|
Post by EastVanGas on Mar 8, 2017 12:15:43 GMT
Didn't Lockyer & Browner sign new deals before the end of last season? I had assumed they were longer than 12month contracts but who knows?!
Well done OC for earning your new deal and proving so many wrong!
Maybe but do we know how long for? I say lets extend their contracts for a minimum of the next 2 seasons from the end of this season so that both the club and our top players reconfirm their commitment to each other. I agree with tying down those particular players who you have mentioned.
There is though a balance to be struck between security of a long term contract (for player and club) and keeping them hungry with shorter term deals. We've seen in the past what can happen when you have a group of players on long term deals and the issues which occur when those players stop performing.
I hope that Darrell continues to have success on this front and have no reason to doubt him!
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Mar 8, 2017 11:35:53 GMT
Yes! Well done Ollie, DC & BRFC. I have to say this once again shows the brilliant tactics of DC. He's locking in our best players well ahead of the summer transfer window to avoid the risk of them being poached by some unscrupulous championship clubs ;-) Let's hope he has the same thing planned for other crucial players we need to hold onto for next season like Billy, Monty, Danny, Sincs, Browner, Lockyer. UTG! Didn't Lockyer & Browner sign new deals before the end of last season? I had assumed they were longer than 12month contracts but who knows?!
Well done OC for earning your new deal and proving so many wrong!
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Feb 24, 2017 11:09:07 GMT
Never in a million years would he even consider having anything to do with them, he really does get and understand both us as a club and the rivalry between us imo.Plus all of the dopey darrell and DC wonks off dogs comment will have hardly endeared them to him, add on top of that his comments about 'them lot down the road' and the little glance to camera plus he's already turned down a much bigger club in Leeds (mainly because of the crazy owner I know) I honestly think and have said for quite a while now that DC is destined for the top, sooner or later, hopefully later. I think this is the key bit, fully agree with you.
His understanding of the club and its history has always really impressed me and I think it's part of the reason he was so driven to get promoted in our conference season.
|
|
|
DC
Feb 24, 2017 10:41:05 GMT
Post by EastVanGas on Feb 24, 2017 10:41:05 GMT
Surely City would be mindful of DC's only other relegation battle if they were to get rid of Little Lee?
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Feb 23, 2017 13:43:03 GMT
Having thought about this, I've now come to the conclusion that it will be at least August until we hear anything concrete. If that is the deadline, then both parties are likely to keep on negotiating for a better deal until time runs out. That's what I'm imagining. Or maybe a June/July deal before all the parties break for their summer holiday!
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Feb 22, 2017 13:01:53 GMT
8956 (628)
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Feb 22, 2017 12:23:39 GMT
Agree, not good enough for this level. He has a very strange run on him Always thought JC put in a decent shift to be honest, and far more pace than most realise. Opinions and all that. Agreed, never really seen him have a poor game but I've seen him have some very good ones. Newport away last year stands out in particular.
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Feb 22, 2017 11:15:25 GMT
Which is a bit like saying that the queen is more of a gashead than the pope Are you ITK? Probably not more or less than anyone else on here!
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Feb 22, 2017 10:45:22 GMT
I'd suggest that Topper is more likely to be in the know than anyone at the Bristol Post Which is a bit like saying that the queen is more of a gashead than the pope
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Feb 22, 2017 10:19:33 GMT
Am I the only one worried about the response from UWE? They say they are "keen" on the project. To me, that is not a positive response. Keen is positive to me, if they had said "not keen" I would have been more concerned.
I agree that it's not a particularly optimistic statement but I don't see what benefit UWE would have gained from making anything other than this statement, particularly as it's obvious that a deal has not been agreed.
The negotiations are going on behind closed doors and I don't think anyone should read too much into these statements.
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Feb 21, 2017 11:26:47 GMT
Anyone know anything about the trialists? I thought Frank Vincent might be a bit old for us now but he was fantastic in Sopranos & Goodfellas....
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Feb 16, 2017 15:39:55 GMT
Thought it might be relevant to note that a new company has been incorporated in Jersey named "Dwane Colony Limited". I'm guessing this company will operate the training facility.
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Feb 16, 2017 15:24:17 GMT
What an incredible cup run that was.
Can remember great days out at Barnet and Fulham along the way. Shame we took that beating in the quarters
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Feb 16, 2017 15:07:54 GMT
I don't quite see your point and perhaps you could explain your reasoning/understanding. As I see it, any resolution to distribute a special dividend would need to be passed by a majority of shareholders. As Dwane own the 92%, unless their wish was to distribute the proceeds of the sale of Mem (the £15M) amongst its members (i.e the shareholders), then I can't see how the minority shareholders would have any say of where the proceeds ended up. Surely the 92% have the final say in deciding how the proceeds of the sale of the Mem are used? Correct but the 92% can't award themselves 100% of the proceeds, each individual share will get the same dividend irrespective of who owns that share. Though as you quite rightly point out the minority shareholders couldn't block a special (or even normal) dividend. Hence there is a large difference between 92% and 100% despite what some mathematically challenged posters say on here. Sorry if my understanding is amiss, but couldn't the Co which currently owns the Mem simply resolve to loan the proceeds of sale of the Mem to the Co which is to build and own the new stadium (Dwane), bypassing any need for dividends?
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Feb 16, 2017 14:42:11 GMT
Maybe not irrelevant to the 8% shareholding who could be asked to 'cough up' their 8% contribution to the total package - (£4m - £5m possibly) to maintain their stake? Not irrelevant at all. The 8% is only 8% and not 25% + because those that signed the sharescheme document didn't allow for share issues that have already diluted the projected holding. The 8% does come into relevance when the Mem gets sold for perhaps £15m. Now all shareholders could agree to invest the money in a stadium they all have a share of or as Dwane Sports will own the new stadium BRFC 1883 could distribute that by way of a special dividend to all shareholders, those shareholders would then be free to do what they wanted with their dividend. A final choice could be to leave the circa £15m to be invested in assets owned by BRFC 1883 (they won't own the training ground or stadium) which would be the playing squad. Interesting times for those that can think for themselves. Of course some posters that can't think for themselves believe that 8% of perhaps £15m is an irrelevance I don't quite see your point and perhaps you could explain your reasoning/understanding. As I see it, any resolution to distribute a special dividend would need to be passed by a majority of shareholders. As Dwane own the 92%, unless their wish was to distribute the proceeds of the sale of Mem (the £15M) amongst its members (i.e the shareholders), then I can't see how the minority shareholders would have any say of where the proceeds ended up. Surely the 92% have the final say in deciding how the proceeds of the sale of the Mem are used?
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Feb 15, 2017 11:59:09 GMT
It's interesting that according to Wiki Easter's played 59 games, I wonder if a contract extension kick in if he gets to 60 games, as I can't think of any other reason why we'd be paying his wages but not playing him now that the transfer window has closed, given he's been a regular first team squad member all season. I would have thought that it's more likely that a clause like this would kick in after a specific amount of games played in a season, rather than total career club games. Could be wrong though. Anyone know how many Easter has played this season?
Whilst I don't have an issue with Lucas being in the squad ahead of Easter, it does make you wonder where it would leave us should another of our strikers pick up an injury.
|
|