I'm a Praaaaaaaper Fan and I post on ATD

You make Frankie Boyle look like a part timer!

Tringreen wrote:

pafcineurope wrote:

Same old, same old...

SFD is probably right - If there is a scandal I can't see it either.

Tring on the same old subject.

Peggy - I agree - he was going to shut up but can't help himself. Trouble is the subject never changes.

125+1 - I'm with you - where are the players.

Once I've won first prize in the Euro predictions (Greece will leave both soon!!), then I'll give this site a long, long break. It would be nice to talk about football rather than conspiracy theories.

Enjoy your self.

The reason this forum was set up was to ask the questions Pasoti won't allow to be asked.

It was agreed that Rickler's question should be asked first.The face to face with Brent was his idea. He is only asking why it wasn't asked at all.

Maybe if we got answers ?

No it wasn't and I should know as it was me that set it up while you stood back spouting exactly the same crap that you spout today.

This forum was set up to provide a voice for fans, it had nothing at all to do with pasoti and it was set up for all fans to use without being told to "stay out of it"!

Greenjock wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

So are you not allowed to called Wacko Jacko a Paedo on Pasoti?

What I actually wrote was:

"At least tthe worlds children will be able to sleep easy in their beds tonight"

I was suspended from work and disciplined for making a similar comment on my Facebook page! Someone who saw it reported it to a manager and there was a huge shitstorm about it. Work dressed it all up by saying I posted it in work time, although it was 5 minutes before I started work, and had used company equipment to post offensive comments that upset colleagues. I ripped up the warning letter and rained it down like confetti on the person who had reported me when I walked back to my desk, so I got suspended again and got a final written warning

You can't say stuff like that about the King of Pop being a paedo or Princess Diana being a slag apparently.

[img][/img]

Hmmm, the man who sold out all African Americans as far as I could see.

I know yo are Wilt Jock, if yoare close to Wells ad want a good free show for your little lad have you seen the Giant swans at Wells?

Can't do pix otherwise would have attatched one.

tonycholwell wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

So are you not allowed to called Wacko Jacko a Paedo on Pasoti?

What I actually wrote was:

"At least tthe worlds children will be able to sleep easy in their beds tonight"

I was suspended from work and disciplined for making a similar comment on my Facebook page! Someone who saw it reported it to a manager and there was a huge shitstorm about it. Work dressed it all up by saying I posted it in work time, although it was 5 minutes before I started work, and had used company equipment to post offensive comments that upset colleagues. I ripped up the warning letter and rained it down like confetti on the person who had reported me when I walked back to my desk, so I got suspended again and got a final written warning

You can't say stuff like that about the King of Pop being a paedo or Princess Diana being a slag apparently.

[img][/img]

Hmmm, the man who sold out all African Americans as far as I could see.

I know yo are Wilt Jock, if yoare close to Wells ad want a good free show for your little lad have you seen the Giant swans at Wells?

Can't do pix otherwise would have attatched one.

Just looked them up Tony. They're similar to the pigs that were on display in Bath a couple of years ago.

Never been to Wells, but I hear it's a good day out and it's not that far away for me. Got tickets to Salisbury Races in 2 weeks for Fathers Day so that's our next day out. I try to work a sporting event into our days off, because culture bypasses me somewhat, so I'll check to see if there's anything in Wells to make the day more fun for me.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The Bath Pigs

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

GOB wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

pafcineurope wrote:

Same old, same old...

SFD is probably right - If there is a scandal I can't see it either.

Tring on the same old subject.

Peggy - I agree - he was going to shut up but can't help himself. Trouble is the subject never changes.

125+1 - I'm with you - where are the players.

Once I've won first prize in the Euro predictions (Greece will leave both soon!!), then I'll give this site a long, long break. It would be nice to talk about football rather than conspiracy theories.

Enjoy your self.

The reason this forum was set up was to ask the questions Pasoti won't allow to be asked.

It was agreed that Rickler's question should be asked first.The face to face with Brent was his idea. He is only asking why it wasn't asked at all.

Maybe if we got answers ?

No it wasn't and I should know as it was me that set it up while you stood back spouting exactly the same crap that you spout today.

This forum was set up to provide a voice for fans, it had nothing at all to do with pasoti and it was set up for all fans to use without being told to "stay out of it"!

Well said GOB

GOB and 125+1 - we salute you!!

Merv Plummer

Tringreen wrote:

The reason this forum was set up was to ask the questions Pasoti won't allow to be asked.

It was agreed that Rickler's question should be asked first.The face to face with Brent was his idea. He is only asking why it wasn't asked at all.

Maybe if we got answers ?

GOB wrote:

No it wasn't and I should know as it was me that set it up while you stood back spouting exactly the same crap that you spout today.

This forum was set up to provide a voice for fans, it had nothing at all to do with pasoti and it was set up for all fans to use without being told to "stay out of it"!

Who is "we" Merv?

As is ever increasingly the case these days... Gob has the wrong end of the stick, yet again!!!

The "forum" being talked about here is the Q & A forum at the Cherry Tree - not this website.

And Tringy is 100% right it was agreed that I would get to ask the first question as the format was my idea.

There is no 'conspiracy' theory here. I would just like to know how much Season ticket money Brent Received - was it more than he 'paid' for the club?

And if he didn't want to answer.... Well everyone can draw their own conclusions!

I can't see what Brent paid for the club and how much he received from the residue of season ticket sales has any bearing on anything. The money received whatever it was had to be spent on wages etc anyway and it is certain there wasn't any left for anyone to pocket by the end of the season. The inference is that he spent £5 and got back £10 as an instant profit so to speak. That is plainly laughable.

Captain Sensible...not necessarily so.The gates were so good last season ,13K for Torquay at home for example,that the wages could have been easily been paid for out of gate money,without touching the season ticket money.I'm not saying it was but the possibility is there.Whilst this issue may have no bearing for you,for others it has.

GOB wrote:

This forum was set up to provide a voice for fans, it had nothing at all to do with pasoti and it was set up for all fans to use without being told to "stay out of it"!

When I had the gall to comment on the Tringreen/GOB/Cerbera row, I was told precisely that, to stay out of it. By you, GOB.

Have you tried calling the Samaritans Charley?

I'm not so sure about "easily paid" oddball. The average gate was not 13k, it was less than 7000 if memory serves. We were also paying some Championship wages out of that not league 2 wages. For example I believe we were paying Johnson £5k per week to play for Huddersfield. There were other higher than average earners also.

There are certain people who seem to want there to be a scandal where Brent is concerned. Problem is that the evidence in hard fact terms is sadly lacking and therefore it is left to speculate everything in negative terms as if that proves there is one somewhere. Now there may well be a skeleton or two to be uncovered but I have to say I've not seen a provable one so far. In jury terms an assumption of guilt is not something to find a guilty verdict on.

I said earlier that I saw no scandal here. I still don't. What difference does it make how much Brent paid for the club? Just think about who he would have paid the money to for starters. The club was in administration and Guilfoyle was in control of everything. The higher the price paid by Brent then the more Guilfoyle would have paid P&A. The money due to be paid to the creditors was voted on and accepted by them long before Brent took control. I really don't see why this is even an issue.

I think it is an issue because some desperately want it to be SFD. It is ok in my book being sceptical about somebody's motives but it is another entirely believing something simply to prove to yourself you have good reason. If you are going to have a pop at anyone for something it should be something you know they did not for an invention of fact just to satisfy your craving.

GOB wrote:

Have you tried calling the Samaritans Charley?

Oh no, I'm not really that bothered about it. It's just that when I saw you trying to score points by dishing out a moral lesson, it only seemed fair to point out that you haven't always respected that high principle, that's all.

I don't think I would have asked the question at all either had it been my decision to make. I definitely would not have asked it first up because it would have set the tone for everything that followed and the chances are high that Brent might have clammed up completely and the night would have been a waste of time.

charleymouse wrote:

GOB wrote:

Have you tried calling the Samaritans Charley?

Oh no, I'm not really that bothered about it. It's just that when I saw you trying to score points by dishing out a moral lesson, it only seemed fair to point out that you haven't always respected that high principle, that's all.

I owe you an apology then Charley, I thought you were just a

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I don't think I would have asked the question at all either had it been my decision to make. I definitely would not have asked it first up because it would have set the tone for everything that followed and the chances are high that Brent might have clammed up completely and the night would have been a waste of time.

Bingo!

Rickler,

"We" are probably those who don't follow the Cyprus man and everything he spouts.

Merv Plummer

That's the second time I've said something you didn't like, and it's the second time you've called me a shit-stirrer. That really does speak volumes. If you don't want other people commenting on what you clearly see as your own personal discussions, try not having them in a public forum! Also no real need for name-calling.

There, that's that all sorted then

You reckon

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I said earlier that I saw no scandal here. I still don't. What difference does it make how much Brent paid for the club? Just think about who he would have paid the money to for starters. The club was in administration and Guilfoyle was in control of everything. The higher the price paid by Brent then the more Guilfoyle would have paid P&A. The money due to be paid to the creditors was voted on and accepted by them long before Brent took control. I really don't see why this is even an issue.

It isn't an "issue".

Although some seem to be trying to make it one!

It was just a question! And obviously in my mind an interesting one. Considering Brent got a 1.6 mil rebate (if my memory is correct?) for selling the ground back to the council, with the money he received from the tickets, that could total a considerable amount?

I see no scandal either. And like I said earlier. I see no conspiracy.

Although I will say... Brent talks big about transparency and honesty etc, and yet, when it comes to the nuts and bolts, he seems very guarded.

And Peter Jones seems to have lost his public voice completely.

But this:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I don't think I would have asked the question at all either had it been my decision to make.

That quite frankly... Is really worrying!

pafcineurope wrote:

Rickler,

"We" are probably those who don't follow the Cyprus man and everything he spouts.

Merv Plummer

We are all allowed our opinion Merv. Even the dull and the ignorant.

Now be a good chap and stop looking for trouble.