However its worded a £3.4m loss for a mid table 4th division club would make me very nervous were I of a blue persuasion. Lansdown continues to fund our losses. yes all £12m of it. Your board are lending you the money to get in to further debt. Massive difference! And as Wiz has stated you lot seem so keen on the state of our finances you need to take a look closer to home!
What I stated was my opinion of the facts extracted from the E/P,so they were E/P facts taken from the blues board losses report. People will believe or disbelieve Nick Higgs and his cronies,it's up to them,it's only 2 weeks or so ago that 95% of you "gasheads" were going suicidal over your boards lack of action,in fact YOU stopped going to home matches,Bbd wrote an open letter asking what had happened to his beloved club and you all were spitting rivets on the radio,swearing on the forums,booing and jeering your board and manager at the minimal and now you are raising your eyebrows at critical comments being made,it's awesome.
its not £3.4 million though. take the stadium out of it as its been financed by the board with their own money its just £1.9million which was inside their projectives. the board know we will be debt free when we get our new stadium anyway so no problem. as long as the projective debt each year is met (LIKE THIS YEAR) until we move in the new stadium then we will be fine. no issue, no problem. which is why were all ok just because your debt is so poor, dont hide behind our lowly debt
but at comment number 10 on this thread you said... then finishing that comment with.... but thats not a fact is it? i dont think amending quotes in the EP to match your opinion is a fact is it?? quality wiz by the way, this aint raising an eyebrow. this is me correcting a quote you amended then stating its a fact
I have made 3 comments,so which one are you correcting...? I have used the words on what you've shown,'extracted,listed and opinion' with regard to me,and facts with regard to the E/P.. I never do this but being as you are correcting me can you correct your own written comment...
ok wiz, you at comment 10 has stated a list of things then saying "all facts from the EP and listed by me" [you not me ] on the list, one of your 'facts' is "This shows our ambitions which, allied to new stadium, shows where the board wants to take this club." however thats not in the EP. therefore not a 'fact' from the EP. instead you amended it meaning it is now out of context and inturn made into an opinion of yours. therefore should not be in your list of 'facts'. what is in the EP though is this regarding mcghee becoming manager.. "I believe that the calibre of this long-term appointment shows our ambitions which, allied to new stadium, show where the board wants to take this club." i hope you now understand the correction
"take the stadium out of it as its been financed by the board with their own money' Its been funded in loans to you by your board. I'm no financial genius but how does building your stadium make you debt free when the board is financing the stadium through loans? BTW a good percentage of our losses have been produced through ongoing stadium costs. (some one will have exact figures!)
You are just repeating what I've already said...Now what about this..? you never gave us an answer earlier,you are doing a "gashead" ducking and diving....
1) That is factually correct,'all facts from the EP and listed by me' as stated E/P facts and listed by me...What's your problem...? 2) Correct again,'This shows our ambitions which, allied to new stadium, shows where the board wants to take this club.' Correct again a positive fact and listed by me...What is your problem....? 3) Correct again,It was an E/P fact and I listed my opinion...Correct again....What is your problem....? 4) My comment was about your board,your increasing debt and the way it was presented,nothing to do with McGhee,that was incorrect and is your problem.. Okay, I agree with you,so no problems.....
higgs announced getting the new stadium will make us debt free. also on the fans feedback its mentioned at question 2 http://www.bristolrovers.co.uk/page/StadiumRegeneration/0,,10328~2398034,00.html we sell the mem. that money will pay for the uwe stadium. we bought the lease from uwe. we wont pay them rent as in return they will get full use of the stadium as well and all facilities it includes.
i seeking a correction from you 1st then i can answer your question. you always fail to answer my questions like the bristol derbies so i wont move to your question until you retract your 'fact'
CJS, after our own trials and tribulations I honestly wish you no ill in getting your new stadium. I am now of the opinion that Bristol as a City needs some progress. but I honestly think hell will freeze over before Sainsburys are allowed to build a supermarket on the memorial stadium.
1, no problem at all, i just listed it for reference so you can see you said its 'fact'. 2, again no problem at all, again just listing it for reference so you can see one of these 'facts' (from number 1) 3, problem. it wasnt an EP fact. you deleted words and added words to the sentance therefore taking it out of context. therefore cannot be a 'fact'. therefore shouldnt be listed as 'fact' at comment 10. thats the point its an opinion not fact. correct comment 10 to the actual quote making it a 'fact' of yours or delete it as its not a 'fact' so shouldnt be called a 'fact', as you done at comment 10 4, problem. that 'fact' that is not an actual 'fact' as explained at number 3. the 'fact' what the EP states was all to do with mcghee. it was nothing to do with the debt at all. you just deleted words and added words then treated it as its to do with our debt. you twisted the comment. it was just to do with mcghee. again your comment number 10 but the EP actually said... which was regarding mcghees arrival. can you see the bits you deleted (in red) and then you added the word 'THIS' and treated that comment like it was to do with our debt. tut tut, naughy boy wiz. cought you out
i unfortunately agree. positives are uwe wants it, rovers wants it and south bristol council wants it. its just bristol city council accepting sainsburys. some locals seems happier with sainsburys than rovers being there and the plans for sainsburys (if you havent seen them) looks like they are pulling out all the stops as well. however it is the city council so im agreeing with your statement
i been thinking about bringing up the topic of who won most bristol derbies but i wont be that cruel on poor wiz, not tonight anyway i cought him out and been fishing ever since which wiz has tried his best to do back to me but its clear i won this battle please log in to view this image
cjs,can't fault you,I listed the last 2 items as positive comment to give a fair representation of what the board was doing and the first 5 as to what a cock-up and pigsear they had made of things overall. Mark McGhee had no prior involvment in any of the balls ups that had been endured and as already stated he had nothing to do with my article,so he was not included. I have no disagreement with you,my opinion stands as stated.. There now be a good chap and answer these points..
thanks wiz, got there in the end but now go back to comment 10 and amend your comment then i will think about answering your question
