Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
[QUOTE=REDJB;2151515]The % of failing fans owned clubs is higher than the alternative. Telford,Stockport,Chester..... That's a fair few. Successes include Pompey (although they've quickly sacked it off) and Wycombe. Cant think of any others that have been promoted.[/QUOTE]
Ever heard of AFC Wimbledon? |
Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
[QUOTE=TomWFC;2151532]Everybody understands your position and your viewpoints, but I’m afraid it’s post like this that make you seem bitter and petulant. Posts such as these just perpertuate the idea of you being over-zealously against fan ownership and people always against you.
Surely something like “I currently disagree with our current model and don’t see eye to eye with those that are running things currently” would suffice? Instead you insist with condescending, sarcastic, patronising and border-line vitriolic posts that consistently have an under-handed dig at the current ownership model and it’s limitations. We get you’re not on board, that’s ok, the tone of your posts is often uneccessary. Let it be, let it be...[/QUOTE] Fair point, and you are right. But call your side too - they are worse by a million miles. I don’t mind disagreeing and discussing with yourself, English Red, Old Paddock Man, Todd Sweeny etc. But there are a host of vitriolic and aggressive people on your side who have been consistently beyond the pale and who ultimately damage the club. |
Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
[QUOTE=Foxy;2151536]Fair point, and you are right. But call your side too - they are worse by a million miles. I don’t mind disagreeing and discussing with yourself, English Red, Old Paddock Man, Todd Sweeny etc. But there are a host of vitriolic and aggressive people on your side who have been consistently beyond the pale and who ultimately damage the club.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t neccessarily refer to it as being my ‘side’. I don’t have a side really, I’d like to think I can be objective and open-minded enough to give credit where it’s due, but also to give criticism where it’s deserved. Despite my support for the current model, I believe there is plenty to improve on, including some things you’ve highlighted - albeit I don’t agree with how you get it across. You’re entitled to your opinion and have every right to express it, I just reckon if you alter the way you get it across it would carry more weight. Of course this applies to those who over-zealously defend the current ownership model and won’t constructively criticise when it’s clearly neccessary. |
Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
[QUOTE=Foxy;2151536][B]Fair point, and you are right[/B]. But call your side too - they are worse by a million miles. I don’t mind disagreeing and discussing with yourself, English Red, Old Paddock Man, Todd Sweeny etc. But there are a host of vitriolic and aggressive people on your side who have been consistently beyond the pale and who ultimately damage the club.[/QUOTE]
Should have ended your post there :) |
Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
[QUOTE=Vorporix;2151539]Should have ended your post there :)[/QUOTE]
You have clearly recognised yourself then. |
Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
It looks like Damian Reeves is available again after the fairly dramatic end of Shaw Lane.
|
Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
[QUOTE=TomWFC;2151532]Everybody understands your position and your viewpoints, but I’m afraid it’s post like this that make you seem bitter and petulant. Posts such as these just perpertuate the idea of you being over-zealously against fan ownership and people always against you.
Surely something like “I currently disagree with our current model and don’t see eye to eye with those that are running things currently” would suffice? Instead you insist with condescending, sarcastic, patronising and border-line vitriolic posts that consistently have an under-handed dig at the current ownership model and it’s limitations. We get you’re not on board, that’s ok, the tone of your posts is often uneccessary. Let it be, let it be...[/QUOTE] Agree entirely. I tend to agree with what Foxy is getting at, but even I am tired of his perpetual and repetitive aggressive and patronising approach. He is not doing his argument any favours because of the way he puts across his views. C'mon Foxy, time to change tack, even tho your destination is obvious. |
Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
[QUOTE=Foxy;2151536]Fair point, and you are right. But call your side too - they are worse by a million miles. I don’t mind disagreeing and discussing with yourself, English Red, Old Paddock Man, Todd Sweeny etc. But there are a host of vitriolic and aggressive people on your side who have been consistently beyond the pale and who ultimately damage the club.[/QUOTE]
Apologies Foxy, I had a dig before I read your response. Its a fair response and acknowledges a fair point....but the "if you cant beat them join them" point at the end is perhaps where it falls down. I think you have valid points, are intelligent and care about the club. A change in approach would perhaps garner more support. Cheers |
[QUOTE=REDJB;2151515]The % of failing fans owned clubs is higher than the alternative. Telford,Stockport,Chester..... That's a fair few. Successes include Pompey (although they've quickly sacked it off) and Wycombe. Cant think of any others that have been promoted.[/QUOTE]
You are an extremely naughty boy 👦 for pointing that out & you will get a jolly good talking to for it. [size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size] |
All times are WMT (Wrexham Mean Time). For non-town viewers the time now is 17.03:30. |
Powered by vBulletin® & Wrex the Dragons fiery breath