Was Wrathal at HP today

Merry Christmas GG! Chill out, it's only football.

Sponsors of the match ball and programme also take part in the guard of honour, so if we take Damon at his word, one of them may have invited Wrathers. But due to the links between the GT's/Devon Pine/Wrathers I would be cynical of that. If anyone has the Hereford match programme the list of sponsors should be available.

Yeah, but in the end, all of these people know each other, and they all chirp and chat together. Wrahall would have been there well, well before the kick off, stuffing his face as if nothing had happened... the gossip must have gone into overdrive. You can't tell me, this was all unknown to everyone but one man before 2.55pm. Not possible.
I think a certain 'self elected panel' of folk, including Chris Webb obviously given his public kicking around of the idea, thought the Wrathall invite was a good first move in the rehabilitation process promised to an 'innocent'. Whether Chris was aware of the overall plan is irrelevant. I suspect he, and say Newell, are only fed part of the picture. There are many different camps behind the scenes and some played a card too many too quickly and probably still view the 'mistake' as one of only timing rather than of the action itself.

The condemnation afterward online was slow, half hearted and took a while for a coherent united front. That says the public mood was misjudged and unexpected and I wonder which camp is charged with judging the mood of the fanbase and who were taken by surprise at the over reaction of Wrathall. He MUST have been convinced by someone he was back in the tribe again for him to step on the pitch. If anything Chris Webb's public thread on this matter can't have helped matters in Wrathall's deluded head. Perhaps Mr President, which is supposed to be a more honary and non controversial role, should be more mindful of the wider agendas in what he is told and asked to perform... never underestimate any human being, especially those at the back of the room or those already moved on to pastures new.

But still ... we won and it's been Xmas and all that, so there won't be any answers now.

Anybody else see the documentary about Sarah Palin last night? I could have sworn I recognised some of her tactics

Peggy wrote:

But still ... we won and it's been Xmas and all that, so there won't be any answers now.

Quite correct... And if you should have the temerity to ask any further, you will be told: "Its been done to death".

This seems to be the stock answer to any question that hasn't had to been answered, after a period of successfully stalling a truthful response.

Such as.. "Why did the Trust ISC board feel the need/decide to forgo the loan to the Taverners as opposed to have it paid back at a mutually conveniant time?

There is a lot of 'huff and they puff', but nobody ever, has given a straight plausible answer!

I wonder if Brent will ever regret getting into bed with the "in crowd", there does seem to be some sweeping under the carpet.

hmdr wrote:

I wonder if Brent will ever regret getting into bed with the "in crowd", there does seem to be some sweeping under the carpet.

He might do in time. But at the moment the love in continues unabated. Snippets are still being passed via the CPers the latest being Brents looking to support the ladies team news being brought to you via one of them. And for Wrathall the message has come back only via the President etc that the situation won't be allowed to happen again. Though if the mood had been judged better in November and the thread not shunted off to the terraces perhaps none of this would have happened.

I think you will find that all of you will need to keep an eye on things, While this "Honeymoon Period" is still in place, things that seem uncomfortable to us, like the reason for this thread could get pushed through, Bit like when the last Government said once "Today is a good day to hide bad news" Also while there is still a chosen few who are our "Betters" and tell us how we should appreciate them and never question them or what they do, It is eyes and ears open all the time

penzancepirate wrote:

Yeah, but in the end, all of these people know each other, and they all chirp and chat together. Wrahall would have been there well, well before the kick off, stuffing his face as if nothing had happened... the gossip must have gone into overdrive. You can't tell me, this was all unknown to everyone but one man before 2.55pm. Not possible.
I think a certain 'self elected panel' of folk, including Chris Webb obviously given his public kicking around of the idea, thought the Wrathall invite was a good first move in the rehabilitation process promised to an 'innocent'. Whether Chris was aware of the overall plan is irrelevant. I suspect he, and say Newell, are only fed part of the picture. There are many different camps behind the scenes and some played a card too many too quickly and probably still view the 'mistake' as one of only timing rather than of the action itself.

The condemnation afterward online was slow, half hearted and took a while for a coherent united front. That says the public mood was misjudged and unexpected and I wonder which camp is charged with judging the mood of the fanbase and who were taken by surprise at the over reaction of Wrathall. He MUST have been convinced by someone he was back in the tribe again for him to step on the pitch. If anything Chris Webb's public thread on this matter can't have helped matters in Wrathall's deluded head. Perhaps Mr President, which is supposed to be a more honary and non controversial role, should be more mindful of the wider agendas in what he is told and asked to perform... never underestimate any human being, especially those at the back of the room or those already moved on to pastures new.

I would hate to have to spend a day in your head PP.

You haven't replied to either greengenes or my invites to meet up at the Torquay game.

Surely YOU aren't dodging the question?

Rickler wrote:

Peggy wrote:

But still ... we won and it's been Xmas and all that, so there won't be any answers now.

Quite correct... And if you should have the temerity to ask any further, you will be told: "Its been done to death".

This seems to be the stock answer to any question that hasn't had to been answered, after a period of successfully stalling a truthful response.

Such as.. "Why did the Trust ISC board feel the need/decide to forgo the loan to the Taverners as opposed to have it paid back at a mutually conveniant time?
There is a lot of 'huff and they puff', but nobody ever, has given a straight plausible answer!

I believe I have answered that very question literally dozens of times Rickler.

Sadly, with you if you don't like the answer then this isn't seen as 'plausible'. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

Happy New year Chris.

Why do you and Ian have this desire to meet up with people? Just a genuine question, do you think that by meeting up you might change opinions or something?

Peggy wrote:

But still ... we won and it's been Xmas and all that, so there won't be any answers now.

Anybody else see the documentary about Sarah Palin last night? I could have sworn I recognised some of her tactics

What answers are you looking for Peggy? I have been offline for a bit but will do my best to answer.

Cerbera wrote:

Happy New year Chris.

Why do you and Ian have this desire to meet up with people? Just a genuine question, do you think that by meeting up you might change opinions or something?

I can speak for Ian so perhaps you should ask him.

For me......in PPs case. He has spent a long time carrying an alternative view (see how nicely I put that) and it would be good to have a proper engaging debate in real life and in person rather than over a keyboard.

I also belief that it would do PP good to see the work that the GTs do so that he can see their love for Argyle and honesty first hand and it would also do me some good to listen to the views of somebody who has clearly become disinfrancised with Argyle and surrounding groups / events.

No motives other than to take the chance to have a real debate when the opportunity to do so is there - i.e both of us attending the same match.

Happy New Year to you also.

Happy New Year Chris. I wanted to ask you about Sean O'Driscoll and how much assistance he is giving Fletch at the moment? Is it purely that he is at the end of the telephone if Fletch wants to call him? And also if there is any chance of him being given a role full-time? Sorry to hijack this thread but I've had enough of the subject now anyway.

greenjock wrote:

Happy New Year Chris. I wanted to ask you about Sean O'Driscoll and how much assistance he is giving Fletch at the moment? Is it purely that he is at the end of the telephone if Fletch wants to call him? And also if there is any chance of him being given a role full-time? Sorry to hijack this thread but I've had enough of the subject now anyway.

Hi greenjock

It seems that th role is purely advisory and part-time (as and when sort of thing).

As far as I know, no talks have taken place to make it anything other than that.

On the plus side since this arrangement has been in place, coupled with exiting admin / new signings, Argyle's form has picked up!

Thanks Chris. Thats what I thought, with regard to the improved form, so if it works on an ad hoc basis, it could work even better in an official capacity. Was just a thought anyway.

penzancepirate wrote:

Yeah, but in the end, all of these people know each other, and they all chirp and chat together. Wrahall would have been there well, well before the kick off, stuffing his face as if nothing had happened... the gossip must have gone into overdrive. You can't tell me, this was all unknown to everyone but one man before 2.55pm. Not possible.
I think a certain 'self elected panel' of folk, including Chris Webb obviously given his public kicking around of the idea, thought the Wrathall invite was a good first move in the rehabilitation process promised to an 'innocent'. Whether Chris was aware of the overall plan is irrelevant. I suspect he, and say Newell, are only fed part of the picture. There are many different camps behind the scenes and some played a card too many too quickly and probably still view the 'mistake' as one of only timing rather than of the action itself.

The condemnation afterward online was slow, half hearted and took a while for a coherent united front. That says the public mood was misjudged and unexpected and I wonder which camp is charged with judging the mood of the fanbase and who were taken by surprise at the over reaction of Wrathall. He MUST have been convinced by someone he was back in the tribe again for him to step on the pitch. If anything Chris Webb's public thread on this matter can't have helped matters in Wrathall's deluded head. Perhaps Mr President, which is supposed to be a more honary and non controversial role, should be more mindful of the wider agendas in what he is told and asked to perform... never underestimate any human being, especially those at the back of the room or those already moved on to pastures new.

It is very possible. All that happens is somebody from the hospitality staff approaches the sponsors table and says "it's pitch time for those who want to go down" and off they go. No list is passed on, form filled in or anything like it and it is a very much a last minute invitation.

The other sponsors on the day are not listed in the programme. The only named sponsors are Match sponsor Devon Furniture and Club sponsor Bond Timber. No matchball sponsor at all to name. Funnily not even Devon Timber get much publicity in the programme apart from a tiny panel on the programme cover.

The rest of the post is reasonable. The corporate types do all know each other. Any one of them could have said "off you go, Tone" and it would not have been questioned at all.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

The rest of the post is reasonable. The corporate types do all know each other. Any one of them could have said "off you go, Tone" and it would not have been questioned at all.

Hence, as a group, they're out of touch, and that's my point. They wish the whole Wrathall/Stapleton problem with the grass root support would go away so they can all get on with normal life without awkward impedement... architypeal head turners surfing the day, turning a penny. Some of them thought the Wrathall thing had passed it's peak, especially when reading the President's invite. A bad mistake Mr President., how out of touch are you with thousands of fans ? ...and how out of touch is the new property owner ? Who is this new kid on the block James Brent to say the misdemeanours of those awful ex owners are forgiven ?
How dare he. Just what makes him think he's got the right to speak for all of us ?

Rickler wrote:

Why did the Trust ISC board feel the need/decide to forgo the loan to the Taverners as opposed to have it paid back at a mutually conveniant time? [/b]
There is a lot of 'huff and they puff', but nobody ever, has given a straight plausible answer!

Chris Webb wrote:

I believe I have answered that very question literally dozens of times Rickler.

Sadly, with you if you don't like the answer then this isn't seen as 'plausible'. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

Dozens of times, eh Chris? That must be the next most used excuse after "done to death"!

Well how come nobody on this site ever seems to have seen one or is able to explain it? Ask Baron von Moist!

There is a very big difference between answering "a" question (which you do) and answering "the" question (which more than quite often, you do not)!

Take this for example... This is taken from an email exchange between us several months ago - It starts with me obviously fustrated at you for not answering questions directly --

Rickler: wrote:

Jeez...

Just carefully read what I wrote to you.. Basically everywhere there is a question mark there is a question.

But if you want one to begin with...

“And nobody has yet answered the obvious question as to why the debt has to be written off, as opposed to offering a very benign repayment plan?”

Chris Webb: wrote:

Thank you for your emails. Despite the tone I will give you a reply on the questions that you have raised.

Firstly the debt doesn't have to be written off. A proposal to write off the debt to the GTs was put forward by the Secretary of the Trust. The reasoning behind this is clear to see from Peter Ryan's note which I am sure you have seen on Pasoti.

This was then carried by a vote of the ISC.

Great answer... Clear as a bell, eh?

Well I can state that I have never seen Peter Ryan explain it either. If Peter would like to come on and repeat it, I would be more than thankful. Considering a comment he made to me in private just before the proposed deal, I am just absolutely dying to hear that explanation!

El Presidente, I know you would be repeating yourself forza ‘dozens and one’ time and “its been done to death”, but seeing as you were the ISC chair at the time.. Perhaps for all those on ATD that have missed it, could you possibly give us the ‘definitive’ version of how and why it was decided to forgo the loan, as opposed to have it repaid?

Thank you.

PS. While you're at it.. I know you've told us dozens of times but remind me again - Who invited Wrathell onto the pitch?

Rickler wrote:

PS. While you're at it.. I know you've told us dozens of times but remind me again - Who invited Wrathell onto the pitch?

This thread is over 7 pages long now, do you really expect a genuine answer from Chris Webb, Ricks?

GOB wrote:

Rickler wrote:

PS. While you're at it.. I know you've told us dozens of times but remind me again - Who invited Wrathell onto the pitch?

This thread is over 7 pages long now, do you really expect a genuine answer from Chris Webb, Ricks?

I believe that question is rhetorical.

Rickler wrote:

GOB wrote:

Rickler wrote:

PS. While you're at it.. I know you've told us dozens of times but remind me again - Who invited Wrathell onto the pitch?

This thread is over 7 pages long now, do you really expect a genuine answer from Chris Webb, Ricks?

I believe that question is rhetorical.

Correct!

I see the Wrathall debate has started again after he was seen at yesterday's game.

I note greenmarc has said that Devon Pine have removed their sponsorship (of Argyle), as well as two other 'close friends'. Further on page 25, Rappers mentions several companies that still paid sponsorship money into Argyle, during the administration period, one being Existem Affiliate Marketing (now Optimus Performance Marketing). I wonder if this is one of the companies who have withdrawn their sponsorship of the club as the MD, I would presume, is a friend of the Devon Pine owner, through their Green Taverners work? Just a guess, nothing more.

Apparently Wrathall was there again yesterday, but in the Demport.

I suppose if he was there as a paying fan, then fair do's. We could do with the revenue. Although if I'm honest, I'm still undecided whether I think there should be a complete ban on any of the M7 returning, or being content for them to attend games as normal paying customers.

Of course, if he was gifted a complimentary ticket, that's a different matter. I don't know either way, just wondering.

It won't be too long before the Wrathall and Lenszner comedy act will be entertaining at the Fansfests