Daren W Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 One sure fire way to make sure the truth is never known is to roll over and forget about it as you suggest whilst people remain unaccountable for their actions. And this coming from the poster who not only rolled over for the likes of Rupert Lowe but also had him tickle his stomach as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Even when "the truth" is known, it will often be the truth according to one source or another. As a lot of the evidence is likely to be circumstantial or heresay, rather than something documented accurately, whether it is the truth rather depends on who is looking at it and how objective they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Even when "the truth" is known, it will often be the truth according to one source or another. As a lot of the evidence is likely to be circumstantial or heresay, rather than something documented accurately, whether it is the truth rather depends on who is looking at it and how objective they are. Or moreover, the truth be applied to all parties, not just the witchunt of the week... If people want Pandora's box opened then fine but they cannot pick and choose which titbits they want to pick over. If we want truth and answers then fine, but it must be documented and not hearsay, it must fact not gossip. Sadly I think it will raise more questions than answers.. It seems that we cannot move on without having someone to snipe at . The fact that it is Matthew Le Tissier makes it all the sadder and distasteful... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 20 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Bump He fires in a backhand return down the line. Which says I was just espousing on a line of thought about how to take players from one level - Academy to being ready for the first team. Again - the original SCW appoinment statement was very clear on what his role was supposed to be but got lost in the PR spin. Then somebody called Glenn Hoddle opened an Academy in Spain, strange co-incidence that, and then some bloke called Trousers on a web site asked a question about his source of finace in Spain and then I commented that the PL did not give those people their licence yet. Which is all you get as it's all there is except Weston who made a throw away quip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 He fires in a backhand return down the line. Which says I was just espousing on a line of thought about how to take players from one level - Academy to being ready for the first team. Again - the original SCW appoinment statement was very clear on what his role was supposed to be but got lost in the PR spin. Then somebody called Glenn Hoddle opened an Academy in Spain, strange co-incidence that, and then some bloke called Trousers on a web site asked a question about his source of finace in Spain and then I commented that the PL did not give those people their licence yet. Which is all you get as it's all there is except Weston who made a throw away quip So, reading between the lines with out of focus glasses and an imagination the size of Peru.....SFC/SLH was somehow involved in the funding of Hoddle's academy and the likes of Forecast and/or Pulis are also somehow connected to this. What's the biggest number one can come up with when adding 2 + 2 one wonders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 20 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 August, 2009 So, reading between the lines with out of focus glasses and an imagination the size of Peru.....SFC/SLH was somehow involved in the funding of Hoddle's academy and the likes of Forecast and/or Pulis are also somehow connected to this. What's the biggest number one can come up with when adding 2 + 2 one wonders? Gotcha! See that proves you never read what you post! On a scale of wrongness from 1 to 10 that's about a 15, but worth a 7/10 for effort and logic. But as you were so wrong I will now destroy your entire life. But not until the tea interval in the Test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Nelson Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 (edited) Lol - then I would be making the OP irrelevant! This thread per se isn't about our opinions or perceived knowledge, they've been posted by all of us until even we get bored. My point is really is that it would be helpful to the fans to know what really went on. Perhaps it is the tructh, was deliberate, perhaps it was outside interference, perhaps he was waiting for Godot, perhaps his return and the Dutch was his revenge on all of us, perhaps it was an inspired choice that was unlucky. I just used it as an example of part of the WHOLE story that needs to be told The people involved will know the story, time to write the book, sell it to the NotW or whatever I agree with your points, and if I understand them right it isn't about Pinnacle or Administration, or the difficult pre-season, it's an illness which has been fermenting in the whole of the club for many years. I banged on about the lack of a "winning habit" when AP came in and said the lack of "winning mentality". It seemed obvious to me, so I don't want to pretend to be especially clever for being first. I have also mentioned the Academy and all other youth work we have done through the years. That should be fostering an attitude as well as technical skills. Wingers, midfielders and goal keepers are in many ways born, not made. You play them in the positions they are suited for and then help them make the most of it. But you must make them understand that they play the game for one reason only, and that is winning. Instead excuses have always been rife and every event is spun out of all reality. The people who have been doing this with our young players are still, as far as I know, at the club. So why should there be an improvement? Years of mismanagement and neglect is not going to be eradicated in a few weeks, but AP has made a start, as has the new owner, and I hope AP especially will concentrate at playing the game in a simple way and not hope that clever tactical arrangements will improve things. We haven't got the players to do that. Square pegs in square holes and a winning mentality. It is not going to come easy, but we must master that first before we try to be clever. That makes me question certain hyped players as well. If there isn't a position where Lallana and Schneiderlin can make a real impact and provide end products, however clever they may be, are they what we want right now, and are they really as good as we keep pretending. Edited 20 August, 2009 by Clifford Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Crouch can be blamed for many things connected with SFC. He can also be praised for other. I consider Crouch comes out neutral in the history of SFC blame. I spoke to Mike Richards a few weeks back. He believes Crouch money following Administration probably saved us from liquidation. If he is saying that it is probably close to the truth. Weston I don't dispute what Mike Richards told you and can see that was probably the case. That was Crouch's finest hour but IMO there was alot Crouch was responsible for that indirectly or otherwise eventually led to the desperate situation in the first place. From my own observations his comments in the programme and media Crouch made more wrong calls than right ones whatever his best intentions but if those final donations were the one thing that saved the club perhaps it can be argued the slate was wiped clean and on balance he comes out neutral. I suppose the nagging doubt is did Crouch look to make good some of his past decisions / comments and making a donation for all the right reasons or was he doing it to position himself for a future role in the club? If the latter then the club obviously benefitted massively but does Crouch still deserve the plaudits given the different slant on his intentions if that was the case? Personally, I'm not sure Crouch comes out of the whole thing any better than Wilde or Lowe especially as his most significant contribution came after the administration horse had bolted and his rumoured offers of a cash injection to Lowe prior to administration remains unresolved and not understood properly in my mind at least. I'm glad the three are history but wind the clock back and I wish the money Crouch lost during administration had been made available to the club to avoid the sorry mess in the first place. Unfortunately, to our cost they were not musketeers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 So, reading between the lines with out of focus glasses and an imagination the size of Peru.....SFC/SLH was somehow involved in the funding of Hoddle's academy and the likes of Forecast and/or Pulis are also somehow connected to this. What's the biggest number one can come up with when adding 2 + 2 one wonders? Looks like my quip has caused people to run up the wrong trees. As far as I know SFC/SLH never had money to invest in Hero's As far as I know Forecast and Pulis have no connection to Hero's. As far as I know there was no agreement between SFC/SLH with Hero's. What Phil said was that the PL made a statement. I was simply saying that closed an avenue of possible investment in SFC/SLH and with all other doors also closed, led to Administration. Clearer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Looks like my quip has caused people to run up the wrong trees. As far as I know SFC/SLH never had money to invest in Hero's As far as I know Forecast and Pulis have no connection to Hero's. As far as I know there was no agreement between SFC/SLH with Hero's. What Phil said was that the PL made a statement. I was simply saying that closed an avenue of possible investment in SFC/SLH and with all other doors also closed, led to Administration. Clearer? You didn't say it, you winked it. Hence the ballooning conspiracy theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Weston I don't dispute what Mike Richards told you and can see that was probably the case. That was Crouch's finest hour but IMO there was alot Crouch was responsible for that indirectly or otherwise eventually led to the desperate situation in the first place. From my own observations his comments in the programme and media Crouch made more wrong calls than right ones whatever his best intentions but if those final donations were the one thing that saved the club perhaps it can be argued the slate was wiped clean and on balance he comes out neutral. I suppose the nagging doubt is did Crouch look to make good some of his past decisions / comments and making a donation for all the right reasons or was he doing it to position himself for a future role in the club? If the latter then the club obviously benefitted massively but does Crouch still deserve the plaudits given the different slant on his intentions if that was the case? Personally, I'm not sure Crouch comes out of the whole thing any better than Wilde or Lowe especially as his most significant contribution came after the administration horse had bolted and his rumoured offers of a cash injection to Lowe prior to administration remains unresolved and not understood properly in my mind at least. I'm glad the three are history but wind the clock back and I wish the money Crouch lost during administration had been made available to the club to avoid the sorry mess in the first place. Unfortunately, to our cost they were not musketeers. I think you make a number of relevant points there however I'm still struggling with why you continue to fire broadsides at Crouch with accusations that should equally be applied to Lowe and Wilde? As has been said none of them come out of this whole sorry mess with too much to crow about but Crouch certainly dug into his own pocket when asked. Whether that was for personal gain or purely as a supporter we can only but speculate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Or moreover, the truth be applied to all parties, not just the witchunt of the week... If people want Pandora's box opened then fine but they cannot pick and choose which titbits they want to pick over. If we want truth and answers then fine, but it must be documented and not hearsay, it must fact not gossip. Sadly I think it will raise more questions than answers.. It seems that we cannot move on without having someone to snipe at . The fact that it is Matthew Le Tissier makes it all the sadder and distasteful... I agree that whilst nobody is above criticism if they do wrong, MLT has been hurt enough by the debacle that he doesnt need to have his friends(fans) turn on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 I think you make a number of relevant points there however I'm still struggling with why you continue to fire broadsides at Crouch with accusations that should equally be applied to Lowe and Wilde? As has been said none of them come out of this whole sorry mess with too much to crow about but Crouch certainly dug into his own pocket when asked. Whether that was for personal gain or purely as a supporter we can only but speculate. The decision making and judgement abilities of all the 3 (erstwhile) amigo's was to put it mildly - Somewhat lacking on many demonstrable occasions! I am absolutely over the moon that none of them has a position of power at the club anymore, and that we have in Liebherr and Cortese, 2 people who have shown more nouse in how to run a football club in 6 weeks than we have seen over the past 6 years ( longer in fact)! We were indeed very fortunate that they did'nt go away once Pinnacle gained exclusivity, and despite our poor start which I attribute to us not having a pre-season at all, I think we have a bright future to look forward to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 You didn't say it, you winked it. Hence the ballooning conspiracy theories. Hopefully then, I have put that particular comment to bed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 'Broadsides at Crouch'? Why TBH, I think there are a few of us that whilst acknowledging Lowe's greatest blunders also recognised some positives. Crouch also had positives for which he is rightly given teh plaudits, but he also made some blunders and therefoe when I see some of the sychophantic posts, its just a case of trying to redress the balance.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Nelson Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 I agree that whilst nobody is above criticism if they do wrong, MLT has been hurt enough by the debacle that he doesnt need to have his friends(fans) turn on him. When Phil started this thread it wasn't about the Pinnacle affair. It was about the sickness in the club and what has been going on for years, which has put us where we are with very doubtful attitudes in the club as a whole. It makes complete sense to try to purge the defeatism. Having had the team lose another two games in similar fashion to last year must make us question a lot of things. If like Phil says young players are terrified, than what is wrong? Aren't the same people around the Academy now as were then? To have a go at MLT is one of the most ridicolous ideas. Didn't we all notice the welcome he got when arriving at the Millwall game? To repeat: The problem was not 3 weeks of Pinnacle failures, but what has been going on over many years. Let's get rid of the ballast and move on properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 When Phil started this thread it wasn't about the Pinnacle affair. It was about the sickness in the club and what has been going on for years, which has put us where we are with very doubtful attitudes in the club as a whole. It makes complete sense to try to purge the defeatism. Having had the team lose another two games in similar fashion to last year must make us question a lot of things. If like Phil says young players are terrified, than what is wrong? Aren't the same people around the Academy now as were then? To have a go at MLT is one of the most ridicolous ideas. Didn't we all notice the welcome he got when arriving at the Millwall game? To repeat: The problem was not 3 weeks of Pinnacle failures, but what has been going on over many years. Let's get rid of the ballast and move on properly. Bingo! Thank god someone else sees that! To blame Matt for 3 weeks of failure when we've had Lowe, Wilde and Crouch at the helm is just farcical, especially when Le Tiss's most vocal critic on here never made a peep when Lowe was screwing this club into the ground... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST Randy Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 I think our current position in the League is more to do with Lowe's crass timing of administration rather than MLT's involvement with Pinnacle. We wouldn't have the minus 10 points if Lowe had gone into administration a week earlier. Is that why he is known as Stewpert?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Nelson Posted 21 August, 2009 Share Posted 21 August, 2009 I think our current position in the League is more to do with Lowe's crass timing of administration rather than MLT's involvement with Pinnacle. We wouldn't have the minus 10 points if Lowe had gone into administration a week earlier. Is that why he is known as Stewpert?? Sorry, but you've got it wrong. It was not several years of good work screwed up by a badly timed Administration. It was several years of awful decisionmaking, self-aggrandisement, backstabbing, interference and God knows what which led to the club having gone bust. BUST. That was the reason for Administration. The money had run out, the bank wouldn't honour our cheques, we were quite simply BANKRUPT. Note what Phil points out: The young players are terrified. Do you think that's because of a badly timed Administration!? As if it was some kind of business ploy. Please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now