Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol R*vers dustbin thread

42nite

By 42nite
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

WessexPest

WessexPest

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

It is a very nice flag, but why would somebody go to that time, effort and expense to get it made without first checking there/their/they’re spelling?

More to the point - surely even the densest, most inbred Slag knows their team name doesn’t contain an apostrophe!

Perhaps that’s why they’ve got “City” on the sleeves of their shirts now - can’t go wrong with just four letters. Expand it out, and it could be a teachable moment about where to use and omit apostrophes:-

e.g. “Bristol Rovers haven’t been good enough to compete in Bristol City’s division since the early 2000s.”

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bcfc01

bcfc01

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, WessexPest said:

More to the point - surely even the densest, most inbred Slag knows their team name doesn’t contain an apostrophe!

Perhaps that’s why they’ve got “City” on the sleeves of their shirts now - can’t go wrong with just four letters. Expand it out, and it could be a teachable moment about where to use and omit apostrophes:-

e.g. “Bristol Rovers haven’t been good enough to compete in Bristol City’s division since the early 2000s.”

Bristol Rovers haven't been good enough to compete in Bristol City's division since 1993.

30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WessexPest

WessexPest

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, bcfc01 said:

Bristol Rovers haven't been good enough to compete in Bristol City's division since 1993.

30 years.

Well they’ve not been in the second tier since 1993, but last time we were in same division as the skanks was 2000-01.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bazooka Joe

Bazooka Joe

Posted
Posted
On 05/08/2023 at 23:51, Not Banksy said:

Yet more ammunition, courtesy of our noiseless neighbours.

Thanks to the internet and social media, this poor sap's embarrassing misfortune will haunt him (and the Blue Few) for years to come.

Don't feel sorry for him, even though he's just a fall guy.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Open End Numb Legs

Open End Numb Legs

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, WessexPest said:

More to the point - surely even the densest, most inbred Slag knows their team name doesn’t contain an apostrophe!

Perhaps that’s why they’ve got “City” on the sleeves of their shirts now - can’t go wrong with just four letters. Expand it out, and it could be a teachable moment about where to use and omit apostrophes:-

e.g. “Bristol Rovers haven’t been good enough to compete in Bristol City’s division since the early 2000s.”

Or 'the football club's forgotten the planning permission'

Do we need to add the apostrophe to the thread title?

    'Bristol R*ver's dustbin thread'  ?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
richyy66

richyy66

Posted
Posted

I see Wally has provided them with a link and is encouraging them to add support - for the planning application.  Reading their forum most of them seem to think its just a matter of getting more Support than Object comments.

Anyway, since the link has been provided they are smashing it with support comments.  Deluded or what. Anyone can post by t the way...

 

Instructions: Click comment on this link: pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=RSQK1RDNKSY00
Direct link for comments page: pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=RSQK1RDNKSY00


 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slartibartfast

slartibartfast

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, richyy66 said:

I see Wally has provided them with a link and is encouraging them to add support - for the planning application.  Reading their forum most of them seem to think its just a matter of getting more Support than Object comments.

Anyway, since the link has been provided they are smashing it with support comments.  Deluded or what. Anyone can post by t the way...

 

Instructions: Click comment on this link: pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=RSQK1RDNKSY00
Direct link for comments page: pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=RSQK1RDNKSY00


 

 

 

As someone said...........it's not a beauty contest (just as well, they'd lose their deposit) it's about the impact on residents of which there are a finite number.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bristol Rob

Bristol Rob

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, slartibartfast said:

As someone said...........it's not a beauty contest (just as well, they'd lose their deposit) it's about the impact on residents of which there are a finite number.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gazred

Gazred

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, richyy66 said:

I see Wally has provided them with a link and is encouraging them to add support - for the planning application.  Reading their forum most of them seem to think its just a matter of getting more Support than Object comments.

Anyway, since the link has been provided they are smashing it with support comments.  Deluded or what. Anyone can post by t the way...

 

Instructions: Click comment on this link: pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=RSQK1RDNKSY00
Direct link for comments page: pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=RSQK1RDNKSY00


 

 

 

Literally hundreds have been added in the last week. I randomly opened a few and they are all basically the same "this would be great for Rovers blah blah blah" "been a stadium there for 100 years, what do local residents expect".

This was good un though...

"We desperately need this stand built in order to satisfy the growing fan base. With the
growing numbers this will not only help the football club to prosper but also the other small
business's that surround the stadium. It is a win win for all."

Growing fan base?? ?

Win win for all....hmmmm not sure it is really.

The word "tents" appears a lot as well!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oizys

Oizys

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Gazred said:

Literally hundreds have been added in the last week. I randomly opened a few and they are all basically the same "this would be great for Rovers blah blah blah" "been a stadium there for 100 years, what do local residents expect".

This was good un though...

"We desperately need this stand built in order to satisfy the growing fan base. With the
growing numbers this will not only help the football club to prosper but also the other small
business's that surround the stadium. It is a win win for all."

Growing fan base?? ?

Win win for all....hmmmm not sure it is really.

The word "tents" appears a lot as well!

They are a growing fanbase....  They're getting their sisters pregnant all the time up that way......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bcfc01

bcfc01

Posted
Posted

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.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sir Geoff

Sir Geoff

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, richyy66 said:

I see Wally has provided them with a link and is encouraging them to add support - for the planning application.  Reading their forum most of them seem to think its just a matter of getting more Support than Object comments.

Anyway, since the link has been provided they are smashing it with support comments.  Deluded or what. Anyone can post by t the way...

 

Instructions: Click comment on this link: pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=RSQK1RDNKSY00
Direct link for comments page: pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=RSQK1RDNKSY00


 

 

 

Objection sent on environmental grounds and excess congestion in an already heavily congested area.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bcfc01

bcfc01

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Objection sent on environmental grounds and excess congestion in an already heavily congested area.

Which is one of the things I pointed out - no traffic/parking assessment.

We all know that they couldn't give a toss about disabled supporters given their disgraceful current "facilities" and the fact Barnsley had to shame them into catering for their disabled supporters. Thats another objection - have they consulted with the appropriate authorites to ensure that disabled supporters are well catered for ? 

And having portaloos in a "stadium" in this day and age is disgraceful. How many are they going to install for an extra 2k people ?

But its all very well making objections to the application, the way to get any objection noticed is by sending them direct to the councillors on the planning committee.

 

 

Edited by bcfc01
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Open End Numb Legs

Open End Numb Legs

Posted
Posted

Just think how it could have been handled. Consult with the locals 1st, find out how they could sweeten the build by including facilities that could be used by the community on non match days, all sorts of potential there. Society is crying out for childcare or elderly social facilities that could be part of a new build. Have a plan, perfect it, submit to the council in good time.

They are falling between 2 ideas, the fruityhad dream and short term crowd increase at the Mem. This means they could fail at both and in the meantime additionally get all the bad publicity of the postponed build, disabled access and smaller crowds.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Banjo Island

Banjo Island

Posted
Posted
36 minutes 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.

Yea 3 course meal with all the trimmings coffee and cookies half time for marv’s gang and full planning approval’s in the bag

Link to comment
Share on other sites
supercidered

supercidered

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Open End Numb Legs said:

Just think how it could have been handled. Consult with the locals 1st, find out how they could sweeten the build by including facilities that could be used by the community on non match days, all sorts of potential there. Society is crying out for childcare or elderly social facilities that could be part of a new build. Have a plan, perfect it, submit to the council in good time.

They are falling between 2 ideas, the fruityhad dream and short term crowd increase at the Mem. This means they could fail at both and in the meantime additionally get all the bad publicity of the postponed build, disabled access and smaller crowds.

Which is exactly why I'm happy with the approach they have taken. For the sake of any doubt. Yes. I despise the G@sh.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Southend Blue

Southend Blue

Posted
Posted

We play these at home in the League Cup tomorrow night.    Alright on paper it would seem a straight forward win for us but actually wouldn't be surprised if they take a win back themselves over to your way.

Why ?   Because, we often struggle against lower league opponents particularly in Cup contests (got beat by both Cambridge and Stevenage in friendlies only a few days ago) and McKenna won't be taking it too seriously and we'll put out a lesser strength XI with a number of first team names not involved.

We've never won the League Cup, I've seen a few semi-final appearances in all the years I've followed and watched Town but never got beyond the last four.    It's not going to change this season either.      I think the manager and players will take the F.A. Cup seriously next January but this competition won't be high on the list of this season's priorities.      I think the last time we played them it was a draw, a  0 - 0 non-event 'I want my money back' kind of game but in the excitement of last season's promotion it seems kind of lost or trivial compared to other things.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
phantom

phantom

Posted
  • Admin
Posted
48 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Objection sent on environmental grounds and excess congestion in an already heavily congested area.

Out of interest are you able to copy your entry and link you sent it to on here?

Just in case someone were to find it of use for research purposes 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red DNA

Red DNA

Posted
Posted

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
bristolmoose

bristolmoose

Posted
Posted
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
Open End Numb Legs

Open End Numb Legs

Posted
Posted
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
WessexPest

WessexPest

Posted
Posted
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
JackofromSanJavier

JackofromSanJavier

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bcfc01 said:

https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=RSQK1RDNKSY00

 

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
Open End Numb Legs

Open End Numb Legs

Posted
Posted

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
Taz

Taz

Posted
Posted
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
GrahamC

GrahamC

Posted
Posted
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
redsquirrel

redsquirrel

Posted
Posted
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
Ska Junkie

Ska Junkie

Posted
Posted
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
Red Army 75

Red Army 75

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, daored said:

Hopefully an away win tomorrow at Portman Road to be followed by a hone tie against decent premiership opponents, and what a shame they won’t be able to take advantage of it financially 

Na I hope they get hammered, and there coach breaks down 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CiderJar

CiderJar

Posted
Posted (edited)
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
Bristol Rob

Bristol Rob

Posted
Posted

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
bcfc01

bcfc01

Posted
Posted
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
PHILINFRANCE

PHILINFRANCE

Posted
Posted
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
bcfc01

bcfc01

Posted
Posted
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
Lanterne Rouge

Lanterne Rouge

Posted
Posted
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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...