| Stoke - £30m loss last year 12:27 - Nov 20 with 14273 views | Dr_Winston |
And they're still spending in this one. Going to bump up against FFP if they don't go straight back up. Another indicator of the kind of financial craziness we're up against though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/46274218?__twitter_impression=true |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |  |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 07:18 - Nov 22 with 2590 views | waynekerr55 |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 07:15 - Nov 22 by Truth_Jack |
“The Americans money”? “Wouldn’t have not had a pot to p*ss in in the first place”? Is that selective memory, short term memory or just being insanely sillly?
That was the clubs money earned by Huw Jenkins and co after continuous superb business, he spent what he created, a business model that allowed the likes if you to brag about the club you claim to support. In fact after an incredible 7 years in the PL and a major trophy win - we have made a profit on transfers so you have no idea what you are talking about. That is stunning. The fact you are focusing on the aftermath of business transactions naturally getting harder to succeed with after being there so long says it all.
A bit like criticising a man leg strength after breaking all records for rock climbing because he fell off after the record was broken due to natural fatigue. It’s disingenous. The rock climber will eventually fall the further and longer e goes as it gets harder. Clubs like us will eventually get relegated as the longer we stay the harder it becomes. Both should be celebrated and not criticised after naturally suffering after such a prolonged success.
What do you mean if they hadn’t been able to step up? If Michu hadn’t been able to make the grade, if Celina hadn’t been able to make the grade, if De Guzman hadn’t been able to make the grade.. where does hat nonsense end? They are at the club because we believed they could succeed. Those at the club clearly had more faith in them than yourself.
Both Ayew brothers were instrumental in giving the club another £200m+ income and giving you another 2 seasons of moaning at being a Premier League club. Be grateful.
I am glad everyone is starting to wake up, although clearly having a hard time coming to terms with what that entails in terms of verbalising it. Shame. [Post edited 22 Nov 2018 7:18]
|
Yes, Huw was the sole reason for success and the fans and the Trust are to blame for the bad. Let's all fall in line and join a Corbyn like cult where the previous owners can do no wrong. |  |
| |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 10:07 - Nov 22 with 2524 views | jasper_T |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 05:43 - Nov 22 by Brynmill_Jack |
Thanks for that Huw. One thing, if it hadn't been for the likes of you wasting the Americans money on players that contributed nothing to the club we wouldn't have been without a pot to p*ss in in the first place . Relegation last season was totally unnecessary and as a direct result of some of the worst recruitment we've EVER done. People's egos far outreaching their abilities.
We still could have been in a better financial state than we are -the aspect you've missed out on are the big earners we could have got off the books but didn't because we hung out for unrealistic transfer fees.
Didn't we get an offer for a player (Narsingh maybe?) we didn't accept and now we're wasting 3 million on wages because we can't even play him?
The club, due to the investment in the academy has been saved playing wise this season by the emergence of talents such as CR, Rodon, Dan James etc etc. If they hadn't have been able to make the step up there's a fair chance we'd have suffered a second relegation.
And amid all of the back slapping at boardroom level let's not forget we still have the diabolical Ayew brothers on our books . The way Jordan is performing at Palace it looks like no f*ckers will want him next season. [Post edited 22 Nov 2018 5:48]
|
Narsingh wanted his contract paid up before he would leave, supposedly, so we were paying him either way. First to say he wanted to go in the summer as well. |  | | |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 10:25 - Nov 22 with 2514 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 10:07 - Nov 22 by jasper_T |
Narsingh wanted his contract paid up before he would leave, supposedly, so we were paying him either way. First to say he wanted to go in the summer as well. |
Supposedly? If we would have left him go on a free his next signing on fee would have made up for that.
If it is true that he wanted his contract paid up then there would be no choice but to let him rot.
Again though, offering some Eredivisie player 60k a week on JVZ's say so is another rank f*cking disaster of a transfer which once again has bitten us in the arse Jasper. So either way it's big noses fault. |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 11:26 - Nov 22 with 2478 views | jasper_T |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 10:25 - Nov 22 by Brynmill_Jack |
Supposedly? If we would have left him go on a free his next signing on fee would have made up for that.
If it is true that he wanted his contract paid up then there would be no choice but to let him rot.
Again though, offering some Eredivisie player 60k a week on JVZ's say so is another rank f*cking disaster of a transfer which once again has bitten us in the arse Jasper. So either way it's big noses fault. |
Only if some club out there needed to tempt him with a big signing fee. His agent (Raiola) probably did the maths and realised they'd earn more staying a year before going. | | | |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 11:40 - Nov 22 with 2464 views | andypitt56 |
Go home Huw you're drunk! | | | |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 11:43 - Nov 22 with 2451 views | TailGunner |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 11:40 - Nov 22 by andypitt56 |
Go home Huw you're drunk! |
 | | | |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 11:56 - Nov 22 with 2435 views | Cooperman |
This was in the news yesterday. When the owner of a club has this level of resources available to themselves then bankrolling to cover £30m losses is neither here nor there. Our situation is vastly different.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-46289499 |  |
| |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 12:10 - Nov 22 with 2421 views | LeonWasGod |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 11:56 - Nov 22 by Cooperman |
This was in the news yesterday. When the owner of a club has this level of resources available to themselves then bankrolling to cover £30m losses is neither here nor there. Our situation is vastly different.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-46289499 |
Might not be here or there from an affordability point of view, but it'll be interesting to see how they get on with FFP.
They've obviously chosen to gamble and continue with high costs, as Newcastle did both times they came down. It worked for Newcastle both times too. Not looking so good for Stoke at the moment; they're more like QPR.
I know that's a slightly different point from the one your making. Agreed, they've got a rich owner who appears to have available cash. Our have to raise revenue. Yep, very different. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 19:20 - Nov 22 with 2273 views | DJack |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 11:40 - Nov 22 by andypitt56 |
Go home Huw you're drunk! |
It is E20 under another guise. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 19:34 - Nov 22 with 2259 views | Fireboy2 |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 19:20 - Nov 22 by DJack |
It is E20 under another guise. |
You can add the res and T2C to that list |  | | |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 19:48 - Nov 22 with 2246 views | builthjack |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 19:20 - Nov 22 by DJack |
It is E20 under another guise. |
Been banned now I believe |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 20:43 - Nov 22 with 2209 views | Fireboy2 |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 19:48 - Nov 22 by builthjack |
Been banned now I believe |
Yes but chris is still posting under other usernames
Its a farce | | | |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 16:42 - Nov 26 with 2060 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 07:15 - Nov 22 by Truth_Jack |
“The Americans money”? “Wouldn’t have not had a pot to p*ss in in the first place”? Is that selective memory, short term memory or just being insanely sillly?
That was the clubs money earned by Huw Jenkins and co after continuous superb business, he spent what he created, a business model that allowed the likes if you to brag about the club you claim to support. In fact after an incredible 7 years in the PL and a major trophy win - we have made a profit on transfers so you have no idea what you are talking about. That is stunning. The fact you are focusing on the aftermath of business transactions naturally getting harder to succeed with after being there so long says it all.
A bit like criticising a man leg strength after breaking all records for rock climbing because he fell off after the record was broken due to natural fatigue. It’s disingenous. The rock climber will eventually fall the further and longer e goes as it gets harder. Clubs like us will eventually get relegated as the longer we stay the harder it becomes. Both should be celebrated and not criticised after naturally suffering after such a prolonged success.
What do you mean if they hadn’t been able to step up? If Michu hadn’t been able to make the grade, if Celina hadn’t been able to make the grade, if De Guzman hadn’t been able to make the grade.. where does hat nonsense end? They are at the club because we believed they could succeed. Those at the club clearly had more faith in them than yourself.
Both Ayew brothers were instrumental in giving the club another £200m+ income and giving you another 2 seasons of moaning at being a Premier League club. Be grateful.
I am glad everyone is starting to wake up, although clearly having a hard time coming to terms with what that entails in terms of verbalising it. Shame. [Post edited 22 Nov 2018 7:18]
|
I don't know if you've been away but that money did belong to the Americans. Huw and co sold their shares so it was their money.
The Ayew brothers toxic attitudes helped get us relegated and neither of them had the backbone to dig in and get us out of a completely avoidable relegation.
We've made a profit on transfers? Can you provide figures? I bet you're not counting Bony or either Ayew as those are nailed on losses, thanks to Huw and his out of control ego.
I don't know who you are but you're making a f*cking fool of yourself. I suspect you're that mental tw*t Dimi/E20 though. | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 00:04 - Nov 27 with 1995 views | JackSparrow |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 16:42 - Nov 26 by Brynmill_Jack |
I don't know if you've been away but that money did belong to the Americans. Huw and co sold their shares so it was their money.
The Ayew brothers toxic attitudes helped get us relegated and neither of them had the backbone to dig in and get us out of a completely avoidable relegation.
We've made a profit on transfers? Can you provide figures? I bet you're not counting Bony or either Ayew as those are nailed on losses, thanks to Huw and his out of control ego.
I don't know who you are but you're making a f*cking fool of yourself. I suspect you're that mental tw*t Dimi/E20 though. |
No it wasn’t and no it doesn’t. That is some frightful lack of understanding of the situation you have there. Are you sure you are a swans fan? Or someone just being rather silly on the Internet forum for personal kicks?
They sold their shares. The money wasn’t theirs previously, it was the clubs. The money wasn’t the Americans after the share purchase, it was still the clubs. Of which Jenkins still owns a portion of, ad do the Trust and others.
What he spent, he created. As a result keeping us in the PL for 7 years and allowing you to not understand basic principles for all that time. Be grateful.
Why do I have to provide figures? Don’t you know them? Add up all the transfers in and out from year 1 of the PL to the current day and you will see a profit. Again I ask, are you really a Swans fan? This shouldn’t be new information to you. I assume you are that mental case BrynmillJack. Oh yes, you are.
I await your realisation and new plan of action how to squirm out of that sheer nonsense you cobbled together to continue the brainless and vengeful attack against the club based on jealousy and need for revenge. For shame. Anyway, as I’m sure most are too lazy and instead perpetuating their own myths...
Transfer fees in and out since year 1 of PL:-
Year 1 - 11.2m loss
Year 2 - 10.9m profit
Year 3 - 24m loss
Year 4 - 18.3m profit
Year 5 - 4.3m loss
Year 6 - 8.6m loss
Year 7 - 7.2m profit
Year 8 - 38.8m profit
Total transfer dealings since arriving at the PL to current day:- £27.1m profit. Allowing such investments as the training ground and academy that we are now reaping the rewards from.
This doesn’t include anything we get back from Andre Ayew, Jordan Ayew, Wilfried Bony, Leroy Fer, Borja Baston etc all of which have their purchase prices counted in the figures. So anything at all received from them will add on to that figure.
To think we achieved what we have while running essentially at break even or better at transfer level is absolutely stunning. People lose millions to achieve a tenth of what we have.
People need to get a grip on reality because the alternative reality that they are revelling in is so ugly it is untrue. Even uglier that the alternative truthful side is being hushed and desperately covered up by people who are entrusted (no pun intended) to act in the clubs interests. [Post edited 27 Nov 2018 0:25]
| | | |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 01:08 - Nov 27 with 1957 views | _ |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 00:04 - Nov 27 by JackSparrow |
No it wasn’t and no it doesn’t. That is some frightful lack of understanding of the situation you have there. Are you sure you are a swans fan? Or someone just being rather silly on the Internet forum for personal kicks?
They sold their shares. The money wasn’t theirs previously, it was the clubs. The money wasn’t the Americans after the share purchase, it was still the clubs. Of which Jenkins still owns a portion of, ad do the Trust and others.
What he spent, he created. As a result keeping us in the PL for 7 years and allowing you to not understand basic principles for all that time. Be grateful.
Why do I have to provide figures? Don’t you know them? Add up all the transfers in and out from year 1 of the PL to the current day and you will see a profit. Again I ask, are you really a Swans fan? This shouldn’t be new information to you. I assume you are that mental case BrynmillJack. Oh yes, you are.
I await your realisation and new plan of action how to squirm out of that sheer nonsense you cobbled together to continue the brainless and vengeful attack against the club based on jealousy and need for revenge. For shame. Anyway, as I’m sure most are too lazy and instead perpetuating their own myths...
Transfer fees in and out since year 1 of PL:-
Year 1 - 11.2m loss
Year 2 - 10.9m profit
Year 3 - 24m loss
Year 4 - 18.3m profit
Year 5 - 4.3m loss
Year 6 - 8.6m loss
Year 7 - 7.2m profit
Year 8 - 38.8m profit
Total transfer dealings since arriving at the PL to current day:- £27.1m profit. Allowing such investments as the training ground and academy that we are now reaping the rewards from.
This doesn’t include anything we get back from Andre Ayew, Jordan Ayew, Wilfried Bony, Leroy Fer, Borja Baston etc all of which have their purchase prices counted in the figures. So anything at all received from them will add on to that figure.
To think we achieved what we have while running essentially at break even or better at transfer level is absolutely stunning. People lose millions to achieve a tenth of what we have.
People need to get a grip on reality because the alternative reality that they are revelling in is so ugly it is untrue. Even uglier that the alternative truthful side is being hushed and desperately covered up by people who are entrusted (no pun intended) to act in the clubs interests. [Post edited 27 Nov 2018 0:25]
|
Stop banning good posters.
The Trust Chairman needs to think about the damage he's doing trying to censor fans who support the club and how it's being run. |  |
| |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 01:12 - Nov 27 with 1954 views | JackSparrow |
Refusing to be shouted down or bullied while being determined to say it how it is has always been a terrifying prospect for them. If they feel they can get away with it they will sensor all the views they can.
Very satisfying that in the last 2 weeks, the views I have had that has had this forum in uproar de so long has slowly become popular opinion. Who would have thunk it eh? | | | |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 01:21 - Nov 27 with 1950 views | DJack |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 01:12 - Nov 27 by JackSparrow |
Refusing to be shouted down or bullied while being determined to say it how it is has always been a terrifying prospect for them. If they feel they can get away with it they will sensor all the views they can.
Very satisfying that in the last 2 weeks, the views I have had that has had this forum in uproar de so long has slowly become popular opinion. Who would have thunk it eh? |
How long will this one last?
Don't get me wrong, half the problems were how other posters reacted to you but your detractors (and your own) inability to stop the bitchfest cluttered the boards with angst and opprobrium. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 02:28 - Nov 27 with 1940 views | JackSparrow |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 01:21 - Nov 27 by DJack |
How long will this one last?
Don't get me wrong, half the problems were how other posters reacted to you but your detractors (and your own) inability to stop the bitchfest cluttered the boards with angst and opprobrium. |
Does it matter how long the username lasts? There is an infinite amount of usernames one can use. So whether it is 10 mins, 10 hours or 10 days is largely irrelevant - although I suspect it will be one of the former due to the fear my views cause amongst those that wish to cover them up.
Half the problems, really? You are being very (extremely) conservative there. I don’t think I have ever once entered a thread and not offered a genuine footballing opinion and instead took the opportunity to derail or abuse. Can you think of one?
I simply do not allow myself to be abused online. That should be celebrated and the offending posts deleted, don’t you think? But it’s a convenient arrangement for the people running the site as they have particular views they want to push and the opposite is seen as fair and for attack - so it is left as it is and the replies back to the ridiculous abuse used as an excuse to quieten the person victim of the attack.
What you are suggesting is that a guy who politely responds to his abusers is just as much to blame (even though the only one punished - explain that?) as those abusers- as he should just allow them to do it? Bizarre.
Would you teach your kids that attitude? If you are the victim of bullying then just accept it. I wouldn’t. It’s an attitude that doesn’t exist in the real world due to how clearly wrong it is. What you think of my views should not affect your view of morality. Otherwise that is selective law, it only applies to people you want it to. [Post edited 27 Nov 2018 2:39]
| | | |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 03:24 - Nov 27 with 1934 views | DJack |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 02:28 - Nov 27 by JackSparrow |
Does it matter how long the username lasts? There is an infinite amount of usernames one can use. So whether it is 10 mins, 10 hours or 10 days is largely irrelevant - although I suspect it will be one of the former due to the fear my views cause amongst those that wish to cover them up.
Half the problems, really? You are being very (extremely) conservative there. I don’t think I have ever once entered a thread and not offered a genuine footballing opinion and instead took the opportunity to derail or abuse. Can you think of one?
I simply do not allow myself to be abused online. That should be celebrated and the offending posts deleted, don’t you think? But it’s a convenient arrangement for the people running the site as they have particular views they want to push and the opposite is seen as fair and for attack - so it is left as it is and the replies back to the ridiculous abuse used as an excuse to quieten the person victim of the attack.
What you are suggesting is that a guy who politely responds to his abusers is just as much to blame (even though the only one punished - explain that?) as those abusers- as he should just allow them to do it? Bizarre.
Would you teach your kids that attitude? If you are the victim of bullying then just accept it. I wouldn’t. It’s an attitude that doesn’t exist in the real world due to how clearly wrong it is. What you think of my views should not affect your view of morality. Otherwise that is selective law, it only applies to people you want it to. [Post edited 27 Nov 2018 2:39]
|
OK THEN...
Step back a second. I've already mentioned, twice recently, that the banning will not be particularly effective.
Then you go all literal on my "50%" comment - to me there is you and there are your detractors... 50% you, 50% them.
You are getting passive aggressive which is a major (negative) feature of your interactions on this board.
You then extrapolate my comments to claiming that I'm making suggestions that I have not. Factoid for you - I've disagreed with lots of your posts and in some cases vehemently...BUT I'm not your enemy, so please stop trying to ascribe emotions/intentions to my posts.
I usually post from the hip and the post is simply that. Nothing more , no subtext! On occasion I do use a leading question, deliberately to get a "naked", honest response, without any defence-mechanism or sophistry. My use of this is not to trip you up but to illicit a more natural response.
As to politeness...most politicians are polite but we think many of them are asshats. Why? Because we distrust what they say based upon previous statements. I'm not saying that you are wrong but it seems that your message enrages/embitters many different people and the group average is usually indicative of the correct answer. This is not always correct but for you be disagreed with by so many people on so many subjects suggests that you MAY need to re-assess.
The "positive outcome" of your banning means, effectively, that your posts are hit and run in style. That way you can send your message and we don't get the battle of wills afterwards - I'm not apportioning blame for that to you it is just merely an observation. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 04:27 - Nov 27 with 1924 views | JackSparrow |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 03:24 - Nov 27 by DJack |
OK THEN...
Step back a second. I've already mentioned, twice recently, that the banning will not be particularly effective.
Then you go all literal on my "50%" comment - to me there is you and there are your detractors... 50% you, 50% them.
You are getting passive aggressive which is a major (negative) feature of your interactions on this board.
You then extrapolate my comments to claiming that I'm making suggestions that I have not. Factoid for you - I've disagreed with lots of your posts and in some cases vehemently...BUT I'm not your enemy, so please stop trying to ascribe emotions/intentions to my posts.
I usually post from the hip and the post is simply that. Nothing more , no subtext! On occasion I do use a leading question, deliberately to get a "naked", honest response, without any defence-mechanism or sophistry. My use of this is not to trip you up but to illicit a more natural response.
As to politeness...most politicians are polite but we think many of them are asshats. Why? Because we distrust what they say based upon previous statements. I'm not saying that you are wrong but it seems that your message enrages/embitters many different people and the group average is usually indicative of the correct answer. This is not always correct but for you be disagreed with by so many people on so many subjects suggests that you MAY need to re-assess.
The "positive outcome" of your banning means, effectively, that your posts are hit and run in style. That way you can send your message and we don't get the battle of wills afterwards - I'm not apportioning blame for that to you it is just merely an observation. |
Not really a positive though is it. It’s like locking up all women to solve domestic violence, and claiming it is a positive that they are punished because the domestic violence rates have declined since.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to stop the people actually abusing people on here?
I don’t subscribe to this passive aggressive thing, that is usually trotted out by those that abuse and are frustrated that the abuse isn’t risen to, they then label the response as passive aggressive to appease and justify their actions.
I missed your part about reassessing your opinion based on how many disagree. That an awfully sad viewpoint and I would hope not a philosophy you live your life by. It is the minority that see things clearer than others that change the world. Although on this forum, I could say Swansea play in white and would get people disagreeing, gauging that as to the accuracy of thought is a huge error.
Here’s a crazy thought, how about assessing the actual view and putting a counter toward it rather than judge it in how many morons are falling over themselves to disagree. I will remind you the majority wanted to do a deal with the Americans - that majority is now the minority. Slavery was also a popular thing in times gone by with only a minority seeing the misery behind it - maybe they should also have re-assessed their thought due to weight of moronic number?
Their views stood due to the complete lack of sense in the counter argument which is why the powers that be found these upstarts so terrifying - hence the civil war. When there is no sensible counter argument people get militant, abuse and silencing are age old go-to methods and online forums although a minute scale of what we are discussing here differs in no way when it comes to human reaction and perceived power.
I’ll tell you what... I invite you to tell me how we made a loss on transfer fees alone over 8 years - if you can do that, I will re-assess, not the spurious notion that the accuracy is determined by how many forum idiots disagree. But we both know the problem is the fact that nobody can put a legible counter forward - hence the frustration, the fear in the inconvenient truth... and the subsequent bans. [Post edited 27 Nov 2018 9:05]
| | | |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 11:04 - Nov 27 with 1828 views | _ |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 01:21 - Nov 27 by DJack |
How long will this one last?
Don't get me wrong, half the problems were how other posters reacted to you but your detractors (and your own) inability to stop the bitchfest cluttered the boards with angst and opprobrium. |
Then why aren't others banned then, like Tatty Teabag Prosser??
The Trust. Chairman picks and chooses what voices are allowed to speak or condemn. He controls opinion this way. | |
| |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 11:06 - Nov 27 with 1826 views | _ |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 02:28 - Nov 27 by JackSparrow |
Does it matter how long the username lasts? There is an infinite amount of usernames one can use. So whether it is 10 mins, 10 hours or 10 days is largely irrelevant - although I suspect it will be one of the former due to the fear my views cause amongst those that wish to cover them up.
Half the problems, really? You are being very (extremely) conservative there. I don’t think I have ever once entered a thread and not offered a genuine footballing opinion and instead took the opportunity to derail or abuse. Can you think of one?
I simply do not allow myself to be abused online. That should be celebrated and the offending posts deleted, don’t you think? But it’s a convenient arrangement for the people running the site as they have particular views they want to push and the opposite is seen as fair and for attack - so it is left as it is and the replies back to the ridiculous abuse used as an excuse to quieten the person victim of the attack.
What you are suggesting is that a guy who politely responds to his abusers is just as much to blame (even though the only one punished - explain that?) as those abusers- as he should just allow them to do it? Bizarre.
Would you teach your kids that attitude? If you are the victim of bullying then just accept it. I wouldn’t. It’s an attitude that doesn’t exist in the real world due to how clearly wrong it is. What you think of my views should not affect your view of morality. Otherwise that is selective law, it only applies to people you want it to. [Post edited 27 Nov 2018 2:39]
|
It's a true disgrace the Swansea City Trust Chairman has chosen to ban you for nothing more than sticking up for SCFC
How can this be right? | |
| |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 11:32 - Nov 27 with 1803 views | Catullus |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 03:24 - Nov 27 by DJack |
OK THEN...
Step back a second. I've already mentioned, twice recently, that the banning will not be particularly effective.
Then you go all literal on my "50%" comment - to me there is you and there are your detractors... 50% you, 50% them.
You are getting passive aggressive which is a major (negative) feature of your interactions on this board.
You then extrapolate my comments to claiming that I'm making suggestions that I have not. Factoid for you - I've disagreed with lots of your posts and in some cases vehemently...BUT I'm not your enemy, so please stop trying to ascribe emotions/intentions to my posts.
I usually post from the hip and the post is simply that. Nothing more , no subtext! On occasion I do use a leading question, deliberately to get a "naked", honest response, without any defence-mechanism or sophistry. My use of this is not to trip you up but to illicit a more natural response.
As to politeness...most politicians are polite but we think many of them are asshats. Why? Because we distrust what they say based upon previous statements. I'm not saying that you are wrong but it seems that your message enrages/embitters many different people and the group average is usually indicative of the correct answer. This is not always correct but for you be disagreed with by so many people on so many subjects suggests that you MAY need to re-assess.
The "positive outcome" of your banning means, effectively, that your posts are hit and run in style. That way you can send your message and we don't get the battle of wills afterwards - I'm not apportioning blame for that to you it is just merely an observation. |
I'm not taking sides here but being with the majority doesn't necessarily mean you are right.
Being passive aggressive is one thing but it's entirely different to the outright abuse I have seen on here all too often. | |
| |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 11:56 - Nov 27 with 1795 views | Shaky |
| Stoke - £30m loss last year on 01:21 - Nov 27 by DJack |
How long will this one last?
Don't get me wrong, half the problems were how other posters reacted to you but your detractors (and your own) inability to stop the bitchfest cluttered the boards with angst and opprobrium. |
Pot - kettle - black
WTF are you doing? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
