|
Post by brfclee on May 10, 2016 7:03:15 GMT
My main preference would be to keep the squad we have together. Darrell has said that all will be offered new contracts but as we saw last season they don't all necessarily take them. If they all sign contracts the squad is somewhat full. The space for new signings will come from who leaves.
With no emergency loan window next year, to try to mitigate the risk a bit I think the squad will need to grow by 4-5 players just in case we get a run of a few injuries. I presume we would also have been going for a slightly bigger squad in league 1 anyway.
|
|
|
Post by brfclee on Mar 13, 2016 11:41:18 GMT
Surely FFP rules wouldn't allow that as we could simply have all the none playing staff employed by Dwane Sports leaving BRFC just to employ the players, I can't see anybody who works for the club not being employed by them. I think that you will find that some if not all are already employed on behalf of the Al Qadi family. Hence they are not our full time employees. The word consultant comes to mind. This was something mentioned in a conversation, and I just accepted it. With regard to FFP, not sure who comes under that umbrella, but I'd bet there is someone on here who can give us the lowdown. I always thought that FFP only covered players wages but wasn't sure so looked it up. According to this website www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.phpUnder SCMP, 'Wages' relates to player wages only (director remuneration and general club staff wages are not included in the SCMP calculation). and also Wage costs for Youth players on a professional contract are also excluded (i.e. players that have been in the club’s Youth Development scheme and have been given a pro contract); they must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season
|
|
|
Post by brfclee on Feb 19, 2016 19:23:48 GMT
He gave a pretty impressive interview on the clubs YouTube channel, interestingly, unless I misheard him, he said he's been looking at the club for 5 years, I assume with the new owners backing. If that's the case they clearly haven't rushed into this deal, it also kills the suggestion that the middle east news article attracted their interest. Whilst TW is not every fans favourite at least he is some connection but old & new Rovers which surely we need, otherwise DC & co could feel v. isolated and the new owners won't have a clue how to run the club (not TW did though!) As far as NH it's odd one as he got us relegated to the non league for the first time but then helped us get promoted, has also nearly bankrupted us but now we could be on the verge of a brilliant new dawn thanks to his UWE plans. I heard the 5 year bit also but thought he got years and months mixed up Sep 2015 - Feb 2016 is 5 months ish.
|
|
|
Post by brfclee on May 22, 2015 9:38:01 GMT
Season-tickets went back on sale yesterday evening. Good of the Post to let us know that they're not on sale 12 hours after sales resumed! Indeed, Peter Parker on the other forum confirmed it also, saying it was due to high demand etc.
|
|
|
Post by brfclee on May 22, 2015 9:18:06 GMT
The club, meanwhile, are believed to have suspended season-ticket sales for the time being. Finance director Toni Watola was unavailable for comment when contacted by the Bristol Post, at the time of going to press. Read more: www.bristolpost.co.uk/BRISTOL-ROVERS-Darrell-Clarke-facing-big/story-26549004-detail/story.html#ixzz3arCiYGEa Does this imply as was being reported on here and the other forum earlier this week that should we win the court case that we may have to move out of the Mem sooner than expected? They wouldn't want to sell ST for the Mem, if we end up playing at Twerton, Cheltenham or elsewhere etc.
|
|
|
Post by brfclee on May 19, 2015 14:16:09 GMT
It seems to me that until such time as Sainsburys are in breach of contract then Rovers cannot sue them as they have done nothing wrong. In fact if Rovers did sue them then this would suggest that Rovers consider the contract has been breached when in fact it is our argument that the terms have been fulfilled and consequently the contract still exists. It is Sainsbury who are saying that the contract is broken and that they are entitled to walk away from it and for this reason it has to be Sainsburys who instigate the action as the plaintiffs. Regardless of whose action this is the outcome will determine whether Sainsburys have to purchase the Mem . it is also relevant that Sainsburys will have to make allowance for outstanding legal disputes. They are probably having to tie up £32million or whatever in reserve until such time as the decision is made - hence they are pushing for a decision - so that they know if they can spend this money elsewhere Except for the fact that initially they didn't want to have the case until much later, but after the judge agreed with BRFC that the case need to be heard quickly when they suddenly agreed it needed to be settled as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Post by brfclee on May 19, 2015 12:25:56 GMT
I can think of loads of reasons why it should happen but none why it shouldn't, it is an achievement regardless of whether we should have been in the conference or not. To not celebrate getting out of the conference especially at first time of asking almost devalues the other teams in the league.
The only caveat I would put on it, would be that for the whole journey Matty Taylor should carry the cup naked with only a sock to cover his modesty, with said sock resting firmly in the bowl of the cup.
"Western Daily Press, print that (picture) you barstewards"
|
|
|
Post by brfclee on May 12, 2015 12:13:56 GMT
PFFT!! 3 beers.
If we win i'll have 15 ciders and party all night
and if we lose i'll have 15 ciders to ease the pain.
Which begs the question actually... IF we do win at Wembley on Sunday, where will everyone be heading out to to party the night away? Given it's a Sunday and a bank holiday, nowhere will be particularly busy. The next bank holiday is 25th May isn't it?
|
|