Just a few questions

[saintvaliant]

well if people are forcing change and that change happens and it goes wrong surely there has to be some accountability for those who forced it?

 

 

Equally then Darren, if change were to lead to a glorious era for the club, would people like yourself be first in line to hand out the plaudits to those who moved to force change?

[philpvfc]

1. Because the moderators are anti board

2. Wind up Merchant (fair few on hear)

3. Ofcourse not.

[darren gilson]

Interesting that this isn't reflected in the balance of your posts. On a slight tangent, do anti-change supporters accept the blame for the last 8 seasons of dross?

 

I agree, and the board need to take full accountability for the last 7 seasons, not 8 because it was not there fault Micky went to Sheff Utd and on paper Gannon looked to be a good replacement but he turned out to be a bad move, but they did act quick in removing him from the club.

[Memphis]

well if people are forcing change and that change happens and it goes wrong surely there has to be some accountability for those who forced it?

 

I think you're getting your arguments mixed up here me owd fruit!

 

What exactly should the Pro-Change supporters be blamed for?

 

Which investment are you on about?

 

When does school start again?

[Twitters]

I like the way I get dragged into a post by someone I've never abused! :D

 

With regards to number 3, why would it be the protesters fault if the investment doesn't come off?

[darren gilson]

Equally then Darren, if change were to lead to a glorious era for the club, would people like yourself be first in line to hand out the plaudits to those who moved to force change?

 

Absolutley and a few of my mates protested against Glover and it worked because we had some good times under Adams the first time around.

 

As i said before it wasn't a pop or a wind up it was a genuine question.

 

im not into wind ups, i post under my name and have nothing to hide

[darren gilson]

I like the way I get dragged into a post by someone I've never abused! :D

 

With regards to number 3, why would it be the protesters fault if the investment doesn't come off?

 

Because anyone who doesn't tend to agree with you usually gets abused.

[Howjy04]

Is it not the pro - boarders fault that caused 5million investment to go Peter Tong?

[darren gilson]

I think you're getting your arguments mixed up here me owd fruit!

 

What exactly should the Pro-Change supporters be blamed for?

 

Which investment are you on about?

 

When does school start again?

 

Is that your mentality then Memphis "arguments", i don't want an argument i put a genuine question out there for a debate.

 

and quite frankly i have no idea because i left 23 years ago, and i am struggling to understand what that has to do with this thread? Maybe you could shed some light for me?

[Jacko51]

well if people are forcing change and that change happens and it goes wrong surely there has to be some accountability for those who forced it?

 

But what if the change that comes about isn't the change that the pro-change people wanted? Should the anti-change people be blamed for blocking the change that the pro-change people wanted and bringing about a change that neither the pro- or anti-change people find acceptable?

[Pete T]

1/ multiple user names + same banned user = looks like lots of pro-board get banned.

( We have a minority of pro board / undecided who DON'T get banned. And won't, cos they stick within the forum rules. )

2/ Wind Up Merchant.

3/ Nope.

 

PS: Darren, please excuse those who assume you are of school age, a board member (or stooge of same) or a reincarnation of a previously banned user.

This is purely down to your low post count. It has happened a few times and some new users get tarred with the same brush.

[IDF]

But what if the change that comes about isn't the change that the pro-change people wanted? Should the anti-change people be blamed for blocking the change that the pro-change people wanted and bringing about a change that neither the pro- or anti-change people find acceptable?

 

what she said :D

[darren gilson]

Is it not the pro - boarders fault that caused 5million investment to go Peter Tong?

 

Well apparently from what i have read and heard the pro board supporters are the minority so surely the majority of anti board supporters would of been able to make the changes, and it would appear they have done so as Glenn Oliver and Bill Bratt have both come out publically and said they are stepping down.

[darren gilson]

But what if the change that comes about isn't the change that the pro-change people wanted? Should the anti-change people be blamed for blocking the change that the pro-change people wanted and bringing about a change that neither the pro- or anti-change people find acceptable?

 

Well then Bill Bratt, Mike Lloyd and Glenn Oliver need to be held accountable if that were to happen

[Memphis]

and i am struggling to understand what that has to do with this thread? Maybe you could shed some light for me?

 

Now you know how the rest of us feel about your questions.

 

You say the Pro-Change supporters should be to blame if the proposed investment goes belly up.

 

Of which investment do you speak, and why should they be held to blame?

 

Seems you've set your stall out with your pot-shots at twitters, maybe you could shed some light as to why he's relevant to your debate.