|
Post by Gassy on Jan 24, 2020 8:57:00 GMT
I really don't understand the point of Knowall & gasincider. Are they trying to drum up support for the SC, Ken Masters and/or their ideologies? Quite frankly they've motivated me to never be part of the SC whilst Ken is there. What's the whole point of this cloak & dagger? Does it get you off, boys? And now the insults from gasincider, what a vile human being. As a Rovers fan, I always think the more fans we have the better, but with some I genuinely think we'd be better off without. Disgusting. I'm a season ticket holder and a member of the Supporter Club. Personally I'm disgusted that a moderator on here is single handedly trying to undermine the whole of the supporters club because of his personal issues with one man. This same person who now stands apart from the main core of fans and shares Box 11 with at least three ex directors of this football club. Do these three directors share the same thoughts as this toxic individual who is only making matters much worse with his so called ITK postings on here. The same three directors who were btw working with the supporters club just a few years ago. Frankly I'm surprised that someone with so many personal vendettas can continue being a moderator on this forum. Sounds to me like gasincider & knowall have a vendetta against Wael, to be honest. The supporters club does not represent the majority of fans views, despite what they tell themselves. They're so far from the average fan it's frankly unbelievable. Did you hear that interview from Tommy a while ago with Masters & Hamer? Masters was frankly embarrassing. The SC has turned into an 'old white mens' club where they try to dictate all aspects of society. Why are gasincider & knowall given such information that no one else has? Why do they really refuse to share the full story, whilst stroking themselves and the thoughts of attention? Why do they continue to put a wedge in amongst the fans? Why do they want the fans to not support the club? Why does gasincider lie and change his story? Why doesn't the SC sit down with the club instead of trying legal action? What is the objective of the SC? It says on their website "Our aim is to support Bristol Rovers Football Club". If everything gasincider, knowall and Masters stand for is "to support Bristol Rovers" - then count me out!
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Jan 24, 2020 8:58:27 GMT
I really don't understand the point of Knowall & gasincider. Are they trying to drum up support for the SC, Ken Masters and/or their ideologies? Quite frankly they've motivated me to never be part of the SC whilst Ken is there. What's the whole point of this cloak & dagger? Does it get you off, boys? And now the insults from gasincider, what a vile human being. As a Rovers fan, I always think the more fans we have the better, but with some I genuinely think we'd be better off without. Disgusting. I'm a season ticket holder and a member of the Supporter Club. Personally I'm disgusted that a moderator on here is single handedly trying to undermine the whole of the supporters club because of his personal issues with one man. This same person who now stands apart from the main core of fans and shares Box 11 with at least three ex directors of this football club. Do these three directors share the same thoughts of this toxic individual who is only making matters much worse with his so called ITK postings on here. The same three directors who were btw working with the supporters club just a few years ago. Frankly I'm surprised that someone with some many personal vendettas can continue being a moderator on this forum. Hi Blueridge. Thanks for giving your opinion. Im not trying to undermine the SC, and neither do I have any vendettas, but your committee members are acting in complete contempt and as a SC member, I am very surprised you are not asking the same questions I have of them? Please dont think I am attacking you, but can I ask, why aren't you? They are simple observational questions I have asked that KM and JC have put themselves on a pedastol over the past few years, using the SC as their way of doing so, but are they really acting in the best interests of the SC and wider fan base? Im sorry (not sorry) that the questions I am asking are a touch uncomfortable. But if you are in the firing line so to speak, that is part of your role. Especially in times like they are now. For what its worth, I think the SC over the years has done some excellent and admirable work, I have said it many times on here, and I think BRFC need a SC that can act in accordance with and work with the owners and directors. But the SC hasn't done this and is showing no signs of doing this. Why isnt the SC rep on here for example, interacting with fans, getting ideas and involved with discussion so we have a communication channel? Being a mod on here does not mean I am devoid of an opinion or cannot ask questions or defend myself if attacked. If you are ever around the boxes, pop into 11 as my guest and have a drink and a discussion with me, I cant and wont speak for Ed, Toni and Nick, but they are open and honest people and will happily engage in dialog with you.
|
|
|
Post by CheshireGas on Jan 24, 2020 9:04:25 GMT
We should tread very carefully in actually revealing posters actual identities. I've had a few suspicions in the past but have stopped short of naming them individually. A few have revealed themselves in the past so that's fair enough should they choose to do so. Hugo I am inclined to agree with you, especially if the person revealing names is a moderator or administrator. Also, revealing names removes the willingness of people to post honestly as they see it if anonymity is not assured. However with posting comes responsibility and some of the posters are treading a very thin line with regard to legality and notably libel. I do not wish to take sides but one note stood out, amongst others made by both sides, and that was by Gasincider. He/she cast aspersions on gashead1981's business activities and their profitability. If I knew 1981 as a trade contact, lender, supplier or even bank manager I might think about having a word with 1981 about how well he was doing and whether their business was in fact experiencing issues and the facts he was giving me were correct. I have known suppliers panic when they have read/heard rumours about a business even when the rating agencies have said all was good. I don't feel there is a problem if all of the parties state who they are and how they are connected to the club and why they are motivated as they are. I never have a problem standing behind what I say and will admit when I am proved wrong/have misunderstood/said something that is factually incorrect. It's easy, but also tiresome, for people to return to the playground with their 'I know something you don't know!' and to insult people behind anonymity. It takes a bigger person to come out of the shadows and back up their rhetoric with fact. However I think this thread has in some posts tread a little close to the wind and posters need reminding that they have a legal if not moral obligation to post in manner than does not libel or abuse others. Some posters are walking a tight legal line and need reminding of that responsibility.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 9:05:39 GMT
We should tread very carefully in actually revealing posters actual identities. I've had a few suspicions in the past but have stopped short of naming them individually. A few have revealed themselves in the past so that's fair enough should they choose to do so. I'm quite happy to reveal who I am. I am Batman. May God have mercy on your soul Hugo when Bolders reveals himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 9:07:46 GMT
We should tread very carefully in actually revealing posters actual identities. I've had a few suspicions in the past but have stopped short of naming them individually. A few have revealed themselves in the past so that's fair enough should they choose to do so. I'm quite happy to reveal who I am. I am Batman. May God have mercy on your soul Hugo when Bolders reveals himself. I’m Brian
|
|
|
Post by BrightonGas on Jan 24, 2020 9:11:56 GMT
We should tread very carefully in actually revealing posters actual identities. I've had a few suspicions in the past but have stopped short of naming them individually. A few have revealed themselves in the past so that's fair enough should they choose to do so. Hugo I am inclined to agree with you, especially if the person revealing names is a moderator or administrator. Also, revealing names removes the willingness of people to post honestly as they see it if anonymity is not assured. However with posting comes responsibility and some of the posters are treading a very thin line with regard to legality and notably libel. I do not wish to take sides but one note stood out, amongst others made by both sides, and that was by Gasincider. He/she cast aspersions on gashead1981's business activities and their profitability. If I knew 1981 as a trade contact, lender, supplier or even bank manager I might think about having a word with 1981 about how well he was doing and whether their business was in fact experiencing issues and the facts he was giving me were correct. I have known suppliers panic when they have read/heard rumours about a business even when the rating agencies have said all was good. I don't feel there is a problem if all of the parties state who they are and how they are connected to the club and why they are motivated as they are. I never have a problem standing behind what I say and will admit when I am proved wrong/have misunderstood/said something that is factually incorrect. It's easy, but also tiresome, for people to return to the playground with their 'I know something you don't know!' and to insult people behind anonymity. It takes a bigger person to come out of the shadows and back up their rhetoric with fact. However I think this thread has in some posts tread a little close to the wind and posters need reminding that they have a legal if not moral obligation to post in manner than does not libel or abuse others. Some posters are walking a tight legal line and need reminding of that responsibility. That's the interview for 1981s mod job completed, congratulations Cheshiregas!!
|
|
|
Post by blueridge on Jan 24, 2020 9:39:31 GMT
I'm a season ticket holder and a member of the Supporter Club. Personally I'm disgusted that a moderator on here is single handedly trying to undermine the whole of the supporters club because of his personal issues with one man. This same person who now stands apart from the main core of fans and shares Box 11 with at least three ex directors of this football club. Do these three directors share the same thoughts of this toxic individual who is only making matters much worse with his so called ITK postings on here. The same three directors who were btw working with the supporters club just a few years ago. Frankly I'm surprised that someone with some many personal vendettas can continue being a moderator on this forum. Hi Blueridge. Thanks for giving your opinion. Im not trying to undermine the SC, and neither do I have any vendettas, but your committee members are acting in complete contempt and as a SC member, I am very surprised you are not asking the same questions I have of them? Please dont think I am attacking you, but can I ask, why aren't you? They are simple observational questions I have asked that KM and JC have put themselves on a pedastol over the past few years, using the SC as their way of doing so, but are they really acting in the best interests of the SC and wider fan base? Im sorry (not sorry) that the questions I am asking are a touch uncomfortable. But if you are in the firing line so to speak, that is part of your role. Especially in times like they are now. For what its worth, I think the SC over the years has done some excellent and admirable work, I have said it many times on here, and I think BRFC need a SC that can act in accordance with and work with the owners and directors. But the SC hasn't done this and is showing no signs of doing this. Why isnt the SC rep on here for example, interacting with fans, getting ideas and involved with discussion so we have a communication channel? Being a mod on here does not mean I am devoid of an opinion or cannot ask questions or defend myself if attacked. If you are ever around the boxes, pop into 11 as my guest and have a drink and a discussion with me, I cant and wont speak for Ed, Toni and Nick, but they are open and honest people and will happily engage in dialog with you. Thanks for the reply 1981 and the offer of meeting you for a drink, I may just do that one day. I will be asking questions as you suggest.
|
|
|
Post by Midsomer Murderer on Jan 24, 2020 9:51:11 GMT
We should tread very carefully in actually revealing posters actual identities. I've had a few suspicions in the past but have stopped short of naming them individually. A few have revealed themselves in the past so that's fair enough should they choose to do so. I know who you are and where you live - been parked outside for a few hours just watching........
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Jan 24, 2020 9:52:56 GMT
We should tread very carefully in actually revealing posters actual identities. I've had a few suspicions in the past but have stopped short of naming them individually. A few have revealed themselves in the past so that's fair enough should they choose to do so. Hugo I am inclined to agree with you, especially if the person revealing names is a moderator or administrator. Also, revealing names removes the willingness of people to post honestly as they see it if anonymity is not assured. However with posting comes responsibility and some of the posters are treading a very thin line with regard to legality and notably libel. I do not wish to take sides but one note stood out, amongst others made by both sides, and that was by Gasincider. He/she cast aspersions on gashead1981's business activities and their profitability. If I knew 1981 as a trade contact, lender, supplier or even bank manager I might think about having a word with 1981 about how well he was doing and whether their business was in fact experiencing issues and the facts he was giving me were correct. I have known suppliers panic when they have read/heard rumours about a business even when the rating agencies have said all was good. I don't feel there is a problem if all of the parties state who they are and how they are connected to the club and why they are motivated as they are. I never have a problem standing behind what I say and will admit when I am proved wrong/have misunderstood/said something that is factually incorrect. It's easy, but also tiresome, for people to return to the playground with their 'I know something you don't know!' and to insult people behind anonymity. It takes a bigger person to come out of the shadows and back up their rhetoric with fact. However I think this thread has in some posts tread a little close to the wind and posters need reminding that they have a legal if not moral obligation to post in manner than does not libel or abuse others. Some posters are walking a tight legal line and need reminding of that responsibility. Thanks for your concern Cheshire, and you are right of course. The business which GI can see on companies house obviously has published accounts, so anyone can look at them, turnover, cashflow, profitablilty and importantly customer retention are all good bearing in mind what I know internally about my business! I have a great accountant and financial advisor who finds ways and means of writing down the bottom line so you pay as little tax as possible, and I am guessing that is what he is looking and making a jab at. He cant see my 2 other sole trading businesses though and ive got no need to say how much I earn on here. GI thinks he knows me and everything about everything when he knows less than what you could write on a postage stamp.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 9:58:32 GMT
We should tread very carefully in actually revealing posters actual identities. I've had a few suspicions in the past but have stopped short of naming them individually. A few have revealed themselves in the past so that's fair enough should they choose to do so. I know who you are and where you live - been parked outside for a few hours just watching........ Crikey, are you the bloke sat in the car behind mine? What do you think of Hugo's blue shirt ? Not my style to be honest. I see he's settling down now to watch Homes Under The Hammer.
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Jan 24, 2020 9:59:58 GMT
I know who you are and where you live - been parked outside for a few hours just watching........ Crikey, are you the bloke sat in the car behind mine? What do you think of Hugo's blue shirt ? Not my style to be honest. I see he's settling down now to watch Homes Under The Hammer. I can't be the only one who read that as Homes under the Hamer. An eerie thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 10:29:09 GMT
Hugo I am inclined to agree with you, especially if the person revealing names is a moderator or administrator. Also, revealing names removes the willingness of people to post honestly as they see it if anonymity is not assured. However with posting comes responsibility and some of the posters are treading a very thin line with regard to legality and notably libel. I do not wish to take sides but one note stood out, amongst others made by both sides, and that was by Gasincider. He/she cast aspersions on gashead1981's business activities and their profitability. If I knew 1981 as a trade contact, lender, supplier or even bank manager I might think about having a word with 1981 about how well he was doing and whether their business was in fact experiencing issues and the facts he was giving me were correct. I have known suppliers panic when they have read/heard rumours about a business even when the rating agencies have said all was good. I don't feel there is a problem if all of the parties state who they are and how they are connected to the club and why they are motivated as they are. I never have a problem standing behind what I say and will admit when I am proved wrong/have misunderstood/said something that is factually incorrect. It's easy, but also tiresome, for people to return to the playground with their 'I know something you don't know!' and to insult people behind anonymity. It takes a bigger person to come out of the shadows and back up their rhetoric with fact. However I think this thread has in some posts tread a little close to the wind and posters need reminding that they have a legal if not moral obligation to post in manner than does not libel or abuse others. Some posters are walking a tight legal line and need reminding of that responsibility. Thanks for your concern Cheshire, and you are right of course. The business which GI can see on companies house obviously has published accounts, so anyone can look at them, turnover, cashflow, profitablilty and importantly customer retention are all good bearing in mind what I know internally about my business! I have a great accountant and financial advisor who finds ways and means of writing down the bottom line so you pay as little tax as possible, and I am guessing that is what he is looking and making a jab at. He cant see my 2 other sole trading businesses though and ive got no need to say how much I earn on here. GI thinks he knows me and everything about everything when he knows less than what you could write on a postage stamp. So .... you've got a morning AND evening paper round then?
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jan 24, 2020 10:30:21 GMT
Crikey, are you the bloke sat in the car behind mine? What do you think of Hugo's blue shirt ? Not my style to be honest. I see he's settling down now to watch Homes Under The Hammer. I can't be the only one who read that as Homes under the Hamer. An eerie thought. Holmes you mean.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Jan 24, 2020 10:46:17 GMT
Thanks for your concern Cheshire, and you are right of course. The business which GI can see on companies house obviously has published accounts, so anyone can look at them, turnover, cashflow, profitablilty and importantly customer retention are all good bearing in mind what I know internally about my business! I have a great accountant and financial advisor who finds ways and means of writing down the bottom line so you pay as little tax as possible, and I am guessing that is what he is looking and making a jab at. He cant see my 2 other sole trading businesses though and ive got no need to say how much I earn on here. GI thinks he knows me and everything about everything when he knows less than what you could write on a postage stamp. So .... you've got a morning AND evening paper round then? You could leave me a tip the next time i deliver your grot mag, having to carry a copy of whips and chains weekly gets a bit embarrassing....!!
|
|
|
Post by Midsomer Murderer on Jan 24, 2020 14:14:58 GMT
I know who you are and where you live - been parked outside for a few hours just watching........ Crikey, are you the bloke sat in the car behind mine? What do you think of Hugo's blue shirt ? Not my style to be honest. I see he's settling down now to watch Homes Under The Hammer. I don't mind the shirt but wish he would put some trousers on
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 24, 2020 14:16:58 GMT
Crikey, are you the bloke sat in the car behind mine? What do you think of Hugo's blue shirt ? Not my style to be honest. I see he's settling down now to watch Homes Under The Hammer. I don't mind the shirt but wish he would put some trousers on 1st rule of showbiz. Know what your audience wants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 15:22:04 GMT
I really don't understand the point of Knowall & gasincider. Are they trying to drum up support for the SC, Ken Masters and/or their ideologies? Quite frankly they've motivated me to never be part of the SC whilst Ken is there. What's the whole point of this cloak & dagger? Does it get you off, boys? And now the insults from gasincider, what a vile human being. As a Rovers fan, I always think the more fans we have the better, but with some I genuinely think we'd be better off without. Disgusting. And people wonder why I can still support Wael!? Maybe he is actually acting in the clubs best interests by not allowing the club to fall into the wrong hands. The debts suggest that whoever the “right hands” are, they ain’t Wael’s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 15:28:20 GMT
And people wonder why I can still support Wael!? Maybe he is actually acting in the clubs best interests by not allowing the club to fall into the wrong hands. Honestly I don't think I've ever been so disgusted reading a forum before. Istm that we have 2 parties to support right now: 1. Bristol Rovers Football Club. 2. Gasincider, Knowall, Ken Masters & Steve Hamer (otherwise known as the saviours of Bristol Rovers). Tough f**king choice if I'm honest with you. Imo it’s: Wael and Starnes BRFC Hamer and Masters I’m fed up with the bloody lot of all of them. Total Banned word of a club. City have barely had it so good in terms of take the water material. A total debt-ridden, in-fighting shambles with a tinpot stadium and a fox sh** filled flood plain for a training ground. Embarrassing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 15:34:47 GMT
I can't be the only one who read that as Homes under the Hamer. An eerie thought. Holmes you mean Ha!
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 24, 2020 16:21:27 GMT
Honestly I don't think I've ever been so disgusted reading a forum before. Istm that we have 2 parties to support right now: 1. Bristol Rovers Football Club. 2. Gasincider, Knowall, Ken Masters & Steve Hamer (otherwise known as the saviours of Bristol Rovers). Tough f**king choice if I'm honest with you. Imo it’s: Wael and Starnes BRFC Hamer and Masters I’m fed up with the bloody lot of all of them. Total Banned word of a club. City have barely had it so good in terms of take the water material. A total debt-ridden, in-fighting shambles with a tinpot stadium and a fox sh** filled flood plain for a training ground. Embarrassing. I'm not sure your second option is being thought about by either of the other 2
|
|