I can't grasp why you think that by attending a meeting to discuss your thoughts on the finances it would lead to attacks on your family and work?
What a strange thing to say, you started a thread about finances and I asked a question of a couple of posters who responded, you must have led a very sheltered life if you think that is that is shooting people to bits. I think I have been courteous in all my posts on here but you do realise that people are allowed to question your claims? For what it is worth I think you have an agenda against Stewart Donald and you are using this forum and in the past RTG to promote it. I also think that you are Chris the accountant who bottled it on Twitter when confronted by Stewart Donald (your sentence structure and content is too similar for it to be a coincidence). You constantly make these tedious claims of missing money then quickly state nothing illegal has happened so I don't really get your point, because of your reluctance to balance that with the good work these owners have done in the last eighteen months. You have yet to make any adverse claim that is factual and not merely conjecture. I remember similar claims by you on RTG before you were schooled by GOM so you moved your campaign to Not 606, I have said my piece and will leave this thread alone in future, but I do hope that your assertions continue to be questioned and seen for what they are.
Why not? Did you see the abuse I took here over the last two days? Have you seen the way Chris Wetherspoon's name and reputation have become mud? I didn't even know the lad, but all it takes is the owners to decide the best form of defence is attack, and you're dealing with this **** 24/7. Not for me, Clive.
please log in to view this image Also I have. You would have to be wilfully blind to read the OP and decide none of it was fact. It's the owner's words man! Jesus wept
This is some serious level delusion, if you are as convinced of your posts as you believe then you have nothing to worry about?
what is this logic ffs. It's not deluded to think you can't win a war of words against a millionaire and his PR guru. What have I got to gain from this on any level?
No, you just repeated what the owners have already said My apologies, you read and quoted my post before I re-read it and edited it. I added "you have yet to make any adverse claim that is factual and not merely conjecture" and I stand by that. You are stating what the owners have said and then putting your slant on it to meet your agenda.
You give the impression that your some well known business man, but despite the longest opening post in the history of message boards refuse to attend a meeting to discuss the contents and your concerns for fear of reprisals against your family and business? Hardly a convincing argument that you honestly believe you are right is it?
It's a convincing argument that I value my privacy, my family and my work moire than satisfying some weird request you have that would (as far as I can tell) be of literally no benefit to me personally.
Based on my intellectual capacity and my vast knowledge, tactically and tentatively, right from the beginning, of times especially in the light of Ecclesiastes evolution I have come to a concrete, definite and profound conclusion that I actually have nothing to say thank you
Would it? And are you being wilfully ignorant here? I have said it a few times that I don't have any inclination as I have far too much to lose from my point of view. Why are you pursuing this?
Your claims are your interpretation of what you believe you see in the information available (not facts), it just happens that others, me included have a contrasting view. I have read your posts and those of GOM on RTG and I believe his explanation rather than your ramblings.
I don't think asking if you would attend the next meeting is being ignorant, I asked a simple question and you appear to believe that by attending and asking your questions would put you, your family and your business in some sort of jeopardy. Your seem a tad paranoid and apologies if I am continuing to ask questions, but that's kind of the point of a message board
Great effort taking the time out to write all that mate. I've only read the quick version, it might take me until the weekend to read the full version but I appreciate your efforts. I'm not sure what you've said that is so controversial to be honest. It's long been Donald's plan to run this club sustainably and obviously by cutting costs he feels that he can drip feed the parachute payments back in when necessary. That being said, if we fail under his plan, then fans will quite rightly question why this money was sitting in his own bank account and not used to get the club back out of this league. I have to admit being a little uneasy that the money has been taken out of the club, whether it's legal or not. The question is whether Donald can put it back in when necessary, January will be the time to tell, but by then we may have new investment so perhaps we'll never know.
I don't think anyone else has said it's illegal. To use your analogy, think of it this way. Your wife was expecting you to pay a deposit for a new house with those savings. Instead, you spent it on a sports car. Have you done anything illegal? Of course not. Will people with a vested interest be pissed off or question your decision? Probably.
No, but ignoring the part that I have repeated a number of times now, that I simply won't be doing this, is ignorance. Pursuing this and implying that I'm paranoid because I have seen what happens to people who the owners aren't keen on is not business as usual, you've asked on and on about this over 5 or 6 posts here, even when I said explicitly, that I don't want to do it, you can't help yourself but to try and imply that I should be doing this.
