At what point is Conway in do not include Poya in the poll

mine either. A win doesn’t gloss over how poor we are. Yesterday we were average and caught QPR on a bad day.

 

My reasons for wanting the 80% gone are nothing to do with results on the pitch people like them are a blight on football. They come to places like ours with no understanding of community or tradition and slowly suck the life out of things.

 

well put.

 

so to be clear you think having a ground that is safe and habitable is too much to ask of the ‘custodians’ of our club?

 

THIS!

The results are irrelevant. I’ve come to the conclusion (on over four years evidence) that we cannot progress on or off the field under these owners.

 

You're right. No one will. But I think what most people are asking for is only ONE thing.

Integrity - “the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.”

Without that we’ve got nothing.

 

Agreed. The ground is getting to be very problematic. I don't just hold the owners responsible on that. We seem to have a council that is happy to take the plaudits for protecting the club but not at the cost of actually contributing to its upkeep.
The owners seem more intent on assembling a ramshackle collection of distressed clubs around Europe and doing little of use with them plus continually focusing on other projects.
They're a total mess.

 

I think you are being quite patronising and disrespectful to others on here and clearly aren't listening to others' views.

I will go as far as say the whole point of the thread was to belittle those views as it is clear to me you think all this will go away if we start winning again.

 

I felt mildly insulted this morning when I first read this thread. Having caught up with it, I now feel more so. The OPs repeated suggestion that my views are invalid and I'll immediately change my mind if and when we win a few games insults my intelligence and integrity. Disagree with my views by all means but at least respect them and please don't insult me by suggesting I'm not capable of arriving at a fully formed and strong opinion.

 

They're not contributing to its upkeep because there is no requirement for them to do so under the terms of the lease. This is the responsibility of the lessee, and it's standard practice in commercial rentals. At the conclusion of the lease, there'd be a requirement for dilapidations to be paid to the owner for any deterioration in condition during the lease period, so it's in the interests of the lessee to keep up with maintenance, as not doing so would ultimately be a false economy.

The issue that you're pointing towards here relates to potential improvements to the ground being funded. If such a thing was being considered then it would need to be negotiated and agreed by all parties, as doing anything of this nature would interfere with the ability of the lessee to fully utilise the property it is renting (i.e. the principal of 'quiet enjoyment'), and the improvements might justifiy an increase in rentals being payable once completed. There would be a host of issues to be sorted with regard to the potential for doing any work of this kind, as the property owner can't just turn up one day and start making changes to the site without the consent of the lessee.

I can't imagine that the prospects of any such negotiations proving successful are helped when the lessee has openly admitted to looking at alternative venues to move to, and creating a risk (however artificial) that the site might end up being vacant in the near future.

Compared to Oakwell Holdings Limited, these considerations are probably far more complex for them to consider, given the accountability they have for any expenditure they choose to make. A private company can choose to burn it's own money, as long as the shareholders are content for them to do so. A local council doesn't enjoy the same freedoms.

For now, any deterioration you see in the infrastructure at Oakwell is, and continues to be, the responsibility of BFC. That's not on the basis of making any improvements, but simply as a consequence of keeping to the terms of a standard commercial lease, the low annual cost of which reflects the scale of that responsibility.

 

All these comments, its clear that you are not reading what Ive wrote on this thread and others. I have clearly said multiple times that I dont support the board and would prefer new owners, Ive also said that I respect the views of others even though I dont agree with some of it. This OP and poll is only identifying that I think that winning games for the majority of fans would overshadow the boards failings. If thats not you then great I respect that view but please dont try to discredit me by accusing me of things that i have not said or meant.

 

I remember you saying a couple of weeks ago that you don't get caught up in things that much, and aren't as affected by things as others. I had this in mind when reading the thread, seeing your responses, and when responding to you. I don't believe your intentions are bad or that you're trying to stir things up. I think it's just a case of people being affected more than yourself in relation to the board; you see the current discontent as results-based and many just won't accept this board regardless of what season we are in or how the season is going.

 

You quote 3 separate posters making the same general observation about your comments, and then tell them it's their reading error.

Unbelievable, Jeff.

 

A helpful reminder re responsibility for the Ground.

On the question of ‘quiet enjoyment’. I agree - but the fans are only getting 50% of that equation.

 

Whatever pal I know what I've said and what points I was trying to make. Fortunately some get it and that's good enough for me.

 

There is no any proof - and can never be - of what Poya might have done if brought in earlier. You seem to be constructing a fantasy world based on post-rationalisation to justify your opinions. Can’t blame you for it. But a lot of people see the reality.

 

The council are doing some kind of redesign of the roads/pavements to create a better walkway from new bridge to oakwell. That's about as much as it gets I'm afraid.

In reality I'm not sure what they can do to integrate the stadium to the town centre, it's just too far away with a residential area between the two.

 

Im not so sure that they do factor the Metrodome in. They've just built a new bowling alley to directly compete with the one at the Metrodome.

Like I say I don't really see how they can factor the stadium in but I mean that in terms of catering for it or putting things near the club etc. What I would have liked to have seen was on the side of the glassworks, big wording that mentions the club somehow and if they're giving out free leases to Mike Ashley they should have given one to the club for a small reds in town shop and if they're filling the glassworks with museums one of them should have been about the club.