BTRFTG

33 minutes ago, Bris Red said:

Anyone got sound issues on robins tv?

Not I, though the muppet commentator makes me wish I had ...

Joke. Checked yesterday and Sky had NO record on any of their links for the game to be shown. Just bought via Robins TV to discover its now on TV. So we've season tickets for a game we can't get back from on public transport, Sky subscription that doesn't advertise what its showing and now a Robins Pass where the club fails to mention its on TV. Seriously, football can go **** itself.

32 minutes ago, In the Net said:

Thanks for posting this info - very interesting..

What would have become of the rugby club if Rovers hadn't provided the £2m working capital?  I didn't really follow this very closely at the time, I'm not into rugby, and the main thing I remember about Bristol is that they were on the local news because their new stand had been built in the wrong place. 

The rugby club, like much of rugby struggling at the time, would have gone into administration. Given the freehold I'm sure somebody would have picked them up, possibly Durnford.

On 08/10/2022 at 17:37, slartibartfast said:

Long story, but my mum and I apparently trespassed on his land before the Oakdale estate (Downend) was completed, she didn't know..............unfortunately ( for Holmes) she told our dad, who was en ex RAF boxing champion, only one winner there !

Slarti, did you ever play the '...I was only upholding the family tradition, your Honor...' card?

On 06/10/2022 at 21:04, Rudolf Hucker said:

The person who always had information to share on this subject was the sadly recently departed @Rich. On page 761 of this topic 10 August 2017, he wrote:

”Arthur Holmes was the chairman of the rugby club, he'd been in that position for a little while, evidently, he was also a supporter of BRFC.

He'd come in to give stability after professionalism of the rugby union, with Bristol rugby losing lots of money each season. He lent them the money to build their Centenary stand, which without his money, they couldn't afford.

After a couple of seasons, he invited BRFC to join as tenants of the rugby club, to help out with finances but, they still kept losing  money. He needed his money back (£2M) and a plan was hatched to form the Memorial Stadium Company with a 50% holding between BRFC (Dunford) and the rugby club, (himself).  So Bristol rugby received £2m From BRFC (Dunford) in exchange for 50% of the Memorial stadium company and Arthur Holmes got his £2M back. The rugby club were still losing money. As part of the new company formation, it was agreed that if either party should go bankrupt, the other party could purchase the remaining 50% for a figure of £10k. The rugby club were still losing money.

Within six months of that agreement, Arthur Holmes (the Chairman) filed for bankruptcy of the rugby club and BRFC(Dunford) exercised the right to purchase the remaining 50% of the shares in the Memorial stadium company.

Arthur Holmes was not a well liked man to supporters of the rugby club but, he was made a life president of BRFC, for services to that club.

Make of it what you want.”

 

Thanks Rich - OTIB’er forever! RIP. 

I had some interesting private messages with Rich when this cropped up back last August.

Whilst Holmes may have wished for things to transpire as they did (for personal gain,) that was never established and was not how things transpired. He denied such connivance (as he might.) Holmes screwed up big time with the stand fiasco (wrong place, wrong design,) leaving the rugby club without the means to rectify and nigh-on bust. Enter Durnford, the shadiest milkman in the west. He established a 'stadium holding company' as a vehicle to propose a deal to the rugby club. The rugby club were not involved in this, its incorporation signed by Rovers officials only at a meeting in one of their homes in Thornbury.

Knowing the rugby club was on its uppers it was The Milkman who proposed a joint venture to the rugby club's operations manager (forget his name.) The deal was simple: BRFC would provide £2m working capital for the newly incorporated stadium company owned wholly by BRFC (its only paper after all,) the rugby club would receive half the shares issued in the company using the Memorial's freehold as guarantee. They would share use of the ground, if not ownership. The rugby club didn't sell the ground, an important legal distinction, as that would have required quorum approval of rugby club directors and members. The deal also included step-in rights (standard in any such deal,) allowing either party to purchase all shares in the stadium company at 'issue price' from the other party should that party enter administration. This form of contract, under the rugby club's weak governance structure, was able to be entered into by their operations manager alone. The deal was never proposed to rugby club directors or members as it didn't have to be. The blindest Pew might have foreseen what came next and although the rugby club directors and members sought to raise challenge it was quickly established that their constitution had allowed the deal to be legally executed through their own naive, weak governance. The Milkman didn't purchase the freehold, he bought back the shares he'd recently incorporated and with them came, er, The Memorial.

22 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sykes is a midfielder, often was central at Oxford- this is a pretty new position for him but he's been decent I think.

The 'Son of CoD' may claim Irish ancestry & Oxford heritage like his forebear. Sadly for us he also shares the quality of possessing absolutely zero end product, isn't quick, combative and falls over in a light breeze.

Pretty much spot on, though I'd disagree Atkinson rated a 6 given for their first, of the 3 City to go for it he's prime responsibility as he's looking straight at it and fails to move. Ditto their third where Tanner & Martin's non show at the near post wasn't unexpected and Atkinson simply watched the ball pass him without reacting.

All game City's movement was between non-existent and woeful. I lost count of the number of times City players waited for the ball to come to them only to be beaten to possession by Brum players who could be bothered to put a shift in. Sykes (aka Son of CoD) being the worst culprit, static in losing possession or limply failing over when challenged.  I, too, lost count of the number of unforced errors in our passing. Only a month ago when we had the ball we looked to get forward at pace. Yesterday I thought Johnson back in charge, City's first motion being to look to pass sideways or backwards. For all the Naismith critics out there, we sure as hell missed him yesterday. 

As for Bentley's distribution (sic), don't get me started.

Many have made the fundamental error in assuming the buses back to the centre after Saturday matches actually turn up. On the few occasions I took public transport last year I ended up having to walk, watching the indicator board count down to 'due' then removing all evidence the bus had ever existed, as it didn't. 

21 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

I tried to keep up with the recent discussion on Twitter. He is an interesting follow.
I don't think he's wrong either. Now home teams keep their own Gate money, why not let them keep the majority of the TV money. It's their ground organisation etc. The main argument is bigger teams wanting a bigger cut , again. 
I liken it to Man U wanting to have their own station and keeping all the rights. One thing they seem to forget, without the "little" team , there wouldn't be a game. There has to be some fairness in the set up or the pyramid collapses . 

Holt's primary objection is for the smaller clubs in less accessible/fashionable locations, visits from 3 or 4 better supported teams make a huge difference to them, not only in gate receipts but also in food & beverage sales. If fans have no choice but to go to the game to see it they often will. In harsher economic times if its cheap to watch a stream whilst supping Aldi/Lidl branded beer, they'll opt for that, particularly if midweek.

We've STs at AG but for little reason as we've watched more games on the box than in flesh. Moving games, making it impossible to get to and from games, travel pricing, convenience. Its becoming a no-brainer to give up travelling to matches. Same for away fixtures. We used to do them all in person. We'll do very few in person this year but will manage to see the majority. Folks focus on the revenues broadcasting generates (mostly for the few,) whilst ignoring the devastating impact it has on the game in general.

If he taught Whitefield Rugby mid 70s then he's an extraordinary coach as they were the best of the best bar none. Only side that used to regularly beat my school team. That's not quite true, it wasn't beat so much as thrashed, wholly thrashed. I played alongside quite a few of those lads for Bristol Schools & Colts. Top kiddies and even better athletes who, like me,  were lost to egg-chasing given they didn't 'fit the profile' in those days.

Very sad news. 

Another 'fixture' who'll be sorely missed from wherever City play.

Currently standing at 4.1 miles long I'm surprised our North Bristolian breathren  haven't been inundating the media to correct the oft repeated inaccuracy that the queue to view ERII lying in state is the longest queue witnessed in Britain since the war. As they've reminded all and on numerous occasion (particularly during their non-league sojourn,) far longer queues extended from turnstiles when their fans were unable to gain access to games.

Why the silence?

On 13/09/2022 at 17:10, Coach said:

 

 

 

Tomorrow's game is recordable (at least on Sky Q)

On the TV Guide highlight Reading v Sunderland on 401 or 403 and press Select

Go down and across to highlight "On this week"

Go down and choose which game to record.

 

Thanks, I've the full Q set-up so will try if unable to watch live. I didn't realise you could record other than that on the primary listing.

24 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Thanks for the examples, I didn't know of either. Unfortunately unverifiable and adding more anecdotal evidence onto the pile does nothing to strengthen that however.

I find it odd that a group of senior military leaders content with overthrowing the government were accepting of being talked down by the Queen Mother, who then just told the PM to sort himself out a bit. Hmm.

The Hitler example is interesting, but I don't think it's the best example for you to bring up here which implies to me you're struggling a little to back up your words with anything concrete: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/18/royal-family-archives-queen-nazi-salute

“We know that after ’45 there was a big cleanup operation,” Urbach said. “The royals were very worried about correspondence resurfacing and so it was destroyed.”

Historian Alex von Tunzelmann suggested on Twitter that the lack of access to the royal archives for historians and the public “is profoundly undemocratic. We need much greater access. We need to be grown up about it. The history of this country belongs to the public”.

Protecting our democratic values and stability indeed.

Probably getting into politics forum territory, but I also wasn't asked to be governed by anyone in our current cabinet as far as I'm aware...? I hear the "they can veto UK legislation" line a lot, but when we get down to fundamental reasons why, or how often it actually happens to our detriment, people are rarely so forthcoming.

I am concerned by almost everything our current government does.

It's a fair point that I made and one you've completely skirted rather than answering, because you have no answer.

I'm not talking about reparations. I simply think it's dishonest to point at countries around the world as examples of states in turmoil with the implication it's because they are lacking a monarchy, when we (while BEING a monarchy) had a large hand in their current turmoil. I'd include a fair portion of Africa and the Middle East in there which are both in your list of examples.

You are happy to point at (sort of) examples from the past of where the monarchy has been a force for good, but if we bring up where it has presided over awful suffering (such as the famine, starvation, and misery you mention in fact!) then that's summarily dismissed.

Either you accept it into the discussion, or you day-zero it as you've said. Which is it?

Actually they aren't 'unverifiable', you can try and obtain the relevant documents from the public record but many remain embargoed. There are plenty of references in autobiographies, though the official records to Wilson deny he was under Soviet /Czech influence. Its also amazing that which is open currency in the Forth Estate but that, for reasons not obvious or transparent, are never to be reported. That extends from politicos, Royals to some interesting entertainment and sporting celebrities. I believe what aren't any longer embargoed are the photo archives and reports at The Evil, they were D Notice but may have been released after 75 years. Others on this forum may also have had relatives who had experience of the Bristol insurrections. My paternal family came from Hotwells and Ashton Gate, my great grandfather having built a couple of the roads adjacent Ashton Gate in which my father and many of his relatives grew up. During the early air raids many in the area made use of the tunnels in the 'Rocks Railway' in the gorge (the Council had promised to deliver thousands of Anderson Shelters but through incompetence and, some say, corruption, they never materialised.)  A few thousand South Bristolians slept there each night. That was until the war took a turn for the worse, Hitler looked liked invading and the Police and Military took physical action against South Bristolians evicting them using force from the tunnels. The tunnels were earmarked as the BBC's emergency HQ should they be forced from London. The Bristol Blitz occured shortly thereafter, Churchill attended the scene expecting to provide a morale boost and was roundly booed, spat at and subject to abuse, Bristolians having considered themselves abandoned by the Government. Reports taken were embargoed and fabricated. But not those my parents, aunts and uncles (all now dead,) who oft recounted the 'unofficial' version of events they'd witnessed. In which case I wholly agree we should have more access to records, save only where it serves the public good. That can be a marginal call.

You remain concerned by our Government, many of us are, but if you participated in the last election then , yes, you did elect this Government. Even if you chose not to participate they're still your Government. That's how the democratic system works. The Government represents everybody, not merely those who voted for them. Though many like to proclaim by dissociation, ' they're not my Government', they are. To deny they aren't is to condemn the democratic process.

Having worked extensively in the Middle East and Africa you're correct that many of the issues evident there today may be traced to the UK 'abandoning' them at end of Empire. But that only goes to strengthen the argument for the level of constitutional control a democratic Monarchy may deliver. When such controls were abandoned and nations left to govern themselves, the supposed honeymoon of democracy was shown to be the farce that it is. What do you want? We're uncertain? When do you want it? Immaterial, you're getting it now, like it or not. Goodbye and goodnight. As in this nation we've generations who rattle on about 'their' freedoms and liberties, by which they refer to 'their rights' (sic) otherwise to be controlled and provided for by the state.

If you want practical examples of where the ECHR has intervened contrary to the will of the UK Government, ask any Home Secretary these past 30 years. It's the reason that whilst, ad nauseam, Home Secs have promised to protect borders, control terrorists, repatriate those without leave to remain, they're unable to discharge the laws passed by Parliament. Not for here but I could cite examples that would have reasonable folks screaming like rabid Daily Mail readers. 

1 hour ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

‘Attested’, ‘nugatory’, ‘signally’?  Speak proper!

 

God only knows what you made of 'Pursuivant' today?

59 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Do you have any examples from this past 50-100 years or so, let's say, of our monarchy delivering constitutional or political stability?

The obvious example (and no it isn't myth as I've met some of those who were there at the time,) is the 74 coup against Wilson's Government. With the country in turmoil, bankrupt and with the serious concern of undue influence from a foreign state, a delegation of very senior military heads met with the late Queen Mother explaining they were, within hours,  to seize power to save the country. Understanding the respect for the Constitution they knew the British public would never accept them, hence they wanted her as their figurehead to front the coup. Politely, over a drink, she informed them not to be so stupid, the British didn't do things that way and sent them on their heels sworn to say no more,  she would sort matters. As soon as they had departed The Monarch summoned the PM, discussed how close he was to losing power and that he was under microscopic scrutiny. Wilson survived the crisis. If you don't like that example try the late Queen's and her father's speeches to the British Public at the outbreak of war. A war in which a signal proportion of the populous thought life under Hitler preferable to that they presently enjoyed. Bristol being one of the hotbeds of decent and where Churchill was as popular as a fart in a lift. Both examples remain subject to D Notices. 

In your response you wear your colours with pride, perhaps too much. The Monarch can influence but has no authority over Government, or rather if they exercise the right they technically hold they must abdicate. You appear concerned at the prospect of the UK finally dissociating itself from the ECHR. Why? UK citizens were never asked whether or not they wished to be governed by that body and had no absolutely authority as to how it is comprised, instituted or assured. A body, to remind, that other than in domestic matters fiscal and of national security had an ABSOLUTE right to veto ALL UK Parliamentary legislation, that to which us citizens hold Parliament to account. That's a pretty fundamental principle that folks have died over.

Pseudo reparation talk, do me a favour. The Church, Monarchy, and powerful have subjugated folks since the year dot - all flavours, all ends of the political spectrum, employers and unions all. We could do as Pol Pot and proclaim year zero, but strange how that inexorably leads to famine, starvation and misery, as those under Mao, Stalin, Mugabe et al would have testified had they not died in the process. Life ain't fair. It ain't but it's what you make it, not what others should be obligated to make for you.

7 minutes ago, red panda said:

Lots of people seem to have been agreeing, so I'll take up the challenge.  Just to put my cards on the table, I am not in any way anti-royal.  They bring a lot of pleasure to many people in the country, they are great for tourism, and they are mostly harmless.  I was surprised myself how sad I felt on Thursday.

However ... I'm sorry but your argument doesn't stack up.  You've cherry picked a few examples of bad presidents, but that doesn't prove a thing.  Nothing personal, but I'm amazed you put forward these arguments in the very week that a new UK PM has been sworn in, elected by a few thousand totally unrepresentative morons and not even the first choice of her own MPs, and she looks likely to introduce new policies that are quite different from the manifesto on which the current government was elected.  Do you really think that's a good system.  I certainly don't.

You make a number of points, as have others, that merely suggest you've a poor understanding of how the UK is governed, its very Constitution, that being the subject of my post.

As was attested today, Parliament serves the Monarch yet the Monarch consents to obey the will of the people as reflected through members elected. The Monarch inherits great wealth, but offers it all back to Parliament in return for sufficient funds to discharge the Monarch's state functions. In the UK, at National (Parliamentary) election, one doesn't vote for a party, one elects an individual to represent one in a first past the post ballot. The individual elected owes no allegiance to any party nor the policies they promote, as evidenced by MPs being able to vote against party whips to which they might profess allegiance or by them  'crossing the floor' as they see fit. They do not have to adhere to the wishes of their constituents, once elected they've free reign to do as they wish. The largest group of like-minded MPs (usually a political party) is invited by the Monarch to form a Government. Should the largest group be a political party its for its membership to decide who both their leader and PM should be (usually the same but it doesn't have to be.) Parties have their internal procudeures as to how this is discharged. In the case of political manifestos there's no obligation on that elected to Government to fulfill any if its promises. For various reasons most  commitments are never delivered. In which case the majority of your second paragraph is nugatory. Fair to criticize if you think the system flawed (as do I,) but you snipe and carp as though there's been connivance and wrong-doing this week when all you describe is how the system is prescribed to work.

The opening to your second paragraph hasn't been 'cherry-picked' and is a pragmatic demonstration as to why tinkering with the UK's model constitution isn't necessarily a good thing, even should some consider wholly elected bodies to be in some way 'more' democratic (sic). If you've ever spent time in Parliament you quickly realise having a second, non-elected chamber isn't such a bad thing. As with the Monarch, the elected peoples will must always triumph, but what the non-elected body is able to do is to consider and influence legislation it is tasked to consider, importantly not always from a politically partizan angle. Contrast nations who've tinkered our constitution, USA is a fine example. There you've 3 wholly elected functions (Executive, Senate and House,) all on different election cycles and split proportion of election, and they've ended up with stasis. Usually the President, laughably called the most powerful person in the world but who in reality isn't even the most powerful person in Washington, ends up delivering little (or what gets delivered is instantly annulled within a couple of years.) As there, a good comparison here are National and Local elections where historically the party in Government gets thrashed by its opposition come Local elections. All that does is make delivering benefits of policy to the people more difficult and antagonistic, Local power thwarting National policy whether or not its for the best. Tit for tat politics.

Without question there is a signal difference between the continuity of Monarchy, where the incumbent is a function not an individual (hence the affirmations of allegiance required today.) Matters not palaces, jewels and crowns, they're functions of state, not for sale. They exist on behalf of us subjects. For that reason it matters little a Monarch is for life (or until they abdicate,) unlike many Republics where Presidents, once elected, have enacted legislation that may never see them (in some cases their chosen successors,) removed from office. Ditto wealth. What was ours through ERII becomes ours through CRIII. Contrast the likes of Putin. A President paid around $130k per annum who in the past decade has amassed a personal wealth in excess of $200bn, no need to declare or explain, no questions asked (unless one is unafraid of poisons and falls from great height.)

Our Constitution is far from perfect, but on balance its hard to think how immediately it might signally be improved given the present poverty of political understanding and debate in our nations.

Were I a graphic designer I'd produce a logo depicting a prematurely aged itinerant swigging an out-of-date Fanta whilst carrying all their worldly assets in a Sainsbury's 'for life' carrier bag.

6 hours ago, adamski said:

I respect your view, however, one of the main justifications for the monarchy has always been “the amount of revenue they generate” which is a pure estimate, one might ask how much they take out of the economy ? FYI the vast majority of schools, circa 73%, are not C of E schools, of the circa 27% that are C of E, the majority are purely housed in buildings that are owned by the church.

I fear King Charles will not generate as much cash as his mother for the country, perhaps he should subsidise his existence from the massive revenue he has leached out of the Duchy of Cornwall! 

I think you'll find the main justification for 'Monarchy' these past 3 centuries is it appears to deliver constitutional and political stability it, after all, meaning 'the rule of the many by the one for the purpose of good'. Look at the remaining 46 monarchies around the globe and they tend to be decent, peaceful and prosperous places to reside. When monarchies fall they're invariably replaced by President Republics or Confederations. A quick scan of the major Presidencies of late doesn't exactly promote the concept: Trump , Biden, Putin, Xi, Erdogan, Bolsanaro, Kim Jong-un, Salih, al-Assad, Maduro. Add in just about any African nation, ex-Soviet state and central American dictatorship, consider security, conflict, economic stability and personal liberty and monarchy wins out by a mile.

That's not to say the present form of the UK Royal Family should remain, rather their very function within the constitution should be preserved and for good reason, it provides an essential buffer to political extremism and stasis.

As I mentioned elsewhere, if folks bothered to review the Royals funding position rather than fixate on the Privy Purse, as anti-monarchists so love to do, they'll see The Exchequer receives far, far more in revenue from them than is paid back and that's before any 'benefit' to UKPLC's economy is considered.

As for Charles having 'leached out' fortunes from the Duchy of Cornwall (I assume you also include his other income streams,) its worth noting he's cost the taxpayer nothing, has paid all his own costs and voluntarily paid top rate income tax on all surplus (he didn't have to.) As per your suggestion he may subsidise his existence from 'The Duchy' he can't, its no longer his. He will, however, and as with ERII, more than pay his own way given all that he has inherited by way of income streams is paid to The Exchequer. But when I say 'he has inherited' I really should have said 'the function has inhetited,' for that's what it is.  A functional, not personal, existence. The accounts are public record. 

Presidents BTW, do not come cheap. Amazing how many have PERSONALLY become the richest people in the world.  Unlike monarchs that wealth doesn't transfer to the next in line, preserved ultimately for a nation's benefit. It sits in personal bank accounts around the globe. 

13 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

Who celebrates 140 as a landmark date? A club that doesn't think it will make it 150?

Cynic.

I'll have you know the material associated with ones 140th anniversary is Unplasticised  Polyvinyl Chloride (uPVC.)

Our North Bristolian brethren have a long and intimate association with that material, some might argue to the point of fetishistic obsession. If that isn't worth celebrating, what is?

Trainline agreed to refund all our split tickets for the planned strike date games without a quibble, even though they didnt have to (yet). Did so politely & quickly via a quick mail to their help desk.

I've had far greater problems in getting refunds for cancelled and delayed trains from GWR, who for some reason always get the value of the refund owing wrong yet strangely always in their favour.

4 hours ago, Sheltons Army said:

It’s a good job her estate isn’t liable for inheritance tax 

For anyone whose done probate - Imagine sorting that out !

Arguably probate would be a doddle compared to having to sort the Monarch's labyrinthine financial arrangements each year. Clearly the majority of assets are effectively held in trust on behalf of the nation, its not as though they could be sold on the open market. For example, Republicans love to cite the value of the Privy Purse each year never once mentioning that the Crown Estate alone (the Monarch's) gives all its income to The Exchequer each year, about 3.5x what they get back.

So the Government line (which couldn't be clearer,) is:

"There is no obligation to cancel or postpone events and sporting fixtures, or close entertainment venues during the National Mourning period. This is at the discretion of individual organisations. As a mark of respect, organisations might wish to consider cancelling or postponing events or closing venues on the day of the State Funeral. They are under no obligation to do so and this is entirely at the discretion of individual organisations.

If sporting fixtures or events are planned for the day of the State Funeral, organisations may want to adjust the event timings so they do not clash with the timings of the funeral service and associated processions. As a mark of respect, and in keeping with the tone of National Mourning, organisers may wish to hold a period of silence and/or play the National Anthem at the start of events or sporting fixtures, and players may wish to wear black armbands."

Of course all licencing sanctions such as the approval for events to proceed via the local Police Commander would still apply and these may be curtailed at short notice. But its clear from on high that business should continue as normal, in a respectful manner.

4 hours ago, mozo said:

There was a possibility that there would be footage of hundreds of thousands of football fans across the land triumphantly singing GStQ in tribute. It would have been a moving image.

Coverage would have been of Scousers, as always.... 

4 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

And this is where football has had a mare. If they’d cancelled league football based on the policing logistics and said in the statement, I think that’s fair enough. However they’ve cancelled it based on “respect”, and as a result have cancelled football needing no police presence, all the way down to kids.

That's a fair synopsis. All activities where there was clearly little or no threat to public safety should have continued. I'd argue that's more respectful than donning victorian widows weeds and having to listen to Nicholas Witchell endlessly talking crap about nothing.