Those posts from CI clearly state you want the club whole not a stake. I hate to use a TFT post but "Brilliant stuff Exiled and thanks Number 9 and Polly (and many others) for the belief. (Dog I'll just ignore you cos you seem to be a **** and no-one likes you. I create debate mate, and I've told you before, I'm not "screeching" at all.) Exiled has shown me and Nash (the owner of this board) a credible business plan that COULD work. Hull 2009 - we DO understand business, we have the right backgrounds for this. The income is already there, it just needs to be better managed. Karlberg, AA wants out and he has PERSONALLY told one of us that he supports the idea of fan ownership if he gets paid back over an acceptable length of time. You've all got to start believing. Mussie - why is it stupid to own a football club?? Don't be an idiot. If you look at what comes in, you know what you can spend. It's simple business mate, but football has been run by IDIOTS for too long. We're not. (Contrary to what you might think.) That clearly states Exiled, who is the main thinker/driver of this has drawn up a plan and shared it with members of CTWD to go for complete ownership. Worryingly the other bit in bold, that Mr Allam wants out has clearly come from the meeting CTWD had with him. It could only have come from there.
If it was quite that simple a business no club would ever end up in the position probably 80% of clubs are in would they. They'd all be highly profitable money making machines.
AA did say at the meeting that he was keen on fan ownership, that's why we started looking at the various options to make it a reality, but he didn't say anything about wanting out. Quoting TFT on here, is exactly like going on CI and quoting Tickles and something he heard at the snooker club.
In that Independent interview, Allam threatened to leave if people don't support his name change. Since then the rejection of his proposal from fans has been even more apparent. He may well want out, the issue is someone actually wanting to take it from him.
I think that comment was aimed at the day release imbeciles rambling about wanting him gone from the club.
Resting assured is a bit of an ask, although I will wait and see. More transparency over the AA meeting minutes would have made many, including me, more assured.
Absolutely no idea what this is about Fez I don't think I've ever said I "know folk" or "lectured" that I don't. The post you quoted are my perceptions of people's opinions & stances on here based solely on their posts & my interpretation of them. I don't think I've declared myself the keeper of the scrolls, I have however questioned people's hypocritical stances regarding their principles, providing evidence to substantiate my views. In your view I'm not good at it, to me that means very little, others think I'm "ace at it" That's nice, but I'm not chasing admiration. I object to be labelled a "Allam hater" for the sole reason of objecting to AA's proposed name change, especially by somebody who has very little in the way of consistent values himself. I agree AA's current PR has been extremely divisive in terms of support & supporters. I don't agree fully that his poor media persona is the sole reason that some are so objectionable to supporters who are willing to campaign against his proposal. My spat with Craig had nothing to do with the "man" I was merely highlighting Craig as one (not one of the worst) who is over critical of supporters who are pissed off with the proposed name change even though he was overly critical of the same owners last year when pissed off with them himself. All I'm asking is people respect other peoples right to be pissed off with the same owners they were once pissed off with themselves. They may well have subsequently changed their own opinion but they should also respect other's opinions also. The debate about respecting AA is completely different to the one I had with Craig.
I think your extensive answer indicates you have every idea what my post is all about. You only need to read your backposts in that one thread to see the contradictions of when you believe you know someone or not; it's a simple reading exercise, bit I'm not going to get into the quote and counter-quotes malarkey - you clearly understand what I mean by the 'keeper of the scrolls; I don't mean it in a derogatory manner, but having the archives regurgitated at every opportunity, simply for oneupmanship, is tedious - it may surprise you but most of us have already drawn an opinion. If it were on one or even two particular threads then crack-on, but it pervades everything and adds nothing. But it is, to you, how you see it.
Craig dear I have been nothing but honest in all I've posted, sometimes a little sarcastic, other times witty. I asked you some questions which you found difficult to answer, to the extent that you became abusive, pretty much like you are now. My recollection of the thread in which I first highlighted, what I describe as hypocritical principles, appears a little different to yours. I don't believe I've mentioned it since, before last night when you became a little paranoid regarding a post earlier in this thread. For clarity I've listed below how I perceived our part of the initial thread went. I think I explained fully the context of your posts, you even confirm this. Apologies to Happy, I know I said I'd behave today, I did try but I feel I need to defend my good name from Craig's vitriolic accusations. I have a busy day tomorrow & can't stay up till midnight to hit post. Disclaimer. I've read through this & it did make me chuckle, but I am me & not you, so I bear no responsibility if you read this & feel it has wasted a part of your life. Now back to Craig. On the thread in which I used your quotes I initially quoted a sentence from your post, I followed it up with the full post when you very much doubted it was your post. I then quoted another post from the same thread as the first. At which point you guessed it was from when you believed AA was with holding a transfer kitty to NB in the Jan window & became extremely defensive & abusive posting what could only be described as bile. I explained it was later than that & went into detail of the context of your posts. I also explained fully that the context of your posts were as a response to a rumour that AA had put the club up for sale. I let you know the process of how I gathered & remembered your old quotes as well as asking you what had triggered your change of opinion regarding our owners. You responded again asking for a link so the posts could be seen in context. I'd updated my post explaining the context at the same time as you'd asked for clarification of the context, which I explained to you. You appeared sensitive to the fact I'd revealed these posts as well as a little paranoid that I'd been "trawling" your posts. (I hadn't just to put your mind at rest). I explained the threads are easy to find on the board if you wanted to find them (I mean, should I really have to do all the hard work. Subscribe to thread & away you go) You again asked for a link. You became a little edgy & suggested you'd been stalked. As I explained to Chazz earlier in the week, stalking is the new name for perving & ogling, I can assure you, I was doing neither. I again asked nicely if you'd share what had triggered your change of opinion regarding the owners. I was a little sarcastic suggesting a reason could maybe be because we are now in the PL. Again you asked for a link so you could see it in context as I'd appeared to have got myself into something, even though I had previously explained quite accurately that they were posted in the context of a discussion relating to a rumour that the club had been put up for sale. I explained again that the thread was easily available on the site to all. I asked what I'd got myself into & again asked what had triggered your change of opinion. You're now demanding ("for the third time of asking") a link (you could have found it by now, if you'd tried) to see it in the context it was written in. Even though I'd already posted an accurate description of the context. You also aimed more bile insults in my direction. I ask why you find the need to insult me. Explain that I've simply researched prior to posting & the context is true as I'd described. I offer to post your post with the direct quote you'd responded to, to show the context & explained the other quote used, although not a direct response to an individual post, was posted in the context of a discussion regarding a rumour about the club going up for sale. You suggest I'm scared & "****ing creepy". Simply more bile insults, how terribly rude you are. I explain again the simple process of subscribing to a thread. I inform you I'm not scared to post a link (at this point, I knew 100% that I'd explained fully the context of your posts & was trying to protect you from looking silly) I asked you why you wouldn't discuss you reasoning behind your change of opinion regarding the owner. You suggest I'm fascinated by you, cheeky boy. You ask twice for me to post a link. At this point I err on the side of caution & PM you the link, hoping you'd read the link, see that I'd posted an accurate description of the context & leave it be, surely you wouldn't post it would you? Of course you do along with a full explanation of how in the right context your posts were used in a discussion just after NB was sacked (suspended, but who's picking hairs) & in relation to a rumour that the club was being put up for sale. Glad you put everybody straight on that one. You then insult me further. I explained I'd described the context accurately along with a sarcastic & witty riposte to your explanation. You suggest it took guts to post the link, I think it took more guts not to, considering how silly you looked after you'd posted it. I did give you the chance. You suggested I'd attempted to smear you (I thought only women had smears, maybe they do?) by not putting the quotes into context. I did put them into the context that they were used, you confirmed this when you posted the link. You insult me further & declare I'd been caught red handed. Although you didn't say what I'd been caught red handed doing. Others have said I'd been caught making you look a dick, but I say you did that yourself. You confirm at this point that you believe you have the right to be pissed off with AA when it suits you & support them at other times. I reassure you that I'm not trying to smear you (I witnessed it once & couldn't imagine having to try it myself) & that I was simply asking for clarification of what triggered your change of opinion. It's at this point that I ask my killer questions, the ones I'd been leading us up to. (a) Why do you have such a problem that people are pissed off with the proposed name change & that these people are prepared to campaign to save our current name? (b) Why are you openly critical of the people who criticise the owners for proposing to change the name when you, yourself, were so critical of them when they'd pissed you off. Do you not find this slightly hypocritical? I was sure you'd respond with full & honest answers. So you suggest I haven't read anything & although you enjoy a debate you don't want one with me because I'm devious. I ask, quite rightly as I was hurting from your cruel accusation, what is so devious in asking what triggered your change of opinion along with a couple of other questions? You then declare to another poster your unwillingness to discuss anything further. You do get a little banter regarding your weak position at the end but I, unlike yourself, stay nice throughout. Some linkety links for clarification. http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/239562-credit-where-credit-is-due/page2 http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/141512-Barmby-suspended/page2 I love you Craig xx
I have never said I know anybody on here, I don't. I have opinions of people. I knew what you meant reagarding the scrolls I didn't say I didn't understand. I said I've never declared myself the keeper of the scrolls. I don't ever strive for one-up-manship. Why would I be surprised that others have "drawn an opinion"? In your opinion it adds nothing, in mine it does. Simple concept. Continually abusing our owners adds nothing but in your opinion it obviously does.
I have played your quote and counter-quotes game, all from this single thread, just to show the inconsistency you don't see and deny. You don't need to clarify, as it's not important now. The middle bit's bullshit. Your final bit is just another continuation of an untruth. I have not abused the owner, I simply use carefully selected words to describe him. The description is drawn from his well publicised activities, public statements and general demeanour to his customers. It is him that abuses me and all others who object to the style he has chosen to adopt in prosecuting the name-change. Be accurate or be quiet.
Are you a little potty? There are no inconsistencies there at all. The first part you quote are my perceptions & opinions of groups defined by me. The next bit id a piss take statement using the popular radio phrase "& anybody else that knows me" if you take this as a true statement that I actually know people on here along with Chazz, Happy, Kemps & Stan you must be mad. I thought it was an obvious joke. Oh well, sorry you may have misunderstood. I would consider words such as bully, liar etc abusive, again that's my opinion. Be quiet? Get ****ed. Don't take this as abuse, it's merely a couple of carefully selected words letting you know that I won't be told what to do or when I can express opinion.
so you don't like being taken literally, that's fine. Old radio phrase? How do we know who you know, it's anonymous, remember. Believe it or not there are a number of people on here who know each other, but you keep playing with your words. Will that bring another chapter of War and Peace, who knows. Oh, and your humour is not that good; it's hard to tell the difference between **** humour and, well, just **** - especially when there's so much of it. Is it abusive to speak the truth?
I don't give a **** how you or others take me, I really don't. I don't give a **** if people think I know people on here, I really don't I don't give a **** if you don't appreciate my humour, I really don't. Old radio phrase? Sorry it's a wireless in old biffa talk. I have no difficulty separating the humour from the **** in your posts. 0% humour, 100% ****, every time. Now be quiet & behave yourself.
More of it...... http://worldsoccertalk.com/2013/12/...-supporters-power-is-thankfully-on-the-rise/? [Edit: Great video of Cardiff fans at Anfield. And lots of BLUE!]
So what is this credible business plan? is this a private business plan or does it involve CTWD members or tigers-co-op members? Its sounding like you guys are already picking out who fits were if there is a fans ownership If you guys run your own business will this get promoted (20 CTWD) I know there is 20 of you doing what i have seen a great job and you are all on websites/supporter of sorts But what are each of your roles? It just seems that there is a special hand shake for 20 CTWD forefathers or you are been made to look that way (yep had a beer or two) And if you got roles in the club what would you class as a good wage? Would you take minimum wage or any wage at all?
Not sure if this has been posted or not: https://twitter.com/aina_93/status/415439578506752000/photo/1 Wunderschoen
