Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol R*vers dustbin thread

42nite

By 42nite
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello

Hello

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, alexukhc said:

But that was never a rule back then, was it?

I don't know. I always thought it was in the laws of the game. you can't stand off the pitch in the opponents half and run onto a long ball for instance and be through on goal for instance.

It's still funny, much like the phantom whistler when Browning scored against Brentford, just always wondered why they were allowed to stand

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
phantom

phantom

Posted
  • Admin
Posted
1 hour ago, Hello said:

and I wonder if it should have been disallowed. I thought technically if you left the pitch you required permission to re-enter especially in a deliberate play such as that.

Depends, if the players momentum took him off of the pitch he wouldn't need any intervention from an official to be allowed back onto the field.

This rule was more to do with players actually leaving the pitch with the intention of staying off - EG changing their boots

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toblerone

Toblerone

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Psycho Glenn said:

It makes sense now why their game at Crawley was an early kick off, they must have sought special permission from The FA so they could watch our game on the telly. The FA, knowing that they are totally obsessed with us, duly obliged.

Yes, I suppose the 14 who attended would have got back to bristol in time to watch us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Port Said Red

Port Said Red

Posted
Posted

They were all ranting about Roos the other week for his howlers and he is currently their number 1 keeper. They think a quality finish that caused our second string keeper to lose his footing somehow proves we are a shit team. 

I have to say that I am surprisedthat any of them saw seeing as they claim to have no interest in us, personally I have never seen a TV game involving the gas unless it's against us.

I also notice in the posts copied here that they are now calling us "the gift", they steal everything don't they.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coombsy

Coombsy

Posted
Posted
Topper Gas Avatar
gasincider Avatar
Quite simple. Until they sell us the land it's on, they hold all the aces. If they insist on it being called any particular name, they can use it as a sword over us. If they sell us the freehold, usually it means we can sell the naming rights to anyone's else, unless of course it is a caveat to the overall sale, though that would be unusual. At the start of all this, the UWE had agreed to let us have the land for £8m and we would sell the naming rights for 5 years for the same amount. Subsequently, the UWE put the price up to £11m for the land, and then came the fiasco with Sainsbury's.

As for the feasibility study, why would UWE insist on it? The people who will insist on it are the people putting up the money as is usual in these cases. They will want to know the whole thing is viable to ensure they get their money back with interest on the capital employed. 

As a matter of courtesy i would imagine that Rovers will let them see the conclusions drawn on the study, but what UWE will want is guarantees that the funding is in place to complete the build once it begins. 
 
But that was then not now, if there was no contract in place then surely any previous agreements no longer apply, or at least they aren't binding, and it's now down to what agreement the the UWE and Wael can now come to over the price of the land/the stadium naming rights, as surely if we buy the land the UWE can't dictate what we call the new stadium. 

No doubt the UWE will also want some guarantee that the stadium is feasible, as I doubt they'll want a Darlington type situation, with a white elephant stuck on their land should Rovers ever hit financial problems. Plus when Wael first mentioned the study he suggested once it was available he would sit down with all the interested parties, having already suggested finance was in place, I assume interested parties must include the UWE. 
 

Wasn't one of the key conditions for Rovers taking on the leasehold of the land,  and starting construction, that the stadium itself should be debt-free i.e. fully funded from the sale of the Mem?

From what we hear about outside investors funding the stadium under the new regime, that wouldn't be the case. I don't know if this has anything to do with any lack of news. Just wondering if it is one of many new factors to be considered before UWE are happy.

Uwe not able to sale the land as the was given it by HP and not allowed to sale to a third party

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
reddoh

reddoh

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Tomarse said:

We're the gift that keeps giving? Top 10 in championship, won the league and cup double 2 years ago. Have been above them in league for about 15 years,  we have a £50m redeveloped stadium. 

They play in a ground with two tents, they were relegated to non league, they lost to part time teams, they punched horses... 

#gaslogic 

I did spot a gazebo by the media centre at the Brighton match.

what was that for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charliesboots

Charliesboots

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, Coombsy said:
Topper Gas Avatar
gasincider Avatar
Quite simple. Until they sell us the land it's on, they hold all the aces. If they insist on it being called any particular name, they can use it as a sword over us. If they sell us the freehold, usually it means we can sell the naming rights to anyone's else, unless of course it is a caveat to the overall sale, though that would be unusual. At the start of all this, the UWE had agreed to let us have the land for £8m and we would sell the naming rights for 5 years for the same amount. Subsequently, the UWE put the price up to £11m for the land, and then came the fiasco with Sainsbury's.

As for the feasibility study, why would UWE insist on it? The people who will insist on it are the people putting up the money as is usual in these cases. They will want to know the whole thing is viable to ensure they get their money back with interest on the capital employed. 

As a matter of courtesy i would imagine that Rovers will let them see the conclusions drawn on the study, but what UWE will want is guarantees that the funding is in place to complete the build once it begins. 
 
But that was then not now, if there was no contract in place then surely any previous agreements no longer apply, or at least they aren't binding, and it's now down to what agreement the the UWE and Wael can now come to over the price of the land/the stadium naming rights, as surely if we buy the land the UWE can't dictate what we call the new stadium. 

No doubt the UWE will also want some guarantee that the stadium is feasible, as I doubt they'll want a Darlington type situation, with a white elephant stuck on their land should Rovers ever hit financial problems. Plus when Wael first mentioned the study he suggested once it was available he would sit down with all the interested parties, having already suggested finance was in place, I assume interested parties must include the UWE. 
 

Wasn't one of the key conditions for Rovers taking on the leasehold of the land,  and starting construction, that the stadium itself should be debt-free i.e. fully funded from the sale of the Mem?

From what we hear about outside investors funding the stadium under the new regime, that wouldn't be the case. I don't know if this has anything to do with any lack of news. Just wondering if it is one of many new factors to be considered before UWE are happy.

Uwe not able to sale the land as the was given it by HP and not allowed to sale to a third party

Try, 'Having the necessary funds available to pay for it'.....

Then I would expect that the UWE will be happy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Bill

Red Bill

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

They were all ranting about Roos the other week for his howlers and he is currently their number 1 keeper. They think a quality finish that caused our second string keeper to lose his footing somehow proves we are a shit team. 

I have to say that I am surprisedthat any of them saw seeing as they claim to have no interest in us, personally I have never seen a TV game involving the gas unless it's against us.

I also notice in the posts copied here that they are now calling us "the gift", they steal everything don't they.

 

I saw Roos play for AFC Wimbledon a couple of times last season and he looked pretty good - in fact most AFC supporters were sorry to see him go.  Could it be that he is not happy being at a tatty club with unpleasant fans, a shit-hole of a ground and peculiar team-mates?  Surely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toblerone

Toblerone

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Red Bill said:

I saw Roos play for AFC Wimbledon a couple of times last season and he looked pretty good - in fact most AFC supporters were sorry to see him go.  Could it be that he is not happy being at a tatty club with unpleasant fans, a shit-hole of a ground and peculiar team-mates?  Surely not.

You are feeling generous towards then then?

They are insulting Portsmouth with their presence tonight aren't they? Luckily there is a proper game on in Salisbury tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NOTBLUE

NOTBLUE

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dark Wood Covert said:

And this is why this thread has been going for so long when they come up with these 'gems'...

Never known a dumber and more deluded bunch of fans and I lived in Swindon

I wouldn't call residing in Swindon living.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BS4 on Tour...

BS4 on Tour...

Posted
Posted

.....and as if to prove how thick they are, one clown on their forum thinks the graphic depicting "The city is yours, look at all the empty seats.." etc was actually designed by a City fan to mock them?! He actually posted he couldn't believe we were mocking their empty seats with a graphic clearly showing empty seats at Ashton Gate!

Wot a plonker!

  • Like 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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...