|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 28, 2023 15:23:03 GMT
8091 451
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 26, 2023 9:56:07 GMT
Message to the new owners please can you put our famous blue and white quarters on the back of our home shirts next season 💙 I'm sure most will agree so maybe we can set up a poll to show the owners that we want our unique quarters on the back of our shirts as well as the front because I for one hate the plain blue design! Why has wael allowed this to become the norm as it must be his decision 🤔 Gets my vote. Our shirt was supposed to be unique, won't be long and there will be no quarters at all. I agree
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 25, 2023 20:04:21 GMT
Cox 5.5 Hunt 6 Wilson 6 Grant 5 Friend 6 Evans 6 Finley 8 Ward 6.5 Vale 6 Collins 4 Martin 6
Ward Marquis 5 Thomas 5.5 Woods Taylor Brown 3.5 Gibbons
Ref 5 Derby 6
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 21, 2023 11:27:43 GMT
Rovers put in a formal request for it to be identified for housing. The request is available on line and shows that the area for development is where the training pitches currently are. They also had to identify when the land would become available and was identified in the period to 2025. That is a bit worrying then. why would they identify the current pitches. Best place for access and also better drainage in that part. Personally I find it disappointing that the club has not been transparent on its intentions. Has been in the public domain for a little while although the press only seemed to pick up on it when it was being discussed on the other forum.
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 21, 2023 9:52:37 GMT
What I am not clear on, is this South Gloucestershire council saying they have identified these sites for possible housing or has Bristol Rovers proposed this already? Timescales seem to be until 2040. How concrete are these plans? even is it is it may be for parts of the site that are unsuitable to be developed as part of the academy. I think we may be jumping the gun to think this is a negative for us. Rovers put in a formal request for it to be identified for housing. The request is available on line and shows that the area for development is where the training pitches currently are. They also had to identify when the land would become available and was identified in the period to 2025.
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 15, 2023 23:31:44 GMT
Am I the only one who thinks that the greens/residents obsession with being given public access to the overgrown land in the south west corner (which as far as I can tell they have shown no interest in until now) is simply all about getting a foot in to protect that land from future use? Looking at the aerial view of the surrounds of this piece of land in the documents submitted just before the meeting is interesting. The plot is a decent size and it is a shame that we have not made more of an effort to utilise it. I know that planning might not be easy to get but it appears to me that by buying up a few million pounds worth of houses at the end of Alton Road we could of doubled the size of the new stand or more realistically perhaps have not moved the pitch so far and had a slightly bigger south stand and a bigger north stand. A reasonably cost effective way of increasing the capacity up closer to the 20,000 level.
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 15, 2023 16:24:32 GMT
Watched the meeting online. Was left in despair about how the country is run. There are a lot of planning decisions which need urgent attention. This one, although in an ideal world a certain amount of debate on most things is good, was a decision which could of been easily made by people reading the documents and voting on line.
Continued adverse points about increased capacity were made (even though they were told it was only getting back to the recent capacity, being told that they had previously approved something with a higher capacity also and that attendances may not often reach that level) were just a waste of time. One councillor seriously wanted a condition to have the stand repainted a lighter colour.
The Chair of the Committee though was excellent and tried his best to downplay irrelevant comments. One of the worse things were a number of councillors calling for a vote for a site visit before approval was decided upon, even though the planning officer and the Chair made it perfectly clear that the reports and pictures that they had already seen were more than enough and a site visit would only delay things further. Strangely one of the councillors calling for a site visit declared that he had an interest in the planning application as he was a gashead. Unbelievable!
Personally, I think that future planning applications will be very difficult. There was a lot of criticism about the lack of interaction with the neighbours. Whilst there is no doubt that it can and should be improved it works both ways. Whilst the club can try and be more supportive of the local area (though what about all the good that the Community Trust does) the neigbourhood ought to be more supportive of the club which is a local asset and been part of the community for a long time. However many of the residents that the council wish to support do not have any interest in good relations with the football club and just wish to see it gone.
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 15, 2023 11:19:19 GMT
Ward 6.5
Gibbons 5.5 Wilson 8 Grant 5 Vale 6
Finley 6.5 Evans 8 Thomas 6 Brown 6
Collins 5.5 Marquis 4
Sinclair 4 Woods 3 Martin 5 Crama 5
Ref 6 Newport 4
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 13, 2023 21:44:45 GMT
Assuming that Cox and Vale not available would expect a team of: Hall Gibbons Cramer Grant Gordon Bogarde Finley Woods Brown Marquis Sinclair Mason on the bench as reserve keeper, with some first teamers as back-up in case things go wrong. However if the above players cannot get an easy win over injury hit Newport then many will no longer be considered good enough for a team expecting to get into the play-offs. So stick them all in a B Team then blame them all if they lose? Didn't JB do similar v Plymouth last season and never really seemed to recover. Big difference between Plymouth and Newport Topper
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 13, 2023 18:12:18 GMT
Assuming that Cox and Vale not available would expect a team of:
Hall Gibbons Cramer Grant Gordon Bogarde Finley Woods Brown Marquis Sinclair
Mason on the bench as reserve keeper, with some first teamers as back-up in case things go wrong. However if the above players cannot get an easy win over injury hit Newport then many will no longer be considered good enough for a team expecting to get into the play-offs.
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 12, 2023 13:36:12 GMT
Cox 7
Hunt 6.5 Wilson 7.5 Crama 5 Friend 6
Evans 6.5 Woods 5 Bogarde 7 Vale 6.5 Collins 5
Martin 6.5
Grant 6 Marquis 6
Ref 5 Carlise 4
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 7, 2023 23:22:28 GMT
Cox 5
Grant 4.5 Taylor 6.5 Wilson 5.5 Friend 5.5
Thomas 5.5 Woods 4 Finley 5 Brown 5.5 Collins 6
Martin 6
Marquis 5.5 Vale 7 Bogarde 6 Crama 6
Ref 6 Reading 5
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 7, 2023 11:43:57 GMT
12896 2808
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 5, 2023 18:27:13 GMT
Cox 5 - did not inspire confidence. Distribution not at his best Gibbons 5.5 - a few good moments in attack but defensively looked suspect Taylor 5.5 - both centre backs looked uncomfortable against their strikers and distribution was too slow Crama 5.5 - as per Taylor Gordon 4 - attacking wise always going forward and turning back. Missed numerous opprtunities to make a killer pass. Defensively weak Thomas 8 - excellent display of skill and pace Evans 6.5 - most good moves went through Evans. Bad mistake for their second goal. Bogarde 6 - mostly good but still loses the ball at times Sinclair 4.5 - hampered by having the ineffective Gordon behind him Brown 5 - showed lots of skill but his laziness on the final ball cost a number of goal scoring chances Marquis 6 - mature hardworking display
Hall Grant Wilson Finley Collins 7.5 - looked a class above everyone else and went past defenders as if they didn't exist Martin Vale 6 - good goal Shaw Dewsbury
Ref 7.5
Whitby 4.5 - looked to be a good footballing side for their level. Tactically a mistake to try and play skilful football against a lot better players. To win they would have had to rough us up and pressurise us more.
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 3, 2023 21:44:09 GMT
4781 392
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Oct 28, 2023 23:09:11 GMT
Cox 6. - some good saves but slow distribution which was sometimes poor Grant 5 - many errors in the first half Taylor 6 - started with numerous errors but got better Crama 6.5 - good at times but a number of errors Friend 7 - had lots of space in the first half and a reliable performance Finley 7- one of his better games Evans 7 - played well Vale 6 - good at times but can play a lot better Brown 5.5 - occasional glimpses of his undoubted ability, poor defensively in first half and appeared lazy Collins 8 - very good in first half. Wasted in the second half when moved out to the left Martin 6.5 - good goal but missed an easier chance
Marquis 6 - showed his experience especially in winning free kicks Bogarde 6 - a lot better than his last appearance Thomas 6 - brought some energy to the team
Ref 5 Northampton 5 not a bad side but did not take their chances and always looked vulnerable when we put them under pressure
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Oct 27, 2023 18:09:08 GMT
7699 403
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Oct 24, 2023 22:10:08 GMT
Cox 5
Hoole 4.5 Taylor 5 Crama 6 Grant 3
Finley 4 Evans 6.5 Bogarde 3 Brown 5 Collins 6.5 Martin 6
Marquis 5.5 Vale 7 Friend 6
Ref 3 Stevenage 6
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Oct 24, 2023 17:12:24 GMT
7549 186
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Oct 21, 2023 19:52:57 GMT
Cox 4.5
Gibbons 4.5 Taylor 5.5 Grant 4.5 Vale 4
Ward 5 Woods 3 Evans 5 Sinclair 3.5 Collins 6.5 Martin 6
Finley 5.5 Marquis 4.5 Bogarde 5 Crama 5
Ref 4 Burton 5
|
|