nebristolred

I've only skim-read bits of this topic and bits of the Ipswich forum but there are a few points which I think they need to consider. First being that our initial reaction to Ashton's appointment was pretty much the same as theirs. Even posts along the lines of 'well with a name like Ashton he's bound to fit in here!'. Secondly, there was the constant bizarre dynamic of who actually signs players - it was asked constantly by fans and particularly in the Twentyman interviews, whether Lee Johnson actually had any say in who comes in. That will be a huge talking point one day at their club, particularly if Paul Cook is still around when the cogs finally turn. Finally, and ending weirdly on a positive for MA, it's undeniable that he did get extremely good transfer fees for the talent that we did actually have. That could well be a benefit that they will see over at Ipswich.

2 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Indeed....you might even conclude that the vaccine will keep you alive longer!!

In fact yes, 1,470 is probably pretty low! Suggests only about 18,000 people a year die, which is surely way lower than the actual total.

Either way, nothing from that to suggest the vaccine is dangerous.

7 minutes ago, Riaz said:

I can’t find the figures for Covid deaths for healthy people under 60, but last time i checked it was under 1000.

Deaths from vaccine 1470 and counting.

Covid has been here’s for 16 months and most people have only just been vaccinated 

So there's what, 40,000,000 people who have been vaccinated in the UK to some extent. And 1,470 have died within 28 days?

That sounds like about the normal number you'd expect to die from 40,000,000 in the 7 months or so we've been vaccinating people. Nothing dodgy about that at all.

1 minute ago, Riaz said:

In this country, more people have now died from the vaccine, than healthy people have died from covid.

Not sure how you can claim this in any way and I'd also guess it's categorically untrue.

6 minutes ago, TomF said:

I'd have more sympathy to Horner if it wasn't for the fact that Max has always raced close to the line. Almost Senna'esk where he puts the driver in a position where if they hold their line it'll cause a crash.  When you have people like Alonso saying it was a racing incident - one of the most level headed drivers out there  - I think its about right.

Probably Horner knows deep down that perhaps Max isn't going to get away with that tactic so much and momentum plays its part in F1

Yep completely agree. Deep down it's all gamesmanship, it just doesn't make them look like a particularly noble team. They give me throwbacks to the Ferrari team of the early 00's in that respect.

I never have favourites when it comes to F1 but Red Bull just continuously make themselves look like a bit of a nasty team (not sure if nasty's the right word but we'll go with it). They'll determinedly side with their main driver at the expense of their number 2 driver regardless of the cost, even when number 1 is clearly to blame, and they certainly seem more petty when it comes to complaints and disputes. I understand F1 is a sport of fine margins but they certainly stand out amongst all of the teams in that respect and Max fits in with their style perfectly.

I don't blame Danny Ric one bit for getting out. And as much as Max is an incredibly talented driver, I would love nothing more than for Lewis to completely outclass him at Zandvoort.

Horner has turned into a right little whinger in recent years to be honest. Very decent team principal of course but his bias towards his main driver, be it Vettel or Max, seems to sway his attitude on too many things.

Yeah I think this will sell well. Don't forget people haven't been to gigs for ages now, and it's a great Christmas present for the oldies.

Surely has to be Glasto in that space, though I swear acts love to put a Glasto-spaced hole in their tour and then never end up on the poster just for a wind up now.

Think I heard one of The La's lives there too! 

If it is him, looks like he's playing Swansea, Sunderland, Norwich, etc too. Not exactly a tour of small arenas to be fair.

Rumour seems to be that it's Elton John, not 100% sure though. Won't be long until we find out.

Very exciting 

14 hours ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Stick it in an HDMI port - enter the WiFi password and Fanny is your uncle

You can get free footy too if you are a bit savvy so that probably counts you out 

Exactly this, best use of a fire stick imo.

If you don't have a smart TV they're very useful. If not, they're just handy if there's a particular app you want that your TV doesn't support.

Considering Ipswich was reportedly £40m, with their assets, fanbase difference, and 2-division head start compared to the sags, even £20m for the sags is beyond delusional.

18 hours ago, BanburyRed said:

Luke Leahy gave it his all.Not an accomplished defender but he and Mc Cormick really gave everything unlike most of the others.
Best of luck.Good little club with excellent training facilities and a stadium which suits their small crowds to perfection and has great catering and disabled facilities.
Shrews only club in the whole West Mercia area of;Shrops,Worcs and Herefordshire so potential is there.

Deliberate use of the words 'little' and 'small', to satisfy themselves that they are bigger than they actually are......

Haha for god's sake...

Literally everyone else would put the sags and Shrewsbury in a similar mould size-wise nowadays.

15 hours ago, Swede said:

Reasonable question: Just how many seats & I mean "fixed" seats & not the white plastic garden furniture kind are there in the stands at cloud cuckoo land?

14 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Well, according to this, just shy of 8,000

http://stadiumdb.com/stadiums/eng/bristol_memorial_stadium

However, that probably doesn't take in to account a new tent and row M.

 

No way it's as high as 8,000, not with the amount of terracing that it has.

Adding up their stands seats on various sites, it comes to around 2,800. Football Manager (which is relatively reliable) has it as 2,700. I'd imagine 3,500 seats at an absolute maximum to be honest, less than our entire smallest stand. 

27 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I said it would need some tweaking, I am allowed to have the opinion that gaining an advantage after an error, by another drivers error isn’t what I like to see.  It wouldn’t be difficult to come up with a solution, it’s an innovative multi million pound business.  
 

Maybe DRS should be available to cars in clear air as well, that would give everyone an equal footing on lap times.

Of course you are, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise . But if there is a better way of doing it, then by all means they could or should trial it, but it's been this way for years with no question, probably because there's no other easy solution. And I'm sure they leave it this way to restore a bit of excitement as well. Luck theoretically should balance out on this over a career.

2 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

They could line up on the grid in the formation the race was stopped in and start with those in the places behind the leader going at the time they were behind him when the race started, lapped cars would start from the pit lane and come out after those in front had completed a lap.   That idea might need some tweaking, but whilst Hamilton is a brilliant driver, he got two huge advantages in that race, the DRS allowed him to smash the fastest lap, which the lead car was never going to be able to do in the remaining time because of track position.

 

 

 

 

How would that work? If a lap time is 1:20, and a few cars are  1:19 behind, they would be starting with a few cars coming full blast directly behind them, which is about as dangerous a situation as you could get.

There's a reason this is the way it's done. And you can complain about Hamilton getting luck all you like, but this happens to drivers every time there is a red flag, why is it only an issue now?

Pierre Gasly got incredibly lucky by timing his pit just before Leclerc crashed at Monza last year, and won the race. It's part of the sport and something the teams probably factor in.

21 minutes ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

But if there was no red flag all the cars were out of place any way and were allowed to race normally. 
 

It just seems a very silly rule and the top 6 who had been careful made no mistakes and kept there cars on the track had no advantage for doing it.

Yes but when they're racing as usual, the impact of lapped cars isn't so bad - there is a marginal impact perhaps for half a lap or so but for the most part it's fine. If they restarted exactly as positioned on track, even from a rolling start, it is far messier.

It's always been the way to be fair, under safety car conditions cars can overtake the SC and unlap themselves, so the restart should be no different. It's not fair no, but it's the easiest remedy, short of having cars restart on differing parts of the circuit or something daft like that. Many parts of the sport aren't as fair as they could be. Not saying this about you by the way, but I've never heard people complain about this before, but as soon as Hamilton benefits from it, plenty online all come out against it.

Put it this way, you could theoretically restart with Verstappen in first, then 2 painfully-slow Haas cars directly behind, then a mix of the Merc's/Perez/Alpine's. Some would be having blue flags, some wouldn't. It would be a complete mess. Allowing them to unlap themselves fixes that.

22 hours ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

Can’t believe Hamilton was a lap down and red flag goes so he can unlap himself.

It seems a daft rule, he crashed and had to change his wing but due to an accident on track can get all the time back. 

I can see why people think so but it's always been the rule, and it does make sense. Imagine a restart with a mixed pack, the confusion of some cars being blue flagged and some cars genuinely racing is a recipe for a ruined race.

There was a great thread on here some time back - I remember posting photos of the Williams being redeveloped in the early 90's and I can't for the life of me remember what it was called.

I wonder if there's any hope at all for those towards the end of festival season. Reading, Shambala, even Boomtown. I can't see it, but if cases drop, and if a company like Festival Republic could nail down some sort of testing, there could be the slimmest of chances.

Yeah I'm really not convinced the barrier should be collapsing in like that. I get that barriers are designed to withstand a certain level of impact but what's happened here is very similar to what happened to Francois Cevert decades ago - part of the barrier has failed and part of it has survived. Unfortunately in the case of Cevert it essentially meant he was cut in half - and a similar fate would have happened to Grosjean had it not been for the staggering strength of the halo.

Another oddity is the fire itself which you very rarely see from an impact these days. Engine blow-outs were still common in the 90's and the 00's but since Berger at Imola back in the late 80's I can't think of an example of an F1 car catching fire from an impact alone.

A really strange crash for different reasons, and at the very least, this settles the halo debate once and for all. 

14 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

They're at it again;

It's a shame but if C19 didn't happen we could have taken 3k/4k up there for the opening fixture.

Hopefully we'll all be allowed in by the time the final fixture at Blackpool comes along. We can take 7k up there again like we did in 1990, with a similar outcome

Weird.

https://www.11v11.com/matches/blackpool-v-bristol-rovers-05-may-1990-142972/

Total attendance: 6,776

But apparently they took 7,000 

Another  from me on Fontaine’s DC. Missed them at Glasto but I hear they’re ace live

51 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

Can any of the financial wizz kids on here explain to me how capitalising debt works? 

I know SL has done it for us so it's industry practice but I don't quite get it. 

I sort of understand that instead of paying a debt the company pays its loaner the debt value in shares and that due to the two companies being under the same roof its a bit like paying yourself however, what does that do to a clubs value? 

If the methane snorters were valued at 13.5 million and the share issue was greater than that then surely that would now value the club at the level of the share issue otherwise the share holder will have to wait for the value of his stock to be at that level or greater to make any money. 

If I have 20 million pounds worth of shares but someone wants to buy me out they have to give me 20 million to buy 13.5 million pounds worth of assets? 

It's confusing. 

 

I've no basis for this, but I always assumed it worked so that the owner takes a larger slice of the club, diluting the value of other shareholders in the process.

So let's say there are 100 shares of Bristol Rovers. Wael owns 49 shares and other investors own 51 shares. So 49% v 51%.

The club has racked up debts to Wael.

Instead of calling in the debt, Wael can capitalise it as equity instead. So the club will create maybe 20 extra shares, all going to Wael (so it's now 69 shares v 51 shares). This leaves the split at 57.5% v 42.5%. So the other investors own the same number of shares as before, but they are now worth less as Wael has taken a bigger chunk of the pie as part of the debt capitalisation.

The club's value remains exactly the same theoretically. It's just distributed differently internally.

I could be way, way off but this is how I assumed it works, and I think it's this practice which has allowed Wael to take control of Rovers.

Fully prepared to be ripped to shreds here now!