| Stateside Jack's meeting with club 19:01 - Feb 15 with 32910 views | swanskid95 |
Seems a little fishy to me, looks like the trust have been shafted here..
|  | | |  |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 13:40 - Feb 17 with 2192 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 13:35 - Feb 17 by magicdaps10 |
I wasnt asking you for an explanation, I was just advising the fellow.
Self recommendation........will add that one to the list. |
Ah great so you aren’t speaking from personal experience then, I am glad that you are satisfied with your level of explanation in our discourse, which leaves the poster in question in which the points he raised were answered in earlier posts.
Glad we all have an explanation then.. well apart from the questions I asked of course, but we all know there is no answer for them hence why they were made so seeeping and general. |  | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 13:42 - Feb 17 with 2184 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 13:24 - Feb 17 by magicdaps10 |
You would advise people not to bet with someone they don't know but you did.
Not very good advice if you don't abide by it yourself |
People who have a view that they wouldn’t pay someone they don’t know, yes. Common sense advice.
I don’t have that view however, hence betting with a stranger had no baring on my desire to pay - not that I’d lose of course... hence I made the bet.
Next. | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 13:48 - Feb 17 with 2175 views | chad |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 22:10 - Feb 16 by Uxbridge |
I'd like you to back that comment about me up please Spratty. You left the forum long before me. You have no idea what I said. I'm afraid this is a classic case of deflection from you.
I found your post earlier quite disgraceful I have to be honest. Saying this is an issue only for Swansea members is simply wrong. Saying that, you have previous for wanting to skew this upcoming vote in the way you want it to go, with the hilarious idea that you could be an impartial invigilator for the info sent out to the members. You're the most biased person in the argument mun! Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you can't seriously think you're the right person to be impartial in all this. |
Impressive classic projection Ux with some nice gaslighting thrown in
However I prefer honesty and fairness in regard to protecting the future of our club (and all other issues for that matter), not mind games, so let us address brick by brick this wall of false accusations you are building and the repeated lies about me (although we are aware this is far from the first time senior Trust officials have lied to and attempted to deceive members)
“A classic case of deflection”from me. Stop making false allegations against the members you are elected to represent. I am no liar Ux.
Read the post again And tell me where I said you said that. I did not. But you certainly were not rushing to that members defence when his willingness to contribute to the meeting was met with insults behind his back by the small group of senior Trust Board members as you exited the building
Given you are suggesting I left the forum long before you, you must be surprised to know I knew exactly what your little group of 3 were discussing on the way out.
I did indeed leave the meeting hall several minutes before you, but my husband nipped to the gents and got into conversation with the solicitor (David Little?) please ask him to confirm,he should recall. I was tucked in at the end of that dog leg in the corridor at the far side of the empty coat rack, other members would have known I was there as I exchanged pleasantries with a couple of them as they walked past me as I waited.
I clearly heard what was said from the other end of that short corridor as your group rounded the corner by the gents together. Are you denying that was said because that would be totally disingenuous.
In fact I presumed you had seen me and did not wish to speak to me as as just before you passed me you looked up and then immediately looked down at the floor and scrambled a few steps after the other two (as by that point you had fallen fractionally behind). I clearly remember that as I found it slightly comical. Shortly after that my husband and David came along and the 3 of us walked down the stairs together.
I told my husband but would not have mentioned it here except I am sick of your false accusations and your faux outrage on this thread to have a go and try and falsely discredit me again. It seems you were more concerned about me politely asking for the opinion of our overseas supporters in relation to an issue another overseas supporter brought up at the time of the last vote, than you were about the alleged death threats.
Neither did I say “this is an issue only for Swansea members” as you above allege I said, nor did I intend that, in fact my question was addressed to overseas members. I did say it was a local issue and gave reasons for that, as I was interested in the opinions of others specifically overseas members as the ones most affected by my comment. I know there are many members around this country from this area with close Inks to it. And also some abroad. However that Danish fan and Trust member did not think it “disgraceful”, he unprompted, thought abstaining from the vote was the moral thing to do.
But this is more interesting disingenuous mind games technique. First you personally and deliberately extend the argument beyond what was said or intended to try and belittle it and bring onside members with strong links to the area and club - but at least acknowledge that is what you are doing, even though you are actually disagreeing with your own suggestion there, as it certainly was not mine
“Do you think we should go further and that only people born within the boundaries of this city should vote? Of course not.”
But by the next page (the above answer to which I am responding) you classically extend your own own faux argument and project it on me, when it is something I never said, nor saw as remotely rational.
Now Ux let us conclude this strand of the issue are you still implying that what I said about what happened after the Trust meeting is a lie. And before you lie about that have a little think about how you would feel is someone was willing to make a liar out of your child’s honest comments so they may save face and push their own objectives.
And why Ux did you jump in so quickly to try and discredit me and stifle a polite and honestly framed debate? What were you afraid of, people agreeing with me? Do you honestly think the objectives of the Trust are not broader and longer term than the short term interests of the new majority owners investment vehicle. As vice chair of the Trust I feel it important you understand that
I will address the other issues separately. |  | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:08 - Feb 17 with 2105 views | Uxbridge |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 13:48 - Feb 17 by chad |
Impressive classic projection Ux with some nice gaslighting thrown in
However I prefer honesty and fairness in regard to protecting the future of our club (and all other issues for that matter), not mind games, so let us address brick by brick this wall of false accusations you are building and the repeated lies about me (although we are aware this is far from the first time senior Trust officials have lied to and attempted to deceive members)
“A classic case of deflection”from me. Stop making false allegations against the members you are elected to represent. I am no liar Ux.
Read the post again And tell me where I said you said that. I did not. But you certainly were not rushing to that members defence when his willingness to contribute to the meeting was met with insults behind his back by the small group of senior Trust Board members as you exited the building
Given you are suggesting I left the forum long before you, you must be surprised to know I knew exactly what your little group of 3 were discussing on the way out.
I did indeed leave the meeting hall several minutes before you, but my husband nipped to the gents and got into conversation with the solicitor (David Little?) please ask him to confirm,he should recall. I was tucked in at the end of that dog leg in the corridor at the far side of the empty coat rack, other members would have known I was there as I exchanged pleasantries with a couple of them as they walked past me as I waited.
I clearly heard what was said from the other end of that short corridor as your group rounded the corner by the gents together. Are you denying that was said because that would be totally disingenuous.
In fact I presumed you had seen me and did not wish to speak to me as as just before you passed me you looked up and then immediately looked down at the floor and scrambled a few steps after the other two (as by that point you had fallen fractionally behind). I clearly remember that as I found it slightly comical. Shortly after that my husband and David came along and the 3 of us walked down the stairs together.
I told my husband but would not have mentioned it here except I am sick of your false accusations and your faux outrage on this thread to have a go and try and falsely discredit me again. It seems you were more concerned about me politely asking for the opinion of our overseas supporters in relation to an issue another overseas supporter brought up at the time of the last vote, than you were about the alleged death threats.
Neither did I say “this is an issue only for Swansea members” as you above allege I said, nor did I intend that, in fact my question was addressed to overseas members. I did say it was a local issue and gave reasons for that, as I was interested in the opinions of others specifically overseas members as the ones most affected by my comment. I know there are many members around this country from this area with close Inks to it. And also some abroad. However that Danish fan and Trust member did not think it “disgraceful”, he unprompted, thought abstaining from the vote was the moral thing to do.
But this is more interesting disingenuous mind games technique. First you personally and deliberately extend the argument beyond what was said or intended to try and belittle it and bring onside members with strong links to the area and club - but at least acknowledge that is what you are doing, even though you are actually disagreeing with your own suggestion there, as it certainly was not mine
“Do you think we should go further and that only people born within the boundaries of this city should vote? Of course not.”
But by the next page (the above answer to which I am responding) you classically extend your own own faux argument and project it on me, when it is something I never said, nor saw as remotely rational.
Now Ux let us conclude this strand of the issue are you still implying that what I said about what happened after the Trust meeting is a lie. And before you lie about that have a little think about how you would feel is someone was willing to make a liar out of your child’s honest comments so they may save face and push their own objectives.
And why Ux did you jump in so quickly to try and discredit me and stifle a polite and honestly framed debate? What were you afraid of, people agreeing with me? Do you honestly think the objectives of the Trust are not broader and longer term than the short term interests of the new majority owners investment vehicle. As vice chair of the Trust I feel it important you understand that
I will address the other issues separately. |
Thank you Spratty for confirming I didn't say what you originally strongly suggested I had said. 10 paragraphs to get there but thank you. You also contradict yourself several times within all that with regards to your views regarding non Swansea locals voting on this. If I was being a bit cheeky. I'd ask whether that applies to the Scottish? Hold on , Scottish on PS, that's ringing a bell...
Best I don't comment on the rest, apart to say this. You accuse people of bias when at every opportunity you would seek to impose your own bias. Your conduct on here and at forums when you've sought to dominate the argument prove that. As such, your arguments will forever lack credibility. The irony that we are likely to vote the same way next month is not lost on me. |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:27 - Feb 17 with 2043 views | Dippy |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 11:50 - Feb 17 by The_E20 |
Eh? When have I ever said that.
My posts have people agree, disagree and those that feel themselves questioning their initial disagreement due to the points I put across. My posts resonate with people, which annoys others on the other side... hence the long threads.
Not a hard concept, ECB. I hope you aren’t this cumbersome in Trust affairs? |
You've completely changed the dynamic of the thread, with the same old guff. Most posters just shake their heads when you continue to bombard threads. |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:32 - Feb 17 with 2025 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:27 - Feb 17 by Dippy |
You've completely changed the dynamic of the thread, with the same old guff. Most posters just shake their heads when you continue to bombard threads. |
Replying to posters asking me stuff continuously isn’t bombarding anything. Maybe you mean the posters bombarding my view with posts? In which case I’d agree, but it isn’t uncommon. | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:33 - Feb 17 with 2029 views | Loyal |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 12:57 - Feb 17 by The_E20 |
Eh?
1) where have I complained about secretiveness or openness? I have simply noted that the source of the complaint also displays such secretiveness.
2) whether you would pay up unless you know who someone is or not is completely irrelevant, my advice would be don’t bet with people you don’t know.
3) multiple usernames. What has you believing others to have multiple usernames got to do with me?
4) why is making a new username when you are being silenced a bad thing?
5) you don’t see posts censored because the ones censored no longer exist.. hence the fact they are censored
6) what has a poster receiving a pm got to do with me?
7) what has someone complaining about being bullied when allegedly bullying got to do with me?
8) it doesn’t make a difference what you believe regarding payments for info. My view was you cannot complain about someone not disclosing info when you are hiding it yourself in return for money.
9) this is a site owned by the Trust chairman and is used for Trust gains, it is a trust site in all but name
10) Darran did not receive a death threat, read it again. And what has that got to do with me?
Did I miss anything there? All you seem to have done is accuse someone else of doing something and attribute it to me, an odd response.
But glad you see I am not displaying double standards as you initially claimed. The best advice I can give you is when you make an accusation then make it specific and meaningful as it just collapses under scrutiny and you have to resort to such things as then moaning about someone else and attributing it to me. |
Anyone engaging with this idiot should read their responses here on this post and understand the game they are playing. Contradiction ( wait for the ' when did I contradict myself ' question ) it's a part of the psychological illness on display here to do this. His point 9 displays a self confirming desire to accuse Phil Sumbler of a form of deceit, and falls for his own bias by not giving any evidence of the allegation. Just a general sweeping statement against Phil Sumbler with no exact information.
The regularity of their posts on one subject and absolute desire to be right is all consuming, however they need your involvement to be considered right. Without you they are nothing, just the insignificant entity they are. Their disregard of any other opinion and desire to then mention themselves in the answer displays a pure psychopathic belief of their cause, themselves.
Their is a modern day term, do not feed the troll.
Their is an even more relevant saying, do not allow this cnt and the few like him to kill our club for their own gain.
It's hard to put it any other way. |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:41 - Feb 17 with 2001 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:33 - Feb 17 by Loyal |
Anyone engaging with this idiot should read their responses here on this post and understand the game they are playing. Contradiction ( wait for the ' when did I contradict myself ' question ) it's a part of the psychological illness on display here to do this. His point 9 displays a self confirming desire to accuse Phil Sumbler of a form of deceit, and falls for his own bias by not giving any evidence of the allegation. Just a general sweeping statement against Phil Sumbler with no exact information.
The regularity of their posts on one subject and absolute desire to be right is all consuming, however they need your involvement to be considered right. Without you they are nothing, just the insignificant entity they are. Their disregard of any other opinion and desire to then mention themselves in the answer displays a pure psychopathic belief of their cause, themselves.
Their is a modern day term, do not feed the troll.
Their is an even more relevant saying, do not allow this cnt and the few like him to kill our club for their own gain.
It's hard to put it any other way. |
What game is this? It was levelled at me that I had double standards. Knowing this was just an empty sound bite (the stuff you do a lot) I questioned it. What came back was 10 things, none of which we’re even remotely showing double standards - half of them were about someone else for a start. So I answered each one fully. I think that’s a desired outcome to a post isn’t it?
I have accused Phil Sumbler of deceit yes. I have also given specific examples in censoring posts, banning people strategically and lying about payments to a Trust director. I have no idea what the other paragraph was waffling on about but struggled to see any coherent point other than your usual waffling bile.
If you had any sort of counter to what I say then you would put it across. However you have nothing, literally nothing. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:43 - Feb 17 with 1993 views | Dippy |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:33 - Feb 17 by Loyal |
Anyone engaging with this idiot should read their responses here on this post and understand the game they are playing. Contradiction ( wait for the ' when did I contradict myself ' question ) it's a part of the psychological illness on display here to do this. His point 9 displays a self confirming desire to accuse Phil Sumbler of a form of deceit, and falls for his own bias by not giving any evidence of the allegation. Just a general sweeping statement against Phil Sumbler with no exact information.
The regularity of their posts on one subject and absolute desire to be right is all consuming, however they need your involvement to be considered right. Without you they are nothing, just the insignificant entity they are. Their disregard of any other opinion and desire to then mention themselves in the answer displays a pure psychopathic belief of their cause, themselves.
Their is a modern day term, do not feed the troll.
Their is an even more relevant saying, do not allow this cnt and the few like him to kill our club for their own gain.
It's hard to put it any other way. |
It's the paragraphs he goes through, when only a few words would suffice, he just adds words for effect, he's a boring drone, completely taking this thread out of topic, this thread has nothing to do with the trust, but T2C and E20 can't help themselves | |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:45 - Feb 17 with 1984 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:43 - Feb 17 by Dippy |
It's the paragraphs he goes through, when only a few words would suffice, he just adds words for effect, he's a boring drone, completely taking this thread out of topic, this thread has nothing to do with the trust, but T2C and E20 can't help themselves |
The paragraphs are absolutely needed in order that nothing is intentionally taken out of context and my views are completely clear and transparent. Maybe you just don’t understand then? | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:52 - Feb 17 with 1976 views | Dippy |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:45 - Feb 17 by The_E20 |
The paragraphs are absolutely needed in order that nothing is intentionally taken out of context and my views are completely clear and transparent. Maybe you just don’t understand then? |
Why are you derailing a thread with anti trust bias then? You and T2C are spoiling interesting content. | |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:54 - Feb 17 with 1966 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:52 - Feb 17 by Dippy |
Why are you derailing a thread with anti trust bias then? You and T2C are spoiling interesting content. |
All my posts have been on topic to the one I was replying to. I believe when I got involved in the thread was round about the time the point was being made that the Trust should have been involved in either a knowledge capacity or that SSJ should be affiliated. The response was on that topic, the replies then dictate the discussion. | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:56 - Feb 17 with 1963 views | The_E20 |
Also a point of order, there is no anti trust bias. They do good work I praise them, do bad work I criticise them. I don’t do bias of any kind. | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 18:26 - Feb 17 with 1885 views | swan65split |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 13:14 - Feb 17 by The_E20 |
If you expected that reply then it makes the initial post even odder.
You blaming other people for stuff and using that to have a go at me is just weird if you know the response is simply going to point that out.
Each to his own. |
I should imagine my expletive reply ended up under number 5 🖖 |  | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 18:27 - Feb 17 with 1880 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 18:26 - Feb 17 by swan65split |
I should imagine my expletive reply ended up under number 5 🖖 |
Rightly so | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 00:59 - Feb 18 with 1780 views | DJack |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 08:30 - Feb 17 by swan_si |
Ignore me by all means, that is your right, but a cherleader or even a cheerleader for the Yanks I am most certainly not mate, of you go now little sheep, baa baaa. |
Mr No-mark, can you please explain why I am a sheep. Thanks. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 04:18 - Feb 18 with 1746 views | Tummer_from_Texas |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 22:37 - Feb 16 by dobjack2 |
Indeed they represent corporate America and members of a hedge fund not football fans.
Many had major reservations, DC United fans gave warnings, a lot were prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt to start with, notwithstanding the issues over the share sale, so you were not alone. They talk a good talk in their set piece interviews.
There are still people over here that think that they have invested in the club rather than bought shares off the selling share owners and voting rights for shares that they didn’t buy. Don’t beat yourself up, you are way ahead of them. |
That DC United supporter who tried to warn us about Levien back in early 2016 was JoeSoccerFan, a guy I first met at a bar that was showing the Swans on a trip to DC over the 2014 Christmas holiday.
When Joe posted that, I thought with all due respect that he was going a little overboard with his vitriol about Levien. But, sadly, Joe has been proven 1000% correct. |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 07:21 - Feb 18 with 1696 views | swan_si |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 00:59 - Feb 18 by DJack |
Mr No-mark, can you please explain why I am a sheep. Thanks. |
Mr skid mark, can you explain why you called me a " cherleader for the yanks". Thanks. |  | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 12:36 - Feb 18 with 1589 views | DJack |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 07:21 - Feb 18 by swan_si |
Mr skid mark, can you explain why you called me a " cherleader for the yanks". Thanks. |
Your previous posts. Thanks. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 17:14 - Feb 18 with 1500 views | swan_si |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 12:36 - Feb 18 by DJack |
Your previous posts. Thanks. |
 | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 20:10 - Feb 18 with 1418 views | CrazedBison |
Seems like I'm quite late to this party.
I have had a few issues with them (SSJ) from a much higher level than has been discussed here. In actuality, the biggest I have is maybe less with them and more with the club. Back right before this season the club decided to formally recognize supporters groups abroad (like the SSJ) and make them official. SSJ then formally decided to make up local chapters led by random people they decided upon. As far as I can tell, this was all done very non-democratically and without much consideration.
Anyhow, I'm a Trust member based in the US who is also vaguely familiar with the SSJ. I believe I'm on their mailing list or what have you. I come back to SA1 a couple of times a year, but don't really make social media events out of it like some supporters based in the US have done. Maybe I'm just a bit old fashioned when it comes to social media and the like, or maybe I'm just more of a loner. Who knows?
What I'm getting at is that the majority shareholders have made PR blunder after PR blunder from the very beginning. Their handling of foreign supporters groups is no surprise and no different. Decisions seem to be made without fully fleshing out their repercussions or how they might look to the supporters as a whole. If there is a choice to be made, one can honestly bet that the incorrect decision will win out. By recognizing specific foreign supporters groups, giving them access and power that they would never otherwise have and that they can take away at any moment, the club have exerted narrative control over a group of supporters. While this might have been positive PR for some supporters outside of Wales, for others (like myself) this was another PR blunder. Also, does anyone see how this might be a bit similar to the handling of the sell-outs by the corporate overlords? Toss a dog a bone every once in a while and you'll have its loyalty, right?
Now, regarding the SSJ, one cannot be surprised that a formal arm of the majority owners' might make a PR mistake or two. I'm sure that the SSJ folks are decent enough people, but when you make bedfellows with the club's corporate overlords don't be surprised when you have to sing for your supper.
Anyways, I must say that I hope all supporters of the club are welcomed anywhere they might go, but I can also understand a bit of the SSJ outcry. They, like the majority owners, seem quite tone deaf to the supporters who aren't American. I'm sure the SSJ folks are top class and mean no ill will at all, but these days if you're even loosely associated with the club and are making PR missteps don't be surprised when things blow up in your face. | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 20:33 - Feb 18 with 1378 views | Loyal |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 14:41 - Feb 17 by The_E20 |
What game is this? It was levelled at me that I had double standards. Knowing this was just an empty sound bite (the stuff you do a lot) I questioned it. What came back was 10 things, none of which we’re even remotely showing double standards - half of them were about someone else for a start. So I answered each one fully. I think that’s a desired outcome to a post isn’t it?
I have accused Phil Sumbler of deceit yes. I have also given specific examples in censoring posts, banning people strategically and lying about payments to a Trust director. I have no idea what the other paragraph was waffling on about but struggled to see any coherent point other than your usual waffling bile.
If you had any sort of counter to what I say then you would put it across. However you have nothing, literally nothing. |
I have nothing to respond to, just the continual babbling lunacy of someone who only posts on here to boost their own ego. You are ill man, take a rest or try commenting on some football. | |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 21:11 - Feb 18 with 1304 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 20:33 - Feb 18 by Loyal |
I have nothing to respond to, just the continual babbling lunacy of someone who only posts on here to boost their own ego. You are ill man, take a rest or try commenting on some football. |
Crying and using every post you can to attempt to abuse people who ask you simple questions that you cannot answer really isn’t helping your cause.
You are making yourself look very silly indeed. | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 18:32 - Sep 25 with 753 views | chad |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 12:34 - Feb 16 by Neath_Jack |
Is there anyone that can blame another supporters group trying to get some answers?
The Trust board members on here are arrogant and pig headed.
I understand that there is a legal process about to start, and they are trying mediation route, but come on, it's been like this for the past 5 years or more.
If the trust were all engaging and proactive then we wouldn't have seen the two local groups formed last season (which most of the mouth breathers were championing, and the current Trust chair by the way) and now this American branch.
People want answers, people want action, people want communication, fair and transparent communication at that.
And anyone that says that this forum doesn't try to shut down any reasonable debate are only kidding themselves.
I can't see our club recovering from all this for years. If the Americans up and leave, we'll just be passed from unscrupulous buyer to buyer, until someone eventually buys us for a quid. And the thought of this lot of Trust board being that group to buy us for the quid, fills me with dread.
Everyone wants what's best for this club, but all we have at the moment is people lashing out and swinging wildly. We need someone to galvanise us all, or at least the majority of us.
UppaJacks. |
Here you are NJ from page 3 of this interesting little thread, only had to go back 18 months
‘And anyone that says that this forum doesn't try to shut down any reasonable debate are only kidding themselves.’
J’accuse ;) | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 18:35 - Sep 25 with 748 views | Neath_Jack |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 18:32 - Sep 25 by chad |
Here you are NJ from page 3 of this interesting little thread, only had to go back 18 months
‘And anyone that says that this forum doesn't try to shut down any reasonable debate are only kidding themselves.’
J’accuse ;) |
That's a marvellous post from me, did I really construct that?  |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
