Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol R*vers dustbin thread


42nite

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Is that right? Is the piece that Rich quoted out of date then?

Yes, it dates from Rovers announcing their preferred site - before South Glos agreed the changes. A training ground where you weren't allowed to use it before 6pm during school terms, wouldn't be much use to any professional football club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, pongo88 said:

The Bristol Rugby owner was a lifelong Rovers supporter who just happened to put the club into administration, enabling Rovers to buy the other 50% for £10k. No attempt was made to find any other backers to avoid administration.  This has been covered many times on the forum, but is always ignored by those of a gas persuasion 

And we still didnt steal anything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, pongo88 said:

The Bristol Rugby owner was a lifelong Rovers supporter who just happened to put the club into administration, enabling Rovers to buy the other 50% for £10k. No attempt was made to find any other backers to avoid administration.  This has been covered many times on the forum, but is always ignored by those of a gas persuasion 

A 'life long' supporter who hadn't noticed that Rovers had been forced to leave the city for Bath, and only remembered when the rugby club were desperate for more income in 1996?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, steviestevieneville said:

I spoke to someone who had supported Bristol for decades .He had no ties to City or your lot but knew what had been going on when your lot bought the stadium. He told me that all memorabilia of Bristol RFC had been chucked into a skip even while they were still playing there and nobody would ever know that it was a rugby stadium, they were also made to feel unwelcome in their own home. Your excuse of a club has a history of being underhand and lacking class .  

That is truly shocking, if true.

It goes a long way to explaining why they moved to Ashton Gate as soon as possible, sixteen years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hello said:

I'll give you the purchase of a lease for the site although I guess it would be a significant length of time and not 5 years

 

but are you lot still peddling the Memorial Stadium nonsense? Rugby club were going bust, were going to sell Mem to Amtrak for £2.3m, BRFC paid £2.3m for 50% of the ground. We had the bank loan to prove it

So the rugby club chairman and BRFC supporter (Arthur Holmes) threatened to sell the Memorial ground to Amtrak for £2.3m (the figure he was owed by the rugby club), until he came up with the better plan of selling 50% of it to BRFC (Dunford), for the same figure of £2.3m (the amount he was owed). There was a condition that, if either of the clubs went bankrupt, the other club could buy the remaining 50% for £10,000. Yippee! BRFC come to the rescue of the rugby club, they'll be joint owners of the stadium company, and the rugby club will be forever grateful.

Now then, the rugby club, which he was chairman of, was losing money at an alarming rate, didn't receive any of the proceeds of the 50% sale, because it paid Arthur Holmes back. So they were still losing money, had no income from the sale and after five months, Arthur Holmes (rugby club chairman and BRFC supporter) filed for bankruptcy of the rugby club. BRFC (Dunford) bought the remaining 50% for £10,000, not bad business. Dunford was happy, Holmes was happy, rugby club directors were happy, after a piece of land was shared out, but, the rugby club weren't happy. 

In the obituary that Dunford wrote about Arthur Holmes, he used two thirds of it to explain the deal for the Memorial stadium, why?

Oh yes, Arthur Holmes was made a lifelong President of BRFC, for his services to the club. 

No BRFC didn't steal the Memorial ground, their chairman and friends at the rugby club saved the ground for the future of both clubs. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smaller than a flea said:

That is truly shocking, if true.

It goes a long way to explaining why they moved to Ashton Gate as soon as possible, sixteen years later.

Fifteen years and seven months after paying their first rent to BRFC for use of the rugby ground. I suppose they could have moved to Bath, complaining that Bristol never helped them in their search for a new ground.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rich said:

So the rugby club chairman and BRFC supporter (Arthur Holmes) threatened to sell the Memorial ground to Amtrak for £2.3m (the figure he was owed by the rugby club), until he came up with the better plan of selling 50% of it to BRFC (Dunford), for the same figure of £2.3m (the amount he was owed). There was a condition that, if either of the clubs went bankrupt, the other club could buy the remaining 50% for £10,000. Yippee! BRFC come to the rescue of the rugby club, they'll be joint owners of the stadium company, and the rugby club will be forever grateful.

Now then, the rugby club, which he was chairman of, was losing money at an alarming rate, didn't receive any of the proceeds of the 50% sale, because it paid Arthur Holmes back. So they were still losing money, had no income from the sale and after five months, Arthur Holmes (rugby club chairman and BRFC supporter) filed for bankruptcy of the rugby club. BRFC (Dunford) bought the remaining 50% for £10,000, not bad business. Dunford was happy, Holmes was happy, rugby club directors were happy, after a piece of land was shared out, but, the rugby club weren't happy. 

In the obituary that Dunford wrote about Arthur Holmes, he used two thirds of it to explain the deal for the Memorial stadium, why?

Oh yes, Arthur Holmes was made a lifelong President of BRFC, for his services to the club. 

No BRFC didn't steal the Memorial ground, their chairman and friends at the rugby club saved the ground for the future of both clubs. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I am not going to say it wasn't a convenient deal or that we got a good deal (we still paid the same amount for half the ground as it was going to be sold for, so not peanuts)

 

We were already tenants, surely it made sense to offer the ground to the other club that played there and secure the ground for both teams as opposed to selling anything/everything to someone else who may have had other ideas. Whether Arthur Holmes took the money and ran to Timbuktu isn't/wasn't our problem

 

As for any 'Honorary Title' he may have been given by Rovers, people get given them for all sorts. Hell Barry Bradshaw is now a life Vice president because he served on the board and I don't know many that say great things about Boycie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Hello said:

I am not going to say it wasn't a convenient deal or that we got a good deal (we still paid the same amount for half the ground as it was going to be sold for, so not peanuts)

 

We were already tenants, surely it made sense to offer the ground to the other club that played there and secure the ground for both teams as opposed to selling anything/everything to someone else who may have had other ideas. Whether Arthur Holmes took the money and ran to Timbuktu isn't/wasn't our problem

 

As for any 'Honorary Title' he may have been given by Rovers, people get given them for all sorts. Hell Barry Bradshaw is now a life Vice president because he served on the board and I don't know many that say great things about Boycie

Ah, so a 'convenient deal' that involves a bit of insider knowledge is a good thing when it benefits MoronFC but a legitimate deal where insider knowledge may have been disclosed by one of the parties to the cintract is cause to gomwhining to the FA?

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bianconeri said:

Ah, so a 'convenient deal' that involves a bit of insider knowledge is a good thing when it benefits MoronFC but a legitimate deal where insider knowledge may have been disclosed by one of the parties to the cintract is cause to gomwhining to the FA?

classic example of #gaslogic

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bianconeri said:

Ah, so a 'convenient deal' that involves a bit of insider knowledge is a good thing when it benefits MoronFC but a legitimate deal where insider knowledge may have been disclosed by one of the parties to the cintract is cause to gomwhining to the FA?

and again, I have said City have done nothing wrong regarding Taylor. They just made use of knowledge. Is Rovers 'complaint' actually against City or asking how City came about the knowledge. Two different things

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hello said:

and again, I have said City have done nothing wrong regarding Taylor. They just made use of knowledge. Is Rovers 'complaint' actually against City or asking how City came about the knowledge. Two different things

stop biting on the subject Hello, you're one of the decent few but you're doing yourself no favors with this

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, phantom said:

Have to say it is refreshing to have decent replies from a Rovers fan not just back biting at everything

Yes, it was good to see Fordingbridge Pirate on here the other day, haven't seen @In the Net recently? Sensible debate is so much more interesting that the constant "he said, she said" stuff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hello said:

and again, I have said City have done nothing wrong regarding Taylor. They just made use of knowledge. Is Rovers 'complaint' actually against City or asking how City came about the knowledge. Two different things

Not pointing the finger at you at all sport, it's good to have a sag who doesn't resort to tribal rhetoric. If I was in the blue camp I'd be worried about the consequences of who disclosed Taylor's contract either by telling us or putting it in the public domain IF it happened. That's why they'll not formalise any complaint.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...