BrightCiderLife

On the release clause and whether it’s odd that it may (or may not) have been exceeded. Obviously all clauses can vary for one contract to another but I’d expect it to be worded along the lines of the club not being able to refuse an offer in excess of or equal to £X. Obviously the club can only accept one offer. If another club comes along and offer £X, the selling club may wait to see if anyone else will come in, if they doing, there’s no reason they wouldn’t offer £X+1 etc (until one of them gets to a number no one else is willing to pay). 

20 minutes ago, Open End Numb Legs said:

Interesting to know how they measure the crowd for a test event. The weather forecast is very grim tonight and might put off some of their faithful from going. Do they measure tickets sold or actual people through the gates?

Whichever is higher. With any normal club you’d think they’d have sold more tickets than there are people in the ‘stadium’, but don’t forget the friendly turnstile operator who’ll let you in for a tenner. I’m led to believe he made most of his money by charging £20 to be let back out! 

Inbreds 1 - 3 Inbreds 

Whilst I have every sympathy for Miah, this is absolutely peak tinpottery from them. 

We always point out they never sell out, yet they claim to have fans locked out.

We have to give them some credit, they have finally sold out the Mem and will have to 2,000 season ticket holders locked out!

You couldn’t make it up. 

There’s a very tough call now for the board. Do they cancel the tickets they’ve sold and let the STs have them (which won’t be popular with those less regular fans who the club needs to attract) or leave it as it is (and annoy the STs who are the ones keeping the club going and who the club can’t afford to lose)?

His Twitter account might actually be worth subscribing to now. Imagine having his ego and getting sacked by that lot..!!

39 minutes ago, petehinton said:

They released an announcement video for it ffs. £500k to be part of a 12 month review process. ******* hell. It just never ends does it.

They’ve spent more on this latest gift than any player in their history  

1 hour ago, Hot Air said:

The problem with your concern about 'crimes against women' in the ME is that it is entirely selective. People use it as a stick to beat the region with, and this is shown by the fact that they don't even bother to consult the women of the region on their 'oppression'. The hijab is an obvious example of this - westerners look at this as a form of oppression whereas many Muslim women view as an expression of their freedom of choice and not, by definition, as a form of 'oppression'. 

Let’s get your whataboutery back to some sort of context. 
 

Can you see any link between that and why some alleged victims of alleged domestic violence decline to give evidence against their alleged abusers? I think that’s what happened for both Barton and Greenwood isn’t it?

So in summary @Hot Air:

Charlton are bigger than Millwall - probably agreed but not relevant.

Jordan/Bahrain aren’t as bad as Saudi - not sure either way but not relevant.

SL should be criticised morally for being resident in Guernsey - doesn’t really get you anywhere as he’s a self-made billionaire whose using a similar ‘tax efficient’ arrangement as Wael using Jersey.

You say we’re tinpot because of a mascot fight on the pitch in the late 90s - that was  a wolf and three pigs (who had nothing to do with us) having a scrap which didn’t seem to reflect back on the club, but yes we’re a lot more professional now.

You say we as a fan base cannot criticise your club for decisions it has made in 2023 because of a decision taken by our club 20 years ago - times have moved on. Compare our fans’ reaction to signing Danny Simpson with how your lot reacted to signing Brown. There’s been some discussion about morality and ethics on here. Hiring convicted criminals falls into that. In a fair and liberal society, once someone has served the sentence given to them by law, are they not free to renter society as they were (with only some restrictions)? There’s no legal bar to convicted footballers earning a living. It’s a moral question. It seems a lot of football fans (Man Utd fans over Greenwood, Sheff Utd with Ched Evans etc) would say the publicity and fortune that come with it make it inappropriate or at least don’t want their club associated with certain behaviours. Your owner made himself look hypocritical with the comments about JB before his trial and then signing Brown and your fans have not protested in great numbers against that.

BCFC aren’t as slick/professional as we should be - most on here would agree, did you see the complaints about the digital tickets, the 5-transfer limit, the collars on the home shirts, the lack of away shirt, the changed crest on the yellow kit? Here’s the crucial bit though, as a fan base we tell the club when they get it wrong and expect better from them, we don’t complain that Ted posties and green counsellors are to blame for us demolishing our own stand before we could have hoped to get planning permission. 

You say 1982 was (or should be) embarrassing for us but is now a source of pride - our unwanted record of going from the first division to the fourth is embarrassing for any fan base, there is no pride in the ‘Eight Men had a Dream’ chant. It’s gratitude. They tore their contracts up so we could go on. Without them doing that, there’d be no City. Like you saying without Dunford there’d be no R*vers. (Though note that the AG8 saved the club by not taking out money they were legally entitled to.)

That you have to go back 20-40 years to say we’re tinpot says it all. In the last 20-40 days you’ve started the season without a stand (and still don’t seem any closer to getting planning even though you’re the ones who knocked the other one) and have our name printed on your shirts.

It was very good of you to come on here and give us another laugh! 

1 hour ago, myol'man said:

Just as we arrived at Paddington on our way home from Millwall, just happened to bump into their new fake sheikh owner, with his kids all wearing the blue and white clowns outfit.  **** me did we give him dogs abuse!

Why?

He’s the bloke funding Bristol’s best comedy club for the foreseeable. We’ll be laughing at his expense. 

There’s no excuse for abusing him when he’s out with the family. 

30 minutes ago, Marcus Aurelius said:

Just saw that, even with a quarter of the ground missing, they still haven’t sold out 

Not many clubs could boast that having lost one stand, they’ve still got 6 in use (stand including cricket pavilions, tents, car ports, open terraces etc). It’s only one out of seven that they’ve lost! 

Teds in the home end…

Teds in the away end…

Teds in the Post Office…

There really is only One Team In Bristol

2 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

For every Middle Eastern Owner success story, there are 3-4 absolute disasters.

Who knows what will happen with this potential new owner, but the Jordanian Billionaire that took them over in 2016 and is still currently in charge has hardly moved them forward at all has he?

I think any new ownership comes with it's own inherent set of risks. The proof will be in the pudding of course. Any decent owner with financial acumen will look at the current Fruit market deal on offer as a complete fools gold. 

They would look to either develop the Memorial Ground (probably by turning the pitch 180 degrees, or given the complete nightmare of getting planning permission look to get planning permission for housing (just like Lansdown has done in order to fund the Sports Village), and then use those funds to build a stadium for them that A) They will own themselves and B) Will provide them with an income stream that will make them a viable football club in the future.

If this new Kuwait guy just looks to carry on the Fruit market deal, it will demonstrate to me that like Wael they really don't have the independent financial resources to broker a better deal.

If there’s one club which would tell their supporters they’ve improved the ground by rotating the pitch by 180 degrees, it’d be them!  

22 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I'm no expert , but does anyone think he'll get anything more than a suspended sentence if found guilty ?
Feels like it would be harsh, one mans word against another. All be it one man with genuine injuries and the other man Barton.
The one with his wife puts an interesting spin on it potentially. But I see that case being dropped if she doesn't want to press charges.
That of course means he would still have a job, and he could finish that job by taking them down and every ones a winner.

There are two steps to this process: the first is conviction the second is sentencing. The tests are different.

To secure a conviction the prosecution have to prove so that jury are sure the events took place as they allege. That is not easy to do and is the test which has evolved over centuries when there have been no photos or CCTV so invariably one person’s word against another’s. The benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant.

If convicted by a jury, the judge then sentenced on the basis of the conviction. That means the judge takes it as fact that the events took place as found by the jury. 
Sentencing is notoriously complicated with various guidelines to follow. He may well get a suspended sentence but that will be because the guidelines recommend it, it certainly won’t be because the judge thinks it was one person’s word against another. There is no benefit of the doubt at this stage. 

On the domestic violence as others have explained, his wife’s evidence is necessary. That is also in the Magistrates’ Court not the Crown Court so different sentencing provisions apply. 
 

Whatever happens, the reaction from the club, Wally and GasChat will keep this thread going for a while. 

4 hours ago, RedRock said:

But there’s a proper defence and a Bristol City type-defence.

I left my employers on a matter of principle, as I opposed Government policy. Pity solicitors/QCs have few morals. They should look at the evidence/previous and delegate cases that are ‘clear and obvious guilt’ to  a £10 hour work experience person rather than creaming the public for £500 an hour to line their own pockets defending the indefensible. 

 

We have trial by a jury of our peers. What you’re proposing is trial by lawyers. If juries knew the work experience kid had it because silks has declined the case, juries would convict in those cases. 
Neither you or I want trial by lawyer, we want to be judged, if at all, by our equals. 
The right to representation at a fair trial is the hallmark of a free society. 

6 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Those clamouring for Barton's sacrificial offering might be so kind as to provide a comprehensive list of words, any of which if accidentally and incorrectly used in a single utterance, might automatically demand an individual or organisation's 'cancellation'.

Those who misquote Barton, interpret what they'd like to think he said, or pretend his use of the word holocaust might be construed as making sense within the context of what he said, reveal far more about themselves than the thuggish lowlife they wish cancelled.

Whilst language changes and adapts history should not and must not be rewritten. I see the tw*t Abrahams seeking publicity, others referencing an imagined impact on the Jewish Community. History highlights that multiple cultures across the globe have their own terms for sacrificial offerings, the Jewish have their own but that isn't Holocaust, that word being appropriated from The Greeks and I don't see many referencing Barton alienating the owners of tavernas the length of Gloucester Road, all burning their souvlski to a crisp.  The word isn't Jewish, it isn't owned by the Jewish race or for their exclusive use, though like the West Bank many like to think it is.

I’m not sure getting into the etymology is of any assistance. The word he used brings to mind a very particular atrocity which is of no comparison to a footballer not being on form. It is that comparison which is offensive (if you need me to spell it out, millions of deaths are not the same as a few misplaced passes). It is not to do with any specific religions, races or creeds, but straight forward decency.

I don’t see many on here calling for him to be sacked as a result, people are simply saying what he said was crass and he should apologise for the (unintentional, perhaps) offence he has caused.
 

You and others might call it woke, or cancel culture but it’s really just about thinking before you speak and not saying things that any right minded people would say are wrong and inappropriate. His and the club’s failure to apologise is by this point worse than him ranting without thinking. A quick tweet clarifying he didn’t mean it on Saturday evening would have dealt with it, now it looks like he/they think the comparison between their player’s loss of form and the systematic murder and torture of millions is a fair one. They are wrong to think so and are rightly criticised for it. 

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

I'd agree that editing the video was a woeful mistake by The Gas media team, they should have left it up in its full glory so as reinforce the tongue-tied thug was speaking garbage, not referencing an event imagined by many.

 

Would you like the opportunity to clarify what you meant to say here as I think I know what you’re saying but I hope I’m mistaken? 

I don’t understand why people are trying to defend or play down what he said. It is not that the word ‘Holocaust’ is banned, or is a swear word, it’s the awfulness fo the comparison.

As quoted above, the Holocaust refers to the systematic annihilation of an entire race in Europe. Millions were deliberately killed. A nuclear holocaust refers to the complete annihilation following nuclear explosions. 

A bad performance by a footballer is not comparable. It’s not even similar. It belittles the suffering endured during the 1930s-40s to say that a highly paid sportsman misplaced a few passes over a 90 minute period. 
 

For that reason saying a player had a ‘Hiroshima’ is just as insensitive and offensive. The nuclear blast was so hot and bright that all that remained of some people was a shadow. To think that that evisceration can be equated to not having a good game is shocking. 
 

WendyRedRedRobin’s comment is the worst of the lot. 

Imagine the scenes as Swindon celebrate an actual cup final in October! 

13 hours ago, fgrsimon said:

"HMS Piss the League is pretty much at the bottom of the ocean."

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/joey-barton-wael-bristol-rovers-5222982

 

“If I could go in today and cut surgically the cancer that’s running throughout the club out, I would. But I can’t because I need a period of time and a transfer window to do that, but it doesn’t mean I don’t understand the root of the problem that it all stems from.”

This quote from Jaily Barton stood out for me: “If I could go in today and cut surgically the cancer that’s running throughout the club out, I would. But I can’t because I need a period of time and a transfer window to do that, but it doesn’t mean I don’t understand the root of the problem that it all stems from.”

It’s not clear what he means exactly but saying he needs a transfer window to cut out their ‘cancer’ sounds like he’s referring to the players. What a lovely bloke.

No way LJ will go there. When we sacked him he had ages left on his contract that we have to keep paying him while he’s not working (most likely). He’d have to take a huge pay cut to go there. His methods involve huge spending on facilities, infrastructure and tech etc. 

Cotts may go for it but when he was with us he bought the best players in the league, then in the Championship he wanted to spend huge sums (anyone remember the Dwight Gayle saga?). I doubt Wael can afford his wages never mind assemble the sort of squad SC would want. The last thing he wants on his CV is a few years of mediocrity at that level. 
 

They’ll end up with a bloke most of us have never heard of but they’ll see as the new messiah after getting some obscure team promoted in the non-league a few years back.
 

They’re in for a long and difficult season.

2 hours ago, Loon plage said:

Rovers Independent forum.

...

Watola always told the board that Bristol Rugby wouldn’t be missed very much in terms of finanace. Rovers couldn’t afford to finance the women’s team so it was salvaged by Filton College. A previous board pissed off Filton College which allowed Bristol City to jump in and attach their Academy there and subsequently take over the women’s team.
 

What a blast from the past it is to see our old friend ‘Tony The Till’ getting a mention. He was always good for a laugh in the NLBR glory days. 

They seem to be getting on just fine without additional revenue streams given the spending spree they’ve been on..!

If anyone wants to play ‘Loyal and Few’ bingo with this press release you’re odds on to get a full house: https://www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/2018/october/stefan-payne-statement/ 

In a classic of the ‘Deluded Gappers’ genre, look out for the repeated references to ‘great fanbase’, ‘travelled in great numbers’, ‘great following’, and ‘good number’. There are so many ‘great’s in there it seems like Tony the Tiger has written it! 

Just to confirm, the official attendance was 446. Great. 

14 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Here is the 2018 version....

 

Very fitting that they would use out of date currency after the great ‘Crisp Crisis’ of 2018!

19 hours ago, bert tann said:

Henbury Gas should be the least of anyone's worries.

The share price of the Arab Jordan Investment bank has dropped from 1.77 to 1.40 in the last year bringing market capitalisation down from £280 million to  £220 million which means the value of the Al-Qadi family shares has reduced by  £18 million and is now standing at £66 million. Analysts are concerned at the company's "lack of strategic focus" and policy of "under-investing".  These comments should ring a few bells with Rovers fans and I suspect they will be alarm bells.

But even more intriguing is the possibility of national news headlines for "our beloved club" when revelations surface about what really goes on at Rovers mysterious  £250 000 pa London office.   

 

Thanks as always Bert. Losing £18m has got to hurt anyone's wallet. Given the family wealth is now only £66m, any significant investment in the Rovers represents a huge risk from the family. If WAQ is using his own share of the wealth, the risk is even greater. 

Looks like it'll be evolution not revolution for the foreseeable.