Not sure what I've done to deserve this. Maybe because I feel Mooney is just stuck in the middle between Ehab and the fans and is trying to patch things up. On here I don't offer what you want to hear, doesn't mean I don't offer anything elsewhere.
You had to have the images approved? Hmmm, what happened to all of the 'we can show what we like' rhetoric? Sounds like someone was spinning us a yarn.
Here we go again . Still time to get yours done to the design of your choice. May I suggest one from our 'confused' range? please log in to view this image
That's not an answer. Go back to all of your posts and never-ending ridicules of my perfectly reasonable question. This isn't what you said, is it? Serious question, how about an honest answer? Why have we moved from there is no problem with what's on the banners to they had to be approved? I'm curious why you not only failed to mention this, but you clearly misled readers about it.
I won't post on this thread again, as, just as I said and have done, I accept that folk are entitled to have the banners they want. Equally, anyone who read any o the the posts about the banners will see a huge inconsistency in what we were told and what was used, falsely, to try and belittle my point of view. How Allamesque.
The designs are those chosen by supporters. It's the size that we needed confirmation for. The designs were shown to James as a matter of courtesy. Anyone can put anything on a banner and happily take it in the ground provided it meets the guidance on the web page. I'll take your apology for the spurious allegation as a given. Now, the flags are done, they're going in the ground because that's what some people want. Let it go.
That was bollocks the first time you spouted it, and it hasn't improved by being repeated ad infinitum.
As DMD said, anything within the guidelines can be put on a 6'x4' flag, it was a courtesy message as the flags were larger than the club would normally allow. It was an added bonus the club liked the designs. I really am finding it hard to understand why you're against this project and getting our colours into the ground, not only that but getting legends recognised in the process.
I will answer this as you have addressed me directly. There is a world of difference between getting something approved and doing something as a courtesy. All previous statements have totally poo-pooed the whole notion of any approval being necessary; the truth is (read back, if you wish) everything has been painted (pun acknowledged) as a free and easy process. Why am I against it (in principle, as I have repeatedly said I accept what others want to do); I see it as an endorsement, by the hooligans, the irrelevant supporters, of his off-radar campaign to lose our name - what next (figuratively), will we be expected to burn the books? I have only said that your excellent project could be delayed for better, more unified times. Read back, you will find that is the truth of it; neither Dutch or TOM have ever been able to provide quotes otherwise. This is my opinion and belief, I don't keep posting it, I only respond to defend/explain myself. I have never told anyone to adopt my point of view. I have stated my view on only a few relevant occasions, but I have defended it often, mainly due to one person. I have not moved, manipulated or wrongly stated anyone's posts or words; mine have been, though. My posts are now moved as a matter of course, apparently because they are not relevant to the thread they are on. I strongly believe this is a contrived nonsense; my posts answer or raise questions relevant to the conversations; tell me, why are other posts not moved when they are far more off topic/OP than mine? I will withdraw now, as I agree that the continued nonsense is just that. In response to Obi - you are holding forth with a great deal of detail that is still pretty much speculation; you know, I am sure, that it only takes a small detail change to have a huge influence on an outcome. The endless conversations, between you and the editor are regurgitating the same old, same old. There is an obvious technique (not by you) of asking banal questions to develop conversations that are going nowhere, except to give someone prominence on the board. I'm off, I admire your artwork and humour, Mauled, and your dedication to unravelling the nonsense, Obi, but wish it could all have awaited a more appropriate time. By the way, I still believe we will stay up.
Fez, your posts are moved because they're generally bullshit and bollocks of epic proportions, and your last reply is just another example. They disrupt the other threads. I've tried to answer your points politely, but you keep changing what you claim it is and then deny you've had answers and chuck spurious, inaccurate and childish insults in. I'll have another go, you say your only point is that it should have been done at a better time. That's been answered, the answer has never changed, it was done now because some people want to show support for the team. The other issues at the club are being addressed elsewhere. That was the clear ethos from the start. There was an explicit request supported by a poll, that the very 'politics' you keep trying to drag in, were kept out. These aren't my flags, nor my opinions, they're those of the board that expressed a view I just somehow ended up facilitating. I'm sure others feel it can be seen as putting money in the Allams pockets, and chose not to donate because of that. I understand that point of view. There is no permission required for the design of the flags other than the safety/legal rules all clubs have. That's the plain and simple truth. The way it was approached last time meant the situation was not as smooth as it could have been, and that was explained on this board at the time, with me making some less than polite comments on it, which is hardly claiming it as a 'free and easy process'. Some of that was due to faults on my part, and I tried to learn from them. One mistake was me not being explicitly clear on what was proposed. For that reason, keeping the club fully informed at the earliest opportunity was seen as key. The club were approached, not for permission on the designs, but as a courtesy. There is/was a possibility of tying the designs in with other club initiatives. It also meant we were able to produce flags that were bigger than normally allowed. I never mentioned that part, because I thought it could set an awkward precedent. No doubt you'll continue to try and spin the truth to match your twisted version, but you'd be better basing your views on the first hand experience of people involved.
