Page 2 of 2

Re: Truth Commission

Posted: 01 May 2013, 19:05
by Trojan 67
Dave_Pougher wrote: The main point I'd like answered is did ML give up when Bill Phillips said no, publicly? Not looking for a blame merchant, just where should our sympathys lie?

Highlighted is the problem. Excells when giving flawed directives while spending the money of the sugar mummy.

How the eff huck do failures like that attain influence ?

Please sugar mummy, flush the influence called effluent down the pan.

:engflag:

Re: Truth Commission

Posted: 01 May 2013, 19:11
by Trojan 67
Unfortunately, Simon Baker got drawn into talking plastic pitches when more pressing concerns were apparent.

Which sh*t for brains put that idea in his head and pulled the strings?

Mrs Lotto, beware the smiling :devil: robbing you blind.

:engflag:

Re: Truth Commission

Posted: 01 May 2013, 19:22
by Dave_Pougher
Glad it's not just me thinking that way then.

Re: Truth Commission

Posted: 01 May 2013, 19:37
by Trojan 67
Dave_Pougher wrote:Glad it's not just me thinking that way then.

The bit at the end of every one of your posts - "proud to be top of . . . . .

I might have to have one that's similar, only a different sh*t for brains.

:engflag:

Re: Truth Commission

Posted: 01 May 2013, 19:54
by Trojan 67
I'm here not to sway opinion

I'm here to sh*t stir

Oops

Become the role of not advocate

Of not devil's advocate

Just :devil:

When the :devil: rides out

The sh*t hits the fan

:engflag:

Oops

Just remembered that there's a Commission for the Truth

Best of luck then

:engflag:

Re: Truth Commission

Posted: 01 May 2013, 20:23
by MF68
Im new to this but I do know a few of the so called heirachy and the Cup defeat did leave a big hole financially as we all knew. But my understanding is that many of the board were putting in funds on a regular basis to keep up with the bills.

Re: Truth Commission

Posted: 02 May 2013, 19:31
by Dave_Pougher
MF68 wrote:Im new to this but I do know a few of the so called heirachy and the Cup defeat did leave a big hole financially as we all knew. But my understanding is that many of the board were putting in funds on a regular basis to keep up with the bills.
I haven't doubted that, ever, and I am enternally for what they did when they did for without their actions where would we
be? Worrying about relegation from the football league, I doubt it, infact i doubt there would be a TUFC in the Conference even.

All I want answered is what does Bill Phillips bring to the table? What's his investment? I was told he didn't invest anything at the same time as he chose to say publicly that we wouldn't be signing anyone in the transfer window. I might be singing on my own here but that to me was a pivotal point in our season. Had ML agreed with that decision surely he would have gone on .com and said what Bill Phillips chose to announce. He didn't, the rest is history.

I accept that I may be wrong about what Bill brings to the table, if so lets hear it, more than ready to apologise however I would also like to know the reasons behind Bills decision to go public on the transfer window and what, if anything ML requested then, for the longer that remains a secret the more sympathy I feel ML is likely to recieve regarding his predicament at that time.

Re: Truth Commission

Posted: 02 May 2013, 19:49
by Fonda
No company releases details of every decision made. I'm afraid, even as supporters we're treated on a 'need to know' basis, and rightly so. It's not realistic to expect explanations of everything. We have to understand that some decisions wouldn't necessarily be welcomed by supporters - we just have to trust they're made with the right intentions. I personally don't think their intentions can be questioned - even if their methods on certain things are questionable.

Re: Truth Commission

Posted: 02 May 2013, 20:11
by Dave_Pougher
Hear what your saying Fonda and don't disagree, how could you. But that decision by that peson at that time was wrong. Particularly in view of the fact it was glaringly obvious to regular attenders we had been sussed and needed fresh impetuous. You can't expect a non footballing member of staff to go public with a footballing decision and not expect critism particularly given what happened afterwards with regard to our league status, Martin Lings subsequent attitude and of course his very own livelihood.

Re: Truth Commission

Posted: 02 May 2013, 20:19
by Fonda
Take your point Dave, it was a curious incident. Like yourself, I can't think of a sensible reason for it, but as discussed here none of us really know what goes on behind the scenes. Presumably there was a purpose and the intentions were good. As for why he's there - you'd have to assume he brings something to the table. The club isn't a charity.

Re: Truth Commission

Posted: 05 May 2013, 19:09
by Dave_Pougher
i wonder if this evening will enlighten us ? I doubt it.