Was Wrathal at HP today

I just think Chris Webb has very strongly held opinions. I suspect once he sets forth on a course of action no other option is allowed time and space. Brilliant when you have an enemy like Heaney to battle not so easy when you have to seek consensus for something like inviting Wrathall back. It should have been fairly obvious from the original TW post were the lie of the land was.

If you also have to stand shoulder to shoulder with your friends then it's very hard to accept criticism levelled at them. Was the fact that the sponsor was a GTer make it harder to come out against them. I'm not religious in reading his posts but I would be hard pressed to find him disagreeing with one of his real life friends whislt anything seems to go for those he dislikes or are proxy enemies.

Dougie wrote:

I just think Chris Webb has very strongly held opinions. I suspect once he sets forth on a course of action no other option is allowed time and space. Brilliant when you have an enemy like Heaney to battle not so easy when you have to seek consensus for something like inviting Wrathall back. It should have been fairly obvious from the original TW post were the lie of the land was.

If you also have to stand shoulder to shoulder with your friends then it's very hard to accept criticism levelled at them. Was the fact that the sponsor was a GTer make it harder to come out against them. I'm not religious in reading his posts but I would be hard pressed to find him disagreeing with one of his real life friends whislt anything seems to go for those he dislikes or are proxy enemies.

Agree with this. I've never met him but he seems to intensely dislike me because of some of my posts on here, Exeweb and to a lesser extent Pasoti. He does seem to try to constantly belittle anything I post, especially anything regarding his pet keyboard warrior EEEEEEEN NOOL. He cannot accept anything other than his view or 'the party line' is valid. Shame really. Life should not be taken too seriously.

GOB wrote:

I don't accept it Chris, not a bit of it, nothing you state has added up.

Is Wrathal the innocent party as you have said, or not? When have I ever said he was innocent? He was 1/7th of the issue but in my view rather than play a devious, proactive role in our downfall he was guilty of being weak and to be frank as I have repeatedly stated not the sharpest tool.

If he is innocent then why don't you want him back at HP? The debate has shifted and it is disingenious of you to not recognise that. My initial post weeks ago was about returning to the terraces. TW didn't do that. He choose to rub it in the faces of those who suffered most. This changes everything for me. Get it now?

If there's no agenda to have Wrathal back at HP is it just coincidental that a GT happened to ask you to clear the path for him yet the following week a GT invited him via sponsorship? No agenda? Lets be very clear. A GT didn't ask me to 'clear the path'. It was a conversation amongst a host of other issues. The sponsorship of the game is completely unrelated to the Green Taverners as an organisation. Steve the gent whose firm sponsored the game helps the Gts with sponsorship etc but is not a GT as in Gary, Mark and Bill.

He choose as an individual sponsor to invite TW. I don't agree with him but its not my money is it. As I said the first Gary and Mark knew about it was when I called them today. You are trying to find a story when there isn't one - apart from TWs actions.

What convinces you that Wrathal played no part in the fiasco? I think I have covered that.

Never dodged a question in my life GOB.

Cerbera wrote:

Dougie wrote:

I just think Chris Webb has very strongly held opinions. I suspect once he sets forth on a course of action no other option is allowed time and space. Brilliant when you have an enemy like Heaney to battle not so easy when you have to seek consensus for something like inviting Wrathall back. It should have been fairly obvious from the original TW post were the lie of the land was.

If you also have to stand shoulder to shoulder with your friends then it's very hard to accept criticism levelled at them. Was the fact that the sponsor was a GTer make it harder to come out against them. I'm not religious in reading his posts but I would be hard pressed to find him disagreeing with one of his real life friends whislt anything seems to go for those he dislikes or are proxy enemies.

Agree with this. I've never met him but he seems to intensely dislike me because of some of my posts on here, Exeweb and to a lesser extent Pasoti. He does seem to try to constantly belittle anything I post, especially anything regarding his pet keyboard warrior EEEEEEEN NOOL. He cannot accept anything other than his view or 'the party line' is valid. Shame really. Life should not be taken too seriously.

I don't dislike many people Cerbera.........and you certainly don't fall into that category. Do I find the fact that you post based on absolutely no foundation at times annoying? Yes. Do I dislike you? No - lives to short.

No foundation Chris?

I am only guilty of speaking my mind. Something I can do with refreshing lack of censorship on here. If I offend, then get over yourself, life is as you say, too short.

I actually backed you up a couple of times, just don't expect me to agree with you all the time. Accept that sometimes, you are going to also annoy people and they are going to argue their point.

Ian on the other hand, is nothing more than a deranged coward who seems to delight in being a keyboard warrior with a penchant to make like a kipper - yellow, no back bone and two faces.

Is it about time the GTs distanced themselves from one of it's partner. The 'gent' in question was up front and centre with regard to the GTs in the link I posted.

Did you ever rescind your invite to Tony Wrathall Chris? Did he ever respond to you? Do you withdrawal the invitation now? Why did you only reveal your reason for posting originally only some time after the invite? Would you have invited him just on the basis of Brent absolving Wrathall or partly because of a discussion with Mark from the GTs? Why was some semblance of majority consensus on the original thread ignored? If he hadn't appeared on Saturday would you considered everything about Wrathall to be hunky dory save for his thick skull? Do you understand that people might think your judgement was flawed in the first place? Can you see that without your pretty unequivocal support for him in November that this might not have happen considering the powerful voice and constituency you have? When did you find out about his request for a place on the board and offer of investment? Didn't this pull you up short and make you think he was a bit obsessed and a whole lot in denial?

Questions questions questions but I know how much you like questions

Quack quack

Time for an ATD poll;

Set the Wrathallometer,clear your throats,fart twice and answer.Are you;

a.A bit fed up with hearing about Tony Fecking Wrathall

b.Finding the whole Wrathall issue rather tedious and somewhat irrelevant

c.Sick to fecking death with hearing about Tony fecking Wrathall

Greenskin wrote:

Time for an ATD poll;

Set the Wrathallometer,clear your throats,fart twice and answer.Are you;

a.A bit fed up with hearing about Tony Fecking Wrathall

b.Finding the whole Wrathall issue rather tedious and somewhat irrelevant

c.Sick to fecking death with hearing about Tony fecking Wrathall

If you add

d. Get a bit turned on my talking about Tony Wrathall

Then I'm in

Anyway it's time for bed and whispering sweet TWs in the Mrs' ear

Greenskin wrote:

Time for an ATD poll;

Set the Wrathallometer,clear your throats,fart twice and answer.Are you;

a.A bit fed up with hearing about Tony Fecking Wrathall

b.Finding the whole Wrathall issue rather tedious and somewhat irrelevant

c.Sick to fecking death with hearing about Tony fecking Wrathall

D, All of the above

Dougie wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

Time for an ATD poll;

Set the Wrathallometer,clear your throats,fart twice and answer.Are you;

a.A bit fed up with hearing about Tony Fecking Wrathall

b.Finding the whole Wrathall issue rather tedious and somewhat irrelevant

c.Sick to fecking death with hearing about Tony fecking Wrathall

If you add

d. Get a bit turned on my talking about Tony Wrathall

Then I'm in

Ooh that as well. Can't get up off the sofa or the missus will see my stiffy

Definitely done to death.

was hasnt the evening herald covered this story ???????
i still think it stinks.

According to Rupert on PASOTI, there's no story as it's only people on PASOTI who feel outraged by it, and PASOTI is only a small section of supporters! Something definitely stinks but apparently James Brent has written to him advising he can only attend HP as a paying customer from now on.

I don't think Rupert will pay to attend, he has already stated on Pazza Verde that he no longer goes as he doesn't get a freebie.

greenjock wrote:

According to Rupert on PASOTI, there's no story as it's only people on PASOTI who feel outraged by it, and PASOTI is only a small section of supporters! Something definitely stinks but apparently James Brent has written to him advising he can only attend HP as a paying customer from now on.

So he can't attend as a guest of a paying customer but he can attend if he pays his own way? So it is OK for Tony Wrathall to pay £20 to watch a game but it is not OK for him to pay £50 (?) to go in the business lounge? He can buy a programme for £3 outside the ground but can't pick up a free one if he pays the £50 to go in the business lounge? He can buy a 3 course meal that consists of a bovril, a pasty and a mars bar from a catering outlet but he can't buy a 3 course meal consisting of soup, main course and afters? He can sit in a stand and eat his food but he can't sit at a table to do the same? The turnstile man must take his money and let him in but the waiters and waitresses don't have to serve him? He can buy a beer from a bar under the stand but he can't buy the same beer in the business lounge? The pasty chef has to cook for him but the pastry chef does not?

For pity's sake! He is either banned or he isn't.

Too right Rupert has stopped going. You won't catch him paying the entrance fee out of his own pocket. He's a hack, he lives on expenses and the art of saying nothing.
I see the issue is slowly being turned, or at least they're trying to turn it.
Now, anyone who still wants to know what business invited Tony Wrathall are all part of the blame culture ...... dear oh dear oh dear. Heaven forbid fans should blame any of the ex owners ..... shame on us.
Chris Webb is having a hard old time explaining his support for Wrathall, but he'll keep going, that's foir sure .... after all, it wasn't Tony's fault .... none of it.
I think we should run a sweepstake for the date when Stapes first makes a Home Park comeback.

And Franny, Wrathall isn't and won't be banned. I predict the Pasoti generals have and will forgive their man. He's already had an in from the supposed neutral Taverners, it's a given.

Wonder WHY Rathole wants back in Home Park.

Well, there's a question and a half Pete.
And maybe a question that can only be answered by a full disclosure of the deals done by the administrators.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

greenjock wrote:

According to Rupert on PASOTI, there's no story as it's only people on PASOTI who feel outraged by it, and PASOTI is only a small section of supporters! Something definitely stinks but apparently James Brent has written to him advising he can only attend HP as a paying customer from now on.

So he can't attend as a guest of a paying customer but he can attend if he pays his own way? So it is OK for Tony Wrathall to pay £20 to watch a game but it is not OK for him to pay £50 (?) to go in the business lounge? He can buy a programme for £3 outside the ground but can't pick up a free one if he pays the £50 to go in the business lounge? He can buy a 3 course meal that consists of a bovril, a pasty and a mars bar from a catering outlet but he can't buy a 3 course meal consisting of soup, main course and afters? He can sit in a stand and eat his food but he can't sit at a table to do the same? The turnstile man must take his money and let him in but the waiters and waitresses don't have to serve him? He can buy a beer from a bar under the stand but he can't buy the same beer in the business lounge? The pasty chef has to cook for him but the pastry chef does not?

For pity's sake! He is either banned or he isn't.

I agree with the sentiments here.

Don't let him back in the boardroom though. Unless he pays.

On the Pasoti thread someone who knows the Hereford match sponsor says the sponsor has no idea why Wraithall was there. Someone other than the match sponsor appears to have invited him.

So this Wrathal chap was part of the M7 that shafted your Club and created a situation which left it minutes from extinction.

Some say he wasn't culpable. Did he know what was going on? If he did and didn't stop it he was culpable.

Is not knowing a defence? No, not in his position. Not knowing makes him equally culpable IMO. He should have made himself know what was going on.

Your Club has to rid itself of these types of individual if it is to exorcise the past. Those coming in now must be made aware that this isn't about self promotion (Newell and puppets) this is about the meaning of life for some. Those that rolled over and let Wrathal (rub their tummies) take the piss need to be got rid of too. They clearly don't have your football club at heart and cant see further than their next free lunch. Also, what were the sponsors thinking.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This.

Spot on. I still find it hard to comprehend. That a) the sponsors would think to invite him and b) he is either stupid enough to think it's acceptable to go pitchside or arrogant enough.

The main Sponsor apparently had no idea he had been invited.

So, who did invite him?

There's a nasty pungent aroma slowly circulating as well as a comical attempt to slur and prevent the asking of questions by way of the excuse of losing sponsorship.

The more I hear the more I want to dig!