MOLD do the Dirty on Jeff Kent

[JOHNNYAITCH]

If you're a bloke, you would find having children extremely difficult!

 

It's always been a challenging process and gets more challenging as the years roll by

[Andyregs]

I've made many bad mistakes in my life and will always regret the effects of them on other people, but what I said and did at the 2011 EGM weren't amongst them. For the record, I was continually interrupted and heckled when I spoke (even though I kept quiet to respect opposing speakers when they were speaking), but I was determined to have my democratic say regardless and, when I finished, I made the "V" for "Victory" sign to show I wasn't prepared to be intimidated. I have absolutely no regrets about it, even though I became Vale Public Enemy No. 5, because I did the right thing. I'd always rather be unpopular but have integrity than be popular and a coward or a yes-man.

 

Sorry, it's a bit much coming here years later and banging on about integrity after rubbing it in the face of gutted fans who were outside of the egm. Since when was purposely winding up people 'the right thing' or having integrity. Anyway, history has proven you to be wrong. The times the club has gone into admin hasn't only been with one man in charge. In fact, you could argue that the fans run model you argued for has a 100% rate of administrations. ✌️

[Yukon]

Winnie?

 

In reference to your Churchill-esque line about Jean!

[JOHNNYAITCH]

In reference to your Churchill-esque line about Jean!

 

Ah..I suppose I should take that as a compliment

[Yukon]

Ah..I suppose I should take that as a compliment

 

That depends if I'm on about the PM or insurance advert dog...!

[Jeff Kent]

Sorry, it's a bit much coming here years later and banging on about integrity after rubbing it in the face of gutted fans who were outside of the egm. Since when was purposely winding up people 'the right thing' or having integrity. Anyway, history has proven you to be wrong. The times the club has gone into admin hasn't only been with one man in charge. In fact, you could argue that the fans run model you argued for has a 100% rate of administrations. ✌️

So you're now saying that I shouldn't have the right to express my opinion on here either! I might well have commented at the time, but my father died in February 2012 and I was also trying to sort out the mess of my lost money and books as a result of Vale's administration, so I was otherwise occupied. Having belatedly discovered this thread in the public domain on Google, I'm not prepared to let its numerous inaccurate and highly offensive comments about me stand unchallenged on record. Even in the UK, I have a right of reply!

The 'gutted fans' you mention needed to grow up! It's a part of life that things don't always work out the way you want. And quite a number of those 'gutted fans' greeted me with a pile of abuse. Do you think that's the right way to behave?

Please withdraw your entirely unfounded remark that I 'purposely' wound people up!

The comments you make about history are nonsense! The club has never been run by the fans per se. In Valiant 2001, a few fans were a lot more equal than the rest (as you well know), so it never really was democratic. My argument was that controlled by a single individual, the position would obviously get worse. And so it has with regard to the rights of the supporters because now you can't call an EGM if you don't like what's happening, can you? The small amount of power that the ordinary fans had to try to keep a check on things was simply thrown away!

[Andyregs]

So you're now saying that I shouldn't have the right to express my opinion on here either! I might well have commented at the time, but my father died in February 2012 and I was also trying to sort out the mess of my lost money and books as a result of Vale's administration, so I was otherwise occupied. Having belatedly discovered this thread in the public domain on Google, I'm not prepared to let its numerous inaccurate and highly offensive comments about me stand unchallenged on record. Even in the UK, I have a right of reply!

The 'gutted fans' you mention needed to grow up! It's a part of life that things don't always work out the way you want. And quite a number of those 'gutted fans' greeted me with a pile of abuse. Do you think that's the right way to behave?

Please withdraw your entirely unfounded remark that I 'purposely' wound people up!

The comments you make about history are nonsense! The club has never been run by the fans per se. In Valiant 2001, a few fans were a lot more equal than the rest (as you well know), so it never really was democratic. My argument was that controlled by a single individual, the position would obviously get worse. And so it has with regard to the rights of the supporters because now you can't call an EGM if you don't like what's happening, can you? The small amount of power that the ordinary fans had to try to keep a check on things was simply thrown away!

 

Ok, since when was winding people up the right thing to do?

However you spin it, you argued that the club only went into admin with sole ownership. That's now not true. The only time it hasn't been in sole ownership, it went into admin.

And I don't care that I can't call an egm if we are successful, like 99% of other clubs. And the truth is that every bit of succes the club has ever had, has been when we haven't had ownership via committee. To try and argue it has got worse since V2001 is ridiculous no matter what factual gymnastics you try.

[Jeff Kent]

Ok, since when was winding people up the right thing to do?

However you spin it, you argued that the club only went into admin with sole ownership. That's now not true. The only time it hasn't been in sole ownership, it went into admin.

And I don't care that I can't call an egm if we are successful, like 99% of other clubs. And the truth is that every bit of succes the club has ever had, has been when we haven't had ownership via committee. To try and argue it has got worse since V2001 is ridiculous no matter what factual gymnastics you try.

You're very strong on opinions, but have a very weak grasp of facts!

I'm asking you pleasantly for a second time to withdraw your entirely unfounded remark that I 'purposely' wound people up.

[Andyregs]

You're very strong on opinions, but have a very weak grasp of facts!

I'm asking you pleasantly for a second time to withdraw your entirely unfounded remark that I 'purposely' wound people up.

 

I did in the post above. I removed the purposely.

[geosname]

If any organisation can disregard their articles as blatantly as V2001/mold did it gives the ordinary shareholders no power at all, it may create the illusion of a little power but effectively there is none.... the very essence of V2001 was corrupted by the people inside it and the ordinary shareholders had no real say... it was sold as one man one vote but that didnt last longer than the ink drying... whatever history may tell us v2001/mold was bad, for the club, for the fans, for the people who lost money fishing for a dream.

[Jacko51]

V2001 wasn't bad in principle but in practice. If you look at the V2001 Charter as it was originally written there is nothing in there that any fan could sensibly disagree with. Once a certain gentleman became involved when the club was desperate for cash, that all changed and the Charter was thrown in the bin thus reneging on the promises it contained. By that time, hundreds of fans had committed their cash to the cause and were simply **** upon by the Cabal in charge. Indeed, two of the original directors resigned because of the way the club was being run.

 

I was actually inside the EGM and voiced my disagreement to what Jeff said at the time because I thought the maximum shareholding rule - the Charter said 15% not 24.9% - had been ignored by the Board when it suited them. I could not see a way forward for the club while the incumbents remained in situ and the possibility of significant investment was rejected. Jeff and I did not fall out over this because we respected each other's right to hold a different view. And I do not believe for one moment that Jeff's gesture after the EGM was intended to wind up fans but rather an indication that he was pleased the 24.9% ruling had not been overturned. Jeff was actually as opposed to the behaviour of some of the Board as many others were at the time.

 

Having read through this thread again, I find it extremely sad that the bloke should have faced such vitriol for an honestly held opinion. The sooner posters on here recognise the right to hold different opinions and agree to disagree rather than simply abuse, the better this message board will be.

[Andyregs]

V2001 wasn't bad in principle but in practice. If you look at the V2001 Charter as it was originally written there is nothing in there that any fan could sensibly disagree with. Once a certain gentleman became involved when the club was desperate for cash, that all changed and the Charter was thrown in the bin thus reneging on the promises it contained. By that time, hundreds of fans had committed their cash to the cause and were simply **** upon by the Cabal in charge. Indeed, two of the original directors resigned because of the way the club was being run.

 

I was actually inside the EGM and voiced my disagreement to what Jeff said at the time because I thought the maximum shareholding rule - the Charter said 15% not 24.9% - had been ignored by the Board when it suited them. I could not see a way forward for the club while the incumbents remained in situ and the possibility of significant investment was rejected. Jeff and I did not fall out over this because we respected each other's right to hold a different view. And I do not believe for one moment that Jeff's gesture after the EGM was intended to wind up fans but rather an indication that he was pleased the 24.9% ruling had not been overturned. Jeff was actually as opposed to the behaviour of some of the Board as many others were at the time.

 

Having read through this thread again, I find it extremely sad that the bloke should have faced such vitriol for an honestly held opinion. The sooner posters on here recognise the right to hold different opinions and agree to disagree rather than simply abuse, the better this message board will be.

 

All fair points. though as has been said, it wasn't so much his views that upset people, even though he didn't purposely intend that. I got physically attacked by a board supporter for holding a sign once, and had the lorne street wailer scream in my face.

[old sage]

All fair points. though as has been said, it wasn't so much his views that upset people, even though he didn't purposely intend that. I got physically attacked by a board supporter for holding a sign once, and had the lorne street wailer scream in my face.

I wish I had been there Andy because he wouldn't have done it again. In regard to the 'wailer' I would have solved that by popping the poster in their open mouth no problem.

[Andyregs]

I wish I had been there Andy because he wouldn't have done it again. In regard to the 'wailer' I would have solved that by popping the poster in their open mouth no problem.

 

By the time I'd got my head around it, he was off down the aisle in the bycars and some other old sod was shaking his walking stick at me.

[Jacko51]

By the time I'd got my head around it, he was off down the aisle in the bycars and some other old sod was shaking his walking stick at me.

 

Was it your Dad?