TOPIC: SP on Twitter

I don't - I'm just saying make sure you can prove it's a fact.

Mullen103 wrote:
I don't have brilliant access to the board this week, but would really reiterate CUFCDeano's warning.

Mullen, we don't know it is or isn't fact until proven either way, so the same question could be asked to you, which I know you will have your own theory for, that said! But, for the time being can we ALL just be super cautious around certain topics and what we're saying? Pretty please.

Consequences of some ill-formed lexis on this message board could be quite nasty for our site Admin.

Mouldy wrote:
At the same time though can anyone coming on here with the "I know something but really cant say" please refrain or [censored] right off

Then there's no point me putting anything on here that isn't in the public knowledge or released by the club because others don't know it.

My message that got deleted was 100% correct but because it wasn't official it got deleted.

The easiest thing to do if someone posts something controversial is to ask them to put a disclaimer to take full responsibility of the post and the site admins take no responsibility.

I don't post rubbish, I'm certain Agar hatched the billionaire plan, I'm certain Nixon now knows of Agars involment and knows it's a scam and wants Agar to admit it. I haven't a clue as to SP involvement yet although it isn't a surprise.

The post saying about SP being frustrated in the length of time of Agars involvent might not be far of the mark.

cufcdeano wrote:
You just put "FACT" at the end of whatever you type surely?

Actually I do know a surefire way of backing up anything that you write, but i carnt divulge it on here, those who follow the clues will see what I mean

supalolz

Mullen103 wrote:
That disclaimer is already in the forum rules.

cufcdeano wrote:
Then you have nothing to worry about.

Obviously any abuse, the messages should be deleted but not posts that mention what's really going on.

So we're all agreed it's Keeth Raga then.

Thanks for the legal advice Mullen.

The soap opera continues.

Wouldn't you have thought that after SP's previous use of Twitter then they wouldn't let him anywhere near a computer again.

Any legal action from Agar should be thrown right back at SP as this is where the source came from.

As the board is currently clogged up with more 'stickys' than threads then could we have another one please called 'What's The SP With SP' where our favourite jocular window salesman talks about important issues from the world of football like how money is destroying the game and erm monkey tennis.

Mullen103 wrote:
Mullen you may of been right with some things but I think you are well off the mark with the Claire comments are sure she hasn't knocked you back! If you know Claire then fair enough but I am certainly you don't and the FACT that I can't see anything related to SP and that she is a supporter of CUOSC and she spoke so well about her supporter for Lapping I a trust meeting says she has nothing to do with SP.

Mullen103 wrote:
Exactly how far back do I need to scroll in order to solve today's cryptic crossword? Or do you just want to give us the general jist of things on here? Bearing in mind I've known Claire for +20 years it'd have to be something particularly startling for me to think she's not capable of this post, never mind not to be trusted when it comes to CUFC. She's stood up at forums and called JN out on the state of the club, has been openly critical of how the club is run. I really don't think you need to worry about Claire doing anything other than her the utmost best to get answers to the awkward questions for the fans, never mind her being potentially in a clique with SP etc - which is what you appear to be insinuating.

Deano - if we didn't know you better one might think that you are trying to deflect attention away from the question I, and others, have asked about what the Trust will do.....

Been doing a Q&A; with Keith Curle for their newsletter today, apparently.

Surely the Trust would be better off trying to get hold of Steve PATT for a Q&A;? I'd read the f_cker!

I bet it really, really winds Pattison up that the fans despise him as much as they admire Andrew Lapping.

This makes me very happy.

Emerdale, Coronation St, Eastenders and Carlisle United are all soaps me thinks.....

Dick Young and Lord Clarke should be encouraged to speak about why they were asked to leave the board too.
The whole thing is such a mess .

If the club aren't prepared to speak about it then it is down to the trust and the media to smoke out the truth.
What a joke the club can be at times. You have to feel sorry for Curle and the team after they are doing their best to bring back the feel good factor on the pitch while the board and owners do their best to screw it up yet again.

Great, so now we'll have another few months of Mullen's "I know things but I can't tell anybody else what I know" .

It was boring to the listen to it the whole way through the Lapping Saga and it'll be just as boring 2nd time around.

DeckchairBlue wrote:
I do tell them though

Oldhamblue wrote:
I also haven't had any answers as to whether Norman has asked any questions in the 1921 meetings and what the answer was.

People can vote for whoever they want. Whether it's coincidental Claire's application has been the only one SP has endorsed.

And is the only person who has said (s)he won't speak up about the ownership/investment issue....which is why I asked the Q as to who is counting the votes anyway

Mullen103 wrote:
Well I bet she is well happy she has his endorsement! Not! Are you just trying to discredit her Mullen?

I think folk are making a bigger deal of this fans rep post, than what it actually is. Feel sorry for the poor bugger who actually 'wins' this election.

Rsblue wrote:
Sounds plausible. Interesting that SP apparently hasn't replied to these messages. I think he has, but just deleted them so that he isn't hated any more than he already is.

Rsblue wrote:
No but I won't be voting for her, she even had a family member on the panel no surprise she made the final 4.

Mashie Niblick wrote:
I agree with this. Not because I think that this post is just window dressing to appease some of the fans like some do, but because I just don't see how much they can achieve.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong but I just can't see one fan being there will mean that we get a complete overhaul of the ticketing system, the pies become incredible, the pints flow like a river, and everyone has a fantastic relationship with the club. There will be progress made by having this post, but it will be small.

He recently appointed a Marketing Director who works full time and is well paid for it; and we've still had complaints that we can't tell whether he's done any work yet or not!

ChampagneSupernova wrote:

I bet it also winds him up that the club can't spell his name correctly...






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mullen103 wrote:
True, but every other member of the panel voted her into the final four...

chesterviabothel wrote:
Yes all those that were at the meeting voted for her. I expect Claire to win though the only one that won't challenge re ownership issues

Silence deafens more than screaming. Well done SP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As we are now allowing representatives of Virgin trains to decide who sits on the board will we have a say who sits on virgins board?

Tonyhemmings wrote: That would make him really clever wouldn't it? When in reality he's as thick as the castle doors.

Mullen103 wrote:
I am a little confused Mullen, I was one of 11 respresentives of sponsors and media etc to vote (separately). Anyhow it is the fans decide not me or you although we both have a vote as a Fan.

Studavo38 wrote:
I agree sort off but I don't understand why a representative of Virgin was appointed to the panel, what were you looking for?

Also did you attend the meeting?

Studavo38 wrote:
No it's not up to the fans actually mate - this has been my point. It's like an election in the old Soviet Union where you get to vote for some carefully vetted candidates - unlike a real election where everybody can stand....

Mullen103 wrote:
I think the purpose was to get it down to 4 and not just have the club choice which would of no doubt be criticised for had it been that way. I think it would be unfair for me to post what strengths etc I was looking for and I found it difficult to separate the applicants as they all had strengths.

Yes I was at the meeting when all the votes where totalled up and that was all that was done, everybody had already scored their votes.

What a baffoon! You really couldn't make it up.

I might be coming across as bitter but it isn't that.

It's just the fans rep is meant to be a way of making the club seem less corrupt and more open but with one of the selectors being family with one of the applicants stinks.

They were 2 I know off that applied but not in the final two. In my opinion if Stu attended the meeting then the voting should stop or Claire should withdraw as it's a conflict of interests.

Oldhamblue wrote:
But everyone could of put a application in?

Studavo38 wrote:
Then I have no trust whatsoever in the voting and call for it to be scrapped.

Mullen103 wrote:
Yep understand what you are saying but all the applicants were sent individually to the 11 markers and I know that many knew each other etc

As I said there was no changes to people's scores at the meeting, I had declared that I was related to Claire prior and had my votes effected the overall outcome it wouldn't of counted. However the top 4 were clearly the top 4 with or without my votes.

I also agree about being more open and having clarity hence why I am open about this have been all the way. I think Phil and Suzzanne are really trying to change things down at the club but there is a long way to go to get trust etc.

I for one hope whoever gets the role will challenge their thinking and get the support from all groups.

Hi, my Twitter is public & anyone can read my tweets. I can't control who follows me, you may not have noted I don't follow SP back. I'm happy for you to tweet me the threads to the conversations you're concerned about. Though I suppose the fact that they're public demonstrates I have no issue in people reading what I write.

I said I wouldn't go in 'all guns blazing' if successful because I don't believe that approach works. Of course I would raise the concerns we have about the owners of the club, I queried whether even PK & SK have much of an idea.

I have spoken via different methods about my own concerns about the running of the club. Again these have been public.

If you'd like to email me / tweet me / reply with your concerns I'd be happy to address this for you.

Best wishes, Claire

I don't know any of the reps standing but wonder if this topic should be titled lets scupper Claire or get back to the original theme of the post

Thanks For replying Claire.

I've too many reservations to vote for you but if you are our fans rep then I'll send you what I know and questions to ask at the meetings as I will the other 3 as it's important.

With the way things are at the club with the conspiracy theories about it just doesn't sit right for having a family member on the panel. I appreciate how the votes turned out regardless of his votes.

I don't get why he attended the meeting if all it was was to count votes.

I'm not bitter I just like fairness. I didn't expect to be on the final 4 due to how I applied but if I was any of the other applicants, I know of 2 others that aren't happy, I wouldn't be happy also hence why I think it should be stopped and re ran with all applicants as they was only 11 including me.

Should we perhaps leave it at that Mullen? I can see you're frustrated and think it's been done the wrong way mate but surely some effort from the club is better than none? Personally, I have no problem with Stu and Claire being related (only through marriage I believe?). To make the final 4, I obviously got enough votes off other people so they must have believed my pitch and maybe, just perhaps, the other applicants that didn't make it, didn't tick the boxes so to speak of the panel?

As for the SP on Twitter thread, anybody heard anything else? - can't really get on Twitter unless I'm in a bar in Crete

Mullen103 wrote:
I attended the meeting as I was off work that day and was interested to see who was in the shortlist. As you seem to understand the fact the outcome would of been the same either way, I can't see how it wasn't a fair process. I am a massive fan and have done my best to help and support the club and will continue to do so in every way a can. Sorry you think the way you do but I do believe the club is trying and I will support any fan rep any way i can.

Mouldy wrote:
But your in the final 4 so it doesn't concern you. I voted for you as you were the best of the four but they were 2 others I would of voted for before you that weren't in the final 4.

I am frustrated yes as it's yet another strange and unfair secretative thing the club is doing and stinks.

But yes I'll leave it on this post as I sort of hijacked it a bit and apologise about that.

Nothing further on SP twitter although I did get a response from Andy bell asking me what was going on. He's gone quiet now when I asked him if he was part of the scam or taken in like Nixon and Jenkins.

Aye, give over talking shite, Mullen. You're normally not bad crack, but you really are coming across as bitter now. You shit stirring git! It's about time you started backing up some of your claims on here, instead of giving it the old "been asked not to say owt" line.

You're not Scouse by any chance, are you?