Meeting before the Macc game

[Iffy's Onion Bhaji]

cheers Gazza and Fred. much happier now its been moved. although im still not overly happy with the fact that Sturrock is involved. surely he should just concentrate on the players and getting results?

[Fred Elliot]

I agree Rich

I will now be attending armed without a single question for Sturrock but an armfull for other people

[Reg Smeeton]

I agree Rich

I will now be attending armed without a single question for Sturrock but an armfull for other people

 It doesn't alter the fact that Sturrock should not be used as a shield to deflect from the Board.....its just wrong and should be boycotted.

[Simon Pieman]

http://www.centralchronicle.com/20060301/GeoffreyBoycott.jpg

Better still, get Boycott to attend.

[Fred Elliot]

I agree Reg, but if there is sufficient support then the floor will be hard to ignore on certain issues.

MB has already stated that no questions will be answered about the consortiums bid.

However there is a bucket full of other issues that need to be addressed.

As I said, I only withdrew my support because I thought it would be criminal to bring in Sturrock just hours before a kick off.

We need to see this as an opportunity to press some issues in a public arena that in the past have been, shall we say, somewhat shady ?

[Reg Smeeton]

I agree Reg, but if there is sufficient support then the floor will be hard to ignore on certain issues.

MB has already stated that no questions will be answered about the consortiums bid.

However there is a bucket full of other issues that need to be addressed.

As I said, I only withdrew my support because I thought it would be criminal to bring in Sturrock just hours before a kick off.

We need to see this as an opportunity to press some issues in a public arena that in the past have been, shall we say, somewhat shady ?

  Up to you Fred, but personally I  couldn't stomach such an event....the chances of getting an honest answer to a question are remote, so what's the point.

[Fred Elliot]

I respect that my friend.

But the last thing I want to happen is that there is complete apathy to the event, or some form of boycott that will dilute the current feelings

I think that that would only give certain quarters fuel to pour on the situation IMO.

At the end of the day I cannot stand by without at least trying.

Heavy heart today mate

[mattboyslim]

Agreed Fred a boycott would be in principle good, but the aforementioned apologists would be able to utilise it to say the consortium etc had no backing.  A few well chosen questions from those with the right inclination could make Stanres et al look a bit daft.  All it needs is the right knowledge and some awkward wording making them hard to wriggle out of, that shouldn't be too tricky.

[Fred Elliot]

Agreed Fred a boycott would be in principle good, but the aforementioned apologists would be able to utilise it to say the consortium etc had no backing.  A few well chosen questions from those with the right inclination could make Stanres et al look a bit daft.  All it needs is the right knowledge and some awkward wording making them hard to wriggle out of, that shouldn't be too tricky.

I agree Matty,

I am not going into the meeting with the sole purpose of trying to "trip" people up however.

I just want old fashioned honest answers to old fashioned honest questions mate

not a lot to ask I know ......................

[Reg Smeeton]

Agreed Fred a boycott would be in principle good, but the aforementioned apologists would be able to utilise it to say the consortium etc had no backing.  A few well chosen questions from those with the right inclination could make Stanres et al look a bit daft.  All it needs is the right knowledge and some awkward wording making them hard to wriggle out of, that shouldn't be too tricky.

 On the contrary the Board will doubtless use anybody that  turns up as a stooge for their propaganda machine.....if you wish to be exploited in that way, its entirely your decision......is it possible to make the Board look any more incompetent?

[herthab]

Agreed Fred a boycott would be in principle good, but the aforementioned apologists would be able to utilise it to say the consortium etc had no backing.  A few well chosen questions from those with the right inclination could make Stanres et al look a bit daft.  All it needs is the right knowledge and some awkward wording making them hard to wriggle out of, that shouldn't be too tricky.

 On the contrary the Board will doubtless use anybody that  turns up as a stooge for their propaganda machine.....if you wish to be exploited in that way, its entirely your decision......is it possible to make the Board look any more incompetent?

So your idea reg is to not turn up and let the pro board supporters (Yes there's still some about) have the floor.
Then the board can issue an honest statement regarding the meeting with no criticism levelled at them?

[mattboyslim]

I know what I need to know to make my opinion.  What I hope to be achieved is that theboard are allowed to gdig themsleves a deeper hole and persuade the undecided that Power et al is the way forward.

[Fred Elliot]

I concur

[Reg Smeeton]

Agreed Fred a boycott would be in principle good, but the aforementioned apologists would be able to utilise it to say the consortium etc had no backing.  A few well chosen questions from those with the right inclination could make Stanres et al look a bit daft.  All it needs is the right knowledge and some awkward wording making them hard to wriggle out of, that shouldn't be too tricky.

 On the contrary the Board will doubtless use anybody that  turns up as a stooge for their propaganda machine.....if you wish to be exploited in that way, its entirely your decision......is it possible to make the Board look any more incompetent?

So your idea reg is to not turn up and let the pro board supporters (Yes there's still some about) have the floor.
Then the board can issue an honest statement regarding the meeting with no criticism levelled at them?

 Why not.....I'm sure there are very few pro board supporters, they might get Gazza to drag along a few retards....but its an irrelevance...the damage for them is long done and there can be no way back.

   Can you imagine a more nauseating charade than Smarmes, Gray, Blodwyn, Diamandis, Holt, Carson .....(can't imagine they'll get a Wills) all getting feely touchy with Sturrock  :chunder:

[herthab]

Agreed Fred a boycott would be in principle good, but the aforementioned apologists would be able to utilise it to say the consortium etc had no backing.  A few well chosen questions from those with the right inclination could make Stanres et al look a bit daft.  All it needs is the right knowledge and some awkward wording making them hard to wriggle out of, that shouldn't be too tricky.

 On the contrary the Board will doubtless use anybody that  turns up as a stooge for their propaganda machine.....if you wish to be exploited in that way, its entirely your decision......is it possible to make the Board look any more incompetent?

So your idea reg is to not turn up and let the pro board supporters (Yes there's still some about) have the floor.
Then the board can issue an honest statement regarding the meeting with no criticism levelled at them?

 Why not.....I'm sure there are very few pro board supporters, they might get Gazza to drag along a few retards....but its an irrelevance...the damage for them is long done and there can be no way back.

   Can you imagine a more nauseating charade than Smarmes, Gray, Blodwyn, Diamandis, Holt, Carson .....(can't imagine they'll get a Wills) all getting feely touchy with Sturrock  :chunder:

Fuck off reg! What a load of bollocks! Sturrock, as an employee, is bound to toe the company line, they pay his fucking wages!!

Questions should be raised in front of the fans who are unsure of what's going on.

Your way would just give the board a free rein to spin things the way they want.

What a load of total bollocks!

If you don't want to go, don't fucking go! But don't tell anyone else that your warped logic makes any sense.

Cos it doesn't..............