Ownership developments

[itsinyerblood]

I agree some people can go too far.

However your post was about people effectively ganging up on him.

The only reason that happens is because of what he posts.

If you denigrate a manager that gave anyone younger than 50 odd the best United memories of their life, if you constantly disrespect a player who gave his all for us and played at a level with us few United players have in 25 years, if you tell everyone you hate seeing England do well and hope they get knocked out when most football fans are thoroughly enjoying our run, what reaction do you truly expect?

You're right, he can look after himself, and I would imagine enjoys the attention he gets.

Which makes your passionate defence of him a little hard to fathom.

Let me clarify something. Pinchy doesn't need my defence, all I've done, and not that passionately either, is to offer an explanation about cause and effect.

Maybe if posters engaged him in what you might call more a restrained fashion, or even without an opinion already formed, then you might find Pinchy being prepared to communicate in the same fashion. The one thing that seems to have been missed is that this forum allows posters to write about what they choose, with the exceptions of racist, homophobic, or, and I doubt this is always adhered to, sexist attitudes prevalent. The fact that you haven't attempted to deny that gangs do occur is welcome.

 

[Harrisblade]

And I doubt you'd hear any complaints from Pinchy if that were the case. It's not as if Pinchy has a constant presence on the forum, so a little unsure why he's demonised in quite the way he is. So he says things that some posters don't like? I'm sure there are posters who feel the same about me, but I only write when I feel passionately, so whether you agree or not at least you know it comes from the heart.

I read many posters refer to other posters on here as cunts. Do you expect me to believe that this is less aggressive or inflammatory than anything Pinchy has written?

He's demonised because he writes as if he's the only one that understands anything about football and simply sneers at those who don't agree with his opinions
I'm sure he's a nice chap away from his keyboard, but if you set out to deliberately annoy people, you will get the responses that you hoped for ( and rightly so)

 

[itsinyerblood]

He's demonised because he writes as if he's the only one that understands anything about football and simply sneers at those who don't agree with his opinions
I'm sure he's a nice chap away from his keyboard, but if you set out to deliberately annoy people, you will get the responses that you hoped for ( and rightly so)

Then respond in whichever way you feel is appropriate.

 

[Sean Thornton]

He's demonised because he writes as if he's the only one that understands anything about football and simply sneers at those who don't agree with his opinions
I'm sure he's a nice chap away from his keyboard, but if you set out to deliberately annoy people, you will get the responses that you hoped for ( and rightly so)

But isn't it the other posters moaning about him. We didn't agree on the England thread. I left it because I thought the tone was at times ugly. On that thread he was wrong. He's almost always right when it comes to the subject of fantasy McCabe bashing though. If you rely on facts in the public domain, that's usually the case.

 

[Sean Thornton]

It's like using the search facility. Spend a couple of minutes on it to show hypocrisy, reverse ferrets etc on it, and you're a sad sly bastard who spends all day on here and has no life. When it suits though, it's a fine tool enabling everyone to see previous nonsense posted by your current internet bets noir.

 

[BigBed]

Well, just wasted another 13mins reading the latest posts on this thread, cos fuck all has happened, so the latest is............the same as yesterday.

 

[I should coco]

Well, just wasted another 13mins reading the latest posts on this thread, cos fuck all has happened

I'm really sorry about that for you. Sounds terrible to be truthful .

Do you want me to come round and do some weeding to get that 13 minutes back?

 

[Jonboy60]

She also rents it out to Harry - for free![/QUOT

I'm really sorry about that for you. Sounds terrible to be truthful .

Do you want me to come round and do some weeding to get that 13 minutes back?

is “weeding” the secret password coco.

 

[BigBed]

I'm really sorry about that for you. Sounds terrible to be truthful .

Do you want me to come round and do some weeding to get that 13 minutes back?

Pop round if you want, the shithouse could do with a polish, it's just help me lose 2lb.

 

[Harrisblade]

Then respond in whichever way you feel is appropriate.

Which is what everyone does.
But don't think for a second that anyone is "ganging up on him" though.
He simply irritates so many people with his patronising style that it just looks that way

 

[Deleted member 1486]

OK guys. Kind of wondering here. If the purpose of the Prince was to move a percentage (turned out 80%) of BL shares to UTB 2018 LLP just to avoid the 50% shareholding by UTB LLC the assumption surely has to be that the Prince controls the holding held by UTB 2018 LLP. Given that (of course the assumption must be proved) surely it is an attempt to destroy the agreement and although probably not unlawful clearly frustrates the agreement. IMO the Prince is thus out of order relying on that, as in essence he still owns 50% except in two vehicles. Surely a Judge is going to say hang on a minute and see that?

What I remember of my law degree would fit on the back of a folded Rizla, but I seem to recall "clean hands" and "good faith" being a major factor in contract disputes. Not sure the Prince can claim either by the sounds of it.

He's obviously had advice to contrary (by people who know and earn far more than I do). Thoughts of any forum lawyers?

 

[itsinyerblood]

Which is what everyone does.
But don't think for a second that anyone is "ganging up on him" though.
He simply irritates so many people with his patronising style that it just looks that way

It's difficult not to draw the conclusion that more than a few posters is anything but a gang.

Here's a thought, every time someone irritates you, or anyone else for that matter, maybe take the unusual step of doing the exact opposite of what you'd normally do.
Or you can always continue in exactly the same way, which, coincidentally, is what you're suggesting about Pinchy.

As I've said, I'm not here to act as his spokesperson, neither do I wish to become involved in lengthy posts about Pinchy where this is concerned. If you feel you need to contribute along the lines of what's been described then I'm sure you'll find support amongst those who share the same opinions.

 

[Dellas Cowboys]

Sounds exactly what McCabe is annoyed about to me.

Whether the Judge agrees or not I'm not going to hold my breath. The Prince seems confident of the ruling going his way, and the document gives me the impression that McCabe feels potentially the same way. Otherwise why not match the Princes offer of injecting a £1.25m non-recoverable loan. makes sense to me to do it, if I'm confident of winning, thats £2.5m invested at a cost to me of £1.25m, no brainer.

I get the impression, as did the judge that these are games.

McCabe wasn't really trying to get HRH to put in £1.25m. I reckon the purpose was possibly to show HRH in a bad light by revealing his UTB 2018 LLP manouvre to supporters, the management team and press to assist KM gain popular support and to publicly embarrass HRH.

HRH could offer the £1.25m gift, as I suspect he knew KM had no intention of extending his own financial commitment with significant risk to ever seeing it again and so neither would HRH have to.

Cat chess.

 

[Pinchy]

I've long suspected much of it is designed to get responses but surely if you poke a tiger you can't grumble if it bites back.

I’m put in mind of the late Denis Healey and Geoffrey Howe. No tigers here; plenty of lame Tory dead sheep sympathisers though and they well deserve a poking in order to wake them up.

 

[Harrisblade]

It's difficult not to draw the conclusion that more than a few posters is anything but a gang.

Here's a thought, every time someone irritates you, or anyone else for that matter, maybe take the unusual step of doing the exact opposite of what you'd normally do.
Or you can always continue in exactly the same way, which, coincidentally, is what you're suggesting about Pinchy.

As I've said, I'm not here to act as his spokesperson, neither do I wish to become involved in lengthy posts about Pinchy where this is concerned. If you feel you need to contribute along the lines of what's been described then I'm sure you'll find support amongst those who share the same opinions.

"phrasal verb with gang verb. to unite as a group against someone: Johnnie says the girls in his class are ganging up on him and teasing him. (Definition of “gang up on someone” from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)"

The exact opposite, there's no 'uniting' between the numerous individuals who disagree with one other individual who seemingly deliberately tries to provoke

No tigers here; plenty of lame Tory dead sheep sympathisers though and they well deserve a poking in order to wake them up.

 

[Snowman]

What I remember of my law degree would fit on the back of a folded Rizla, but I seem to recall "clean hands" and "good faith" being a major factor in contract disputes. Not sure the Prince can claim either by the sounds of it.

He's obviously had advice to contrary (by people who know and earn far more than I do). Thoughts of any forum lawyers?

You are thinking of the oft quoted "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands". Used to mean something like you couldn't claim relief whilst using unlawful/criminal conduct. Pretty sure that "sharp practice" doesn't count, but its a very complex subject way over my head. Pinchy will probably know but won't be daft enough to venture an opinion.

 

[Davalon]

I’m put in mind of the late Denis Healey and Geoffrey Howe. No tigers here; plenty of lame Tory dead sheep sympathisers though and they well deserve a poking in order to wake them up.

 

[itsinyerblood]

"phrasal verb with gang verb. to unite as a group against someone: Johnnie says the girls in his class are ganging up on him and teasing him. (Definition of “gang up on someone” from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)"

The exact opposite, there's no 'uniting' between the numerous individuals who disagree with one other individual who seemingly deliberately tries to provoke

Let me put this in a way that may relate to other parts of everyday life. You and I will have noticed opposition between those who have different religious faiths, yet they often refuse to enter into disagreement, or at it's worst, when they debate or challenge one another, once the challenge is finished life continues and people realise that there are far more important things to consider. I kind of feel this is what, ideally, those on here who, according to you, are a disparate group of individuals who happen to join together for one specific purpose.

Don't really know what to say....so someone says Warnock was this, that, or whatever. So what? Does it matter? But apparently there are posters who appear to adopt something akin to a religious viewpoint, and that anyone who offers a different opinion to theirs is to be challenged forever and a day. By all means knock yourself out where this is concerned, but it might be worth your time not to take any of this that seriously.

 

[Maidenhead]

Which is what everyone does.
But don't think for a second that anyone is "ganging up on him" though.
He simply irritates so many people with his patronising style that it just looks that way

I just think that a fair few posters, and one in particular, forgot to take their "happy" pills yesterday.

 

[Harrisblade]

Let me put this in a way that may relate to other parts of everyday life. You and I will have noticed opposition between those who have different religious faiths, yet they often refuse to enter into disagreement, or at it's worst, when they debate or challenge one another, once the challenge is finished life continues and people realise that there are far more important things to consider. I kind of feel this is what, ideally, those on here who, according to you, are a disparate group of individuals who happen to join together for one specific purpose.

Don't really know what to say....so someone says Warnock was this, that, or whatever. So what? Does it matter? But apparently there are posters who appear to adopt something akin to a religious viewpoint, and that anyone who offers a different opinion to theirs is to be challenged forever and a day. By all means knock yourself out where this is concerned, but it might be worth your time not to take any of this that seriously.

All fair points and true.
As you said, it doesn't matter at all.
Despite what seems serious when written down,I think most of us on here just enjoy a good football/Sheffield United related rant, which I'm sure is all in good humour.

Maybe best to regard it as an updated version of the Monty Python sketch:

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

 

[Jonboy60]

Let me put this in a way that may relate to other parts of everyday life. You and I will have noticed opposition between those who have different religious faiths, yet they often refuse to enter into disagreement, or at it's worst, when they debate or challenge one another, once the challenge is finished life continues and people realise that there are far more important things to consider. I kind of feel this is what, ideally, those on here who, according to you, are a disparate group of individuals who happen to join together for one specific purpose.

Don't really know what to say....so someone says Warnock was this, that, or whatever. So what? Does it matter? But apparently there are posters who appear to adopt something akin to a religious viewpoint, and that anyone who offers a different opinion to theirs is to be challenged forever and a day. By all means knock yourself out where this is concerned, but it might be worth your time not to take any of this that seriously.

If their is a gang itsinyerblood, percentage wise it’s in single figures.
The rest of us, no scratch that last bit. I and others I’m guessing, enjoy the jousting between the protagonists. Don’t spoil it by talking sense.

 

[South Bucks]

Having worked with Arabian clients many times a big mistake by one of our owners was not understanding that in the souk no one every pays the price first offered, its a cultural and loss of face thing. If he'd offered 10 then accepted being knocked down to 5 "face" would have been preserved.
In my line of work we'd routinely be asked to build something big at market rates, mega millions, and with costs in writing but then afterwards they wouldn't pay and offer half or say they now wanted one twice as big and everything was our fault. Same stunt every time.

 

[I should coco]

Don’t spoil it by talking sense

Bloody hell that would ruin the forum!

#Say'no'tosense

 

[sheffielder]

Just trying to figure out how to change my username to intheresawetrust

 

[Railway Blade]

I don't have great knowledge of legal matters but how did McCabe get duped so easily ?.

Why was it not written into the mechanics of the agreement that neither party could change their shareholding between any offer and counter offer or it made the agreement void, unless both parties agreed to the changes ?

And also to do with the leases of Bramall Lane and the other related properties at reduced rents. Again why not have a clause stating that if the ownership structure changed the lessor has the right to revise the rents to full market value ?

I know hindsights a wonderful thing but when your dealing with big money it tends to be a belt and bracers approach I would have thought.

 

[Esablade]

and they well deserve a poking in order to wake them up.

Is that legal?*

Sorry Pinchy

 

[Isar]

Let me put this in a way that may relate to other parts of everyday life. You and I will have noticed opposition between those who have different religious faiths, yet they often refuse to enter into disagreement, or at it's worst, when they debate or challenge one another, once the challenge is finished life continues and people realise that there are far more important things to consider. I kind of feel this is what, ideally, those on here who, according to you, are a disparate group of individuals who happen to join together for one specific purpose.

Don't really know what to say....so someone says Warnock was this, that, or whatever. So what? Does it matter? But apparently there are posters who appear to adopt something akin to a religious viewpoint, and that anyone who offers a different opinion to theirs is to be challenged forever and a day. By all means knock yourself out where this is concerned, but it might be worth your time not to take any of this that seriously.

A mass brawl in Argos car park should sort it all out.

 

[itsinyerblood]

A mass brawl in Argos car park should sort it all out.

What, you mean several men ganged up against one?

 

[Pierre's PC]

Is that legal?*

Sorry Pinchy

The 'Bill Cosby' defense

 

[Sean Thornton]

What, you mean several men ganged up against one?

The only people who turned up last time were a reporter and photographer from the Guardian.