Phipps speaks ...

[Barney Rubble]

To be frank I think the worst part of his meananderings over the last couple of weeks is where he tries to suggest that transfer fees received and cup run money is some sort of investment rather than money generated by the club. It's like saying the board could have taken the gate money back but instead "invested" it in the club. An own goal thinking fans would fall for it and a insight into the mindset of the Princes side of the board. It does him no favours at all and is misleading plus it makes you wonder what they think about the intelligence of the fanbase. This isn't Beattie Flu, it's misrepresentation.

Some supporters have claimed that the Prince has invested nothing on the club so far and all the money we've spent has come from the cup runs and transfer fees. I think Jim's trying to point out that £13 million has been spent in addition to this income, rather than hoodwink us.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Some supporters have claimed that the Prince has invested nothing on the club so far and all the money we've spent has come from the cup runs and transfer fees. I think Jim's trying to point out that £13 million has been spent in addition to this income, rather than hoodwink us.

I have no issue with the actual amount already proven to be spent nor the fact that he will have had to throw in another £5 million to cover losses. However to claim that incoming transfer fees and cup run monies are investment by the board is trying to hoodwink us. A totally unnecessary statement - and misleading - to try to placate some fuckwits on Twitter and facebook.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

You put your own biased spin on it. He said none of that. My point was he shouldn't be saying things which are easy misinterpreted which are in essence meaningless. If you've got nothing to say, shut up. Best course of action.

Biased towards what, taking the meaning of his words at face value?

In fairness to Phipps, it's probably my description of his words in the earlier post that have perhaps been misinterpreted rather than the verbatim I gave this evening after rewatching the broadcast, which is much clearer. In my defence, I was in a rush, about to head to the pub, and am deeply sorry for any distress I've caused.

 

[robbiez666]

Biased towards what, taking the meaning of his words at face value?

In fairness to Phipps, it's probably my description of his words in the earlier post that have perhaps been misinterpreted rather than the verbatim I gave this evening after rewatching the broadcast, which is much clearer. In my defence, I was in a rush, about to head to the pub, and am deeply sorry for any distress I've caused.

Ha, fair enough. I've heard what he's said and it's pretty similar, albeit much more of a politician's answer.

What I meant by biased was that you've made your own assumptions on top of what he's actually said. What he said has enough wriggle room to mean anything. It's typical spin and I wish he'd just not say anything.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

Like Phippsy said in that interview: he'd rather be interacting & communicating with us than not. Long may that continue.

He's not perfect (none of us are), but to have a chairman actually communicating with fans in the way he does, in this day & age of football, is pretty unique & very welcome IMO.