Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

Ozz

Members
  • Posts

    5488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Ozz

  1. 36 minutes ago, WarriorSaint said:

    Lol, ball out in terms of a tryer lol. Is there room for him to improve, can he be coached ? Is he a good ings replacement? From the responses so far I don’t understand why we have gone in for him so hard. It appears he has been our number 1 target for a long time. From what I’ve seen he reminds me a lot of Brett Ormerod. Never prolific, for us, in the top flight but an animal in the lower divisions.

    Ill be honest I think you have done better out of the deal. £15 million and a player I think has the potential to be much better in Obafemi. If you play him right you have a steal. I feel we have bought another Carillo ( yes you’re right, WHO? £20 million and our last great hope)

    Arma's biggest asset is his pace. Probably Prem League level for this .

    Use this well and he will do ok. 

    I'd rather we kept him,  untested at the highest level, and is prob a downgrade on Danny Ings  

  2. 42 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

    When listening to anything any politician has to say, always better to abide by the motto "How do you know when a politician is lying?

    "Their lips are moving".

    Good letter this time from the Trust, shame they were so conspicuous by their absence in taking a Public stance on the proposed sale of Brockhall considering how keen they are meant to be to secure and preserve the assets of the Club.

    What was that about politicians again?

    The Trust released this statement within 24 hours of the news being leaked, seeking answers from the club.

    https://www.roverstrust.com/2021/02/20/press-release-200221-clubs-proposal-sell-land-brockhall-housing-developers/

    The tone was one of push back. 

     

     

  3. 18 hours ago, Colt Seavers said:

    My brother and I were at this game. We were aged 12 and 13. It was crowded in that side terrace and we couldn't see, so we went down to the front and clambered up to cling to the perimeter fence, as lots of young lads did in those days. 

    At half time, the lagered up Rovers lads found they couldn't get to the gents due to the congestion, so they came down to the front and relieved themselves directly below us.

    We spent the second half marooned on the fence, with the stench from the river of urine making us gag. Eventually we no choice but to make a leap of faith. My brother, being older, easily cleared the huge puddle but I landed in it and had to wade, ankle deep to safety.

    Happy days!

     

     

    Picture of that terrace

    IMG_20200330_094905.jpg

  4. 10 hours ago, Gav said:

    Swindon away FA Cup 4th Round 1984

    A few lads I used to work from Mill Hill say this was a mad away day.

    Anyone on the pitch after the goal went in? Pringle jumpers galore, replay jeans and adidas trainers. 

    giphy.gif

    giphy (1).gif

    That was a brilliant day out. Those lads were in the main stand, and got booted out when we scored  and sent to the side terrace where we were.  Think this win set up the home tie against Southampton on BBC live

  5. 2 hours ago, den said:

    My questions would be about the fundamental need to do this.

    Firstly, the only real reason I can see is to get everybody “under one roof”.

    secondly, Venkys haven’t asked for this according to Waggott. “The club” has asked for it. Well, sorry but “the club” doesn’t have a voice, this has to have come from someone with a name. Seeing that Venkys haven’t asked for it - according to Waggott - then the only person who could have asked Venkys to sell off this land is the CEO himself. Why won’t he say that?

    These answers don’t give us the truth in my opinion. Either Venkys HAVE asked for Waggott to sell off the land in order to simply cash in on the rewards of a 170 house development and Waggott is protecting them, - or this housing development is going ahead simply because it seems a good idea for “Tony”. I think the second one is highly unlikely. Does selling off such an amount of the academy for the current whim of a manager who certainly won’t be here much longer make any sense? Absolutely not.

     

    I suggest Waggott isn’t telling the trust the whole story here and I am very sceptical of what this crew are up to. Someone as yet unknown is behind all this. I hate to think this lot down at Ewood are going to do irreversible damage then clear off.

     

    I asked Waggott a direct question " Whose baby is this?"

    He replied ...I think its an amalgamation...not India.they take their advice from us really..it started internally...its about player development.. 

  6. 7 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

     

    I'm still confused about the covenant thing. According to the article from 2016 your initial research indicated this protection was in place. How can Waggott therefore claim that these expired after seven years in 2000?

    One of you must be wrong and I have to say it would be very unusual to impose a restrictive covenant  protecting the use of land which lasted only seven years, there'd be little or no point. Covenants usually "run with the land" in perpetuity.

    Our research done I think around 2017 may have been flawed/incomplete. You would have to assume with the sort of money involved that research the legals used by Rovers would be more likely to be correct. 

    Basically there is only local opposition/ RVBC standing in the way of this from a legal aspect. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.