any of my post because you've taken a completely different end result from one I said they could have used. To further that point, you've just gone on to use a quote I've already put to you & used it as you own. Nice touch. I said that it would/could have been easier for them to throw the old board under the bus. You've now translated that to "But you seem to think that would have solved the problem" - Not sure how you can get that from what I said. But just to entertain the idea anyway, I remember when the GasChat Facts came out that it was a bad deal from the old board, people were congratulating Wael on here. So clearly, it was a good fix for the time, not that they said it anyway. Regarding your last sentence, I haven't seen anyone on here post anything similar, but I'm happy for you to prove otherwise. I just believe that the board were interested, bit off more than they could chew & have now taken a step back as they can't afford it. I haven't seen any proof to show us they can afford to run & take Bristol Rovers forward. Anything else you'd like to misquote me/make up for tonight? No, you said "They'd have then got the backing from fans (within reason) for making the right call for our club." Then you said "You've now translated that to "But you seem to think that would have solved the problem" - Not sure how you can get that from what I said." Obviously I'm referring to the problem of getting the backing from the fans. Obviously. Then it follows exactly and you can see how I got that from what you said. I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, but if you think I'm using your quote as my own, then you've misunderstood me and that wasn't my intention. I didn't misquote you. I think you've misunderstood what I was intending. Yes, you're right I did make up the WHY> THYEVE GOTNOMONEYS"!"£$??tHta DOUESN:T MAKE SNENNSNEES!!!!! OH NO!!. Well spotted. But people have said similar on here, obviously without all the Caps and the deliberate typos. So you're just going to completely ignore where I said "within reason" and just use it as an absolute statement for 100% of Bristol Rovers fans. Brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 7, 2019 20:00:29 GMT
No, you said "They'd have then got the backing from fans (within reason) for making the right call for our club." Then you said "You've now translated that to "But you seem to think that would have solved the problem" - Not sure how you can get that from what I said." Obviously I'm referring to the problem of getting the backing from the fans. Obviously. Then it follows exactly and you can see how I got that from what you said. I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, but if you think I'm using your quote as my own, then you've misunderstood me and that wasn't my intention. I didn't misquote you. I think you've misunderstood what I was intending. Yes, you're right I did make up the WHY> THYEVE GOTNOMONEYS"!"£$??tHta DOUESN:T MAKE SNENNSNEES!!!!! OH NO!!. Well spotted. But people have said similar on here, obviously without all the Caps and the deliberate typos. So you're just going to completely ignore where I said "within reason" and just use it as an absolute statement for 100% of Bristol Rovers fans. Brilliant. No, I use it in the same sense you use it, afaict. It works. Not sure where you got that from or why you think I must be talking about a different section of fans than you. Not sure what difference you think it makes, in any case. Just mentally insert (within reason) in to my post if you feel that helps. I think we might be talking about different things, coz most of your argument doesn't really make any sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 7, 2019 20:09:22 GMT
So you're just going to completely ignore where I said "within reason" and just use it as an absolute statement for 100% of Bristol Rovers fans. Brilliant. No, I use it in the same sense you use it, afaict. It works. Not sure where you got that from or why you think I must be talking about a different section of fans than you. Not sure what difference you think it makes, in any case. Just mentally insert (within reason) in to my post if you feel that helps. I think we might be talking about different things, coz most of your argument doesn't really make any sense to me. I think you edited your post as I clicked reply (last sentence appeared from no where) as I was just writing here, that I'm now confused as to what either of us are talking about Let's agree that I'm right & you're wrong we're both plonkers who have some how completely misunderstood each other here
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 20:57:19 GMT
Ah, so they weren't saying it was a bad deal verbatim, it just wasn't 'right'- which could cover a multitude of 'sins'. Is there any expiry on confidentiality? Not knowing exactly why is like an itch that just can't be scratched and it's frustrating as hell seeing as we are probably not likely to even design a new stadium in my lifetime let alone get it to planning etc. Yeah, I knew as I bothered looking for it, that if it didn't say the exact thing, you'd just dismiss it out of hand. Lesson learned. What do you think wasn't right, and wouldn't benefit could mean that is different and relevant? The shade of paint it was due to be painted in clashed with our home shirts? Maybe it's just me but there is a massive difference between categorically stating "It's a bad deal for BRFC" and stating "we think it's not right for the club". One phrase is certain and confident, stated like fact, the other like an opinion that someone is scared to commit to. So taking that quote and turning it into the categorical "it's a bad deal" and then letting that become Gaschat legend is slightly mis-leading in my book. No doubt you will disagree and that is your right.
|
|