A Good Article

[Sad-Rovers]

All have the right to express an opinion, William. Even the orthographically challenged.

In your opinion, maybe. It is the opinion of 99% of internet forums however some people need banning for various reasons.

You yourself were banned once of-course, and have since re-registered under a different, if slightly conspicuous, username, and have been allowed to stay. Seems like a nice gesture from the mods to me?

The opposing argument is I shouldn't have been banned in the first place, Robert as I hadn't breached any rules.

[bobjimwilly]

In your opinion. But your here now, so its a mute point really.

[Sad-Rovers]

In your opinion. But your here now, so its a mute point really.

You're.

Not in my opinion Robert, in the rules of the forum.

But still, here I am, fully committed member of the VSC. You should be lauding me as a success story, TBH.

[Sad-Rovers]

In your opinion, maybe. It is the opinion of 99% of internet forums however some people need banning for various reasons.

So, which rule did erstwhile member 'DickovOUT BrammalOUT' breach?

[BillyStubbsTears]

"Erstwhile"?

So he was allowed on once upon a time? What name did he have then?

(Aye, go on then. I'll let that one pass on account of the Scotch and the paracodol. But I'm watching you. Any more slips like that and I'll be campaigning to have you hoyed out.)

[silent majority]

In your opinion, maybe. It is the opinion of 99% of internet forums however some people need banning for various reasons.

So, which rule did erstwhile member 'DickovOUT BrammalOUT' breach?

It's quite simple really. Under the new defamation laws it's common sense, and in our case self protection, to ensure that people complete the required details. That is we would like to know who people are. He/She didn't comply. I'm assuming that's the case although I have no personal knowledge of this.

[PDX_Rover]

My stepdad was one of the coffin bearers and my mum was featured a lot in the channel 5 documentary. They were at the heart of what was going on in 1998, along with many others who share the love for Rovers. That memory still lingers and we do not want to go back there....

And the ghost of Ken Richardson rears his ugly head again.

THAT'S what's wrong with the fans of this club, we had it so bad under the Richardson regime that when someone who OBVIOUSLY has our best interests at heart we instantly assume the worst.

After Sequentiagate.... Yes, assume the worst. Prove otherwise. Show me the plan and how we will have a sustainable club that my son can follow and I'll shut up, gladly.

[Wellred]

My stepdad was one of the coffin bearers and my mum was featured a lot in the channel 5 documentary. They were at the heart of what was going on in 1998, along with many others who share the love for Rovers. That memory still lingers and we do not want to go back there....

And the ghost of Ken Richardson rears his ugly head again.

THAT'S what's wrong with the fans of this club, we had it so bad under the Richardson regime that when someone who OBVIOUSLY has our best interests at heart we instantly assume the worst.

After Sequentiagate.... Yes, assume the worst. Prove otherwise. Show me the plan and how we will have a sustainable club that my son can follow and I'll shut up, gladly.

Why do so many people on here keep bleating on about a sustainable club?
The present directors are putting in £3 million a year to keep the club going. Hardly sustainable us it?
Or maybe you have a different understanding of sustainability to me.

[Muttley]

If the current benefactors (not all who are contributing are directors, and not all shareholders are contributing) are committed to injecting 3 to 4 million quid a year, then I'd call that as close to sustainable as we are likely to get.

Meanwhile they are working hard to increase other revenue streams from the stadium to lessen that burden.

[Wellred]

If the current benefactors (not all who are contributing are directors, and not all shareholders are contributing) are committed to injecting 3 to 4 million quid a year, then I'd call that as close to sustainable as we are likely to get.

Meanwhile they are working hard to increase other revenue streams from the stadium to lessen that burden.

So if we get a takeover and the new directors/owners commit to injecting 5 million a year does that make us less sustainable?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wellred.

IF we had new owners who committed to putting £5m per year in over a long period, that would be fantastic and I suspect most of us would be delighted.

There was nothing in last year's shenanigans suggesting that such a deal was remotely close to being on the table. Other than some bizarre smoke and mirrors from Ryan and a lot of wishful thinking on here.

[Wellred]

Wellred.

IF we had new owners who committed to putting £5m per year in over a long period, that would be fantastic and I suspect most of us would be delighted.

There was nothing in last year's shenanigans suggesting that such a deal was remotely close to being on the table. Other than some bizarre smoke and mirrors from Ryan and a lot of wishful thinking on here.

Billy. My point is what some peoples idea of sustainability is.
If we are losing 3 million a year and somebody (no matter who), has to put money in to keep us in the black then in my eyes that is not running a sustainable club/company.

[bobjimwilly]

I think you're thinking of a self-sustainable club Wellred?

And the current owners have said on a number of occasions they are trying to work towards that, but at the minute the club is sustainable because they can afford to fund the shortfall.

[Wellred]

I think you're thinking of a self-sustainable club Wellred?

And the current owners have said on a number of occasions they are trying to work towards that, but at the minute the club is sustainable because they can afford to fund the shortfall.

Yes I agree but a number of people on here think that we shouldn't strive to get as high as possible because it isn't sustainable.
If we stay in this division and only incur a loss of £1 million a year then the owners only have to put in £1 to keep us sustainable.
If however (hypothetically speaking) we had really gone for it in the championship and invested in better players costing more money and eventually ended up losing £10 million. The owners still agreeing to fund this. We are still a sustainable club.
Do you see my point?

[IDM]

I think you're thinking of a self-sustainable club Wellred?

And the current owners have said on a number of occasions they are trying to work towards that, but at the minute the club is sustainable because they can afford to fund the shortfall.

Yes I agree but a number of people on here think that we shouldn't strive to get as high as possible because it isn't sustainable.
If we stay in this division and only incur a loss of £1 million a year then the owners only have to put in £1 to keep us sustainable.
If however (hypothetically speaking) we had really gone for it in the championship and invested in better players costing more money and eventually ended up losing £10 million. The owners still agreeing to fund this. We are still a sustainable club.
Do you see my point?

Then we would have got either a transfer ban or a "fair play tax" for exceeding the limits under FFP

[Lipsy]

And the articles keep coming:

http://www.shoot.co.uk/donny-welcome-louis/

[River Don]

And the articles keep coming:

http://www.shoot.co.uk/donny-welcome-louis/

I didn't know Shoot magazine was still going.

How old is this Jimmy Johnson? About twelve, judging by this.

[Filo]

And the articles keep coming:

http://www.shoot.co.uk/donny-welcome-louis/

I didn't know Shoot magazine was still going.

How old is this Jimmy Johnson? About twelve, judging by this.

Neither did I, do they still do these?

[IDM]

Just guessing, about 1989?

[Lipsy]

I didn't know it was still going either. Having looked at the lad's Twitter account, it says that he's looking forward to doing his GCSEs in the summer. I'm not even making that up... 

[bobjimwilly]

A few articles coming out over the past couple of days in various "credible" media outlets....

hmmm....

[Lipsy]

I'm glad someone else said what's been rattling around my little brain. I thought I was being a little too cynical for my own good.

[wesisback]

He's not done his research:

If Tomlinson does buy the club it’s rumoured to be in conjunction with a certain John Ryan, arguably one of the most beloved owners in recent history.

If he'd checked the polls done there's no arguably about it.

[JayBaker]

You know what? I'd like to test Louis Tomlinson's dedication and "In Rovers We Trust" attitude by having the club accept his offer of cash injection without John Ryan's involvement.

Or...is there some reason he wants JR as part of the bargain?

I suppose it's too cynical to suggest some individual with their own personal agenda might be utilising a mastery of public relations to bend the ear of a young impressionable pot-smoking local lad with a sudden large disposable income.

And certainly far too cynical to suggest he might like to speak for himself and offer finance on his own accord.

After all - again - the cynics were so very wrong about Sequentia Capital and those zealous types were so very right about "Bramall, Watson the Table" - even though no one heard a peep from them at the Meet the Owners event. But hey, never mind the history or the facts when someone's waving cash at you. Just ask Portsmouth fans.

[RedJ]

If Tomlinson does buy the club it’s rumoured to be in conjunction with a certain John Ryan, arguably one of the most beloved owners in recent history.

It's not as if he's had a lot of competition in that regard in all fairness.

[wesisback]

I thought Trevor Milton did a cracking job! 

[Dutch Uncle]

And the articles keep coming:

http://www.shoot.co.uk/donny-welcome-louis/

I didn't know Shoot magazine was still going.

How old is this Jimmy Johnson? About twelve, judging by this.

Neither did I, do they still do these?

Love it Filo

When I had one Third Lanark were still playing....................

[Wellred]

I think you're thinking of a self-sustainable club Wellred?

And the current owners have said on a number of occasions they are trying to work towards that, but at the minute the club is sustainable because they can afford to fund the shortfall.

Yes I agree but a number of people on here think that we shouldn't strive to get as high as possible because it isn't sustainable.
If we stay in this division and only incur a loss of £1 million a year then the owners only have to put in £1 to keep us sustainable.
If however (hypothetically speaking) we had really gone for it in the championship and invested in better players costing more money and eventually ended up losing £10 million. The owners still agreeing to fund this. We are still a sustainable club.
Do you see my point?

Then we would have got either a transfer ban or a "fair play tax" for exceeding the limits under FFP

Is that the case if they are paid into the club as loans? Which I believe is the case at the moment?

[IDM]

No idea without much further checking, I guess so otherwise that is a far too easy get around?

[PDX_Rover]

Actually, I might restate my position. I think the current bid is an excellent idea. It's unfortunate that the deal to blindly sell the club to a faceless hedge fund who never showed the supporters any semblance of a plan or what their intentions were, was a no go.... What could possibly go wrong this time?