Not sure if this has been mentioned before but, I think they are now definitely trying to involve the local authority. There have been a few references to how good this will be to the South Glos area and discussions with the local council. If I was a resident of South Glos I'd be posing questions to my council officers and councillors.

Typical of this club to try and get somebody else to supply them with the stadium "they deserve". They tried it with BCC in the nineties and even formed their own political party to fight against BCC at the local elections, in an attempt to force the council to get them their ground.

 

 

11 hours ago, Super said:

New signing?!

 

This bloke does like to be associated with the big men of football. Whatever attracted him to BRFC, ah! Nick Higgs.

43 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

Historically their lowest season average is lower than ours, and our highest seasons average is higher than theirs.

We've won more games against them than vice versa.

We have a spiritual home - they were rent boys at Eastville and Bath, obtained a stadium from Bristol's rugby club via the back-door and if they are lucky will end-up playing in a glorified university sports stadium in South Gloucestershire. They tried to nick Ashton Gate when City was on its knees.

They have blocked Bristol City Council support of our club out of jealousy and spite on several occasions, once when it could have saved us, and for the World Cup project. They did all they could to block the Vale project.

The song they love so much was stolen from Portsmouth. It's an embarrassing dirge in any case and as far as I can tell has no obvious link to football or the local culture.

When they were relegated out of the Football League, rather than taking it on the chin, they tried their best to get a points deduction against Wycombe in the hope that they could swap places with them.

They revel in the rag-baggedness caused by their previous inept Boards, by labeling themselves the family club yet attack families having lunch in a pub, and were fighting in the car park at Wycombe last Saturday.

After years of ridiculous abuse about SL and Bristol Sport (which is probably the only form of business model that can help the club prosper these days, short of massive growth in crowds) they w-4-n-k themselves silly about being bought-out by some bloke from Jordan who's family owns a couple of hotels and shares in a bank.

No-one likes them, but not because they've earned the dislike the proper way, like Millwall have, but because they are just awful.

Almost in a nutshell and very true. Though there are many things missing from the long list of misdemeanours, from top to bottom and many in the middle. 

Back to sell out Rovers. Why now?

Why did Higgs and co sell just before the Sainsbury's outcome?

Were the others advised/forced to go along with the sale?

How much did they get, close to their value?

Did they fear the outcome?

Has the loan been repaid or any other debts? Presumably directors have written theirs off in the share sale/value.

Has Al-Qadi gambled on winning the Sainsbury fight?

If lost, will he bail out?

If they win, will he bail out?

Will he/the family, bankroll the club without the new stadium? Already stated it's crucial to their business future.

Too many questions, and the media are still quoting them as having had a massive cash injection, (ITV news tonight). The only outlay is on shares purchased.

Looks like a gamble on both parts. The last time Higgs sold shares, it was Cowlin's shares. They had risen sharply in value after they were awarded the memorial ground redevelopment contract. He subsequently sold his shares for £11m to Balfour Beatty, presumably on the strength of that, and then later cancelled the contract in favour of the UWE plan. I bet Al- Qadi would crap himself with that knowledge.

12 minutes ago, I'm Sparti-Bob said:

Prince Ali got 4 votes. Apparently, Wally is requesting a recount on the grounds that 'thousands' of voters were locked out and were therefore unable to cast their votes...

Did he manage to get one of the opposition sent off?

2 hours ago, Coombsy said:

S-y-g

can you answer some questions

1 have your new owner payed off the lone

2 if you lose the Sainsbury court case where the money coming from to pay court charges

3 why have you pulled out on the uwe deal

4 where the money coming from to build a new ground 

5 why was Darrel told there no money for new players

6 if he has money to invest why have yet to be seen 

7 why did Darrel offer to leave 

please try to answer questions sensibility 

Can I have a go?   I will anyway.

Answers

1. No, he said they'd work to make the club debt free over a period of time. No guarantees.

2. They'll take out another loan.

3. They haven't. The new owner said they'd have another look at the deal to make sure it's the right one for the club/new ownership. It means they'll pull out.

4. Sainsbury's.          The cash point machine at Winterstoke Road.

5. He wasn't told that, they're going to develop their own, just as they have in the past.

6. He spent it on his season ticket at Stamford Bridge.

7. He didn't want to upset any more of his team sponsors customers, with his obnoxious drunken rantings in the local boozer.

I don't suppose that much has changed really.

1 hour ago, Red Right Hand said:

Or if a Rovers player fell over in the area and there was no-one there to see it (quite likely) would it be a penalty?

And obviously get yet another opposition player red carded. How many times does that happen?

Is this why the Al-Qadi family have brought Steve Hamer in as their man at the helm?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/10362863/White-collar-fraudsters-offered-jail-survival-tips.htmlWhite collar fraudsters offered jail survival tips

Former Swansea City chairman Steve Hamer has teamed up with a convicted fraudster to launch Prison Consultants, a service advising white collar criminals on how to cope with being locked up - the first business of its kind in Britain.

He's not averse to a little controversy himself,  after overseeing a poor financial period which resulted in his forced removal as chairman, prior to Swansea seeking a Company Voluntary Arrangement. He was then denied access to the Swansea boardroom while attending a match against local rivals (Cardiff),when he was in the company of Peter Risdale.

 

 

As I am now a wealthy oil baron, I am willing to fund your court costs against Mr Okobe should you decide to take the matter further. Just send me your bank details and I'll deposit enough money into your account  for your expenses as well. PS. don't send them in an open reply, PM me the details so nobody can see them and exploit you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

Huh! Sez you! My communication is from the desk of Mr Sunday Okobe who is the Minister for Oil and Other Stuff and I think you`ll find he is beyond reproach. If my documents were from so called `royalty` I`d be very suspicious.

I think it`s you who`s fallen for the oldest trick in the book mate - I`ll give you a wave from my private helicopter which will be bringing me to Ashton Gate in the not too distant future.

Pha! Your helicopter won't have any oil, as I'll have it all. They sent me a sample with the share certificates. Admittedly, it was a little runny and a funny shade of yellow but, hey, a sample's a sample. I think it was crude oil.

2 hours ago, Red Right Hand said:

I had one like that and am just waiting for the paperwork to arrive that confirms I now own 80% of the Nigerian oil industry. I`ve used my life savings and I`ve remortgaged my house to pay the processing fees but I reckon it will be worth it.

I think you've been conned. You can't own 80% of the Nigerian oil industry as I've already bought the shares. They amount to, 65% from the crown Prince, 25% from the crown Princess and the other 7.5% from the crown post office of Nigeria. Double check who the email was from as I've already got the share certificates.

4 minutes ago, cynic said:

Case closed a day early.

Either a clear cut victory for them or a kick in the teeth.

Hopefully the latter.

The dice have been rolled and the fat bird is clearing her clack...

Probably knew each others cases so well prior to the hearing, that there was no need for extra representations or questions on the third day. Sounds as if the thieves are hoping that the judges will see Sainsbury's as not playing the game  and award in the thieves favour or, Sainsbury's used the law as was intended, covered their backs, and because of delays and the thieves trying to change the contract, upholding the original decision. 

4 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

i've just read the evil post report on 'the appeal', did Sainsbury's not have a legal team at this hearing?, because if they did the post did not report anything about it whatsoever.

They won't, it's all hyped up to portray the thieves as the good guys. That's why NH made the recent statements in the hope of somehow pumping up the pressure and influencing the judges (lying worked with AV), while also portraying Sainsbury's as the bad guys for halting an improving club on the up. It also makes the headlines more dramatic if they lose the appeal. At the end of the day the media get a good story.

Monday 32nd January.

Don't take the piss.

They are known as the family club. That refers to the family from hell.

Woman in a taxi arrives at her destination and is horrified to find she has no money on her person. She offers payment in kind to the driver, who asks her what she proposes. She removes her knickers and shows him her fanny, to which he replies, "have you got anything smaller"?

These latrines are more public than I remember, look at all that shyte!

I'm sure they would, but imo (no planning experience) I doubt their opposition would be enough to stop an urban development for housing.

Correct but, would the removal of the existing car park have a detrimental effect on the licence for use as a sports stadium? I use the term stadium loosely.

Just seen this wonderful image on a rovers fans Facebook page.

Nice to see the scarf being held correctly.

His misses doesn't look bad mind. Nice long legs, nice eyes, but, why the green hat? It doesn't go with the rest of her attire. Perhaps the nutter who hurriedly held his scarf up for fear of being seen, told her what to wear. He plainly has no sense, whether fashion or otherwise.

I suppose you have to feel sorry for the poor bugger, that's the closest he'll ever get to a stadium in Bristol, and only down the road from a useful supermarket, to boot.

You talk like you have experience in this matter Rich (RE length of crease - not fainting mother in laws...) Care to share?

I cannot divulge my ironing processes, or the machine I use.

Could have run an iron over them shorts. Look at those creases? My mother in law would faint...

Agreed, there's one crease about 8 inches long and two inches wide that needs pressing, any mother in law would faint.

With out looking back through the posts, did any one find if the rumour was true and if so who was nasty b sag , that funded the TVG .

Not sure if he funded the application for a TVG but, he put his name as the applicant and he was a Rovers supporter. He later withdrew his application but the TVGers argued that it was after all, a joint application, which I believe wasn't allowed in law, but then suddenly was.

With out looking back through the posts, did any one find if the rumour was true and if so who was nasty b sag , that funded the TVG .

There was a Rovers supporting solicitor employed regularly by BRFC. He was based in Queen Square, asked numerous FOI questions of the council and fed the opposition with as much information as was available, in an attempt to hinder both the Ashton Vale development and the Ashton Gate superstore. Most of my info is now gone and I have spent too much of my life already searching for evidence of the skulduggery, which undoubtedly was used against BCFC and it's plans by all and sundry, scratching each others backs, supporting each others causes for their own selfish ends.