| John Moores 13:58 - Oct 30 with 24924 views | blaine_scfc |
Anyone know anything about this guy? American businessman who wants to invest in us named on SSN. |  | | |  |
| John Moores on 16:45 - Nov 2 with 1560 views | 3swan |
| John Moores on 14:03 - Nov 2 by _ |
Is it important someone has to be the biggest Swans fan alive to give competent, professional advice? You can see where that approach has got us with the appointment of the clubs Commercial Director.
Shaky's a real character but knows his stuff. Let's not roundly (and I don't mean you here in particular, not at all) gang up on him. |
I didn’t mean that you had to be a big Swans fan to give advice, but did mean that a true fan would put differences aside for the wellbeing of the club.
You say that he knows his stuff, so I assume you know him? All I’ve seen is a username giving comments on a forum.
I’m not bothered who he is, but if he has the required knowledge, and that the Trust isn’t already getting that type of professional advice, then the more the merrier. As he has stated he has a problem with Phil S (and Phil him) he could still have contact with the Trust maybe with Huw Cooze?
No need for a personality clash to get in the way of what could be a crossroads for our club
To add I’m not ganging up (even though you didn’t aim it at me), I give my thoughts as I see them and that includes the Trust when necessary. [Post edited 2 Nov 2014 16:50]
|  | | |
| John Moores on 16:50 - Nov 2 with 1534 views | Darran |
| John Moores on 16:45 - Nov 2 by 3swan |
I didn’t mean that you had to be a big Swans fan to give advice, but did mean that a true fan would put differences aside for the wellbeing of the club.
You say that he knows his stuff, so I assume you know him? All I’ve seen is a username giving comments on a forum.
I’m not bothered who he is, but if he has the required knowledge, and that the Trust isn’t already getting that type of professional advice, then the more the merrier. As he has stated he has a problem with Phil S (and Phil him) he could still have contact with the Trust maybe with Huw Cooze?
No need for a personality clash to get in the way of what could be a crossroads for our club
To add I’m not ganging up (even though you didn’t aim it at me), I give my thoughts as I see them and that includes the Trust when necessary. [Post edited 2 Nov 2014 16:50]
|
Shakys admitted he's not a fan in the sense of the word in the past,he's never seen us play in the flesh either he just heard about us playing nice stuff a couple of years ago and started watching on the net,he's also criticised the Trust from day one even though he's never wanted to join.
So 3swan you're correct. |  |
| |
| John Moores on 16:53 - Nov 2 with 1524 views | 3swan |
| John Moores on 16:50 - Nov 2 by Darran |
Shakys admitted he's not a fan in the sense of the word in the past,he's never seen us play in the flesh either he just heard about us playing nice stuff a couple of years ago and started watching on the net,he's also criticised the Trust from day one even though he's never wanted to join.
So 3swan you're correct. |
Ok if he has said that.
My feelings still stand, if he thinks he can help, then posting on here is not the way forward. Offer his services to the Trust where true details can be discussed (Well as much as can be) | | | |
| John Moores on 17:07 - Nov 2 with 1488 views | ItchySphincter |
I think Shakes has been extended an invite to join the trust and contribute but has decided not too. Each to their own. |  |
| |
| John Moores on 19:50 - Nov 2 with 1353 views | perchrockjack |
Derogatory remarks?
Words fail.
Right on cue !
Still, we did "win" as it was a spiritual victory and we ve beaten the soft touch toy boys cache we once had.Some would have preferred us lose no doubt, but still it was great stuff..
As for pacemaker, well he s now in the throng that have challenged the Prince of the Tabanacle and those who really do see Themselves as best fans..
You go your opinions and look out if they don't fit the mould. | |
| |
| John Moores on 19:56 - Nov 2 with 1341 views | _ |
| John Moores on 19:50 - Nov 2 by perchrockjack |
Derogatory remarks?
Words fail.
Right on cue !
Still, we did "win" as it was a spiritual victory and we ve beaten the soft touch toy boys cache we once had.Some would have preferred us lose no doubt, but still it was great stuff..
As for pacemaker, well he s now in the throng that have challenged the Prince of the Tabanacle and those who really do see Themselves as best fans..
You go your opinions and look out if they don't fit the mould. |
2 posts today.... exactly the same thing....again.... 100%
 |  |
| |
| John Moores on 23:38 - Nov 2 with 1203 views | Davillin |
[I posted this on the Garry Monk thread, but want to add it here, as it applies to both.]
Here's an important point that I believe has not yet been made, and needs to be.
One of the central reasons why we established a supporters trust was to have our own representative on the club board. And he or she was never intended to be a pasteboard dummy, either, but both knowledgeable about all of the business of the club and having voting power, even though not a majority interest.
I have 100% confidence that our Trust director knows everything that's going on [unless there is some fraudulent behaviour by SCFC, which I seriously doubt], and that all of that information is going to the Trust Board as it must. He has no legal or ethical alternative but to keep the Trust Board completely informed.
The Trust Board know what we do not know, but must either surmise, or get from leaks to the media, or from what Dai Silent's brother-in-law heard from a mate at his work. I'm certain that some of that is accurate to one degree or another, but it is not sufficiently accurate for the Trust Board.
The Supporters Trust is absolutely correct in not broadcasting what they know or what their plans are, and in not making the kind of angry comments we have on this message board, and in not insulting or antagonizing the SCFC Board. On this last point, the Trust Board, through our board member absolutely MUST work with the SCFC Board, and that requires professionalism and courtesy.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Trust Board are doing everything they can legally do, including obtaining expert advice, to prepare for the earthquake with landslide with thermonuclear overtones that well might come their way. They know full well that they will be our representatives on the firing line, and they will be ready.
I would ask that, whatever we feel a need to say about this, we should stop completely any more attacks on the Trust or its officers, as well as on the club Board and its officers. Those are at best, counterproductive, and at worst, destructive.
Try to keep the discussion non-personal and limited to the very important factual issues that we face. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| John Moores on 23:45 - Nov 2 with 1193 views | airedale |
Sounds sensible to me. |  | | |
| John Moores on 23:46 - Nov 2 with 1192 views | londonlisa2001 |
| John Moores on 16:07 - Nov 2 by Davillin |
In my years as an attorney, working often in corporate and financial matters, I never heard a single professional in those fields utter a single word of disparagement about any other professional, client, prospective client, or opposing party or representative. That includes attorneys, accountants, bankers, investment bankers, trust and bond attorneys, and "financial advisors."
I would venture to say that other professionals in those fields who post on here will agree with me. I'd be surprised -- and a little skeptical -- if anyone disagreed. [Post edited 2 Nov 2014 16:21]
|
Oh no - I see that I've missed another peach of a day from Shaky of Wall Street... | | | |
| John Moores on 23:51 - Nov 2 with 1183 views | airedale |
My mistake I didn't realize it was SOWS, I always thought it was 'Shaky of the Bailey'. | | | |
| John Moores on 23:56 - Nov 2 with 1177 views | londonlisa2001 |
| John Moores on 23:51 - Nov 2 by airedale |
My mistake I didn't realize it was SOWS, I always thought it was 'Shaky of the Bailey'. |
he reinvented himself a couple of weeks ago, when he moved from pretending to be a world class legal brain to pretending to be a hard drinking, coke snorting, man of the world talking to the rest of us 'strongly provincial' backward types :-) | | | |
| John Moores on 10:12 - Nov 3 with 1077 views | Uxbridge |
| John Moores on 23:38 - Nov 2 by Davillin |
[I posted this on the Garry Monk thread, but want to add it here, as it applies to both.]
Here's an important point that I believe has not yet been made, and needs to be.
One of the central reasons why we established a supporters trust was to have our own representative on the club board. And he or she was never intended to be a pasteboard dummy, either, but both knowledgeable about all of the business of the club and having voting power, even though not a majority interest.
I have 100% confidence that our Trust director knows everything that's going on [unless there is some fraudulent behaviour by SCFC, which I seriously doubt], and that all of that information is going to the Trust Board as it must. He has no legal or ethical alternative but to keep the Trust Board completely informed.
The Trust Board know what we do not know, but must either surmise, or get from leaks to the media, or from what Dai Silent's brother-in-law heard from a mate at his work. I'm certain that some of that is accurate to one degree or another, but it is not sufficiently accurate for the Trust Board.
The Supporters Trust is absolutely correct in not broadcasting what they know or what their plans are, and in not making the kind of angry comments we have on this message board, and in not insulting or antagonizing the SCFC Board. On this last point, the Trust Board, through our board member absolutely MUST work with the SCFC Board, and that requires professionalism and courtesy.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Trust Board are doing everything they can legally do, including obtaining expert advice, to prepare for the earthquake with landslide with thermonuclear overtones that well might come their way. They know full well that they will be our representatives on the firing line, and they will be ready.
I would ask that, whatever we feel a need to say about this, we should stop completely any more attacks on the Trust or its officers, as well as on the club Board and its officers. Those are at best, counterproductive, and at worst, destructive.
Try to keep the discussion non-personal and limited to the very important factual issues that we face. |
Good post Dav, and you won't be surprised to know it's largely bang on the money.
One thing I would say though is that there's nothing wrong with questioning the decisions and actions of the Trust board. In fact I'd say it's highly desirable. There's no need for some of the more personal attacks though, which I suspect was your point. |  |
| |
| John Moores on 13:41 - Nov 3 with 960 views | dobjack2 |
| John Moores on 10:12 - Nov 3 by Uxbridge |
Good post Dav, and you won't be surprised to know it's largely bang on the money.
One thing I would say though is that there's nothing wrong with questioning the decisions and actions of the Trust board. In fact I'd say it's highly desirable. There's no need for some of the more personal attacks though, which I suspect was your point. |
All that I would add is that there must be an element of confidentiality preventing the trust from making certain things public. Regrettably the way in which the board is acting and drip releasing information just makes me very suspicious of their actions and motivation in relation to this issue. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
