|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 18, 2021 23:36:25 GMT
The real championship bottom 6 : 19/Reading ……p23…….. points 27 20/Da sh** ! ….p23………points 27 21/Hull ………p23………..points 23 22/Cardiff………p 22……….points 22 23/Peterborough …….p 23……..points 19 24/Barnsley …………… p 23 ………points 14 How many points have we got in the basement division? Obviously we would all change league positions with them, in a heart beat. But we didn't play today, we won our last game and they are our rivals!! So can we not just enjoy them losing and worry about us the next time we play.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 15, 2021 10:49:00 GMT
That article is from June. It’s just a Covid pass you need now. You don’t give out any new details, unless it’s due to change. Not sure why people are so worried, what are that trying to hide😂. Ironically the quote "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" has been attributed to Harald Quandt's stepfather, the Minister of Public Enlightenment. 😆 People can take a paper copy of proof of vaccine or show proof of a lateral flow test within the last 48 hours of the event. So they don’t need to sign up anyway. The original idea of the passport was scrapped anyway. You don’t even need the app, you just go onto the nhs website and they already have your details anyway. Easier to track you through your phone, bank card or a lot of other ways. Some people are so paranoid and believe anything that is shared around.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 15, 2021 1:38:16 GMT
I just logged into my nhs account, they already have my details and they just issue the Covid pass, that is valid for 30 days. So they didn’t get any new information, so I’m not sure what they are going to find out😂. Slippery slope. Never mind that the ENTRUST company said they are able to “redeploy” them into a national identity programme and that David Davis, former Cabinet minister and member of the Covid Recovery Group of Tory MPs, described the company as having "sinister attitude to surveillance of citizens.” 🙄 That article is from June. It’s just a Covid pass you need now. You don’t give out any new details, unless it’s due to change. Not sure why people are so worried, what are that trying to hide😂.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 15, 2021 0:38:16 GMT
Papers please!!! The company who signed a contract with the UK government for 'covid passports' is ENTRUST. The company is owned by the Quandt family who came out of WW2 and were all part of the Nazi party.
In 1937, Günther Quandt was appointed the “War Economy Führer.” Harald Quandt was an officer in the German Luftwaffe, his mother Magda and stepfather was Joseph Goebbels.
In 1943, and with direct support from the SS, the Quandts were able to establish a company-owned concentration camp directly alongside their battery works in Hanover.
The business owned by the brothers Herbert and Harald Quandt made Mauser firearms and anti-aircraft missiles for the Third Reich’s war machine.
I just logged into my nhs account, they already have my details and they just issue the Covid pass, that is valid for 30 days. So they didn’t get any new information, so I’m not sure what they are going to find out😂.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 14, 2021 23:09:05 GMT
To be fair with all the EFL & HSE regs implementation we’ve probably lost a fair amount of capacity already. What regs, I've not read anything to say capacity has already been reduced? As far as the OP, is finding loopholes to get around COVID rules the right thing to do for fans safety? Lincoln already did this last week and others have announced it since. The rule is Covid passes, if over 10,000 attend. We don’t get over that anyway, so by saying we won’t let in more than 9,999 I don’t think it’s really finding a loophole, if you get less than 10,000 normally.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 14, 2021 20:16:10 GMT
Ex player’s will always slag off the managers though, if they are not playing and has fallen out. So I wouldn’t really class any of the article, as evidence. If it’s true, did they take photos or anything to prove it?? Or do we just take there word for it?? If he did do it, it’s totally wrong and shows that he’s so out of touch. If he’s so hated and bad, why did a few player’s move across the country, to play for him again?? Perhaps he treated them somewhat better? Perhaps they wanted to play for the mighty Bristol Rovers? Perhaps they just had no better offers? Just because some players like him or can put up with him, doesn't really excuse his behavior to the others or make them liars. One thing is for sure anyway; he might think himself a great motivator, but he came in when we were outside the relegation zone and motivated our players to rock bottom in the league. Slagging them all off in the media didn't seem to work with that crop, eh? Maybe it will work with this bunch. He recruited them so you would hope he would know. Sitting 15th in the league is obviously way off where we would hope to be - but Barton has repeatedly said we are going up this season and he is not a liar.... is he? Let's hope not! He’s not been good enough as a manager so far for us. Not disputing that. Just saying that you can’t class that article as evidence. They could be telling the truth, but they could be jumping on the bandwagon as they are annoyed with him. Why did they wait until now?? Why didn’t they document it or give any proof?? It’s all he said, she said guess work. Have not seen any evidence.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 14, 2021 18:52:30 GMT
From an anonymous source - hmmm? I guess you could choose to dismiss some of the citations in The Athletic if they are not attributed to the actual player by name (although you can understand why they would choose to remain anonymous). But there were a couple of quotes where the players did allow their names to be mentioned. eg. Ryan Taylor, formerly a team-mate of Barton’s at Newcastle, was another one. “I walked out of Fleetwood, which was all to do with what Joey said to me,” says Taylor. “I broke my nose in a game. It needed fixing but he didn’t want me to get it fixed. I got it fixed anyway and then he told me I wouldn’t play because I had to wear a mask. If I wore a mask, he wouldn’t be playing me. I walked to the boot room, got my stuff and left.”Another player says he felt “intimidated” by Barton’s presence and, specifically, some of the manager’s outbursts at his players. Michael Fowler, now playing for Coastal Carolina University in the USA, moved from Burnley to Fleetwood in 2019, aged 17. “I hated it,” he says. “In the space of a few weeks, I lost complete confidence; and that went on for two years. I haven’t got a clue why he would do or say the things he does. I respected him and he was the reason I went to that club. I was just intimidated by who he was and that, I feel, prevented me from being the player I was even two weeks before.”Ex player’s will always slag off the managers though, if they are not playing and has fallen out. So I wouldn’t really class any of the article, as evidence. If it’s true, did they take photos or anything to prove it?? Or do we just take there word for it?? If he did do it, it’s totally wrong and shows that he’s so out of touch. If he’s so hated and bad, why did a few player’s move across the country, to play for him again??
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 14, 2021 15:17:07 GMT
Not sure the developers have even reached the agreed price stage yet, sounds to me more like they've just asked for a second viewing but want to bring along their mate who's a builder before making an offer, in the meantime they've asked if the seller will take it off the market! They have been in talks for years and only have 5 months. So I expect fees have been agreed, otherwise why would they have been granted exclusivity?? Plus why decide to announce it now?? It’s been reported that the sale has been agreed and sounds like it has IMO. But there is a lot more work to be done, before exchanging anything.
|
|
|
Insurance
Dec 9, 2021 10:21:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 9, 2021 10:21:53 GMT
Shocked if that’s true, insurance companies would do anything to avoid paying out. The amount of normal businesses that would also have that insurance would surely put insurers out of business or push everyone’s premiums up www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59038544
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 8, 2021 19:08:35 GMT
If we are expected to lose £2-3 million this season, do you think we may cash in on Evans and Sammy? I cant see them re-signing so they will probably leave on a free in the summer. I think they will both be in demand in January. If we got £100k for both with sell ons, it will create a gap for some of the younger players and reduce the wage bill. I don't think we are anyway near relegation but also we would need to go on a major run to get into the play offs and that is looking doubtful. If we offer Evans a contract and he leaves, won't we get compensation as he is under 24? Not much if any. It normally allows for the amount of time and money you have put into developing them. As we signed him this year, we wouldn’t get much.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 7, 2021 23:32:32 GMT
If you are right and we only have a mid-table budget (which I still doubt) surely the good manager would out-perform his budget. It was Barton's choice to sign two aging strikers rather than spend the money on one fit and able striker. It's also about how you spend your budget and how you set-up and use what you have. Equally if we have a so called top 6 budget . Why couldn't we compete to sign Vaughan Mcaleny Mullins etc. And why have 70% of the top 20 strikers in division two gone to other clubs in two ?. I see no evidence since selling J.C.H we have this so called top budget hence why I am not surprised. I agree and said managers have underachieved slightly . However fans must accept were there is No investment we can't expect sudden success . Player’s like Anssi, Nicholson, Collins, Finley, Hughes, Thomas, Anderson, Rodman etc won’t be on an average league 2 wage. Some could have went to a league 1 club. Experienced player’s like Couuts and Pitman won’t be cheap either.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 6, 2021 18:54:17 GMT
If I remember correctly, it was widely reported that Barton had viciously attacked Stendel, knocked several teeth out and left him with nasty head injuries. When it came to trial it had suddenly become a shove from behind, let's wait and see what the kick in the head becomes considering like Stendel his wife did not require hospital treatment. Yep, wives are always phoning the police asking for help then changing their minds about giving evidence. That's why wife-beaters so often get away with it unfortunately and why it's important for this case to proceed. Still, as in the last case the onus will be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injury Mrs Barton suffered was the result of an assault by her husband and no one seems willing to testify to that. Another mysterious injury it would seem. A lot of people lie when drunk and then regret it after. So she could have made up in the heat of the moment, as a form of attacking him. But he could of done it and he lied after. Only people that will ever know the truth, are the four that were there. These cases are so hard, yes some women change their mind and cover up, but others do lie in the first place!!!
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 1, 2021 19:47:16 GMT
Just what we could see in the plans. They had naming rights, student car parking, lecture halls, uni gym, jogging track for students. Does that look like a football stadium, or a uni facility with a football pitch??? If it was a good deal for the club, there would have been no reason not to sign it. Only person who said it was a good deal was Higgs, who also signed a water tight contract with Sainsburys and took out a high interest loan😂. It’s not hard to work out that it was a bad deal! I sense there were £50m+ reasons not to sign it! If Wael could afford to build the UWE why doesn't he fund the stadium at the FM rather than lease it? I didn’t say he could afford it, I don’t know how much money he has. You don’t write off £18 million, unless you have a lot more spare, than that though. Think Brighton’s ground was owned by a company and the council. Does not matter if it’s the council or a separate company, if it’s a similar deal for the club, it does not matter. Let’s wait and see what the terms are, before moaning about it. Until then, we don’t know. It might not happen yet. Building it ourselves might not be an option, as it’s part of a bigger project. Hopefully it’s the best option available for the club.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 1, 2021 14:55:56 GMT
That still makes no sense. They still own the club, so at the end of the day if the club made a profit, they would have done. If the club was losing money, they would have done. Even if they gave up shares, if the club still made money in the long run, they still would have done. You’re stretching to try and prove s as point that is not there. If it was such a good deal, why didn’t the last board complete it? Easy for them to say it was a good deal, after having all their debts cleared 😂. If we get a ground and it is good for the club, will you still be crying in 10 years time??? You do know that people and companies are two completely separate things don't you? Also that companies are limited which means that losses are limited, that owners can recover their money by selling assets. I cannot give your nonsense any more time but yes I would be happy if the club get a new ground that's good for the CLUB. I would even be happy if the Mem was redeveloped as per previous plans. Of course I realise that. If the report is correct, then exchanging the mem for the build, gives away their only major asset anyway. So they wouldn’t do that, if what you say about them is true. Again that suggests, that this is a better deal for the club and owners. Everything points to that, apart from comments from an old, failed owner. I certainly won’t be believing what Higgs said. If the deal was that good, he would have been able to get investment.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 1, 2021 14:38:15 GMT
I didn’t call them we, I called the club we. I’ve already explained the plans. If you think Uwe were going to pay us, to use all the facilities aimed at them, so be it. You say it didn’t suit the owners financially, you do understand that means that it does not suit the club financially as well😂. If they are losing money on it, so are we. So you still have not given one reason, how it could suit the club and not the owners. Makes no sense at all. The previous board signed and did a lot of things that were not good for the club. You keep using them as an example, but they achieved nothing but non league and a high interest loan. If it was that good a deal for the club and they are such good owners, they wouldn’t have needed to sell us in the first place!!! I have given reasons in reply to you less than an hour ago but if you want them again:- The OWNERS of the club didn't sign the deal with UWE because they either didn't have the wherewithal, the desire (ie Wael's family) or it wasn't a good deal financially for the OWNERS. I will expand on the last point. As the Mem wasn't being sold to Sainsbury's for the same cost of the new stadium there was a significant shortfall that they would have had to introduce. That shortfall could have been in the form of share capital, which would have been brilliant for the FC but bad for them as it would have tied up their money until they sold their shares. The shortfall could have been in the form of a loan but the revenue streams that could have been made from the project would not have given them the return on their loan that they sought, that sought return could even have been an unreasonably high return to get other people in the family interested. If the loan was at a rate that the football club could have easily serviced from their actual revenue streams, that would have been good for the FC but not good enough for the lenders (owners). That still makes no sense. They still own the club, so at the end of the day if the club made a profit, they would have done. If the club was losing money, they would have done. Even if they gave up shares, if the club still made money in the long run, they still would have done. You’re stretching to try and prove s as point that is not there. If it was such a good deal, why didn’t the last board complete it? Easy for them to say it was a good deal, after having all their debts cleared 😂. If we get a ground and it is good for the club, will you still be crying in 10 years time???
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 1, 2021 14:08:02 GMT
Why would they take out a high interest loan??? They said the mem development was good for the club, they said the sainsburys deal was water tight, they said it was worth taking them to court, they took us to non league. Yet what they said, had to be true, even though they were wrong so many times. They wanted to look like heroes and would have signed anything. In what way would a deal be good for the club, but not the owners?? That makes no sense at all, I think you’re the one with tainted views. If it’s good for the club, it’s good for them. If it would have made money, it would have made them money. If it’s made the club more valuable, it would have made them more money. I don’t mind who is in charge of us. If someone Better comes along, I’m ask for it. So no tainted views from me, just some common sense and the ability to read plans etc.. Point me to the plans please where it states that all or even any revenue streams from matchday and non matchday would go to UWE. You don't think you're tainted yet you call the Al Qadis WE and you call Higgs and Dunford THEY and you even seem to be mixing up Dunford in Higgs idiotic plan to chase a lost cause with a high interest loan! I will throw your question back at you. If either of the previous owners, who were also called 'we' according to your logic, had signed the UWE deal, how would it have been good for them but bad for the FC? I didn’t call them we, I called the club we. I’ve already explained the plans. If you think Uwe were going to pay us, to use all the facilities aimed at them, so be it. You say it didn’t suit the owners financially, you do understand that means that it does not suit the club financially as well😂. If they are losing money on it, so are we. So you still have not given one reason, how it could suit the club and not the owners. Makes no sense at all. The previous board signed and did a lot of things that were not good for the club. You keep using them as an example, but they achieved nothing but non league and a high interest loan. If it was that good a deal for the club and they are such good owners, they wouldn’t have needed to sell us in the first place!!!
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 1, 2021 13:32:46 GMT
[br We as in Rovers, or are you not a fan. I always say we when talking about the club, thought every fan did. I’m not the one with the brain block. People say stuff like that, when they don’t have a logical answer. Let’s hear another realistic theory then. Why didn’t the club sign the deal (I didn’t say we😂). The OWNERS of the club didn't sign the deal with UWE because they either didn't have the wherewithal, the desire (ie Wael's family) or it wasn't a good deal financially for the OWNERS. The previous owner and the owner before that, both who were lifelong supporters of the FC and had to live amongst the fanbase, WOULD HAVE SIGNED the deal. Ask yourself then why WOULD they have signed the UWE deal if it was so bad for the FC? Why would they take out a high interest loan??? They said the mem development was good for the club, they said the sainsburys deal was water tight, they said it was worth taking them to court, they took us to non league. Yet what they said, had to be true, even though they were wrong so many times. They wanted to look like heroes and would have signed anything. In what way would a deal be good for the club, but not the owners?? That makes no sense at all, I think you’re the one with tainted views. If it’s good for the club, it’s good for them. If it would have made money, it would have made them money. If it’s made the club more valuable, it would have made them more money. I don’t mind who is in charge of us. If someone Better comes along, I’m ask for it. So no tainted views from me, just some common sense and the ability to read plans etc..
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 1, 2021 12:57:35 GMT
It’s not speculation, it was in the plans. Why wouldn’t we sign it, if it was a good deal? We paid experts to do a review of the terms, if they said those terms were good, we would have moved forward. Why not sign that and then agree to this?? Only logical explanation is, that it’s better terms. Who is WE Daniel? You really do have a brain block about this don’t you? [br We as in Rovers, or are you not a fan. I always say we when talking about the club, thought every fan did. I’m not the one with the brain block. People say stuff like that, when they don’t have a logical answer. Let’s hear another realistic theory then. Why didn’t the club sign the deal (I didn’t say we😂).
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 1, 2021 12:44:26 GMT
Just what we could see in the plans. They had naming rights, student car parking, lecture halls, uni gym, jogging track for students. Does that look like a football stadium, or a uni facility with a football pitch??? If it was a good deal for the club, there would have been no reason not to sign it. Only person who said it was a good deal was Higgs, who also signed a water tight contract with Sainsburys and took out a high interest loan😂. It’s not hard to work out that it was a bad deal! Absolute speculation. First off though it wasn’t only Higgs that said it was a good deal for the club was it? The late Geoff Dunford said the same. As always though you confuse the interests of the owners of a club with the interests of the club. THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME. People own football clubs for lots of reasons and often it’s not because they care too much about the long term health of the football club. Just ask fans of Brighton, or Bury or Hereford or Blackpool or Charlton to name but a few. However you don’t get that and you’ve never got that so it’s a waste of time thinking you ever will. Of course UWE was good for UWE but it was also good for the FC and the FC would have owned the stadium and rented only the land, so to say we wouldn’t have received match day revenue on something we own or lease is speculative nonsense spread by people who want to excuse the failure of the ALQs to do what they said they were going to do ‘without the need for Sainsbury’s money’ when they bought the club from Higgs at a price that was an unbelievably good deal for THEM as WAQ has already told us. It’s not speculation, it was in the plans. Why wouldn’t we sign it, if it was a good deal? We paid experts to do a review of the terms, if they said those terms were good, we would have moved forward. Why not sign that and then agree to this?? Only logical explanation is, that it’s better terms.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 1, 2021 12:24:02 GMT
Let’s not forget UWE was not only leased, but gave away matchday and non matchday revenue. So hopefully a world away from what leasing at FM would mean What? What’s your source?? That has never been said by anyone other than the apologists for the Al Qadi’s inability to complete what 2 previous chairman have said would have been an excellent deal for the FC. Just what we could see in the plans. They had naming rights, student car parking, lecture halls, uni gym, jogging track for students. Does that look like a football stadium, or a uni facility with a football pitch??? If it was a good deal for the club, there would have been no reason not to sign it. Only person who said it was a good deal was Higgs, who also signed a water tight contract with Sainsburys and took out a high interest loan😂. It’s not hard to work out that it was a bad deal!
|
|