Watching With Interest

[Alan Baker]

Because UKIP and BNP work exactly the same, and his public speaking reminded my of the two parties. Amongst other organisations as well but I felt those two were extreme examples which better illustrated the point I was making.

 

I think the only reason you've asked that is because you think it was some sort of pathetic disguised racial slur.

 

I've explained myself twice, once in the original post right after the comment and once when questioned further. It highlights my point that Mo Chaudry's public speaking, in my opinion lacked substance. The only bad thing about it is that you have now picked up on it and are trying to make it into something it simply wasn't.

 

Do they? Please elaborate about the two parties.

 

Which public speaking events are you referring to?

 

Lacked substance? Now, even you know that that comment is laughable. Check out his website and then get back to me.

 

Racial slur? Perhaps.

[Sonny]

Where? On the terraces?

 

Were they guests of Directors?

 

It ****** stinks.

 

I agree,it does stink,and has been a worry of mine for a while,is the move by Lloyd just one big con trick? it full fills Bratts original plan, IF this USA deal does fall through then it will be interesting

[NLVMalc]

Sorry could have been Meigh and Mudie, def two 'ex' directors one of which was Mudie. I was so shocked at the time!!!!

[Tone]

Tone

 

I don't think that anything substantive will come from the Club tomorrow nor that Oliver is making-up the numbers.

 

I also remain unconvinced that the other ex-Directors are as ex as I would like.

 

We shall see, Alan.

 

I am far from the centre of the action, obviously, but what I have heard was encouraging. But I had been concerned that Jackson was still pulling strings. But just like Bratt and Oliver, hopefully his influence will be ended when new investment is in place.

 

Oliver will never have anyone believe he is a lame duck, but I think he is. I hope and pray he is out soon.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Do they? Please elaborate about the two parties.

 

Which public speaking events are you referring to?

 

Lacked substance? Now, even you know that that comment is laughable. Check out his website and then get back to me.

 

Racial slur? Perhaps.

 

Can we all stop dropping in this racial slur crap and inuendo.

 

Whilst we are all well aware Vale like most clubs has a racist element (Accrington away and the terrible way in which Ex was treated) its all too easy for those in love with Mo to throw it at people that don't like him when it is simply an attempt to discredit their wayward thinking.

 

I am absolutely certain Mo doesn't / wouldn't want it constantly banded around.

[Valiant in Brum]

Because UKIP and BNP work exactly the same, and his public speaking reminded my of the two parties. Amongst other organisations as well but I felt those two were extreme examples which better illustrated the point I was making.

 

I think the only reason you've asked that is because you think it was some sort of pathetic disguised racial slur.

 

I've explained myself twice, once in the original post right after the comment and once when questioned further. It highlights my point that Mo Chaudry's public speaking, in my opinion lacked substance. The only bad thing about it is that you have now picked up on it and are trying to make it into something it simply wasn't.

 

Excuse me UKIP and BNP are nothing in the same. I am a UKIP member and I assure you they are not the same. I would not be a member otherwise. Plus since UKIPS founding they have had black and asian members.

 

There is for example winston mckenzie who is black and was born in jamacia who ran for the leadership last year! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_McKenzie

 

If anyone has any connections i.e been a member of the BNP, then you can't join UKIP. As UKIP doesn't tolerate racism. There only link you can count they have is both want out of europe that is it.

[Caroline Oakes]

I am absolutely certain Mo doesn't / wouldn't want it constantly banded around.

 

Really?

 

Perhaps not constantly....

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Really?

 

Perhaps not constantly....

 

Exactly, you have answered your own question in your next sentence.

[Regal Beagle]

Do they? Please elaborate about the two parties.

 

Which public speaking events are you referring to?

 

Lacked substance? Now, even you know that that comment is laughable. Check out his website and then get back to me.

 

Racial slur? Perhaps.

 

They are both extreme examples of groups with very clear agendas, which they use any information to twist and turn to suit their needs but don't really back it up.

 

Any public speaking in general.

 

I'll check out his website when I've got a fortnight off to wade through all the videos and waffle about how he has turned a waterpark around and how he will apply that to football. Football is unique, it is very easy to fail and I personally find it a bit of a contradiction that a significant number of people who support Mo from the off are not asking the questions that they are asking of the board, of ameriturf, of harlequin, of anyone else. They want this clarity and to know exactly what is going on but are happy with Mo who can speak for 5 minutes and not really tell you anything.

 

I feel like I'm being forced into attacking the guy now to be honest, I genuinely don't dislike him, have nothing but respect for his business skills and I do hope that he will be given the opportunity to sit down properly with a board of directors at PVFC and be given the chance to outline his plan for the club.

 

I'm actually offended that you think it is anything to do with race. Do you know which race I am a member of? And is it not a truer reflection of natural racism that I can mention BNP and you immediately assume I'm doing it as a dig against Mo. Because it didn't even cross my mind at the time of writing.

[fairportnick]

Excuse me UKIP and BNP are nothing in the same. I am a UKIP member and I assure you they are not the same. I would not be a member otherwise. Plus since UKIPS founding they have had black and asian members.

 

There is for example winston mckenzie who is black and was born in jamacia who ran for the leadership last year! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_McKenzie

 

If anyone has any connections i.e been a member of the BNP, then you can't join UKIP. As UKIP doesn't tolerate racism. There only link you can count they have is both want out of europe that is it.

 

I thought UKIP were the BNP in blazers?

[Regal Beagle]

Excuse me UKIP and BNP are nothing in the same. I am a UKIP member and I assure you they are not the same. I would not be a member otherwise. Plus since UKIPS founding they have had black and asian members.

 

There is for example winston mckenzie who is black and was born in jamacia who ran for the leadership last year! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_McKenzie

 

If anyone has any connections i.e been a member of the BNP, then you can't join UKIP. As UKIP doesn't tolerate racism. There only link you can count they have is both want out of europe that is it.

 

I'm not saying one or the other, or both are racist parties that is an entirely different debate which I will refuse to get into. I was merely stating my opinion that Parties such as the BNP and UKIP have these bright ideas which in reality could never be implemented or work basically.

 

I'm not saying they are similar political parties, purely that the way they spin things to suit their arguments are similar.

 

 

And as a side note, The BNP has members from different ethnic (non british) backgrounds. There is a sikh guy who always pops up whenever they're in the news.

[ValeOatcake]

I thought UKIP were the BNP in blazers?

 

:rollonthefloor:

[VantaaVale]

I'll check out his website when I've got a fortnight off to wade through all the videos and waffle about how he has turned a waterpark around and how he will apply that to football. Football is unique, it is very easy to fail and I personally find it a bit of a contradiction that a significant number of people who support Mo from the off are not asking the questions that they are asking of the board, of ameriturf, of harlequin, of anyone else. They want this clarity and to know exactly what is going on but are happy with Mo who can speak for 5 minutes and not really tell you anything.

 

I don't think this bit is quite right, at least not from my perspective.

 

Ameriturf and Harlequin have been reported by the board as having investment bids on the table which the board believes is in the best interests of the club. At that point they come under scrutiny. I find it odd that none of this investment has actually materialised so far.

 

Mo's bid, in all its forms, has been rejected and will continue to be rejected for what I believe are personal reasons, which, of course, the board will deny. The instant rejection of what appears to be a very viable investment opportunity and business plan was the main reason why I personally went from being a staunch board supporter to being one that wants them out. From that point, despite a rather hasty change of mind due to shareholder fury, it became clear to me that the directors were putting their own interests ahead of the club's and this was confirmed when they bought Broxap's shares after realising they would lose the EGM resolutions.

 

The board have lost the trust of the shareholders and therefore it is no surprise that they find everything they do or say anaylsed in minute detail. It always seems there's a little surprise that appears out of thin air. As an example, we now have the situation of Bill Bratt potentially resigning, but not before he sells the shares that he is on record as saying were his for life.

 

Should the board decide to (re-)consider their viewpoint on Mo's bid, then it will be scrutinised like any other bid. For instance, there have already been some concerns posted about the interest payable on the £3.8 million that may be loaned to the club.

[Valiant in Brum]

I'm not saying one or the other, or both are racist parties that is an entirely different debate which I will refuse to get into. I was merely stating my opinion that Parties such as the BNP and UKIP have these bright ideas which in reality could never be implemented or work basically.

 

I'm not saying they are similar political parties, purely that the way they spin things to suit their arguments are similar.

 

 

And as a side note, The BNP has members from different ethnic (non british) backgrounds. There is a sikh guy who always pops up whenever they're in the news.

 

Only because a law passed last year forced them too. Before that you had to be white to jin. But I think you know that.

[Pete T]

I don't think this bit is quite right, at least not from my perspective.

 

Ameriturf and Harlequin have been reported by the board as having investment bids on the table which the board believes is in the best interests of the club. At that point they come under scrutiny. I find it odd that none of this investment has actually materialised so far.

 

Mo's bid, in all its forms, has been rejected and will continue to be rejected for what I believe are personal reasons, which, of course, the board will deny. The instant rejection of what appears to be a very viable investment opportunity and business plan was the main reason why I personally went from being a staunch board supporter to being one that wants them out. From that point, despite a rather hasty change of mind due to shareholder fury, it became clear to me that the directors were putting their own interests ahead of the club's and this was confirmed when they bought Broxap's shares after realising they would lose the EGM resolutions.

 

The board have lost the trust of the shareholders and therefore it is no surprise that they find everything they do or say anaylsed in minute detail. It always seems there's a little surprise that appears out of thin air. As an example, we now have the situation of Bill Bratt potentially resigning, but not before he sells the shares that he is on record as saying were his for life.

 

Should the board decide to (re-)consider their viewpoint on Mo's bid, then it will be scrutinised like any other bid. For instance, there have already been some concerns posted about the interest payable on the £3.8 million that may be loaned to the club.

 

Top post. Sums up the present impasse very well IMHO. And saves me a lot of typing.