MOLD do the Dirty on Jeff Kent

[Jacko51]

That era of Bratt and co tore our fanbase apart and it has never been the same.

With respect Jeff, i protested, i was black and gold and git dogs abuse from my own supporters on the march up to the ground in the first game of the season in 2011.

You werent the only "victim" of abuse yet you wound supporters up at the egm. A massive decision in our clubs history and you stood by the men that many wanted out.

 

That is the whole point. Jeff didn't support the men - he supported the principle of no single ownership. From what I understand about what he said at the time, he too was opposed to the men that many wanted out.

[For Us All]

Never trust men with beards.

 

Daren't tell that to my grandkids,especially in December.

[Jeff Kent]

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

I'm glad you've decided that I didn't 'purposely' wind people up. But you replaced the remark with 'Since when was winding people up the right thing to do?', which is tantamount to what you said in the first place. So I'm now asking you to withdraw that remark as well and to say that you accept that I had no intention of winding anybody up.

[Jeff Kent]

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.

I have a fair amout of agreement with what you say, but the ordinary shareholders did have a little power, as the power to call the fateful EGM proved. What NO-ONE at all has said in the five years since is that I was at the forefront of a move by the ordinary shareholders to democratise Valiant 2001 from the moment it took control of the club, which sadly failed. It's supremely ironic, in the circumstances, that I've since become a pariah seen as standing out against the wishes of the majority! And the logic of your argument doesn't hold water because the cure you're suggesting was needed and came to pass was that the way to deal with a tenuous democracy was to scrap it altogether and install a dictatorship!

[Andyregs]

I'm glad you've decided that I didn't 'purposely' wind people up. But you replaced the remark with 'Since when was winding people up the right thing to do?', which is tantamount to what you said in the first place. So I'm now asking you to withdraw that remark as well and to say that you accept that I had no intention of winding anybody up.

 

It means you wound people up. This thread is proof of that. I have no idea what your intention was, and find it odd that you are so intent on making me say what you're intention was. And to be honest, I don't really care anymore. I also find it odd that out of all he comments here, that's the one you've latched on to.

[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.

 

Could you please withdraw the comment that I have a weak grasp of facts please. I have a very strong grasp of facts.

[Andyregs]

!And the logic of your argument doesn't hold water because the cure you're suggesting was needed and came to pass was that the way to deal with a tenuous democracy was to scrap it altogether and install a dictatorship!

 

Nothing has changed. It was one share, one vote. Same as now. I have no say in port vale, like the majority of its existence. I also have no say in nike, McDonald's, Sony or your book publishing. Even though I have purchased goods or services from each in the past. I'd hazard a guess that most of them are better off without my input.

[Andyregs]

Seriously though, I don't care if my comments are removed. I was drained arguing about v2001 5 years ago, I really can't be bothered going over it again. Gonna give this a miss for a while, because I'll just get drawn into arguing about it.

[geosname]

I have a fair amout of agreement with what you say, but the ordinary shareholders did have a little power, as the power to call the fateful EGM proved. What NO-ONE at all has said in the five years since is that I was at the forefront of a move by the ordinary shareholders to democratise Valiant 2001 from the moment it took control of the club, which sadly failed. It's supremely ironic, in the circumstances, that I've since become a pariah seen as standing out against the wishes of the majority! And the logic of your argument doesn't hold water because the cure you're suggesting was needed and came to pass was that the way to deal with a tenuous democracy was to scrap it altogether and install a dictatorship!

 

Although the initial intention may have been for democracy it never happened, it wasnt wealthy enough or strong enough to stand on its own. Football clubs, like most businesses, need money. It never had any that it didnt borrow or coax.

The basic rule to achieve a democracy in a dictatorship is to get rid of the dictator/s... there was no democracy standing in the wings ready to come forward and take control.

[Jeff Kent]

It means you wound people up. This thread is proof of that. I have no idea what your intention was, and find it odd that you are so intent on making me say what you're intention was. And to be honest, I don't really care anymore. I also find it odd that out of all he comments here, that's the one you've latched on to.

Your idea seems to be that I wound people up rather like they were clocks, sitting there passively while I turned the key. That is nonsense! Most, if not all, of those present were in a state of anxiety before the meeting started as a result of years of in-fighting at the club. I peacefully gave my speech, asking the shareholders not to support the motions to transfer the ownership of the club into the hands of a single individual, and those present reacted accordingly. I didn't wind them up at all; they were free agents (not clocks) to behave how they wished.

This thread provides absolutely no proof whatsoever that I wound people up at the EGM. Your strange "logic" appears to be that facts are decided according to the numbers of people who believe something. At the time of Aristotle, millions of people believed that the Earth was flat, but he believed it was round. According to your reasoning therefore the Earth remains flat!

The only independent and objective report of the EGM, to my knowledge, was published by "The Sentinel" and, with regard to my involvement in it, it closely resembles my version of events and is totally different than yours.

I'm asking you pleasantly for a second time to withdraw your unfounded and libellous (illegal) statement, 'Since when was winding people up the right thing to do?' You are getting yourself in increasingly deep water and I strongly advise you to do that.

[Jeff Kent]

Seriously though, I don't care if my comments are removed. I was drained arguing about v2001 5 years ago, I really can't be bothered going over it again. Gonna give this a miss for a while, because I'll just get drawn into arguing about it.

You won't get drawn into arguing - you're already involved in a very serious argument, which you foolishly started yourself! You have written libellous (illegal) remarks about me on here and walking away won't protect you from the consequences. In fact, it will only make your difficult position worse. To get yourself out of the fix, you need to withdraw your unfounded remark about me, 'Since when was winding people up the right thing to do?'

[Santa]

I wasn't wound up by your speech inside the EGM Jeff (I simply thought it was daft) however the V-sign outside afterwards did annoy me.

[geosname]

You won't get drawn into arguing - you're already involved in a very serious argument, which you foolishly started yourself! You have written libellous (illegal) remarks about me on here and walking away won't protect you from the consequences. In fact, it will only make your difficult position worse. To get yourself out of the fix, you need to withdraw your unfounded remark about me, 'Since when was winding people up the right thing to do?'

 

Hasnt he already withdrawn the "intentionally" from his statement?

[Jeff Kent]

I wasn't wound up by your speech inside the EGM Jeff (I simply thought it was daft) however the V-sign outside afterwards did annoy me.

I'm glad you didn't get wound up by my speech, as upsetting anyone was never my intention. Obviously I don't agree with your opinion that my speech was 'daft'. I spent a very long time on my wording and I'm happy that I spoke out against dictatorship. But I'm also happy for you to hold that opinion and to express it in a reasonable way, as you've done above.

Around 100 people were gathered outside, in what seemed to me to be a mob, and when I walked out, I received a torrent of abuse. Whereabouts were you when you saw me outside?

[Jeff Kent]

Hasnt he already withdrawn the "intentionally" from his statement?

Yes, he has and I've accepted that, but, unfortunately, he then substituted the above remark for it, which is tantamount to the same thing and libellous. So he needs to withdraw it.