It will be good move to have Walter on the board, he will ensure that Chuck Green's actions are carefully monitored, and he will be the fan's representative on the board, similar to John Greig with Minty and Craig Whyte.
Sir Walter on the Board
- Thread starter Otto Flayshow
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Shhhh, Walter has been behind the Chuckles Agenda the whole time. The plan has been clear, the plan has been firm, the plan continues, as does the adventure. Rumours that the plan was codenamed "Operation Valkyrie" back in 2006 are unfounded.
rogueleader
suave gringo
.
WOW you're like one of those little dogs that sinks their teeth into a toy and won't let go.
I suggest you review this thread again paying close attention to the words used by me and your good self. Perhaps a bit of time help you find the answers you so desperately seek.
Not obsessed with us though...
No I'm not.
I just asked you a straight forward question and you ducked it like Howard fae Paxman.
I suggest you review this thread again paying close attention to the words used by me and your good self. Perhaps you'll see what pish you talk.
Aye, it's aw fun and games until someone involves this mentalist
[video=youtube;D_kNwsui1JY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_kNwsui1JY[/video]
Haha you ****in wish "paxman"! I never dodged **** all or tried to change the subject, I just stepped back and let you make a **** of yourself by asking the same question over and over again.
I don't need to review jack ****, you're the **** with the problem not me.
Typical obsessive behaviour...
What was your answer, then?
I must've missed it despite reviewing the thread as ordered, sir.
Again, I'll refer you to post #106, the answers are here.
Look and you shall see..
]
Post 106, eh?
The question (asked 5 times) was "What do you think the word Hun means?" and your answer is:
No, you're not evading anything.
I made an assumption about what you meant, though - kind of had to in the end.
]
Post 106, eh?
The question (asked 5 times) was "What do you think the word Hun means?" and your answer is:
No, you're not evading anything.
I made an assumption about what you meant, though - kind of had to in the end.
Wow, not the sharpest are you?
I was clearly advising you to read post 106 and take on boards the contents.
What's that signature I've seen on here? "you look but you don't see" or something like that.
So, in not avoiding answering the question again, you referenced a post where you avoided the question?
When pointing out that it wasn't answering the question, you still don't answer the question but suggest that it's inherent in the non-direct general chatter you've carried out?
Are you a woman?
Seriously?
Oh well, I suppose if I don't know you shouldn't have to tell me, eh?
The fact that I have to ask shows that the problem is with me not you?
The fact that I have to ask shows that the problem is with me not you?