Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 55417
|
|
« Reply #45 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 07:45:21 » |
|
City have rejected it. Rovers are on record as saying they couldn't think of a single adavntage that Cheltenham have over us.
So its between us and Bath. And it is fairly obvious our facilities are a better fit.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
The_Plagiarist
|
|
« Reply #46 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 07:53:31 » |
|
Jed Pitman is an Ubercunt.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
nuddy
Offline
Posts: 21
|
|
« Reply #47 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 10:30:35 » |
|
A big no from me, it's a stupid idea on so many levels.
*The pitch would get destroyed. *The stadium would get trashed especially after their last game at the CG. *There would be stupid amounts of trouble, just look at the sunday when they trashed that pub for no reason. *It would anger local residents and destroy any hopes of redevelopment. *Would cause plenty of logistical problems.
From a purely personal point of view, living 2 mins walk from the CG and having seen the 5h1t Rovers fans have caused in Swindon before, I do not want to smell 'gas' every couple of weeks. I not sure it would destroy any hopes of a ground redevelopment, but if residents have to suffer grief because of a ground share, it isn't likely to make people feel very charitable if they are asked to back a redevelopment in the future.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mattboyslim
|
|
« Reply #48 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 10:35:51 » |
|
Nuddy in your role can you rather forcefully suggest this to Bowden et al, whilst we all know the club want the cash, and frankly they don't care what the fans think, but providing the police allow it, the only decent obstacle could be how it jeopordises the development, and you guys could make it clear to them.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 55417
|
|
« Reply #49 on: Wednesday, April 4, 2007, 08:21:27 » |
|
According to the yocal news, we should all know who Rovers are sharing with in the next 10 days.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Cookie
Offline
Posts: 1232
|
|
« Reply #50 on: Wednesday, April 4, 2007, 08:41:49 » |
|
I thought the police would quite welcome a chance of some more overtime and obviously the club would like the money so I can this being likely.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frigby Daser
Offline
Posts: 3832
|
|
« Reply #51 on: Wednesday, April 4, 2007, 09:34:14 » |
|
Would be the worst thing to happen to the club in years - disastrous if it happens
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #52 on: Wednesday, April 4, 2007, 09:43:15 » |
|
Would seriously alienate local residents and businesses, so have a serious impact on ground redev. Any money would almost certainly have to be split with the council as it would effectively be a sublet. I wonder if they've consulted the council yet as to the cash split and/or whether they'd even allow it. Or are they planning on signing the deal, then asking the council?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Summerof69
Offline
Posts: 8598
|
|
« Reply #53 on: Wednesday, April 4, 2007, 09:47:37 » |
|
Or are they planning on signing the deal, then asking the council? Wouldn't put that past the board. Maybe they think they're American !!?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frigby Daser
Offline
Posts: 3832
|
|
« Reply #54 on: Wednesday, April 4, 2007, 09:53:41 » |
|
Would seriously alienate local residents and businesses, so have a serious impact on ground redev. Any money would almost certainly have to be split with the council as it would effectively be a sublet. I wonder if they've consulted the council yet as to the cash split and/or whether they'd even allow it. Or are they planning on signing the deal, then asking the council? Doesn't affect them once they've left does it - just jumps the price up. The Council would surely be against it - but then I'm sure Cheltenham council would likewise.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mjad
|
|
« Reply #55 on: Wednesday, April 4, 2007, 21:12:50 » |
|
Would seriously alienate local residents and businesses, so have a serious impact on ground redev. Any money would almost certainly have to be split with the council as it would effectively be a sublet. I wonder if they've consulted the council yet as to the cash split and/or whether they'd even allow it. Or are they planning on signing the deal, then asking the council? am looking into this....
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Summerof69
Offline
Posts: 8598
|
|
« Reply #56 on: Thursday, April 5, 2007, 08:32:17 » |
|
Would seriously alienate local residents and businesses, so have a serious impact on ground redev. Any money would almost certainly have to be split with the council as it would effectively be a sublet. I wonder if they've consulted the council yet as to the cash split and/or whether they'd even allow it. Or are they planning on signing the deal, then asking the council? And have they also asked the police. I'm sure they would love to have thousands of Rovers fans come down every other week. This plan seems to have a 'fatal flaw' in it, as they probably would need more coppers 'than you can shake a stick at!!' Where's Bowden when you want to ask him a question?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ardiles
Offline
Posts: 11528
Stirlingshire Reds
|
|
« Reply #57 on: Thursday, April 5, 2007, 08:46:01 » |
|
Mr Bowden certainly has been very quiet of late.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #58 on: Thursday, April 5, 2007, 09:48:27 » |
|
After a bit of thought, I'd be in favour of a ground share with Rovers, OK there may be a few problems attached like wear of the pitch. But the reaction from many on here justs follows the Daily Mail line that all football fans are thugs and oincapable of civilised behaviour. I'd prefer us offering Rovers a neighbourly hand.....it would be for a fixed term not forever, and we may find ourselves in a similar situation soon.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frigby Daser
Offline
Posts: 3832
|
|
« Reply #59 on: Thursday, April 5, 2007, 10:29:49 » |
|
Nah, lets redevelop the County Ground one stand at a time, and have one of those massive Highbury-style murals behind the stand being done with smiley faces with orange hats on
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|