Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol R*vers dustbin thread


42nite

Recommended Posts

The Gas aren’t Pointless!

Just had a category on Pointless quiz show asking for teams with names not including City or United in their name. 
A contestant suggested Bristol Rovers which got down to 5 points - which just shows how irrelevant they are in the world of football.
 

5 points or more might be their new target to beat for this season to be considered a success ?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Red DNA said:

The Gas aren’t Pointless!

Just had a category on Pointless quiz show asking for teams with names not including City or United in their name. 
A contestant suggested Bristol Rovers which got down to 5 points - which just shows how irrelevant they are in the world of football.
 

5 points or more might be their new target to beat for this season to be considered a success ?

I think you'll find it was actually 5,000 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Red DNA said:

The Gas aren’t Pointless!

Just had a category on Pointless quiz show asking for teams with names not including City or United in their name. 
A contestant suggested Bristol Rovers which got down to 5 points - which just shows how irrelevant they are in the world of football.
 

5 points or more might be their new target to beat for this season to be considered a success ?

Reminds me of how in recent years we have sometimes just been called Bristol on TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

And you know this how? 

A friend of a friend of a friend is a tattooist. He told the artist what he wanted and when asked where, yanked down his kecks, pointed to his posterior and said “Print THAT bastard.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcfc01 said:

HONESTLY???????  See this belter's well thought out supporting statement below.  As usual, they are using Gasthematics to boost their own sad beliefs!!!!

Comment Details

Commenter Type:

Other Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I am a regular attender at the Memorial Stadium. Many times over the last couple of seasons Bristol Rovers have had attendances larger than the current maximum attendance. Therefore there is a clear need for additional capacity at the Memorial Stadium.

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many times over the last couple of seasons Bristol Rovers have had attendances larger than the current maximum attendance.

1. Evidence? The reduced capacity negates this comment.

2. If true it only explains why a club wants to do something. It doesn't support a decision.

3. If it was so obvious, why hadn't the club applied earlier since they had known for 2 seasons?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

There in lies the balance - the ability to expand the stadium that will get used 22 times a year vs the inconvience to locals 365 days a year - if the new stand impacts light and causes all manner of other disruption. 

I'm pretty sure the Fewers will eventually get their new stand, however it might not be the quick and convenient job they were hoping it would be. I guess that revisions to the plans could still be made or requested, lowering the height or it for example. But if it's a pre-built/bolt it together thing and they've already paid for it, you wonder how easy it would be for them to make cost effective changes. 

They'll get one of their retired supporters who is "keeping their hand in" that has an angle grinder, and just get them to cut off a bit on the top and bottom so that it's not so high.

The worrying thing is, it wouldn't surprise me if that happened....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Open End Numb Legs said:

Having loads of Rovers support documents on the portal won't help at all.

It is all about process and their club has not followed it. Too little, too late. Join the back of the queue.

This.

They are stupid enough to think this is based on numbers, so that if 5000 support & 3000 complain, they “win”.

Totally failing to understand how planning permission works, it is about the process, not volume.

********.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Taz said:

They'll get one of their retired supporters who is "keeping their hand in" that has an angle grinder, and just get them to cut off a bit on the top and bottom so that it's not so high.

The worrying thing is, it wouldn't surprise me if that happened....

and take out row m

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JackofromSanJavier said:

HONESTLY???????  See this belter's well thought out supporting statement below.  As usual, they are using Gasthematics to boost their own sad beliefs!!!!

Comment Details

Commenter Type:

Other Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I am a regular attender at the Memorial Stadium. Many times over the last couple of seasons Bristol Rovers have had attendances larger than the current maximum attendance. Therefore there is a clear need for additional capacity at the Memorial Stadium.

Physically impossible and illegal, plus a bare faced lie but que Sera! 

Change 'many' to 'zero' and it's true but our gas swamp dwellers don't do truth.

Losers! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, bcfc01 said:

Portaloos for an additional 2k people ?

Any plans for disabled people ?

Environmental impact assessment including traffic and parking of potentially 2k extra people ?

Electrical requirements, detailed drawings ?

etc etc etc

Nope, back of a fag packet and a nod to Marvins team.

To be fair they do have braile on their away shirts. On the other hand, by the time blind people read it, they are already too close.

Edited by CiderJar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another cracking bit of #GasLogic would appear that this poster thinks you should only be able to object if you live nearby.

Shows what a ridiculous process this is. The only people that should be able to object are those in the vicinity of the ground. It has no impact on anyone else.  

So you would assume that the same rules would apply if you were supportive of the new stand, only those who live in the area should be able to support it, and not those who turn up 22 times a year, as they'd not have to live with it all the time. Obviously not. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, GrahamC said:

This.

They are stupid enough to think this is based on numbers, so that if 5000 support & 3000 complain, they “win”.

Totally failing to understand how planning permission works, it is about the process, not volume.

********.

Yep, deluded fools.

They also think that it should be just people in the vicinity that can object such as this gem from our resident Rovers supporter In the Net (Tillys Thighs on their "forum") and that its us that thinks volume counts;

They seem to think it's a popularity contest.  If they don't live in the area, I wonder what their grounds for objection are?  I've not heard that any of statutory consultees, such as highways have raised any objections, so I'm not really worried about their efforts.  I'm sure that the planners can sort the wheat from the chaff with regard to relevant objections. 

I'm sure they will sort the wheat from the chaff as well - 90% of their supporting comments are repetitive rubbish whilst those objecting are doing so on grounds that will require consideration.

They'll get permission, but it could take them into 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcfc01 said:

Yep, deluded fools.

They also think that it should be just people in the vicinity that can object such as this gem from our resident Rovers supporter In the Net (Tillys Thighs on their "forum") and that its us that thinks volume counts;

Just my personal opinion, but do you not consider it slightly poor form to disclose @In the Net's identity on the GasChat forum, especially given their propensity for abusing or even banning anybody associated with City?  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Just my personal opinion, but do you not consider it slightly poor form to disclose @In the Net's identity on the GasChat forum, especially given their propensity for abusing or even banning anybody associated with City?  

Why is it poor form ?

She isn't subservient on here, in fact she stands her ground and defends her club so I can't see anyone giving her any grief on their forum.

We've had a few on here with the same name used on their own forum with no problems.

Besides, she's well thought of on both forums, including by me.

Now, Bert Tann may be a different proposition..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Open End Numb Legs said:

'...........we hugged, now that’s the Gas spirit. 07.45am - 06.08.23 - Busan - South Korea.'

At 07.50am, he woke up and realised it was only a nightmare.

At 8:30 he found himself in a Korean police cell charged with assaulting a random citizen who just happened to be wearing a blue and white jester`s outfit on his way to the Korean Clowns Conference.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...