|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 19, 2020 18:39:07 GMT
A good interview earlier with MS over how the club are dealing with the issues caused by the Coronavirus.
Perhaps someone else can post a link as I'm not at home at present?
|
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Mar 19, 2020 18:42:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by paulpirate on Mar 19, 2020 19:00:52 GMT
Is he donating to the club
|
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Mar 19, 2020 19:02:43 GMT
Is he donating to the club Why should he? Would you donate to your employers? |
|
|
|
Post by gas2 on Mar 19, 2020 19:26:44 GMT
At least we have heard from the club about the situation
|
|
|
|
Post by SleepyGas on Mar 19, 2020 19:34:20 GMT
I didn't hear the show, but this article by BristolLive is reassuring. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 19, 2020 20:13:46 GMT
This was a far better interview by MS than the last two Q&A's, it's interesting we only have 10(?) non football related staff and the club is prepared to pay them in full for what they usually earn, at least in the short term, even though they are only on zero hours contracts.
It also seems the money the EFL are giving league clubs is only what they would receive in the next 3 months anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Mar 19, 2020 20:36:47 GMT
This was a far better interview by MS than the last two Q&A's, it's interesting we only have 10(?) non football related staff and the club is prepared to pay them in full for what they usually earn, at least in the short term, even though they are only on zero hours contracts. It also seems the money the EFL are giving league clubs is only what they would receive in the next 3 months anyway. £500,000 lost in revenue according to Starnes, that’s about 10% of what we would usually make in a year. Going to affect our budget quite a bit for next year I would imagine but every club will be in the same boat. Ironic really as this was the year we were supposed to have made big savings but it looks like we will make another massive loss anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by paulpirate on Mar 20, 2020 7:08:45 GMT
Is he donating to the club Why should he? Would you donate to your employers? so why should the customers |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 20, 2020 8:04:33 GMT
Why should he? Would you donate to your employers? so why should the customers Not sure the club have ever sought donations? Buying a season ticket etc isn't donating money it's paying for goods/a future service. Regardless if you don't want to financially support the club at the moment nobody is making you. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Mar 20, 2020 8:15:38 GMT
It's funny that Wael chucks in 3 million quid a year to the club, but the anti Wael brigade, while complaining about Wael not spending any money, also whine about buying a ticket.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2020 9:04:08 GMT
It's funny that Wael chucks in 3 million quid a year to the club, but the anti Wael brigade, while complaining about Wael not spending any money, also whine about buying a ticket. Not sure why there is so much polarised labelling on here. It’s not just “Anti Wael brigade” or “Wael fan club” there will be quite a lot of people somewhere in between. I think most believe Wael is genuine in wanting to be a success with Rovers and he has committed time and money. I suspect most of any resentment comes from the lack of communication and transparency around the big issues such as a new ground and the training facility. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Mar 20, 2020 9:06:37 GMT
It's funny that Wael chucks in 3 million quid a year to the club, but the anti Wael brigade, while complaining about Wael not spending any money, also whine about buying a ticket. Not sure why there is so much polarised labelling on here. It’s not just “Anti Wael brigade” or “Wael fan club” there will be quite a lot of people somewhere in between. I think most believe Wael is genuine in wanting to be a success with Rovers and he has committed time and money. I suspect most of any resentment comes from the lack of communication and transparency around the big issues such as a new ground and the training facility. Well, I was talking about the anti Wael brigade, not the middle ground. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2020 10:03:23 GMT
Not sure why there is so much polarised labelling on here. It’s not just “Anti Wael brigade” or “Wael fan club” there will be quite a lot of people somewhere in between. I think most believe Wael is genuine in wanting to be a success with Rovers and he has committed time and money. I suspect most of any resentment comes from the lack of communication and transparency around the big issues such as a new ground and the training facility. Well, I was talking about the anti Wael brigade, not the middle ground. But there does seem a reaction from some on here that if you defend WAQ on anything you are a “member of his fan club”, “happy clapper” etc but those that don’t give him credit for everything are an “anti Wael brigade”. Perhaps its a sign of the times that people use such phrases rather than have a reasoned discussion. Never mind eh. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Mar 20, 2020 10:34:00 GMT
Well, I was talking about the anti Wael brigade, not the middle ground. But there does seem a reaction from some on here that if you defend WAQ on anything you are a “member of his fan club”, “happy clapper” etc but those that don’t give him credit for everything are an “anti Wael brigade”. Perhaps its a sign of the times that people use such phrases rather than have a reasoned discussion. Never mind eh. Or maybe I was referring to those who whine about him not spending any money, call him fake, and predict he is going to sell off the Mem, and similar stuff. I think that's a reasonable label for that sort of activity. Just coz there's a middle ground that the label doesn't apply to, doesn't mean you can't apply the label elsewhere. That is reasonable. Saying you shouldn't apply the label to some people coz it doesn't apply to others is unreasonable. Not really sure why you think precluding the use of the phrase where it actually applies is reasonable. If you're talking about the general use of ad hominems in a reasonable conversation, then that horse has bolted, hasn't it? I can't be arsed to carefully describe the thing I'm talking about in every instance in case someone objects to a broader descriptor on a forum where some people can't even be arsed to fire off two neurons before puking all over their keyboards and leaking it onto the internet for everyone's lack of elucidation and general obfuscation. If you want to police that, then carry on. I've tried to have countless reasonable discussions about it over the years, and we still get people saying the money isn't real. If you're so interested in reason then I suggest you start on that side of the argument. That's where you can have the most reason. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2020 11:35:34 GMT
But there does seem a reaction from some on here that if you defend WAQ on anything you are a “member of his fan club”, “happy clapper” etc but those that don’t give him credit for everything are an “anti Wael brigade”. Perhaps its a sign of the times that people use such phrases rather than have a reasoned discussion. Never mind eh. Or maybe I was referring to those who whine about him not spending any money, call him fake, and predict he is going to sell off the Mem, and similar stuff. I think that's a reasonable label for that sort of activity. Just coz there's a middle ground that the label doesn't apply to, doesn't mean you can't apply the label elsewhere. That is reasonable. Saying you shouldn't apply the label to some people coz it doesn't apply to others is unreasonable. Not really sure why you think precluding the use of the phrase where it actually applies is reasonable. If you're talking about the general use of ad hominems in a reasonable conversation, then that horse has bolted, hasn't it? I can't be arsed to carefully describe the thing I'm talking about in every instance in case someone objects to a broader descriptor on a forum where some people can't even be arsed to fire off two neurons before puking all over their keyboards and leaking it onto the internet for everyone's lack of elucidation and general obfuscation. If you want to police that, then carry on. I've tried to have countless reasonable discussions about it over the years, and we still get people saying the money isn't real. If you're so interested in reason then I suggest you start on that side of the argument. That's where you can have the most reason. Then you have the worst of the bunch- the feckless ones who flip flop on whichever side of the fence they feel like while using terms like “rose-tinter” and “anti-Wael brigade” depending on whether things are good or bad. I think most have seen enough now in the last 4 years to have their minds pretty much made up on what Wael is all about and the limits of what he can achieve at this club. It’s certainly hard to see things improving off the pitch while he is here and the only good times we have had since DC brought us back up were largely due to Coughlan although some of us (myself included) couldn’t appreciate it at the time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2020 12:44:20 GMT
But there does seem a reaction from some on here that if you defend WAQ on anything you are a “member of his fan club”, “happy clapper” etc but those that don’t give him credit for everything are an “anti Wael brigade”. Perhaps its a sign of the times that people use such phrases rather than have a reasoned discussion. Never mind eh. Or maybe I was referring to those who whine about him not spending any money, call him fake, and predict he is going to sell off the Mem, and similar stuff. I think that's a reasonable label for that sort of activity. Just coz there's a middle ground that the label doesn't apply to, doesn't mean you can't apply the label elsewhere. That is reasonable. Saying you shouldn't apply the label to some people coz it doesn't apply to others is unreasonable. Not really sure why you think precluding the use of the phrase where it actually applies is reasonable. If you're talking about the general use of ad hominems in a reasonable conversation, then that horse has bolted, hasn't it? I can't be arsed to carefully describe the thing I'm talking about in every instance in case someone objects to a broader descriptor on a forum where some people can't even be arsed to fire off two neurons before puking all over their keyboards and leaking it onto the internet for everyone's lack of elucidation and general obfuscation. If you want to police that, then carry on. I've tried to have countless reasonable discussions about it over the years, and we still get people saying the money isn't real. If you're so interested in reason then I suggest you start on that side of the argument. That's where you can have the most reason. I won’t get into a drawn out debate because it won’t end until you get the final word and win! My point is general and that all too often these sort of terms get thrown at people on here purely because they are coming at a discussion from a different angle. I guess at one point I’d have been labelled a “happy clapper” because I chose to defend WAQ on numerous issues. Now that I’ve pretty much run of patience with the current owners due to their lack of off field progress and poor communication I’m probably now considered one of the “WAQ out brigade” but I can still defend him when I see fit and commend him when he takes positive action such as guaranteeing wages etc during this crisis. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Mar 20, 2020 12:49:12 GMT
Or maybe I was referring to those who whine about him not spending any money, call him fake, and predict he is going to sell off the Mem, and similar stuff. I think that's a reasonable label for that sort of activity. Just coz there's a middle ground that the label doesn't apply to, doesn't mean you can't apply the label elsewhere. That is reasonable. Saying you shouldn't apply the label to some people coz it doesn't apply to others is unreasonable. Not really sure why you think precluding the use of the phrase where it actually applies is reasonable. If you're talking about the general use of ad hominems in a reasonable conversation, then that horse has bolted, hasn't it? I can't be arsed to carefully describe the thing I'm talking about in every instance in case someone objects to a broader descriptor on a forum where some people can't even be arsed to fire off two neurons before puking all over their keyboards and leaking it onto the internet for everyone's lack of elucidation and general obfuscation. If you want to police that, then carry on. I've tried to have countless reasonable discussions about it over the years, and we still get people saying the money isn't real. If you're so interested in reason then I suggest you start on that side of the argument. That's where you can have the most reason. I won’t get into a drawn out debate because it won’t end until you get the final word and win! My point is general and that all too often these sort of terms get thrown at people on here purely because they are coming at a discussion from a different angle. I guess at one point I’d have been labelled a “happy clapper” because I chose to defend WAQ on numerous issues. Now that I’ve pretty much run of patience with the current owners due to their lack of off field progress and poor communication I’m probably now considered one of the “WAQ out brigade” but I can still defend him when I see fit and commend him when he takes positive action such as guaranteeing wages etc during this crisis. Yes, and my point is, if it doesn't apply to you, then obviously I'm not referring to you. And my other point is, I don't need to be told how to refer to people on here, after being referred to by people on here. |
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Mar 25, 2020 8:20:43 GMT
Or maybe I was referring to those who whine about him not spending any money, call him fake, and predict he is going to sell off the Mem, and similar stuff. I think that's a reasonable label for that sort of activity. Just coz there's a middle ground that the label doesn't apply to, doesn't mean you can't apply the label elsewhere. That is reasonable. Saying you shouldn't apply the label to some people coz it doesn't apply to others is unreasonable. Not really sure why you think precluding the use of the phrase where it actually applies is reasonable. If you're talking about the general use of ad hominems in a reasonable conversation, then that horse has bolted, hasn't it? I can't be arsed to carefully describe the thing I'm talking about in every instance in case someone objects to a broader descriptor on a forum where some people can't even be arsed to fire off two neurons before puking all over their keyboards and leaking it onto the internet for everyone's lack of elucidation and general obfuscation. If you want to police that, then carry on. I've tried to have countless reasonable discussions about it over the years, and we still get people saying the money isn't real. If you're so interested in reason then I suggest you start on that side of the argument. That's where you can have the most reason. Then you have the worst of the bunch- the feckless ones who flip flop on whichever side of the fence they feel like while using terms like “rose-tinter” and “anti-Wael brigade” depending on whether things are good or bad. I think most have seen enough now in the last 4 years to have their minds pretty much made up on what Wael is all about and the limits of what he can achieve at this club. It’s certainly hard to see things improving off the pitch while he is here and the only good times we have had since DC brought us back up were largely due to Coughlan although some of us (myself included) couldn’t appreciate it at the time. This. Wael appears to be at his limits. He certainly can't build Rovers a ground with his own money, so there will be no progress. The world and football is moving at a rate of knots, Rovers slowly meandering to nowhere right now and doesn't look to be changing. |
|
|
|
Post by Blueside on Mar 25, 2020 8:38:53 GMT
Eric and AF, I think you two are having a heated agreement here? AF, you say you are referring to one characterised group at one end of the scale, and Eric you say there are three groups: two polar opposites and the centre ground. Both points are correct and the forum remains open to sensible reasoned debate for once
|
|
