Maverick
 Offline
Posts: 444
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: Saturday, January 6, 2007, 08:57:09 » |
|
Not a problem millom .... and yes I do change my opinion on a frequent basis ... the joys of being an independent means I don't have to toe any "party line" ... and as more information gets revealed about something it means I don't have to stay in an "entrenched" position. To some perhaps .. a wishy-washy fence-sitter ... I prefer to try to think that I am just open-minded (yeah right ... even I didn't believe that one!!  )!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36336
|
|
« Reply #31 on: Saturday, January 6, 2007, 14:25:51 » |
|
Maverick - you may have been tarred with the same brush as some others who seem loved up with the board but it is a fact you have mixed up the trust board with trust members in the past. I cannot help but feel that this is one reason that a lot of people hold your comments in contempt. It would be the equivalent of saying every shareholder in STFC was a member of the board.
The Trust have only 'attacked' matters which have been masked by the board of STFC, whereas the club seem to attack the transparency of the Trust. I know who'd I'd Trust more (no pun intended)!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Offline
Posts: 444
|
|
« Reply #32 on: Monday, January 8, 2007, 10:15:39 » |
|
Si - I don't know anyone who is "loved up" with the Board ..... I am sure there are some though ..... but there are certainly some I know who are wary of everyone! I am sure I have quite probably got people mixed up and for that I apologise ... but certainly there are two of the trust board who have been the reason for some of my comments...... and bearing in mind that there are mainly two on the STFC "side" who get criticised for what they say (Mike D & Martyn S) .. in some people's minds it leaves the trust board open to being seen as sinking to the club's level. To win over hearts and minds of the larger fanbase, I really think the Trust need to be seen as being able to rise above it all. I know that the board are all passionate fans first and foremost ... but they have "put their heads above the parapet" by becoming board members, and so will be subject to scrutiny by all .... and lets face it if a "first-timer" came on this site (yes I KNOW it is 80% bollocks, perhaps closer to 90% on a good day!! ) ... and looked at the content of some of the trust board members posts ...... god knows how they would ever take the Trust seriously or see them as a viable or professional group!! Hopefully people will not see this as "Maverick slagging off the Trust again" ...... it is intended to be constructive. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
red macca
|
|
« Reply #33 on: Monday, January 8, 2007, 10:21:55 » |
|
Si - I don't know anyone who is "loved up" with the Board ..... I am sure there are some though ..... but there are certainly some I know who are wary of everyone! I am sure I have quite probably got people mixed up and for that I apologise ... but certainly there are two of the trust board who have been the reason for some of my comments...... and bearing in mind that there are mainly two on the STFC "side" who get criticised for what they say (Mike D & Martyn S) .. in some people's minds it leaves the trust board open to being seen as sinking to the club's level. To win over hearts and minds of the larger fanbase, I really think the Trust need to be seen as being able to rise above it all. I know that the board are all passionate fans first and foremost ... but they have "put their heads above the parapet" by becoming board members, and so will be subject to scrutiny by all .... and lets face it if a "first-timer" came on this site (yes I KNOW it is 80% bollocks, perhaps closer to 90% on a good day!! ) ... and looked at the content of some of the trust board members posts ...... god knows how they would ever take the Trust seriously or see them as a viable or professional group!! Hopefully people will not see this as "Maverick slagging off the Trust again" ...... it is intended to be constructive. I can sort of see what your saying maverick but as you said about the board they are fans first and so are the trust .imo the actions of the trust should matter where it counts and thats on matchdays,trust meetings,in the letters and on the trust site.What they want to do or say on this site should have no relevence(spelling) at all in what they are trying to achieve |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Offline
Posts: 444
|
|
« Reply #34 on: Monday, January 8, 2007, 10:48:26 » |
|
In an ideal world that would be true red macca .... but sadly people don't ever stop to think about "where someone is" when they say or do something ...... if you or I get pissed and lump someone and get arrested ...... nobody really cares (well I may get some negative press I guess but you know what I mean!!) ... but if it was MikeD or SSW or Bill P or Mike W or Paul D or Andy T (etc etc !!) ...... then it would be big news and get talked about everywhere (well big news in STFC's world!!). If you wished me a merry Christmas and I told you to f*** off or called you a w***er .... in the middle of a car park ...... apart from you .. would anyone care (some might even congratulate me!!  )? ... yet if that is what happened and Mike D did say that .... then it seems everyone wants to lynch him for it (no I am not defending him .. just demonstrating that it is never going to be a level playing field!). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #35 on: Monday, January 8, 2007, 11:07:30 » |
|
There's a world of difference between lumping someone and some off-the-cuff throwaway comments on messageboards as well you know. You seem to have constructed some kind of moral crusade around half a dozen comments from three Trust board members on one of the most informal and knockabout Town boards. And one of the three - ie me - you've publicly acknowledged hasn't indluged in abusive comments but has answered questions politley and properly, so you're left with trying to stoke up a holier-than-thou "Oooh, they're so unprofessional" smear on the basis of a few comments from two Trust board members. As has been said elsewhere, we're all fans, that's the point of it, and if you really feel that a fans' organisation is improved by not being able to talk to other fans as fans then I think you've missed the point. It's pathetic Maverick - why don't you give it up and try to focus on the real issues? Like for starters, I'm still waiting as I'm sure everyone else is for you to demonstrate your claimed balanced independence with a similar list of searching questions to that you demanded we answer of the board. Not holding my breath, mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Offline
Posts: 444
|
|
« Reply #36 on: Monday, January 8, 2007, 11:21:30 » |
|
pauld ... equally I have said before (a few times) ...... the Trust have asked a long list of questions of the current board many times ... and so have many others ....... the lack of responses to most of them is what people will/are judging them by. Very few people have asked questions of the Trust or the Consortium in public, but when they have ..... they have either been answered or they have been questions that cannot be answered at the present because of the requirement for confidentiality...... people will make judgements based on that as well.
I asked questions because they were ones I had not seen asked and wanted to know ...... and I know that the Trust use the forums and respond through the forums. I cannot think of any questions of the current club board that have not already been asked (often many times) by loads of people already .. the point of asking them all again for the umpteenth time would be what exactly?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
 Online
Posts: 57774
|
|
« Reply #37 on: Monday, January 8, 2007, 11:32:55 » |
|
I cannot think of any questions of the current club board that have not already been asked (often many times) by loads of people already .. the point of asking them all again for the umpteenth time would be what exactly? Maybe as you are somebody the board knows of you may get some answers where the rest of us have failed. Why not give it a go. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Offline
Posts: 444
|
|
« Reply #38 on: Monday, January 8, 2007, 11:41:30 » |
|
ok Batch ... give me a list of say 10 questions ... (sensible ones would help!! ) .. and I will try ..... don't hold your breath though .... I will email the club and post any reply ....... not sure what response I will get as except for Sandy Gray (who I met once cos she was at the meeting I attended) and Martyn Starnes (cos I met him in the club shop and wrote him an email to which he responded by inviting me to that meeting but didn't attend himself!) ... none of them know me from Adam (unless they read the forums!!). I will write the email at the end of the week once I have sorted out what questions you think I should ask .... then we will see what happens ... I suggest we give them, shall we say, 14 days to respond? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Power to people
Offline
Posts: 6583
|
|
« Reply #39 on: Monday, January 8, 2007, 13:45:45 » |
|
What meeting was this that you attended and met Sandy and not Martyn then Maverick ?
Why would you get answers to questions that nobody else can get answers to ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
@MacPhlea
Offline
Posts: 2325
|
|
« Reply #41 on: Monday, January 8, 2007, 14:04:02 » |
|
So this was the very meeting where the board insisted the CVA payments etc were up to date and current commitments have been met...  CLASSIC! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Arriba
Offline
Posts: 21305
|
|
« Reply #42 on: Monday, January 8, 2007, 14:19:56 » |
|
if the cva was paid,other bills paid,the decent income from large gates and the compo money for wise used to purchase players,and the club seemed ambitious then i would back the board.
they are about as transparant as pea soup though and seem to be failing the clubs supporters.
the alternative seems to be the better option to take stfc forward at this moment in time
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Online
Posts: 57774
|
|
« Reply #43 on: Monday, January 8, 2007, 14:34:39 » |
|
I'll have a think Mav and get back to you. Presumably you have your own list too.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Offline
Posts: 444
|
|
« Reply #44 on: Monday, January 8, 2007, 15:04:23 » |
|
triseros ... they never said the CVA was up to date ... they said that "all current commitments have been met" ... which as I have said before was factually corrrect as the CVA is being renegotiated and so nothing is currently due until it is sorted ...... but nevertheless incredibly misleading and certainly my view is that the reason that current commitments have been met should have been revealed ..... but technically they told no lie at that meeting.
arriba ... I agree that it would be very different if the cva could be paid .. not sure how much difference the increased gates make when taken against the reduced prices this season .... I don't know that the Wise compo is in yet ... I think I read somewhere that was still to come (I think Bates is not the quickest of payers) ... also even with the money in we would have to offload players before we could buy anymore because of the league two wage cap rule.
Batch ... I kinda have a list .. but was going to wait until the end of the week to see what else was suggested (and how often!!) before deciding .. I only want to ask about 10 questions ... because any more would certainly get ignored (in my opinion).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
