no excuses now

[MagicFlask]

And there was me thinking that - in actual fact - it was anyone who is sceptical who is now being hounded. We are all meant to 'give them a chance' and keep our doubts to ourselves.

 

You could not make it up...

 

Oh, and I did notice that those posters who basically refer to others as away with the fairies are a-ok. Democracy eh?

 

Mark, with the greatest respect, I find being compared with Lev Davidovich Bronstein flattering, but I don't think that was your intention. Orwell was much better at satirising than you are, you're just resorting to insults based on a single storyline where the Soviet revolution was sold out by those in control......not the case here....

 

I really (honestly) don't understand why you are so determined to hang on to the idea that "one of the other investors" would have been in some way better.....it's dead easy to wish for something different to happen, but I don't think they are seriously any better.....

 

I think that now you are moving so far away from the stated goals of the "movement for change" that you are attempting to rewrite history yourself....or, at best, refusing to make ANY compromise whatsoever....No Surrender!!!!!! and to achieve what, exactly?

I thought it was about achieving a change in the club's fortunes, with investment and forward thinking, not gift-wrapping it and handing it over to one individual or another.....but as far as you seem to be concerned, it was either that individual or "cartel" or nobody.....

 

I think you believe that somehow we have "lost" - and, on that basis, your views are more consistent with the old pro-board folk who post on the Sentinel, giving the people who worked and voted for change no credit whatsoever.

 

I think you are in danger of becoming an ex-Vale fan, because I don't think you'll ever get what you want.

 

The list of questions that you expect answers to would give you commercially confidential information, and I can totally understand why a commercial organisation like a football club would expect not to share that with all and sundry. I don't imagine anyone else in that position would give you that level of detail.

[MarkB2]

Mark, with the greatest respect, I find being compared with Lev Davidovich Bronstein flattering, but I don't think that was your intention. Orwell was much better at satirising than you are, you're just resorting to insults based on a single storyline where the Soviet revolution was sold out by those in control......not the case here....

 

I really (honestly) don't understand why you are so determined to hang on to the idea that "one of the other investors" would have been in some way better.....it's dead easy to wish for something different to happen, but I don't think they are seriously any better.....

 

I think that now you are moving so far away from the stated goals of the "movement for change" that you are attempting to rewrite history yourself....or, at best, refusing to make ANY compromise whatsoever....No Surrender!!!!!! and to achieve what, exactly?

I thought it was about achieving a change in the club's fortunes, with investment and forward thinking, not gift-wrapping it and handing it over to one individual or another.....but as far as you seem to be concerned, it was either that individual or "cartel" or nobody.....

 

I think you believe that somehow we have "lost" - and, on that basis, your views are more consistent with the old pro-board folk who post on the Sentinel, giving the people who worked and voted for change no credit whatsoever.

 

I think you are in danger of becoming an ex-Vale fan, because I don't think you'll ever get what you want.

 

The list of questions that you expect answers to would give you commercially confidential information, and I can totally understand why a commercial organisation like a football club would expect not to share that with all and sundry. I don't imagine anyone else in that position would give you that level of detail.

 

I wasn't comparing you to Trotsky....I (sort of) compared you to Squealer, who wasn't a satirisation of Trotsky. I may not be as good as Eric Blair, but I seem to be better at reading him. I don't think I was resorting to insults either, but well done for trying to paint me into a corner.

 

I am entitled to believe that some of the other potential investments are better, or would have been better. It is my belief and I am entitled to it. I base it on MC's business case, his proposed personnel and his ambition to take us forward on the pitch.

 

I think there are holes in these proposals and I see nothing to convince me otherwise. I do not seek compromise for compromise's sake.

 

Your comparison with the 'old' pro-board people makes no sense...

 

I've said what I want - honesty and an end to spin. The 141 questions bit was a joke and answers were susequently contradicted. It doesn't need to breach confidential information, it just needs to be straight and honest.

[melv]

I base it on MC's business case, his proposed personnel and his ambition to take us forward on the pitch.

 

I see your point but the fact is that Mo is no longer part of the equation.So we need to put Mo aside,forget him.

[MarkB2]

I see your point but the fact is that Mo is no longer part of the equation.So we need to put Mo aside,forget him.

 

I understand that, Melv, and I am willing to forget him - but plenty of people said originally that this BS deal needs to match MC's offer before they would support it. It clearly does not, yet they still support it.

 

My main gripe is that people who really should know better seem willing just to accept this, despite considerable misgivings, all in the name of this elusive concept of 'unity'. Worse than that, they seem to want others to stop asking questions of it.

[MagicFlask]

I wasn't comparing you to Trotsky....I (sort of) compared you to Squealer, who wasn't a satirisation of Trotsky. I may not be as good as Eric Blair, but I seem to be better at reading him. I don't think I was resorting to insults either, but well done for trying to paint me into a corner.

 

I am entitled to believe that some of the other potential investments are better, or would have been better. It is my belief and I am entitled to it. I base it on MC's business case, his proposed personnel and his ambition to take us forward on the pitch.

 

I think there are holes in these proposals and I see nothing to convince me otherwise. I do not seek compromise for compromise's sake.

 

Your comparison with the 'old' pro-board people makes no sense...

 

I've said what I want - honesty and an end to spin. The 141 questions bit was a joke and answers were susequently contradicted. It doesn't need to breach confidential information, it just needs to be straight and honest.

 

Sorry, confusing Squealer with Snowball.....it's been ages since I read it.....I hated the way it was adopted by the forces of reaction as an argument against socialism.....and to be honest I think it's a bit of a bad comparison.....unless you have a Boxer complex.....

 

I think the comparison I made with the Old pro board people makes perfect sense when you use insinuation and misinformation about the new investors in the same way the Board did about Chaudry's bid......if you stuck to there being questions and issues to be resolved, then fine, but you don't.

 

You can either accept compromise and move forward, or stay stuck in the past.....you're not a member of the Socialist party by any chance?

Personally, I'd rather have a Labour govt than a Lib Dem or Tory one....and accept that in order to achieve that, I might have to accept some things I don't agree with.....

 

I'm disappointed that you're not willing to give this a chance. I was far from convinced by Chaudry's proposals.....and there were just as many holes......just not ones that you recognise.....

[MarkB2]

Sorry, confusing Squealer with Snowball.....it's been ages since I read it.....I hated the way it was adopted by the forces of reaction as an argument against socialism.....and to be honest I think it's a bit of a bad comparison.....unless you have a Boxer complex.....

 

I think the comparison I made with the Old pro board people makes perfect sense when you use insinuation and misinformation about the new investors in the same way the Board did about Chaudry's bid......if you stuck to there being questions and issues to be resolved, then fine, but you don't.

 

You can either accept compromise and move forward, or stay stuck in the past.....you're not a member of the Socialist party by any chance?

Personally, I'd rather have a Labour govt than a Lib Dem or Tory one....and accept that in order to achieve that, I might have to accept some things I don't agree with.....

 

I'm disappointed that you're not willing to give this a chance. I was far from convinced by Chaudry's proposals.....and there were just as many holes......just not ones that you recognise.....

 

You appear to be getting a little silly now, and filling gaps in your knowledge with accusations and the like. Perhaps understandable...

 

You know all about Orwell, yet you can't get simple facts right. I don't care whether you like the interpretation of it, but Animal Farm applies nicely here.

 

I've never mentioned the new investors. I know as much about them as you or anyone else does. There has been precious little from them about what they wish to do. I have made some comments about the usual suspects at the club - reasonable ones, and based on past performance. I have asked questions and I continue to ask them but you seem to be suggesting elsewhere that I shouldn't ask any more questions - so, which is it to be? I can ask questions or I can't? Or perhaps I should only ask the questions you think are ok?

 

My political affiliations are irrelevant here, and I more than understand the need for compromise sometimes. I've repeatedly told you what my wishes are - they are not for the deal to be dismantled (I know that is not possible); they are not for mass resignations (I've never asked for that). They are for some truth to be injected into the club and for honesty to prevail. We are still seeing too much evasion for my liking.

 

I know the MC bid was not perfect, but it was good and it certainly convinced me and many others. Problem is that this was all lost by more lies. It is the lying that is at the heart of our problems.

[MagicFlask]

You appear to be getting a little silly now, and filling gaps in your knowledge with accusations and the like. Perhaps understandable...

 

You know all about Orwell, yet you can't get simple facts right. I don't care whether you like the interpretation of it, but Animal Farm applies nicely here.

 

I've never mentioned the new investors. I know as much about them as you or anyone else does. There has been precious little from them about what they wish to do. I have made some comments about the usual suspects at the club - reasonable ones, and based on past performance. I have asked questions and I continue to ask them but you seem to be suggesting elsewhere that I shouldn't ask any more questions - so, which is it to be? I can ask questions or I can't? Or perhaps I should only ask the questions you think are ok?

 

My political affiliations are irrelevant here, and I more than understand the need for compromise sometimes. I've repeatedly told you what my wishes are - they are not for the deal to be dismantled (I know that is not possible); they are not for mass resignations (I've never asked for that). They are for some truth to be injected into the club and for honesty to prevail. We are still seeing too much evasion for my liking.

 

I know the MC bid was not perfect, but it was good and it certainly convinced me and many others. Problem is that this was all lost by more lies. It is the lying that is at the heart of our problems.

 

 

Sorry - what accusations are you going on about? Thanks for the suggestion .....

 

And no, Animal Farm has sweet FA to do with what's going on here, unless you're suggesting everyone has sold out and are getting something out of it for themselves .......or that it's all a conspiracy.....are you one of the four leggers, then?

 

I can see the attempt at irony passed you by......the political affiliations comment was about being so hard line that you end up having meetings in phone boxes......

 

I'm all for asking questions....but "have you stopped beating your wife" isn't one I would recommend......

 

You do seem to have shifted your position slightly - at least in terms of accepting a "done deal" and I have absolutely no problem with truth and honesty, or with integrity and ethics or anything else that we'd all welcome, but I'm not seeing "lies" coming from the club in the way that you are. That's the fundamental distinction that I see here - and what I have been challenging you about.

There is a pervading "no smoke without fire" and insinuations of sharp practice and dishonesty underlying the current discussion, and I don't see it the way that you do.

 

I'm reacting to your earlier comments - please note - I haven't come on here and said how "wonderful" everything is, just that it's worth taking a chance on. I have only opened my mouth when I think someone, in this case your good self, is being mischievous for no reason that I can see......because of personalities rather than facts......

I just think that continually looking for clouds in every silver lining and being negative almost in principle because it's not exactly what you want isn't the way forward.

 

If you read back some of your posts you might see why I'm arguing with you....the old pro-board posters on here and on the Sentinel site spend ages slagging off the pro-change movement, saying it's achieved nothing, and that OVF is a bunch of "fringe fans"....and I think the "hanging on until we have the moon on a stick" side of this gives them ammunition to undermine anything else we may need to do in future.

 

I'm playing a longer game on this.......have a think about it....

 

If, and I'm not sure either way, this turns out to be a false dawn, saying "I told you so" will not be the best way to mobilise the numbers needed to challenge - and the refusal to accept change or compromise, or to trust just a little, makes it much more difficult to convince those who would need to be convinced to take action.

 

They'll just say "Oh, it's that OVF lot, they never wanted to come back anyway, they just wanted to sell it to Mo.....so why should we listen to them? They just want the club to fail so he can get it on the cheap" and for SEO to work in a future situation , it needs more people than a handful......more than we had before, even....

 

If we have genuinely accepted it, and genuinely trusted that it will make things better, that betrayal of trust will be obvious even to the unconvinced - and give us better ammunition IF it turns out to be the crock of poo that some suspect.....I'm not 100% convinced, but we won't be in a worse position further down the road than we are now....so make the leap of faith, and prepare for the worst if you need to, but without shouting about it.......

 

Does that make sense to you at all?

[Fosse69]

Sorry - what accusations are you going on about? Thanks for the suggestion .....

 

And no, Animal Farm has sweet FA to do with what's going on here, unless you're suggesting everyone has sold out and are getting something out of it for themselves .......or that it's all a conspiracy.....are you one of the four leggers, then?

 

I can see the attempt at irony passed you by......the political affiliations comment was about being so hard line that you end up having meetings in phone boxes......

 

I'm all for asking questions....but "have you stopped beating your wife" isn't one I would recommend......

 

You do seem to have shifted your position slightly - at least in terms of accepting a "done deal" and I have absolutely no problem with truth and honesty, or with integrity and ethics or anything else that we'd all welcome, but I'm not seeing "lies" coming from the club in the way that you are. That's the fundamental distinction that I see here - and what I have been challenging you about.

There is a pervading "no smoke without fire" and insinuations of sharp practice and dishonesty underlying the current discussion, and I don't see it the way that you do.

 

I'm reacting to your earlier comments - please note - I haven't come on here and said how "wonderful" everything is, just that it's worth taking a chance on. I have only opened my mouth when I think someone, in this case your good self, is being mischievous for no reason that I can see......because of personalities rather than facts......

I just think that continually looking for clouds in every silver lining and being negative almost in principle because it's not exactly what you want isn't the way forward.

 

If you read back some of your posts you might see why I'm arguing with you....the old pro-board posters on here and on the Sentinel site spend ages slagging off the pro-change movement, saying it's achieved nothing, and that OVF is a bunch of "fringe fans"....and I think the "hanging on until we have the moon on a stick" side of this gives them ammunition to undermine anything else we may need to do in future.

 

I'm playing a longer game on this.......have a think about it....

 

If, and I'm not sure either way, this turns out to be a false dawn, saying "I told you so" will not be the best way to mobilise the numbers needed to challenge - and the refusal to accept change or compromise, or to trust just a little, makes it much more difficult to convince those who would need to be convinced to take action.

 

They'll just say "Oh, it's that OVF lot, they never wanted to come back anyway, they just wanted to sell it to Mo.....so why should we listen to them? They just want the club to fail so he can get it on the cheap" and for SEO to work in a future situation , it needs more people than a handful......more than we had before, even....

 

If we have genuinely accepted it, and genuinely trusted that it will make things better, that betrayal of trust will be obvious even to the unconvinced - and give us better ammunition IF it turns out to be the crock of poo that some suspect.....I'm not 100% convinced, but we won't be in a worse position further down the road than we are now....so make the leap of faith, and prepare for the worst if you need to, but without shouting about it.......

 

Does that make sense to you at all?

Very well put, it is a matter of trust, very rarely do we have the full picture, so back to the football. There is a saying" Give them enough rope, and they will hang themselves" to cover betrayal of trust. So now it is purely a personal decision.