Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2020 18:24:39 GMT
Bottom line is our owners are damned if they spend money or damned if they don't. The most recent meeting of chairman proposed changes to decrease wages and I know we supported this. I also saw the list of budgets in L1 and L2 we are not top of it and the variation is not huge across all the clubs. Based on those playing budgets, most clubs could be losing 3-4 Million a year, as most have playing budgets higher than that. At least most of our debt is not owed to 3rd parties - it will take all the clubs to work together and the support of the EFL to sort this out. Our local rivals have an owner throwing untold sums them, while that is allowed to happen why are we surprised that Wael has to live beyond his means to keep us at least in touching distance. Would we prefer us to be back in non-league and all of Bristol heading off to the dark side ? Bottom line is the money we could have spent on a training ground and stadium has largely ended up in the pockets of players and agents, how do we avoid that ? I guess trying to create and sell our own talent is one way, but since Bosman it is arguable whether that makes sense. Rovers stayed afloat for years by selling talent, when the talent can walk for free unless you pay it huge wages how is that going to work ? I would argue the Bosman rule played a big part in football becoming unsustainable. Unfortunately, this thread goes to prove what an excellent job the Dunford family and their cohorts did in bringing 'Rovers back from a really dark place. The approach now by the current 'Board' is in direct conflict to the practical efforts by the then protectors of our Club. That Board under Denis in particular and later Geoffrey showed how to run a business on a minimum income/expenditure, which whoever owns/runs the business in the near (and probably long) future I suggest will have to revert to. They were lucky? or wise? of course in taking full advantage of the transfer market in promising young players because of the wonderful youth programme under Roy Dolling. As an ex financier I fully approved the Dunford Board approach then, although the gambler in me might have taken a more adventurous approach which generally ends either in ecstasy or ruin (rarely is there a medium result). If the current owner/s have unlimited funds then, he/they could act in whatever way legally they want to, but my experience is that funds rarely exceed ambition and so caution is the watchword. The main problem as I see it is the massive (in Rovers terms) debt which has to be somehow serviced whilst the income has, in recent years, never exceeded the outgoings. How they square that circle will take a really wise head. When the previous Board sold to the A|l-Qadi family, there was an alternative offer, which was never really considered, and despite the doubters, there is an opportunity available now, but it takes two to tango as they say, and it is Dwayne Sports leading on the dance floor who have a decision to make - for all our sake let us hope they make the right one. What is the offer available please and will it be done by October?
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Apr 16, 2020 18:59:56 GMT
You’re wasting your time Ash.
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Apr 16, 2020 19:00:08 GMT
Where is the line drawn anyway? As long as there is no serious abuse or character assassination going on isn’t it fair and proper to be allowed to criticise someone’s ownership especially when the debt reaches the level it has? Nice guy he may very well be but as nice as he is I don’t know how anyone can possibly defend the level of debt we have accrued. It’s eye watering stuff. It's not about not being able to have a say, but some posters are rightly worried that some on both sides have been treading close to libellous For one poster in particular that line was passed several months ago
|
|
|
Post by kruger on Apr 16, 2020 19:22:37 GMT
Everytime I come on here I get depressed, I ain't going to bother anymore. Some people look for bad news!
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 16, 2020 19:43:53 GMT
Bottom line is our owners are damned if they spend money or damned if they don't. The most recent meeting of chairman proposed changes to decrease wages and I know we supported this. I also saw the list of budgets in L1 and L2 we are not top of it and the variation is not huge across all the clubs. Based on those playing budgets, most clubs could be losing 3-4 Million a year, as most have playing budgets higher than that. At least most of our debt is not owed to 3rd parties - it will take all the clubs to work together and the support of the EFL to sort this out. Our local rivals have an owner throwing untold sums them, while that is allowed to happen why are we surprised that Wael has to live beyond his means to keep us at least in touching distance. Would we prefer us to be back in non-league and all of Bristol heading off to the dark side ? Bottom line is the money we could have spent on a training ground and stadium has largely ended up in the pockets of players and agents, how do we avoid that ? I guess trying to create and sell our own talent is one way, but since Bosman it is arguable whether that makes sense. Rovers stayed afloat for years by selling talent, when the talent can walk for free unless you pay it huge wages how is that going to work ? I would argue the Bosman rule played a big part in football becoming unsustainable. Unfortunately, this thread goes to prove what an excellent job the Dunford family and their cohorts did in bringing 'Rovers back from a really dark place. The approach now by the current 'Board' is in direct conflict to the practical efforts by the then protectors of our Club. That Board under Denis in particular and later Geoffrey showed how to run a business on a minimum income/expenditure, which whoever owns/runs the business in the near (and probably long) future I suggest will have to revert to. They were lucky? or wise? of course in taking full advantage of the transfer market in promising young players because of the wonderful youth programme under Roy Dolling. As an ex financier I fully approved the Dunford Board approach then, although the gambler in me might have taken a more adventurous approach which generally ends either in ecstasy or ruin (rarely is there a medium result). If the current owner/s have unlimited funds then, he/they could act in whatever way legally they want to, but my experience is that funds rarely exceed ambition and so caution is the watchword. The main problem as I see it is the massive (in Rovers terms) debt which has to be somehow serviced whilst the income has, in recent years, never exceeded the outgoings. How they square that circle will take a really wise head. When the previous Board sold to the A|l-Qadi family, there was an alternative offer, which was never really considered, and despite the doubters, there is an opportunity available now, but it takes two to tango as they say, and it is Dwayne Sports leading on the dance floor who have a decision to make - for all our sake let us hope they make the right one.But all we'll ever hear from you is they've made the wrong decision if they don't sell up, even though you won't give any clues as to what the opportunity is apparently now being offered.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Apr 16, 2020 21:40:25 GMT
It's not about not being able to have a say, but some posters are rightly worried that some on both sides have been treading close to libellous For one poster in particular that line was passed several months ago Did you print it off?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2020 22:43:52 GMT
Bottom line is our owners are damned if they spend money or damned if they don't. The most recent meeting of chairman proposed changes to decrease wages and I know we supported this. I also saw the list of budgets in L1 and L2 we are not top of it and the variation is not huge across all the clubs. Based on those playing budgets, most clubs could be losing 3-4 Million a year, as most have playing budgets higher than that. At least most of our debt is not owed to 3rd parties - it will take all the clubs to work together and the support of the EFL to sort this out. Our local rivals have an owner throwing untold sums them, while that is allowed to happen why are we surprised that Wael has to live beyond his means to keep us at least in touching distance. Would we prefer us to be back in non-league and all of Bristol heading off to the dark side ? Bottom line is the money we could have spent on a training ground and stadium has largely ended up in the pockets of players and agents, how do we avoid that ? I guess trying to create and sell our own talent is one way, but since Bosman it is arguable whether that makes sense. Rovers stayed afloat for years by selling talent, when the talent can walk for free unless you pay it huge wages how is that going to work ? I would argue the Bosman rule played a big part in football becoming unsustainable. Unfortunately, this thread goes to prove what an excellent job the Dunford family and their cohorts did in bringing 'Rovers back from a really dark place. The approach now by the current 'Board' is in direct conflict to the practical efforts by the then protectors of our Club. That Board under Denis in particular and later Geoffrey showed how to run a business on a minimum income/expenditure, which whoever owns/runs the business in the near (and probably long) future I suggest will have to revert to. They were lucky? or wise? of course in taking full advantage of the transfer market in promising young players because of the wonderful youth programme under Roy Dolling. As an ex financier I fully approved the Dunford Board approach then, although the gambler in me might have taken a more adventurous approach which generally ends either in ecstasy or ruin (rarely is there a medium result). If the current owner/s have unlimited funds then, he/they could act in whatever way legally they want to, but my experience is that funds rarely exceed ambition and so caution is the watchword. The main problem as I see it is the massive (in Rovers terms) debt which has to be somehow serviced whilst the income has, in recent years, never exceeded the outgoings. How they square that circle will take a really wise head. When the previous Board sold to the A|l-Qadi family, there was an alternative offer, which was never really considered, and despite the doubters, there is an opportunity available now, but it takes two to tango as they say, and it is Dwayne Sports leading on the dance floor who have a decision to make - for all our sake let us hope they make the right one. People are really sick to death with this sort of post. If you have some information by all means enlighten us? But of course you will not because its yet another of your cryptic posts under one of your usernames.
|
|
|
Post by brads213 on Apr 16, 2020 22:49:41 GMT
You can’t believe anything in a labour rag
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Apr 17, 2020 3:51:32 GMT
You can’t believe anything in a labour rag The Daily Mail is a Tory tabloid.
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Apr 17, 2020 6:44:25 GMT
You can’t believe anything in a labour rag The Daily Mail is a Tory tabloid. It WAS, it is now a Labour rag, they also own the I and the Metro, hardly right wing rags ? To be honest I don't think any news paper is worth reading these days, they are all as bad as each other and as for MSM news, what utter poop they are at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Somersetgas on Apr 17, 2020 7:40:27 GMT
The Daily Mail is a Tory tabloid. It WAS, it is now a Labour rag, they also own the I and the Metro, hardly right wing rags ? To be honest I don't think any news paper is worth reading these days, they are all as bad as each other and as for MSM news, what utter poop they are at the moment. You’re getting The Daily Mail and The Express mixed up. The Express is now owned by Reach, aka Mirror group, along with the Star. DMGT the parent owner of the Mail, own the Metro and the I. The owner of DMGT is Viscount Rothermere, hardly an out and out left winger.
|
|
|
Post by bluegas on Apr 17, 2020 8:03:33 GMT
It WAS, it is now a Labour rag, they also own the I and the Metro, hardly right wing rags ? To be honest I don't think any news paper is worth reading these days, they are all as bad as each other and as for MSM news, what utter poop they are at the moment. You’re getting The Daily Mail and The Express mixed up. The Express is now owned by Reach, aka Mirror group, along with the Star. DMGT the parent owner of the Mail, own the Metro and the I. The owner of DMGT is Viscount Rothermere, hardly an out and out left winger. The Mail is of course right wing, but it will criticise the Tories if it feels like it. For example, recently changed editor and therefore its stance on Brexit (remember that?). I can from personal experience sadly state that journalism is of a pretty low standard these days, though probably not the fault of actual JOURNALISTS. As Peter Hitchens recently commented, if Watergate happened today it wouldn't be reported on.
|
|
|
Post by brads213 on Apr 17, 2020 8:07:53 GMT
You can’t believe anything in a labour rag The Daily Mail is a Tory tabloid. No way is it a conservative paper, this is definitely a labour propaganda rag
|
|
|
Post by Somersetgas on Apr 17, 2020 8:08:42 GMT
You’re getting The Daily Mail and The Express mixed up. The Express is now owned by Reach, aka Mirror group, along with the Star. DMGT the parent owner of the Mail, own the Metro and the I. The owner of DMGT is Viscount Rothermere, hardly an out and out left winger. The Mail is of course right wing, but it will criticise the Tories if it feels like it. For example, recently changed editor and therefore its stance on Brexit (remember that?). I can from personal experience sadly state that journalism is of a pretty low standard these days, though probably not the fault of actual JOURNALISTS. As Peter Hitchens recently commented, if Watergate happened today it wouldn't be reported on. Journalism is at a poor standard as it ever has been, it’s a terrible state. Yes it does criticise Tories at times, I can’t disagree there.
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Apr 17, 2020 8:20:51 GMT
It WAS, it is now a Labour rag, they also own the I and the Metro, hardly right wing rags ? To be honest I don't think any news paper is worth reading these days, they are all as bad as each other and as for MSM news, what utter poop they are at the moment. You’re getting The Daily Mail and The Express mixed up. The Express is now owned by Reach, aka Mirror group, along with the Star. DMGT the parent owner of the Mail, own the Metro and the I. The owner of DMGT is Viscount Rothermere, hardly an out and out left winger. I have not mixed up any thing, as I said the Mail, I and Metro are all the same group, the new Editor of the Mail is Labour, Viscount Rothermere owns it but does not edit it. Maybe Rothermere thinks he might get better sales ( brass in pocket ) but that might be his undoing, who knows ? They are all pretty poop though, I think most can go along with that ?
|
|
|
Post by SleepyGas on Apr 17, 2020 8:22:25 GMT
The Daily Mail is a Tory tabloid. No way is it a conservative paper, this is definitely a labour propaganda rag Gas(lighting)Chat
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Apr 17, 2020 8:23:14 GMT
No way is it a conservative paper, this is definitely a labour propaganda rag Gas(lighting)Chat Time for more sleep ?
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Apr 17, 2020 8:45:29 GMT
The place gets madder by the day 🙄
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Apr 17, 2020 8:50:03 GMT
For one poster in particular that line was passed several months ago Did you print it off? Yes used it so often the printer overheated and now won't work I hold you directly responsible
|
|
|
Post by Charlton Hayes Gas on Apr 17, 2020 9:14:04 GMT
All I know is that the Daily star is cheaper than toilet paper.
|
|