richwwtk

6 minutes ago, RedorDead BCFC said:

Depends which singer don’t it 

I was thinking Gillan

I find it encouraging that so many of them are seeing it fit to admit on their forum that their kids want to go to Ashton Gate because all their mates are.

It shows just how much their fanbase must be ageing with little or no new blood coming in to follow them.

5 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Taylor Swift and Madonna will be the two female acts rumoured.  Hard to guess the other one but would assume British.  Oasis comeback?! Doubtful but you never know 

If it's British, and in keeping with old gits whose voices are shot - Deep Purple?

Haven't they already said they have all female headliners lined up?

4 minutes ago, RedorDead BCFC said:

Think Debbie Harry has had a bit too much done to her face now. And to think I used to dream of her all those years ago. 

Lost her powers to a similar extent to Axl Rose last night I would say, but she is 16 years older than him. 77!

48 minutes ago, SirColinOfMansfield said:

An amusing read for a Sunday afternoon:-

https://gasheads.proboards.com/thread/21150/failed

yesterday at 2:01pm Goose said:

My 7 yr old wants to see the s**t...

What do I do

 

Possibly the best response? ...

"I would be inclined to take them to a s**t preseason game, where the standard of play and atmosphere is usually poor, and then take them to a big game down at the Mem where its likely to be rocking."

That would really fool them! "Big game down at the Mem????"

I liked the one that took his kid to away games only to get him into the gas before he got to see the horrors of the memorial ground

16 minutes ago, CrackingCheeseGromit said:

Sometimes these "icons" just have to realise they cannot sing anymore and pack it in. Her band is still decent though.

Not much of that band are original judging by their ages

And the one that does look old enough is Glen Matlock! Joined the live version of Blondie a couple of years ago apparently

1 minute ago, And Its Smith said:

I thought it was midnight when she got cut but I see Del Rey was due to play 10:30 till 11:45. Same as Christine and the Queens. Maybe his feed was on a delay 

Possibly, though all the stage streams on iplayer were labelled live

2 hours ago, Northern Red said:

They got fined when Springsteen went a few minutes beyond the curfew a few years back.

I watched her getting cut off on iplayer, then watched her go to the crowd with them singing her songs, then eventually going off. Pretty sure it was well before midnight.

I switched live channel and Christine and the Queens was still playing. Did he have a different curfew time or something?

Guns n Roses are awful, not much of a surprise.

Most exciting band in the world in the late eighties, sad to see them now

51 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

If it’s supposed to be a proper permanent structure , why isn’t there any piling rigs . No foundations at all . It’s going to be one of those bolt together stands they’ve got at AEK Boco 

I'm no builder.

The fewers are going on about Piling Mats - are they the same thing or something for a temporary construction?

Have a great festival anyone that is going.

Make sure you go see Professor Elemental at The Carnival Of Lost Souls

1 hour ago, NcnsBcfc said:

It's clear that Wael thinks Barton walks on water. So has allowed him to basically bring his mates into every key position in the club, whether they are able to do the job or not. What other Chairman would allow a manager that not only had 1 crown court trial, but two, to carry on. Every other manager facing that would have been on gardening leave. I know he got off both cases (by various means), but that's not the point is it?

I know there's normally a bit of nepotism in every club ( Look no further than our current chairman), but the CEO being Barton's mate as well is not the best in any shape or form.

NP has said that sometimes at clubs you have to have really difficult conversations, where things are challenged. This cabal of scousers are not great for Rovers in the medium to long term for sure. 

This guy certainly seems to not have a lot in terms of experience or qualifications for an in depth role at a football club.

He went into Fleetwood as a 'consultant' and somehow bagged the DoF role while there. And is now just hanging around in the background for the fewers.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/eddy-jennings-joey-barton-bristol-7107802?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

4 minutes ago, Open End Numb Legs said:

Lost me there I am afraid. Are they real people or have I missed a joke?

Eddy Jennings appears to be real - he's a mate of Barton's who seems to just hang around whatever club he is at doing made up jobs.

4 minutes ago, maxjak said:

 I guess Regards humour, it's each to their own..............I love Bill Bailey and Rich Hall but Macintyre and Howard leave me cold

I love Rich Hall on TV - thought he was awful when I saw him live

I used to hate Lee Evans on TV - thought he was amazing live

I fell asleep watching Billy Connolly, not quite sure what to make of that one!

My favourite Danny Baker show caller was the scottish guy with the 6ft home made bow tie

The food at Hull on the opening day of the season was awful - how on earth did they win it?

24 minutes ago, slartibartfast said:

Sorry who t f is this Doris anyhow ?

I had no idea until now, but it would appear she was a presenter of Love Island and is the woman in black in the clip.

She presumably gave permission to City to use it, despite the fewers claiming her as a gashead for years, turns out she is a West Ham fan

The day modern football began, a huge watershed

Am I right in thinking it's taken over 9 months?

On the whole football didn't start with the Premier league thing, I had always thought we must be close to the most underachieving club in the country when it came to having never won a major honour and thought I would take a look.

By major honour I mean winning the top level league, the FA Cup or the League Cup.

There are at least 4 clubs just in the Premier League that have never won anything the same as us, it's more common than I thought!

(Brentford, Brighton, Bournemouth and Crystal Palace if anybody is interested)

I would have thought the parking by Bedminster Cricket Club will be open, but I think they ramp up the prices for gigs over the football.

1 hour ago, shahanshahan said:

For a brief moment I did wonder if Bukayo Saka was joining Bristol Rovers...

 

I see your confusion, the stands are so similar at first glance

20 hours ago, bcfc01 said:

Looks like only 90 season tickets available in the South Stand.

Probably keeping a load aside for POTD ?

There are barely ever any POTD tickets in the South Stand, most of our ST sales are there I think

4 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

It started with advertising bans, which then led to government looking into affordability etc. 

My gripe isn't at all with betting companies, it's with the government who have imposed these checks through the gambling commission. The bookmakers are only following orders from above.

My gripe is simply, that companies shouldn't be told who can advertise on what and so on. We have Army adverts on all the time, which leads to a number of people dying, the adverts talk about the amazing things about joining the army, even give career talks at schools, but the masses of deaths that occur on duty are never mentioned.

You can pick holes in every industry. I don't believe advertising should be censored at all. I genuinely feel, if seeing something triggers you to want to do something you are addicted to, then that is a shame, but doesn't mean it should be banned to suit a minority it affects. 

 

So you are fine with betting companies banning you just for making a profit when it's supposed to be somewhere where people both win and lose? Yet you get upset with the government when they try to stop these companies taking advantage of people who are going to just lose everything they have?

My personal view on advertising is ALL advertising should be banned, though I do realise that is impossible. I just go with Bill Hicks advice "If you work in marketing or advertising kill yourself, you serve no purpose to humanity".

3 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

I wish that was the case, but those discussions were of no interest to 2/3 accounts. You could have £1m in a savings account, but if you don't have an income with disposable amounts 20x the monthly deposit limit you want it is declined. On £600 a month disposable income I had, 2/3 of these firms were not willing allow me to have a deposit limit pcm of more than £100 a month. Despite having a savings account with just shy of £4000 in it. 

There is a difference in stopping people depositing large amounts of money. Effectively you can go in any shop and spend £20,000 or up to £42,000 (if you notify bank) before triggering money laundering checks, so money laundering couldn't be used as a reason for a check a deposit for a few thousand pounds. I agree if someone was depositing £1000 every day for a month or two, this could and should trigger checks. But checks should not be enforced on all accounts if you lost £125 a day or £500 in a month. This is very intrusive, especially when the checks are triggered at so low levels, but the level to which they want to do the checks are unjust and do not mirror the reasoning. 

I have no issues with affordability checks, PROVIDING they are sensible and not triggered by limits which will affect more normal / professional punters than a problem gambler.

No problem gambler is spending £1000 a day or £5000 a month so to speak, they are getting their wages on a friday and pumping in £200 and losing it, now this can of course escalate, but the days of credit accounts are long gone, nor can you deposit with credit cards. also there are no real checks in shops so a problem gambler could go to 5 bookmakers in town in under an hour and bet £50-100 in each one and lose it, and it wont even be noted. 

The checks planned will not lower problem gamblers, they will limit those who bet because they like to bet, bet professionally and have had many accounts limited for being successful, it will have no prevention on the addict who blows his/her wages every week. 

Shouldn't your gripe be with the betting companies who cut you off for being successful? Does that not tell you everything you need to know about their ethics?

I can see your arguments that the way the checks are implemented might not be ideal, but that is a question of maybe changing the way it's done, and that will only ever happen through discussion, certainly not through ranting about them.

I'm also still not sure what your beef is with advertising restrictions for the industry?