Fiddling away in High Court while our Premier League chances burn.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

bromtom said:
To use a phrase of the yoof

"Chat shit, get banged"

There's caution, there's being worried, but this thread is founded on nonsense. No escaping it or trying to dress it up as something it's not. So the remonstrations are fair enough.

Swim on.
Click to expand...
58443
 

Sean Thornton said:
My earlier reply was on topic and relevant. Also correct. Rather than debate as you constantly state is your primary wish, you took things off topic and into your pool of mendacity in post 323, which had little to do with the points made. .

BTW, Is there more than one person who agrees with either your initial opinion or your revision now the first one was shown to be wrong?


Over 7000 posts about you? Ha ha ha. Self awareness......
Click to expand...


Call out the lies Sean. Two you said in a few days. Post 340.

Call them out and I will respond. Thing is I don't tell lies.
 
Flatulent_Bob said:
Hi, no I don’t mind however I’m not interested in debating wind ups or perceived issues which are rooted in nonsense, I just don’t have time.
I’ve made my opinion quite clear in my earlier post and asked you specific points based on your view on the first page which you chose not to address.
It looks like you take whatever negative stories you can and try and twist them into a likely narrative.
You then edit your “brave” or “out there” position. when your opinions are not born out.


The undeniable facts from your original posts are;
1.) Spending hasn’t been limited by the legal shenanigans of the owners, this was clarified by the manager at the time but you didn’t believe him.
2.) There was always significantly more than £20 million to spend.
3.) The owners can’t take the PL money out of the club. They can sell there share of the club but that doesn’t take the money out. You were wrong to suggest this as a likely plan for our joint owners at that time.
4.) You said your “whole point” was we wouldn’t get business done by the end of Aug. That has also been proven to be wrong as 90% has been completed. Therefore by your own criteria your post cannot carry any accuracy and therefore validity.

If you can’t accept the above I don’t think there is anything to discuss further with you, as your not here for a serious and honest debate.
You'd just be a bit of an “edge lord”,(as the youngsters call it), trying to be controversial but ultimately lacking in substance.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your fine reply Flatulent, appreciated.

RE point:

1. The manager didn't exactly say he had been provided with the budget he needed and would have expected. He talked in generalities and broadly said it was a workable budget and he wouldn't wish to land the club in a difficult financial situation. It stands to my sense that two soon-to-be-departing owners just will not invest as much as the subsequent owners will when they take charge. They will be investing and building for the future in the P.L.

.2. Nobody knows the actual budget Wilder has been given. Personally my adjusted minimum figure is around the £40m region and I stated that on here.. There were rumours of £20m which I used as illustrative in a description of the Transfer Window cash flow until 9th August. My memory is clear of last time we went up and baulked at paying £6m for Nugent who would have kept us up, we had no cover for Hulse.

3. I never said that as I recall anyway. I recall saying McCabe would reap the sale price if he wins his case and sells the club to the Americans.

4. Point 1 above relates. 90% of what? 90% of KM/prince's budget.Are we 90% done anyway, I hope not.

Hope that explains my views. I am delighted with business to date and will be 'over the moon' if we sign a quality striker as I think the Mousset signing probably reflects our tight budget, being a bit of an unknown quantity. Spend another net £15m and I'll be fairly happy. Villa are well over £100m but that's not us, I know that. Maybe things will change with the new owners but that level of expenditure causes creaks and strains and even more pressure.

Hope that clears a few things up.

The further comment I have is that my underlying purpose of this thread was to support our manager who could well be under pressure in the coming months. If fans believe he has the budget he dreamed of and didn't want more, then they will have less empathy for him if things go wrong. Wilder is our only hope and fan power can keep him in his job even if we go down. If we show unity of fans and manager throughout any hard periods any new owners will take heed of the bond and should not rush to change managers. Our budget is great in SUFC terms looking back but it is small beer for the future in this league.

cheers.
 
derekacorah said:
This court case is just something to moan about, it won’t impact the operations and signings of the club.
Click to expand...
Well assessed
Court case effect on squad building has been zero

Had they not been in court might have had more unwanted interference than what's transpired .
 
th
 
Woodwardfan said:
Thanks for your fine reply Flatulent, appreciated.

RE point:

1. The manager didn't exactly say he had been provided with the budget he needed and would have expected. He talked in generalities and broadly said it was a workable budget and he wouldn't wish to land the club in a difficult financial situation. It stands to my sense that two soon-to-be-departing owners just will not invest as much as the subsequent owners will when they take charge. They will be investing and building for the future in the P.L.

.2. Nobody knows the actual budget Wilder has been given. Personally my adjusted minimum figure is around the £40m region and I stated that on here.. There were rumours of £20m which I used as illustrative in a description of the Transfer Window cash flow until 9th August. My memory is clear of last time we went up and baulked at paying £6m for Nugent who would have kept us up, we had no cover for Hulse.

3. I never said that as I recall anyway. I recall saying McCabe would reap the sale price if he wins his case and sells the club to the Americans.

4. Point 1 above relates. 90% of what? 90% of KM/prince's budget.Are we 90% done anyway, I hope not.

Hope that explains my views. I am delighted with business to date and will be 'over the moon' if we sign a quality striker as I think the Mousset signing probably reflects our tight budget, being a bit of an unknown quantity. Spend another net £15m and I'll be fairly happy. Villa are well over £100m but that's not us, I know that. Maybe things will change with the new owners but that level of expenditure causes creaks and strains and even more pressure.

Hope that clears a few things up.

The further comment I have is that my underlying purpose of this thread was to support our manager who could well be under pressure in the coming months. If fans believe he has the budget he dreamed of and didn't want more, then they will have less empathy for him if things go wrong. Wilder is our only hope and fan power can keep him in his job even if we go down. If we show unity of fans and manager throughout any hard periods any new owners will take heed of the bond and should not rush to change managers. Our budget is great in SUFC terms looking back but it is small beer for the future in this league.

cheers.
Click to expand...
You're already trying the Boris trick of answering the questions you want to answer, instead of the ones which are being put to you as part of the discussion. I think we need to break this down to each question as it will get very messy.
The first statement covered the main crux of your original post, bemoaning the trial and its effect on our ability to get our transfer business done.
For clarity the first statement was was;
Spending hasn’t been limited by the legal shenanigans of the owners, this was clarified by the manager at the time but you didn’t believe him.

In your answer, you've chosen to speculate as to if Wilder was happy with the budget which wasn't what was asked.
So far we've spent an estimated £25 Million, which blows the £20 Million you were originally quoting as the possible/likely budget out the water and we've not finished yet.
We have clearly identified, made offered, completed negotiations and concluded deals, including breaking our transfer record several times, while this case has been in flight. This is inline with what the manager said at the time.
Therefore based on facts available to us right now, and not relying on supposition, rumor or opinion, our spending hasn't been limited by the ongoing legal activities of the owners.

Are you happy to concede this point so we can move on?
 
Flatulent_Bob said:
You're already trying the Boris trick of answering the questions you want to answer, instead of the ones which are being put to you as part of the discussion. I think we need to break this down to each question as it will get very messy.
The first statement covered the main crux of your original post, bemoaning the trial and its effect on our ability to get our transfer business done.
For clarity the first statement was was;
Spending hasn’t been limited by the legal shenanigans of the owners, this was clarified by the manager at the time but you didn’t believe him.

In your answer, you've chosen to speculate as to if Wilder was happy with the budget which wasn't what was asked.
So far we've spent an estimated £25 Million, which blows the £20 Million you were originally quoting as the possible/likely budget out the water and we've not finished yet.
We have clearly identified, made offered, completed negotiations and concluded deals, including breaking our transfer record several times, while this case has been in flight. This is inline with what the manager said at the time.
Therefore based on facts available to us right now, and not relying on supposition, rumor or opinion, our spending hasn't been limited by the ongoing legal activities of the owners.

Are you happy to concede this point so we can move on?
Click to expand...


I answered all your points. The main one you highlighted in bold print in particular. I contend that it is inevitable that our spending budget has been curtailed by the legal shenanigans of our departing owners.

I can add no more. Yes, let's move on. Worth the effort though, I think.
 
Woodwardfan said:
I answered all your points. The main one you highlighted in bold print in particular. I contend that it is inevitable that our spending budget has been curtailed by the legal shenanigans of our departing owners.

I can add no more. Yes, let's move on. Worth the effort though, I think.
Click to expand...
You clearly didn’t answer them as I’ve highlighted above using your own quotes, so that assertion is untrue.
There’s no room for confusion, it’s in black and white.
The evidence available to us, as I’ve listed, proves it’s not negatively impacted us, yet you’re still maintaining it is. The difference being you’re doing it without any tangible examples to support that viewpoint claiming you can add no more.
You either concede that crux of your original post in regards to any negative impact is wrong or you don’t.
Of course you can continue to maintain that it has without any evidence, but that means we do not have anything to debate.
Either concede you were wrong or supply actual tangible evidence for us to discuss else this is a waste of time.
 
Flatulent_Bob said:
You clearly didn’t answer them as I’ve highlighted above using your own quotes, so that assertion is untrue.
There’s no room for confusion, it’s in black and white.
The evidence available to us, as I’ve listed, proves it’s not negatively impacted us, yet you’re still maintaining it is. The difference being you’re doing it without any tangible examples to support that viewpoint claiming you can add no more.
You either concede that crux of your original post in regards to any negative impact is wrong or you don’t.
Of course you can continue to maintain that it has without any evidence, but that means we do not have anything to debate.
Either concede you were wrong or supply actual tangible evidence for us to discuss else this is a waste of time.
Click to expand...


So you're saying I stated the sentence in bold print? Strange is that, I'm contending quite the opposite. What number post is it?
 
Woodwardfan said:
So you're saying I stated the sentence in bold print? Strange is that, I'm contending quite the opposite. What number post is it?
Click to expand...
Last chance.
Are you saying that you didn’t suggest, allude to, or plainly state that the ongoing legal dispute would negatively affect our summer spending?
Was that not the crux of you starting this thread?
It’s there on page one, posts 1 & 7, should you need a recap.
 

Flatulent_Bob said:
Last chance.
Are you saying that you didn’t suggest, allude to, or plainly state that the ongoing legal dispute would negatively affect our summer spending?
Was that not the crux of you starting this thread?
It’s there on page one, posts 1 & 7, should you need a recap.
Click to expand...


Of course, I read your insinuation that I had made the statement in bold type on your posts and questioned it as your statement, not mine - "highlighted in your own quotes" you posted.

Of course I said that the spending would be affected and re-iterated that clearly in my recent replies to you.

Why ask? See posts 367 and 372. What about the rest of the points I answered?
 
Woodwardfan said:
Of course, I read your insinuation that I had made the statement in bold type on your posts and questioned it as your statement, not mine - "highlighted in your own quotes" you posted.

Of course I said that the spending would be affected and re-iterated that clearly in my recent replies to you.

Why ask? See posts 367 and 372. What about the rest of the points I answered?
Click to expand...
Fair enough, you’re going to pretend you didn’t say things your clearly did in order to whip up an unnecessary negative outlook of our preparation and attack the board and manager, which has been proven to be factually incorrect. You’re going to answer what you want to and try to alter your original position rather than accept your original postings were wrong.
As I said in post 355, I’m not interested in debating nonsense and wasting my time so if you won’t accept the clear facts we now know you’ll need to find someone else. Add me to the list of sharks and add you to the troll pile.
Everyone can see with their own eyes what you’re doing and can come to their own conclusions with regards to your motives, be that an eternal pessimist or someone deliberately trying to cause upset and arguments by spreading lies and misrepresentation.
One things for sure, you’re going to need a bigger boat.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone who's NOT on Woodwardfan Naughty Step, ask him who is, please?

It'll save me and i'm sure many others from asking Rudolf any questions or responding to any of his threads.

Yours Very Sincerely.

Lazarus
 
Woodwardfan said:
The club doesn't stop functioning but we've only got a quarter tank full of petrol for the journey.
Click to expand...
June 3rd.

How full is our tank now ?

How full should the tank be ?

Last season Fulham over filled their tank and the excess weight caused a lack of buoyancy and they sank.
 
So what is the latest with the judge? By the time I caught up on this thread I’d forgotten what it was about😶
 

LoughboroBlade said:
But the thread title was reactionary impatient nonsense. Our Premier League chances did not burn while the court case was ongoing – in fact its had no noticeable impact whatsoever, and as Wilder always maintained our transfer business pressed on regardless. We’ve done the vast majority of our business quicker than last year, with a greater number recruited with us spending more than any previous transfer window in the history of the club. And we’re not even done yet.
Click to expand...
Yes but it was easy to anticipate that with the two owners squabbling between themselves and locked in Litigation in Court that the club could have been in a state of paralysis as neither would agree on a budget or sanction any spending.

Thank God that common sense has prevailed and that both can see that CW needed to be given a decent budget if we were to have any chance of surviving in the PL. I have to say that this bodes well for the future whoever wins the case. I am still worried about PA winning but a lot less so now he has clearly been a party to authorizing the spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom