Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[1971cobbler]

I mean, we all know that Tom was aiming at the Trust with his ""offensive emails" post and being as he can't prove it, he shouldn't post it. We all know that mud sticks, so as a moderator, are you going to ask him to make it clear that he has no proof that the emails came from the Trust, or will he twist the words again?
  

I thought that it's been proven already that Tom said that they were offensive email 'addresses'.

This was then backed up with a partial screen grab with some relevant detail (which I do know could have been doctored of course, but would doubt they have been personally).

I can't see any reference from him that says that they were offensive emails, no matter whom the source.

[Peter Frost]

What a ridiculous argument re the nonsensical email (and I’m having a word with myself for even entering the discussion) - Tom posted his petition, the majority of people who signed agreed with some or all of the sentiment, some will have read it, disagreed and ignored it - whilst a small minority felt the same but decided to send immature responses - clearly the Trust in it‘s official capacity is not responsible for these mails, however one doesn’t need to be a genius to conclude those individuals are likely to be sympathetic to the Trust’s current situation but so what? given they hid behind the keyboard their opinions and actions become irrelevant and frankly defending or indeed accusing them just encourages their unhelpful behaviour.

[Tom]

Maybe that's what I'm trying to do Nigel, now that Random has been driven off the board by the pack, there are not too many defending the Trust when lies are posted.
I mean, we all know that Tom was aiming at the Trust with his ""offensive emails" post and being as he can't prove it, he shouldn't post it. We all know that mud sticks, so as a moderator, are you going to ask him to make it clear that he has no proof that the emails came from the Trust, or will he twist the words again?
  

This post just confirms you're being disingenuous and not simply misunderstanding, despite my response which disproved most of what you're harping on about you're again quoting "offensive emails" despite that being proven to be wrong multiple times, you're again repeating that I accused them when I have quoted proving that I clearly did not - as others have said, there are multiple people who may have decided to put those fake signatures into the petition - hence I did not specify, you're just assuming it was aimed at the trust board.

It's just another attempt to distract from what was published, you can keep saying I'm twisting words all you like - but, I'd just remind you that other people can in fact read these conversations and see for themselves & it's quite apparent who's doing the twisting.

A couple of obvious points, but;
 
(a) What evidence is there that this is the trust themselves adding fake petition entries?  I'd suggest it's probably highly unlikely. - None, hence I didn't say it was the trust.

(b) Is the bigger point being lost on you here. Look past the 'Alan Partridge Crank Caller' petition names and I think the point being made is that for all we know, these 500 petitioners could all be one person for all we know - OK I know that's an exaggeration of the point, but you see what I mean. The point being made was that the signatures don't count towards the count until the person verifies the email address, whoever was doing this was obviously trying to bump up the numbers to then be able to say "it's all fake" - in reality, the email addresses have verified email addresses, we also have various systems in place to further check the validity - so no, the 500 are almost certainly not one person lol

(c) My juvenile sense of humour caused me to chuckle a little at Ben Dover-Kelvin. I did laugh at some of them lol

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Maybe that's what I'm trying to do Nigel, now that Random has been driven off the board by the pack, there are not too many defending the Trust when lies are posted.
I mean, we all know that Tom was aiming at the Trust with his ""offensive emails" post and being as he can't prove it, he shouldn't post it. We all know that mud sticks, so as a moderator, are you going to ask him to make it clear that he has no proof that the emails came from the Trust, or will he twist the words again?
  

Firstly Roger, Random has not been driven off of here. He returns periodically to make his point. And he is free to do so. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what Random says, but up to point I respect his right to post his thoughts. On some things, he certainly has a point. The only time I take him to task is when he blatantly lies, has he as done. He might of apologised and retracted his comments about my father, but he has still failed to apologise for accusing me of getting paid to moderate this forum. That one he still owes me. Despite of some of his behaviour, he would still be afforded the same amount of protection should he indicate to me that he is bullied.

In terms of Tom. HE HAS NOT SAID IT IS THE TRUST. All I can say, is that I wholeheartedly agree with you, that is certainly who he appeared to be talking about. I know you Roger. Whilst I hold the upmost respect for you and the great amount of work you have done for the Trust, the club and all of us supporters, you can be a bit like a dog with a bone at times. I'm not going to protect Tom. I'm sure he knows the true direction of travel he's taking. If I offered him some advice, it would be to be less involved with the back biting and set about seriously changing the things he can.

[guest3544]

I'm pages and pages behind...do we know how these petitioners with 'offensive names' voted?

[guest3481]

I'm pages and pages behind...do we know how these petitioners with 'offensive names' voted?

They voted FOR the ACV

[Carton Lid]

In terms of Tom. HE HAS NOT SAID IT IS THE TRUST. All I can say, is that I wholeheartedly agree with you, that is certainly who he appeared to be talking about.

That's what I'm saying, he's made it quite obvious who he's referring to, without naming names.
 I think that is a low thing to do, if that's his standards, it leaves a bit of a sour taste.

[Cornish Cobbler]

Anyway, amusing petition entries aside and whether or not there are connections to any of the protagonists involved in this ‘saga’, a mischievous individual, a state sponsored cyber attack (or just a wierdo – quite a few people can access the internet I understand), I note in KT's reply to Tom that he said funds (nothing specific) were available to complete the East but everything was stalled due to the ACV / rival bid /  judicial review issues. Given how long this has been going on for and how long its likely to continue,  to me this is surely now the ideal opportunity to crack on with the rest of the ground. Forget the East  – do the North or the South;  nothing is stopping this happening. To use KT's house analogy, put a couple of bloody great side extensions on. Would be lovely to see something delivered that reflects the ambitions the club have to progress.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

That's what I'm saying, he's made it quite obvious who he's referring to, without naming names.
 I think that is a low thing to do, if that's his standards, it leaves a bit of a sour taste.

I think the standard has dropped across the board. As I have said for many years now. It is a classic race to the bottom. In some respects KT probably is an admirer of Toms work. After all, wether it’s right or wrong, he must view the Trust as a huge fly in the ointment. They appear to be the one consistent obstacle in the way of his clear run to what he wants. So I’d imagine he relishes a challenge to their perceived authority. You’re dealing with people who for what ever reason want control. Let’s be honest mate. If you boiled them all down, you wouldn’t have enough common sense to fill a teaspoon.

[Tom]

That's what I'm saying, he's made it quite obvious who he's referring to, without naming names.
 I think that is a low thing to do, if that's his standards, it leaves a bit of a sour taste.

There is a number of people not all of which are board members who have used terminology and behavior that would align with the information I presented, hence I did not say I believed it to be the the Trust board, and still will not.

You have made your own assumptions about who I was referencing, and that's on you. I'd again suggest that is indicative of your acceptance of the behavior that you defend.

If I offered him some advice, it would be to be less involved with the back biting and set about seriously changing the things he can.

You're right, of course, and that's what we're all trying to do, but when I see comments repeated over and over again as fact that are simply not true and clearly just trying to spin things, such as this - I feel it prudent to at least attempt to clarify.

In terms of getting on with just changing things, we just want to make sure we're doing things the right way really, within the rules of the trust etc - so takes a little planning

[Carton Lid]

There is a number of people not all of which are board members who have used terminology and behavior that would align with the information I presented, hence I did not say I believed it to be the the Trust board, and still will not.

You have made your own assumptions about who I was referencing, and that's on you. I'd again suggest that is indicative of your acceptance of the behavior that you defend.

Come on then Tom, a one word "Yes or No" answer, when you said, and I quote " "while we couldn’t possibly speculate which group of people may be inclined to do something like that", were you referring to the Trust in your post?

No changing subject, no who I'm defending just a honest Yes or No

[Carton Lid]

I think the standard has dropped across the board. As I have said for many years now. It is a classic race to the bottom. In some respects KT probably is an admirer of Toms work. After all, wether it’s right or wrong, he must view the Trust as a huge fly in the ointment. They appear to be the one consistent obstacle in the way of his clear run to what he wants. So I’d imagine he relishes a challenge to their perceived authority. You’re dealing with people who for what ever reason want control. Let’s be honest mate. If you boiled them all down, you wouldn’t have enough common sense to fill a teaspoon.

100% correct

[Tom]

Come on then Tom, a "Yes or No" answer, when you said, and I quote " "while we couldn’t possibly speculate which group of people may be inclined to do something like that, were you referring to the Trust in your post?

No changing subject, no who I'm defending just a honest Yes or No

The answer to that question is literally in the post you're replying to   c'mon now.

Because you're clearly not getting it, i'll make it as clear as I possibly can No, I was not referencing the trust specifically, and I repeat:

"There is a number of people not all of which are board members who have used terminology and behavior that would align with the information I presented, hence I did not say I believed it to be the the Trust board, and still will not."

Not going round and round on this any more Roger, I've answered this enough.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

The answer to that question is literally in the post you're replying to   c'mon now.

Because you're clearly not getting it, i'll make it as clear as I possibly can No, I was not referencing the trust specifically, and I repeat:

"There is a number of people not all of which are board members who have used terminology and behavior that would align with the information I presented, hence I did not say I believed it to be the the Trust board, and still will not."

Not going round and round on this any more Roger, I've answered this enough.

Are you sure you didn’t mean them Tom 😂😂😛😛

[rebelspawn]

Come on then Tom, a one word "Yes or No" answer, when you said, and I quote " "while we couldn’t possibly speculate which group of people may be inclined to do something like that", were you referring to the Trust in your post?

No changing subject, no who I'm defending just a honest Yes or No

Can you define 'the trust' in the question above? Are you talking about the board specifically, or the wider membership? Because, i am no Sherlock Holmes, but based on the information provided i can deduce that the people/person that submitted those names and addresses are most likely:

1) not fans of Tom and the creation of the petition
2) largely supportive of the Trusts actions to date
3) A trust member
4) someone who is involved enough/cares passionately enough to actually submit the ridiculous entries in the first place.

I would like to think that it most certainly would not be a board member because that behavior should be well beneath any board member of any organization. However, we have many other examples of questionable behavior coming from the board and their advisors on social media, so who knows anymore?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Anyway, amusing petition entries aside and whether or not there are connections to any of the protagonists involved in this ‘saga’, a mischievous individual, a state sponsored cyber attack (or just a wierdo – quite a few people can access the internet I understand), I note in KT's reply to Tom that he said funds (nothing specific) were available to complete the East but everything was stalled due to the ACV / rival bid /  judicial review issues. Given how long this has been going on for and how long its likely to continue,  to me this is surely now the ideal opportunity to crack on with the rest of the ground. Forget the East  – do the North or the South;  nothing is stopping this happening. To use KT's house analogy, put a couple of bloody great side extensions on. Would be lovely to see something delivered that reflects the ambitions the club have to progress.

Sorry for being consistently boring, but nothing stopping this happening other than a typical reluctance by individuals generally to pour money down the drain? This is of course unless it’s on the basis of a rather generous gift. Q all the Kamikaze business plans that instigate the well worn phrase “I’m out”.

[Carton Lid]

Because you're clearly not getting it, i'll make it as clear as I possibly can No, I was not referencing the trust specifically,

Thank you, your answer has confirmed what I thought   

[Cornish Cobbler]

Sorry for being consistently boring, but nothing stopping this happening other than a typical reluctance by individuals generally to pour money down the drain? This is of course unless it’s on the basis of a rather generous gift. Q all the Kamikaze business plans that instigate the well worn phrase “I’m out”.

Get what you're saying totally but lets be honest, if you own a football club are you really expecting to make money – certainly at our level? Given the returns from a completed East seem relatively poor in terms of outlay why then would you bother with that at all (I appreciate we haven’t yet). It may be fantasy but I really did like that plan for the North from a while back that our friend from Thailand mentioned. Even if you upped the capacity and stuck a proper bar underneath, it would at least show a bit of ambition / intent. Given too how well the ladies are doing and the women’s game in general the stadium is presumably going to be utilised on a more regular basis which again should help matters.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Get what you're saying totally but lets be honest, if you own a football club are you really expecting to make money – certainly at our level? Given the returns from a completed East seem relatively poor in terms of outlay why then would you bother with that at all (I appreciate we haven’t yet). It may be fantasy but I really did like that plan for the North from a while back that our friend from Thailand mentioned. Even if you upped the capacity and stuck a proper bar underneath, it would at least show a bit of ambition / intent. Given too how well the ladies are doing and the women’s game in general the stadium is presumably going to be utilised on a more regular basis which again should help matters.

No your not, but then it boils down to individuals prepared to gift a club the money to develop. We’ve just had our 125th anniversary and are still waiting. The real concern is how they fund it. If it’s a straight donation then no problem, if it’s via a third party like, well us, you can be weeks from the abyss if things go pear shaped. Hardly Shangri-la.

[DavCobb]

Given the returns from a completed East seem relatively poor in terms of outlay why then would you bother with that at all (I appreciate we haven’t yet).

Why bother saying you intend to finish it when taking over the club?
Why bother loading debt onto the club to maintain unprofitable league two football?
Why bother buying into a lower league club…period?!
I can’t even see it being about a few acres of poisonous land. I’d love to see it fetch the money some idiots have been banding about. 

Surely you’re better off sticking it all on black or red….