1. Kessler
  2. Main Forum
  3. 23-05-2021 16:47
Can you confirm whether something a poster on the independent cufc said regarding your consortium is correct


"The negotiations between the two sides had reached a point where somebody from the Holdings side contacted the individual members of the Lapping Consortium asking them to irrevocably commit their stated amounts of money. They refused to do so and you can ostensibly believe that the Holdings board quite reasonably instructed their legal team to formally terminate the entire matter.

But read on a bit. For a takeover to occur involving a consortium of more than 6 people those people have to be given a totally up-to-date prospectus by the consortium leader before they commit any funds. At this time Andrew Lapping was preparing this prospectus such that it was totally up to date and entirely accurate at that stage of the proceedings. "
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
"This two-bit takeover effort" as piglet put it.
he never passes a chance to rubbish Laffy.
  1. 23-05-2021 17:15
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 1
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
"This two-bit takeover effort" as piglet put it.
he never passes a chance to rubbish Laffy.


I always thought it fell through because Laffy promised he could raise a certain amount, and when the BOD went to the other members of the consortium to verify that, they said they hadn't actually promised the amount Laffy said. If that was the case, I could understand why they stopped negotiations at that point. But not sure if that's what actually happened?
  1. 23-05-2021 17:26
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 2
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Kes

Let me put basic questions to you

Would you sink money into a football club without seeing;

1.a financial report on the current finances and;

2.a set of revised shareholder Agreements setting out how your investment will sit in the new structure.

All wrapped up in a Share Prospectus to stay within the remit of the FCA.

I hope you wouldn’t invest in any company or business without going through that DD.

That might be how you do it in Carlisle but not with me
  1. 23-05-2021 17:53
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 3
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Kes

Let me put basic questions to you

Would you sink money into a football club without seeing;

1.a financial report on the current finances and;

2.a set of revised shareholder Agreements setting out how your investment will sit in the new structure.

All wrapped up in a Share Prospectus to stay within the remit of the FCA.

I hope you wouldn’t invest in any company or business without going through that DD.

That might be how you do it in Carlisle but not with me



Probably not, but I don't see how any of that really answers my question though Laffy? They said that you told them you could secure investment of a certain amount, but when they tried to verify that with the other members of the consortium it turned out they hadn't promised that full amount.

Let's imagine that you're selling your Garmin hat and want £100. I approach you as the leader of a small consortium to buy it, I can put in £60 and another investor called Mullen is offering to put in the other £40. You're happy to sell it to us as long as we raise the full amount, but when you contact Mullen it turns out he was only offering to put £20 into the consortium and not the £40 I've claimed. Won't you now be skeptical about whether we can actually afford to buy it? From what I understand that's kind of what happened with your consortium, at least according to the club. Are they wrong, and if so, what actually happened?
  1. 23-05-2021 18:05
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 4
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
The problem with the EWM loan is that it was given to the same owners/people/structure as before that failed, with no accountability. All that’s been achieved is a 2.25 million debt, no success and a bit of football fortune.

Nixon admitted that if the loan was to be called in then we’d be in trouble, therefore to me that means the football fortune won’t cover it.

Lapping deal involved multiple people with accountability and structure/personal change. Laffys company hyperdrive is successful and based on that model.

I know who’d I’d rather have and run our club.
  1. 23-05-2021 18:05
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 5
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
The problem with the EWM loan is that it was given to the same owners/people/structure as before that failed, with no accountability. All that’s been achieved is a 2.25 million debt, no success and a bit of football fortune.

Nixon admitted that if the loan was to be called in then we’d be in trouble, therefore to me that means the football fortune won’t cover it.

Lapping deal involved multiple people with accountability and structure/personal change. Laffys company hyperdrive is successful and based on that model.

I know who’d I’d rather have and run our club.


Laffy would be preferable to the current regime. He has ambition and drive, things I definitely want to see in anyone running the club. But if he promised his consortium could raise a specific amount, but in reality they had pledged a smaller amount than he said, I can understand why the BOD would be reluctant to continue negotiations. The BOD seemed to suggest that's what happened, I don't know if I believe them or not but I'd like to know Laffy's side of the story.
  1. 23-05-2021 18:09
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 6
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Kes-I was very confident of raising the money.Otherwise why spend a year of my life and £40k in professionals doing DD.

I invest a lot in Flotations.The course of events as usually as follows

-lawyers and accountants prepare a document called a Prospectus.This is based on the investment case agreed with the current management and owners.

-prior to release of Prospectus, market soundings with potential investors undertaken to gauge interest.

-Prospectus then presented on a Roadshow by management to interested parties.

-Sponsor then builds the ‘book’ -basically seeking hard commitment from investors


Basically I got to the stage where the Prospectus was ready to present to the interested parties-some were very committed, others wanted to see the plan in a document which I would suggest is sensible.It was NOT viewed by the Club simply because they pulled the plug beforehand.

It’s all academic-they did me a big favour as frankly I wouldn’t want to be associated with the last few grim years and I don’t do mediocrity.It would also have been a major distraction for me with DPE, Hindley Circuits and Hyperdrive as Mullen notes.Basically I was lucky to not get involved.

People go on about me wanting a takeover-this is so far from reality.I wanted a clearout with someone called a CEO running it professionally-I wanted to step back and let it run that way.JN was to look after the EFL stuff simply because it’s not the one way ticket some believe.It was also to take the burden away from AJ as he’s done his bit and more.
  1. 23-05-2021 19:00
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 7
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Kes-I was very confident of raising the money.Otherwise why spend a year of my life and £40k in professionals doing DD.

I invest a lot in Flotations.The course of events as usually as follows

-lawyers and accountants prepare a document called a Prospectus.This is based on the investment case agreed with the current management and owners.

-prior to release of Prospectus, market soundings with potential investors undertaken to gauge interest.

-Prospectus then presented on a Roadshow by management to interested parties.

-Sponsor then builds the ‘book’ -basically seeking hard commitment from investors


Basically I got to the stage where the Prospectus was ready to present to the interested parties-some were very committed, others wanted to see the plan in a document which I would suggest is sensible.It was NOT viewed by the Club simply because they pulled the plug beforehand.

It’s all academic-they did me a big favour as frankly I wouldn’t want to be associated with the last few grim years and I don’t do mediocrity.It would also have been a major distraction for me with DPE, Hindley Circuits and Hyperdrive as Mullen notes.Basically I was lucky to not get involved.

People go on about me wanting a takeover-this is so far from reality.I wanted a clearout with someone called a CEO running it professionally-I wanted to step back and let it run that way.JN was to look after the EFL stuff simply because it’s not the one way ticket some believe.It was also to take the burden away from AJ as he’s done his bit and more.


I'm not disputing the hard work you put in, nor do I think you wanted a takeover. I also think you would be a better choice than the current lot. But I can see why this way of doing it might have caused issues. If I own a club and you come to me saying you have a consortium that can raise a specific amount, I'm not just going to take your word. What about due diligence? I'd be approaching the other members independently of you to verify that they have indeed committed to investing what you say they are. If they say they aren't yet fully committed then I might start to doubt that you can raise what you say. Was there any other way of doing this that could have avoided that issue?
  1. 23-05-2021 20:31
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 8
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Whoever does eventuality take over they must know one thing..... none of the 3 amigos should have any involvement with CUFC every again in any capacity whatsoever! Failure to do this would put us right back in the current mess.
  1. 23-05-2021 20:46
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 9
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
No Kes-it’s the law.I am regulated by the FCA and offering shares to a group of individuals is a criminal offence unless under a set of rules
  1. 23-05-2021 21:05
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 10
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
No Kes-it’s the law.I am regulated by the FCA and offering shares to a group of individuals is a criminal offence unless under a set of rules


Did you explain that to the BOD, and that doing what they asked would require you to break the law then?
  1. 23-05-2021 21:06
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 11
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
"This two-bit takeover effort" as piglet put it.
he never passes a chance to rubbish Laffy.


I thought that it was in poor taste.

A fan and successful businessman, especially in the current climate, wants to take over the club - short of a sugar daddy owner then what better do folk expect?

I would have thought that Piglet would have embraced the opportunity for an owner who would actually answer his questions and concerns rather than watching a bloke in a sling spout bullshit over a webcam for two hours.
  1. 23-05-2021 22:07
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 12
ccu
Site Admin
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
rather than watching a bloke in a sling spout bullshit over a webcam for two hours.


Niche market that Munchy!

Shit! Sorry, wrong Forum...

:p
  1. 23-05-2021 22:24
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 13
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Kes - not sure if you are being deliberately obtrusive here but, using your analogy:- potentail buyer asks how much you would want for the hat if he makes an offer. Seller tells him. Buyer says I can raise that, and sets about doing it.
If buyer does not raise the dosh, the hat stays with the seller, if he does he gets to wear it, and show it off in the Evening News and Star.
It's called business.
  1. 24-05-2021 10:27
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 14
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Maybe people said they would give that ammount of money to Laffy's bid & when the board went behind his back to ask these people, they maybe went oh no i never said that much as they didnt want to upset the board.
Maybe other things were said to these people that made them change there mind to cover their a$$.
  1. 24-05-2021 12:08
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 15
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
You have to put yourself into the position that Laffy was in - Nixon always spouts that the club cannot be sold willy nilly to anyone and we need succession and all this talk about a ship with a no rudder nonsense if the three left abruptly.

Then you come along and therefore have to explain to them your good intentions, they agree with you but then [censored] you off stealing your business plan and try to discredit you in the process.

You also have to look at the bigger picture, most of the take-over talk in recent years have been from unfitting suitors that are usually faceless - I don't reckon a fan and a successful businessman would have risked egg on his face by not being able to stump up the cash - the deal hadn't even got to that stage, then he has gone on to be even more successful.

Just my opinion of course but I reckon that we could have done far worse.
  1. 24-05-2021 13:16
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 16
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
It was 6 years ago-it’s dead.How time flies.

Kes-just come off a call on another PLC fundraiser.Guess what-a working example of cash raising in the 21st century under MAR and the FCA.

-would you consider investing in this?
-show me the document.
-ok-how much are you wanting from me and what price?
-what are you going to do with the cash?
-when do you need the money?
-send me the paperwork-I’m in.

Kes-thats how it works.The DD and legal drafts weren’t reviewed by the BOD-think about it.Instead, ‘dubious business practices’ blah blah.

Meantime, I’ve won the Queens Award for Enterprise with Hyperdrive which had 3 employees when I took it on-now 85.We doubled our turnover in the pandemic and will double it again this year.How?By employing a team of professionals and giving them clear direction and autonomy.The best is yet to come and boy will it be sweet for me and all the hard working staff.
  1. 24-05-2021 13:32
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 17
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Such a shame Laffy and Lummy couldn't have got together and put a plan together for a takeover. Laffys plan to employ an accountable CEO to run things would be the right approach. Everything involving our present owners and the trust drags on forever with lots of promises and no delivery.
  1. 24-05-2021 15:45
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 18
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Headline in N+S online says Nixon still claims they don’t stand in the way of a takeover.
Strange headline when it’s clear to me they do.
  1. 24-05-2021 16:15
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 19
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
It was 6 years ago-it’s dead.How time flies.

Kes-just come off a call on another PLC fundraiser.Guess what-a working example of cash raising in the 21st century under MAR and the FCA.

-would you consider investing in this?
-show me the document.
-ok-how much are you wanting from me and what price?
-what are you going to do with the cash?
-when do you need the money?
-send me the paperwork-I’m in.

Kes-thats how it works.The DD and legal drafts weren’t reviewed by the BOD-think about it.Instead, ‘dubious business practices’ blah blah.

Meantime, I’ve won the Queens Award for Enterprise with Hyperdrive which had 3 employees when I took it on-now 85.We doubled our turnover in the pandemic and will double it again this year.How?By employing a team of professionals and giving them clear direction and autonomy.The best is yet to come and boy will it be sweet for me and all the hard working staff.



Ok so what did the other people in the consortium say to the BOD when contacted? Because at a previous forum, Patt's version of events seemed to be that you'd told them your consortium could raise a certain amount, but when they contacted other members of the consortium, those members said they hadn't actually offered to put in as much money as you claimed they had.

I don't know much about how the process actually works, but if it was an administrative issue, the prospectus not being out yet or whatever, could you not have tried explaining that to them? If this was something you cared a lot about, why just give up?
  1. 24-05-2021 16:42
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 20
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Kes

It was very clear they didn’t want me so no point in pursuing-look at Prince Harry as an example of washing dirty linen.Of course, relegation had been staved off so maybe they didn’t need me other than soften up the Trust and FS.

Anyway, David Allen was probably right in his parting shot.He’s not done too badly since refocusing on his business.
  1. 24-05-2021 18:13
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 21
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
It was very clear they didn’t want me so no point in pursuing-look at Prince Harry as an example of washing dirty linen.


I'm not saying you should have done that, but if it was just a small administrative issue couldn't you have contacted them and explained? You maybe didn't need to give up so easily and quickly. And I know many here would have preferred you had kept pushing and eventually got a deal.
  1. 24-05-2021 18:19
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 22
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
It was very clear they didn’t want me so no point in pursuing-look at Prince Harry as an example of washing dirty linen.


I'm not saying you should have done that, but if it was just a small administrative issue couldn't you have contacted them and explained? You maybe didn't need to give up so easily and quickly. And I know many here would have preferred you had kept pushing and eventually got a deal.


The club said they was a multi billionaire interested though. The one that turned out to be a pizza guy.
  1. 24-05-2021 18:23
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 23
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Kes

I was told there was a Petro chemical billionaire and asked to stand down-fair enough.Little did we know that Petro chemical actually meant ‘salt and vinegar?’
  1. 24-05-2021 18:30
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 24
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Kes

I was told there was a Petro chemical billionaire and asked to stand down-fair enough


So what was it you were mentioning about the law and the FCA then, if you stood down willingly?

From what I can understand the BOD claimed to have stopped negotiations with you because they had doubts of whether you could actually raise what you claimed. You said members of your consortium had promised specific amounts, but when the BOD went to ask them, they said oh no we never promised Laffy that much. What would cause them to promise you one amount, but then say a different/less amount when asked by the BOD?
  1. 24-05-2021 18:58
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 25
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I could be wrong but it sounds like buying a house - you don't hand over any cash until you have had your survey done.

This is Nixon up to his old tricks again, if I was one of the people putting in cash and Nixon approached me then I would also be a but vague about the amount as it is none of his business unless I didn't have the cash to sign on the line and it seems he was only trying to tap them up anyhow by keeping his position and taking other peoples money, cutting Laffy out of the deal and probably offering them a few perks.

I know that business is business but this doesn't sound very honourable to me, I like to sleep at night with a clear conscience.
  1. 24-05-2021 19:28
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 26
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I could be wrong but it sounds like buying a house - you don't hand over any cash until you have had your survey done.

This is Nixon up to his old tricks again, if I was one of the people putting in cash and Nixon approached me then I would also be a but vague about the amount as it is none of his business unless I didn't have the cash to sign on the line and it seems he was only trying to tap them up anyhow by keeping his position and taking other peoples money, cutting Laffy out of the deal and probably offering them a few perks.

I know that business is business but this doesn't sound very honourable to me, I like to sleep at night with a clear conscience.



But what if he was approaching you precisely to verify whether you had the cash and were willing to commit? I don't understand what purpose you being vague would actually serve in that situation.
  1. 24-05-2021 19:41
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 27
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I could be wrong but it sounds like buying a house - you don't hand over any cash until you have had your survey done.

This is Nixon up to his old tricks again, if I was one of the people putting in cash and Nixon approached me then I would also be a but vague about the amount as it is none of his business unless I didn't have the cash to sign on the line and it seems he was only trying to tap them up anyhow by keeping his position and taking other peoples money, cutting Laffy out of the deal and probably offering them a few perks.

I know that business is business but this doesn't sound very honourable to me, I like to sleep at night with a clear conscience.



But what if he was approaching you precisely to verify whether you had the cash and were willing to commit? I don't understand what purpose you being vague would actually serve in that situation.


Is sounded like he still wanted the cash but not the Laffy deal - who knows what was said, if it was me I would be a bit suspicious of him.

If I was Nixon and really didn't think he had the cash then I would have let the whole thing come to a conclusion and say 'I told you so' - he didn't let this happen because it would have went through and he would have been out on his arse, it was easier to do exactly what Nixon did.

Bit strange Nixon never rubbished Kurdi though, Kurdi himself had a pop at Nixon however.

Worst thing ever Fred giving Nixon any shares - Jenkins would have brought him in anyhow I guess.

There seems to be a common theme here....

I do reckon that Nixon is getting too old to be bothered and will bin it in a few years anyhow - wouldn't amaze me then if he sold his shares to the 'pop man' in Maryport just to get rid.
  1. 24-05-2021 20:09
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 28
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Is sounded like he still wanted the cash but not the Laffy deal - who knows what was said, if it was me I would be a bit suspicious of him.

If I was Nixon and really didn't think he had the cash then I would have let the whole thing come to a conclusion and say 'I told you so' - he didn't let this happen because it would have went through and he would have been out on his arse, it was easier to do exactly what Nixon did.


I don't think they really wanted the Laffy deal either, they were looking for a way to get out of it and the way the consortium seemed to have gone about it made it easy for them to throw up the excuse of well we can't be sure they can actually get the funds.


I do reckon that Nixon is getting too old to be bothered and will bin it in a few years anyhow - wouldn't amaze me then if he sold his shares to the 'pop man' in Maryport just to get rid.


I'll pay all of the directors £2 each for the club. Seems fair, they get a 100% return on their £1 investments. It's an open offer, can put the cash in an escrow account if they doubt my ability to raise it :p
  1. 24-05-2021 20:13
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 29
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
The way Nixon went at me, via my employer, and what he said to my employer made it very clear that Nixon (can’t speak for the rest) didn’t want the Lapping deal or it even in the public domain.

I bet he was livid it came out and gathered public support but a simple chat to AJ put paid to it along with getting that disgraced bookie bloke (can’t remember his name) onside with the billionaire bollocks.

Nixon has family down south so I imagine he is quite happy in his position and getting free train travel while attending EFL/FA meetings in the big smoke.
  1. 24-05-2021 20:21
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 30
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
The way Nixon went at me, via my employer, and what he said to my employer made it very clear that Nixon (can’t speak for the rest) didn’t want the Lapping deal or it even in the public domain.

I bet he was livid it came out and gathered public support but a simple chat to AJ put paid to it along with getting that disgraced bookie bloke (can’t remember his name) onside with the billionaire bollocks.


If Nixon or the BOD as a whole didn't want the Laffy deal going ahead, they would look for any excuse to call off negotiations. A discrepancy where Laffy has said a consortium member can raise one amount, but that person individually says they promised a lesser amount, becomes that excuse. The consortium really should have seen that coming and taken steps to prevent it. I would be a lot happier with his consortium at the club instead of what we have now.
  1. 24-05-2021 20:25
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 31
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
If we are being honest folks forgetting the football part of it , If you had a business or something that you had a financial interest in and someone publicly said things that you perceived to be private and didn't want public as it may damage your prospects the vast majority would return the favour to that person whether it was calling their mam, employer or even some may take it further eg Barry . Its only the football that puts people's nose out of joint , if it had been a scaffolding firm Mullen would have had a scaffolder at the door .
Anyway it was years ago and Mullen and Nixon are sorted have reached a sort of truce.
  1. 24-05-2021 20:33
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 32
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
If we are being honest folks forgetting the football part of it , If you had a business or something that you had a financial interest in and someone publicly said things that you perceived to be private and didn't want public as it may damage your prospects the vast majority would return the favour to that person whether it was calling their mam, employer or even some may take it further eg Barry . Its only the football that puts people's nose out of joint , if it had been a scaffolding firm Mullen would have had a scaffolder at the door .
Anyway it was years ago and Mullen and Nixon are sorted have reached a sort of truce.


What reason would one of the scaffolders have to go to mullens door? I can't think of any, other than as some kind of intimidation attempt, which is unacceptable and absolutely not the same as Mullen talking negatively about their business.
  1. 24-05-2021 20:48
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 33
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
It's a metaphor, the point being JN called his boss and a scaffolder may do something different. I personally have no idea what I would do. Would you sit back and do nothing in return ? I am fairly sure most of us including Richard would do something in reply if we were being honest if a third party did something that they deem to affect their interests. Ps the Mullen thing is just an example. I am fairly sure no one would sit back and take it lying down, they would certainly front up the third oarty and many would return the favour
  1. 24-05-2021 21:10
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 34
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I do know a strongly worded cease and decist or else letter from a legal firm works in many cases. But obviously in this case it was handled by calling his boss. I have seen it handled by a letter to an employer saying that they didn't want x working on any of our projects in future and didn't give any details. Which ultimately lead to the end of employment due to no other work.
  1. 24-05-2021 21:18
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 35
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
It's a metaphor, the point being JN called his boss and a scaffolder may do something different. I personally have no idea what I would do. Would you sit back and do nothing in return ? I am fairly sure most of us including Richard would do something in reply if we were being honest if a third party did something that they deem to affect their interests. Ps the Mullen thing is just an example. I am fairly sure no one would sit back and take it lying down, they would certainly front up the third oarty and many would return the favour


But what is the aim behind that? Let's say you confront the person and they say yes they criticized you, and stand by their comments. What are you going to do then? Because if you intimidate them or assault them (as the comment about going to someones house seemed to imply) that puts you firmly in the wrong, not them.

I do know a strongly worded cease and decist or else letter from a legal firm works in many cases. But obviously in this case it was handled by calling his boss. I have seen it handled by a letter to an employer saying that they didn't want x working on any of our projects in future and didn't give any details. Which ultimately lead to the end of employment due to no other work.


Most people who send cease and desist letters are just doing it as an intimidation tactic and won't actually follow through. And anyway, I think all of these examples you're giving just support my original point about why some people might not want to provide their name. Why open yourself up to problems with an employer when you don't have to?
  1. 24-05-2021 21:36
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 36
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
End of the day, it would appear that there will be no new blood or ideas at Carlisle United whilst Nixon is there - and it would seem if you don't like it go and moan to Holdsworth or Clibbens as that is what they are paid for.

It makes me sick that they probably think that we have 'Done a Morecambe' by finishing tenth.

Are EWM actually happy with this shite - no bloody wonder their shops fell on their arses, we are lucky that there isn't eleven Bangladeshi kids running their little hearts out as our starting eleven.
  1. 24-05-2021 21:56
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 37
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Why say something snide if you haven't got the courage to stand up for your thoughts . Put it this way if most of us were selling a house and you said something to endanger that sale most would send the letter and if you didn't desist most would follow it through. Oh and we would get the trust to pressure the mods to find out who you are ?
  1. 24-05-2021 21:56
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 38
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Are EWM actually happy with this shite - no bloody wonder their shops fell on their arses


Why should he care, he's managed to walk away from all of EWM's bills while still keeping his fortune. One of the reasons I dislike capitalism is that the rich seem to get an entirely different set of rules to play by. Do you think any of us would be allowed to run up bills, tell the bank we can't pay it off, but then show up a while later throwing money around again?

I found the recent Gamestop stuff quite interesting. Billionaires were trying to short some stocks, and a bunch of amateurs on reddit got together to play the market, drive the price up, and cost the billionaires a fortune in the process. The capitalists who always talk about the free market suddenly started crying that it wasn't fair they had lost money, there should be regulation to stop this sort of thing, and some went so far as saying that "casual" investors shouldn't be allowed in the stock market. It felt like these people wanted a form of capitalism where they can make profit, but nobody else is allowed to. The rich use certain tactics to make a profit, and were now throwing a tantrum that other people had learned how to use those tactics against them. You probably heard about it Laffy, what do you think? Should the average person be banned from investing just because they might cost a billionaire some money? Surely it's not a free market unless everyone is free to enter..
  1. 24-05-2021 22:32
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 39
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Why say something snide if you haven't got the courage to stand up for your thoughts . Put it this way if most of us were selling a house and you said something to endanger that sale most would send the letter and if you didn't desist most would follow it through. Oh and we would get the trust to pressure the mods to find out who you are ?


It depends on what was said. If you said something outright false about the house then fair enough. But if you were just giving an opinion then that's a bit different, as you are allowed to have and voice an honest opinion.

I don't support people having anonymous accounts if they use it to post hate speech, defamation, racism etc. But I do support people being allowed them if they keep the discussion civil, and use it to raise talking points they might not be totally comfortable attaching their name to.
  1. 24-05-2021 22:53
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 40
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
That's true but the person it was aimed then has the right of redress so you have to live with that . As for anonymous accounts that's fair enough but some don't do that and use it it to just stir the pot and make snidey remarks knowing that they won't be held to account. If you can't stand up and say something then you should question whether you should be saying it at all. In the workplace suggestion boxes maybe but that is not the case on here as its highly unlikely anyone here works at the club ATM.
  1. 25-05-2021 07:58
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 41
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I go to bed and wake up to this Kes-FFS.For the avoidance of doubt, I have no interest in faffing about with the football club in its present form.It’s dead, gone and whether they made the right call or not is for them to decide.I know where I sit and I’m entirely comfortable with it.

I look at things under EROI-energy return on investment.The energy return can be cash, personal satisfaction, whatever-but I like to look at things in a way where there is something positive that comes out of it.After the dubious chat, I saw absolutely zero upside of benefit in having a public debate and just moved on.

As stated earlier, I would be very happy to help address the stadium issue with other grown ups.But it would not involve ownership by the Club or those who currently own it
  1. 25-05-2021 09:26
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 42
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

As for anonymous accounts that's fair enough but some don't do that and use it it to just stir the pot and make snidey remarks knowing that they won't be held to account


I am fairly open in my dislike of how the BOD are running the club, but I think the points I raise are fair rather than snidey, and I take part in the discussion in good faith.
  1. 25-05-2021 10:12
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 43
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I go to bed and wake up to this Kes-FFS.For the avoidance of doubt, I have no interest in faffing about with the football club in its present form.It’s dead, gone and whether they made the right call or not is for them to decide.I know where I sit and I’m entirely comfortable with it.

I look at things under EROI-energy return on investment.The energy return can be cash, personal satisfaction, whatever-but I like to look at things in a way where there is something positive that comes out of it.After the dubious chat, I saw absolutely zero upside of benefit in having a public debate and just moved on.

As stated earlier, I would be very happy to help address the stadium issue with other grown ups.But it would not involve ownership by the Club or those who currently own it


Fair enough. Thoughts on crypto at the minute? How much of your total portfolio would you be comfortable holding in it? I just have a very small amount as I don't like markets where a 50% drop overnight is a regular thing, but for some I guess it can be very lucrative if you time it right.
  1. 25-05-2021 10:14
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 44
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I don’t invest in anything I don’t understand

I think crypto is the next Tulip craze
  1. 25-05-2021 11:13
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 45
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Did you have a good sleep?
  1. 25-05-2021 11:39
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 46
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Sorry Kessler but I don't believe you. Mullen etc stand up and say their piece whereas you are sniping from behind the fence and running away in case they find out who you are. For the record I am at a stage in life where I am largely indifferent as there are more important things in life than a hobby/ watching football so watch what's in front of me. Or rather I did until covid came along. When I have a complaint NC has an email address that's handy for that kind of thing , experience has shown it works better than whingeing to others about it.
  1. 25-05-2021 12:31
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 47
ccu
Site Admin
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
When I have a complaint NC has an email address that's handy for that kind of thing


You can’t be suggesting a sensible idea like that Bob!

How normal...

:D
  1. 25-05-2021 12:57
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 48
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Sorry Kessler but I don't believe you. Mullen etc stand up and say their piece whereas you are sniping from behind the fence and running away in case they find out who you are. For the record I am at a stage in life where I am largely indifferent as there are more important things in life than a hobby/ watching football so watch what's in front of me. Or rather I did until covid came along. When I have a complaint NC has an email address that's handy for that kind of thing , experience has shown it works better than whingeing to others about it.


I can't think of any reason why you would need to know somebodys name unless you wanted to be able to use that information against them in some way at a later date.

Going back to the example you gave of a scaffolder going to Mullens door because he said something negative, I would say that's very inappropriate of the scaffolder. Mullen is allowed to say something negative, the scaffolder is free to disagree and criticize Mullen but he is not free to bully, intimidate or harass Mullen in his personal life. And I would say that going to someones front door does cross that line, because it is needlessly confrontational and there is a clear implication of intimidation/threats. Doubt we'll agree but there's my view on it.
  1. 25-05-2021 13:10
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 49
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Sorry Kessler but I don't believe you. Mullen etc stand up and say their piece whereas you are sniping from behind the fence and running away in case they find out who you are. For the record I am at a stage in life where I am largely indifferent as there are more important things in life than a hobby/ watching football so watch what's in front of me. Or rather I did until covid came along. When I have a complaint NC has an email address that's handy for that kind of thing , experience has shown it works better than whingeing to others about it.


I can't think of any reason why you would need to know somebodys name unless you wanted to be able to use that information against them in some way at a later date.

Going back to the example you gave of a scaffolder going to Mullens door because he said something negative, I would say that's very inappropriate of the scaffolder. Mullen is allowed to say something negative, the scaffolder is free to disagree and criticize Mullen but he is not free to bully, intimidate or harass Mullen in his personal life. And I would say that going to someones front door does cross that line, because it is needlessly confrontational and there is a clear implication of intimidation/threats. Doubt we'll agree but there's my view on it.


Ffs it was an example an analogy maybe not that great in the circumstances but these things happen sadly and there was that ‘thing’ between you and northern soul where I’m sure he threatened to turn up at your door (and others) although doubt he was serious ;)
  1. 25-05-2021 13:45
  2. Main Forum
  3. # 50
  • Page :
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3


There are no replies made for this post yet.
Be one of the first to reply to this post!