| Conflict of interest 05:10 - Feb 22 with 23521 views | Loyal |
It was mentioned the other day Phil running the site and being on the trust was a conflict of interest.
I can't find any response by E20 after alleging there was. Probably me. Is there a link ? |  |
| 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 |
| |  |
| Conflict of interest on 18:29 - Feb 28 with 1976 views | Garyjack |
| Conflict of interest on 14:28 - Feb 28 by londonlisa2001 |
FAO Spratty.
So you think I sat on the f*cking fence did you.
Let’s examine the evidence shall we?
Immediately after the vote result I posted this:
“I couldn't have been more obvious that I think the deal is awful and exactly why that's the case.
I voted to reject the deal and take legal action.
I haven't received any communication by any means about my questions on the letter of concern you mentioned.
From anyone, Trust or not.
For what it's worth, I think a number of things have happened in the past few weeks, this so called letter, the disabled parking issue issue, the price of the friendly, that make it apparent that the so called influence was vastly overstated in the Trust documents.
It's also my personal belief that the documents were written in such a way, that this was the only result possible (a point I made before the vote - as I recall Ux argued against that and said that most seemed to want to stay as we are).
Unfortunately, the whole thing was decided and the debate was so one sided. It left most thinking they didn't really understand the issues and that they SHOULD support the recommendation, and many others thinking it was a forgone conclusion so they couldn't even be bothered to put one envolope in a post box.
I won't renew my membership. Not because a democratic vote went a way I didn't like, but because of the way that the issue has been handled. Some people have a fair bit of experience with some of this stuff, and no one was particularly interested in listening. Good luck though to the Trust board, I sincerely hope that my concerns are proved to be ill-founded and that we aren't sitting here in a few weeks, months or years wondering what may have been.”
Before the vote, I posted constantly against the deal, and I also wrote to the Trust in detail, explaining the issues.
You also raise the suggestion about me being asked by the Trust to bring up the issue re Cooze.
Nothing could be further from the bloody truth.
Despite the people gobbing off on here yet again last week about the issue and ‘the Trust’ hiding things as though we were all part of that, I’d remind you and others that the only reason it emerged was because I (and ECB, also now being accused of being part of a cover up) raised the bloody issue in the first place. I can assure you that far from being asked to do so, the fact that I realised there was a potential issue and blew that wide open was not something that anyone on the Trust at that time would have wanted to hapoen. I’m sure that any release of that info would have been managed very differently had anyone had their way than me (totally unconnected with the Trust at that time btw, in case you’ve f*cking forgotten) effectively blowing up a storm.
Your issues with the way people do or don’t treat you at Trust meetings has absolutely sod all to do with me. I’m not part of it am I.
As for the criticism of me not being at a meeting , f*ck you.
After the disastrous and ridiculous vote, I have tried to do something constructive to help. Not mouth off on forums, but devote literally hundreds of hours, free of charge, to add my experience to sorting out this utter sh*t. Not one penny for, to be frank, work that I would normally get paid tens of thousands of pounds for.
So instead of deciding to join in the tw*ts on here that think it’s hilarious to constantly accuse me personally of stuff they know nothing about, or constantly question my motives, or constantly harass me, why don’t you have a think about that. |
Post of the thread for me. |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 19:07 - Feb 28 with 1933 views | longlostjack |
| Conflict of interest on 14:28 - Feb 28 by londonlisa2001 |
FAO Spratty.
So you think I sat on the f*cking fence did you.
Let’s examine the evidence shall we?
Immediately after the vote result I posted this:
“I couldn't have been more obvious that I think the deal is awful and exactly why that's the case.
I voted to reject the deal and take legal action.
I haven't received any communication by any means about my questions on the letter of concern you mentioned.
From anyone, Trust or not.
For what it's worth, I think a number of things have happened in the past few weeks, this so called letter, the disabled parking issue issue, the price of the friendly, that make it apparent that the so called influence was vastly overstated in the Trust documents.
It's also my personal belief that the documents were written in such a way, that this was the only result possible (a point I made before the vote - as I recall Ux argued against that and said that most seemed to want to stay as we are).
Unfortunately, the whole thing was decided and the debate was so one sided. It left most thinking they didn't really understand the issues and that they SHOULD support the recommendation, and many others thinking it was a forgone conclusion so they couldn't even be bothered to put one envolope in a post box.
I won't renew my membership. Not because a democratic vote went a way I didn't like, but because of the way that the issue has been handled. Some people have a fair bit of experience with some of this stuff, and no one was particularly interested in listening. Good luck though to the Trust board, I sincerely hope that my concerns are proved to be ill-founded and that we aren't sitting here in a few weeks, months or years wondering what may have been.”
Before the vote, I posted constantly against the deal, and I also wrote to the Trust in detail, explaining the issues.
You also raise the suggestion about me being asked by the Trust to bring up the issue re Cooze.
Nothing could be further from the bloody truth.
Despite the people gobbing off on here yet again last week about the issue and ‘the Trust’ hiding things as though we were all part of that, I’d remind you and others that the only reason it emerged was because I (and ECB, also now being accused of being part of a cover up) raised the bloody issue in the first place. I can assure you that far from being asked to do so, the fact that I realised there was a potential issue and blew that wide open was not something that anyone on the Trust at that time would have wanted to hapoen. I’m sure that any release of that info would have been managed very differently had anyone had their way than me (totally unconnected with the Trust at that time btw, in case you’ve f*cking forgotten) effectively blowing up a storm.
Your issues with the way people do or don’t treat you at Trust meetings has absolutely sod all to do with me. I’m not part of it am I.
As for the criticism of me not being at a meeting , f*ck you.
After the disastrous and ridiculous vote, I have tried to do something constructive to help. Not mouth off on forums, but devote literally hundreds of hours, free of charge, to add my experience to sorting out this utter sh*t. Not one penny for, to be frank, work that I would normally get paid tens of thousands of pounds for.
So instead of deciding to join in the tw*ts on here that think it’s hilarious to constantly accuse me personally of stuff they know nothing about, or constantly question my motives, or constantly harass me, why don’t you have a think about that. |
Top post. Keep up the good work Lisa. |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 21:07 - Feb 28 with 1861 views | Phil_S |
I think its probably time to kill the myths just to try and bring it to a close.
Nobody has EVER been banned from here for disagreeing from the Trust. Those that have been banned will tell you that is the very reason they have been banned. But it's simply not. If it were the case then anyone who posted disagreeing would be banned. They aren't. Go figure.
Huw Cooze resigned from the Trust. The 'evidence' of otherwise has been shared with all three people, all three have pointed out that it doesn't prove what is being suggested but it is being ignored. People can choose to believe otherwise but I remember the conversation and Huw himself says that he resigned. Again, people can choose to believe otherwise (and I have no doubt that they will post to say so) but the fact remains that is what happened. Did I agree with his decision? Yes I did totally (and that will be no surprise to him) but it was with the same heavy heart when we had the conversation.
Is any of this discussion helping? Of course it is, it is helping those that people want to take legal action against. i find that very odd indeed. But indeed as I said earlier in the thread, go figure.
To those that will want to reply, feel free but the above will not be a change in view from me so I won't spend my time posting the same thing over and over using different words (sound familiar) and - much like Lisa - continually being called a liar and having integrity questioned is tiresome in the extreme and that is without the legal side that is reasonably obvious from making such accusations.
To the point that was made of setting up another forum to air the views then go ahead or use one of the excellent ones already available.
And finally, the decision on who can or cannot post on a website is the decision of the site owner (fansnetwork) and the people entrusted with providing the moderation of their sites. Ultimately the name www.planetswans.co.uk is owned by me ad whether you want to agree or not that means I can make the calls as to who can post or who can't. Or at least what usernames can or cannot post. But nobody will ever be banned for disagreeing with a Trust stance (oh and for the record Lisa and I had quite a frank exchange of views several times over the previous vote and also a few discussions in her early days on the board, she and i are in a very similar place on what should happen next)
So there you have it, over to the last word to have the last word I will read with great amusement the absolute novel that I read at some point (oh and for the record I dont generally check this website at 630 unless it has been targetted by the spambots that we used to get,just another myth that people make up)
Have a good evening - anybody fancy some football chat |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 21:23 - Feb 28 with 1825 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 16:14 - Feb 28 by londonlisa2001 |
No Spratty, you said:
“I always got the impression you were trying to tread the line / keep onside,”
as well as saying:
“Not quite as vociferously as some”
and:
“* I recall you most vigorously baying with the clique of officialdom ”
You’re clearly accusing me of only half hearted agreement with whatever was being posted on here and on another site I have visited about twice in its entire history.
On the Cooze subject you said:
“I recall you asking the question on here about payment to Trust Officials (possibly a specific Trust official). It seemed strange to me at the time“
And then:
“I recall it being suggested that you had been planted to ask that question by the Trust to finally get it out into the open after the long cover up and lies. I neither believed or disbelieved this accusation but it does reflect the affinity you were seen by some to have with officialdom on this site. ”
These are clear accusations of me being planted with information.
You made several references to me not being at meetings. You’ve done so again in this post.
You ranted for no reason about supposed treatment from Trust board members which has precisely zero to do with me.
The comment to which you replied and are referencing yet again, has absolutely no relevance to whatever you’re going on about. It’s a sarcastic point to E20 in reply to him saying that the reason I wasn’t banned is because I was too vociferous and pointing out it’s nonsense.
Now I’m leaving it there. To be honest Spratty, I’ve publicly backed you on here and privately backed you off here in a number of occasions. Even when your posts have been unreasonable, I’ve supported your wholehearted championing of Trust issues.
But enough is enough. Im simply not having you make accusations against my integrity and putting up with it. I will simply ignore anything whatsoever from you in the future. If you have battles against other Trust people or board members, take it up with them, not with me. [Post edited 28 Feb 2019 16:23]
|
I didn’t say you weren’t banned because you were too vociferous at all, just as a point of order. I said they ban the I need they feel they can get away with, of which you were not really one, there are several reasons for that. [Post edited 28 Feb 2019 21:47]
|  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 21:25 - Feb 28 with 1824 views | builthjack |
| Conflict of interest on 12:54 - Feb 28 by chad |
“As for the ‘they silenced some who were against the deal but not me, because I was vociferously against it’ - yeah, that’s just nonsense when you think about it, isn’t it”
Not quite as vociferously as some. I always got the impression you were trying to tread the line / keep onside, even though you did agree with the likes of Shakes, myself and many others about the serious deficiencies of the deal and certainly did speak out about it.
However
* I recall you most vigorously baying with the clique of officialdom on here against Shakes at the time he was trying to raise issues and advise. Of course he was more than able to give back what he got.
* I recall the main group of concerned parties posting on the other site because of being banned on here. That included shakes, T2C, Parley and myself.
* I recall issues being brought up repeatedly on the other site and finally the Trust Vice Chair making a few posts over there in response to repeated claims of unfair access to Trust officials and information on the Trust Chairs own censored website. Although initially he repeatedly would ignore any direct questions from me.
* I recall the Trust Vice Chair (when eventually he could no longer ignore my repeated questions on the other site) incorrectly denying the weaknesses of the protection of 25% ownership (as subject to dilution by share issue).
* I recall the Trust Vice Chair falsely claiming no payment to Trust officials with specific named e.g.s
* I recall you asking the question on here about payment to Trust Officials (possibly a specific Trust official). It seemed strange to me at the time given the Trust Vice Chairs clear statement of no payment as I could not believe a senior Trust official would be allowed to openly lie about such a sensitive and important issue. However that is what happened
* I recall it being suggested that you had been planted to ask that question by the Trust to finally get it out into the open after the long cover up and lies. I neither believed or disbelieved this accusation but it does reflect the affinity you were seen by some to have with officialdom on this site.
* I recall the Trust announcing they could not deal with the new majority owners without guarantees against share dilution, this was of course unrealistic and soon totally dropped.
* I recall after Shakes raising issues on the other site you starting to raise the same issues here
Given your statement above please tell me why I was repeatedly banned (along with others) when I was speaking out about concerns, first with inaccuracies allowed to be repeated re the strength of protections of 25% ownership, and then for strongly challenging the Trust Board on their strong support for the deal, given its serious deficiencies (which we both agreed on).
I would not use abusive language, always tried to refer to facts to back up my post, did not even resort to the type of comment like “it’s not difficult” etc. designed to imply the stupidity of posters who do not share an opinion.
Even when I set up New IDs to try and get the message over these were all immediately deleted, many even before I could make a single post on them. There was a very deliberate and determined approach to shut me up.
Neither were you at the pre vote meeting where rationally trying to explain the serious deficiencies of the deal (that many of us including yourself shared) and mentioning I had been prevented taking these issues up on the Trust Chairs website because I was banned, I was immediately verbally attacked by the Trust Chair and made out to be a liar, thus also discrediting the serious and accurate issues I was raising.
He later, when I was eventually able to raise it here, said it was because I was attacking him. Well if the truth casually mentioned as an aside feels like an attack perhaps it is not the teller that needs verbally attacking and falsely made out to be a liar.
Nor witnessed the Trust Chairs faux denials when my husband tried to speak to him about the abuse and bannings. And finding that my account (which had just been restored not long before the meeting) was again banned when I got home immediately after the meeting. Pretty sick, and not in a good way.
Nor At the end of that pre vote meeting where the Trust Chair repeatedly told the members present not to listen to people who google stuff. That was obviously referring to the serious and accurate concerns being raised on the websites by the likes of shakes and presumably yourself.
I agree it is not helpful to bring theses issues up, ,but it is totally unacceptable to deny them. Also Recent things said by Trust Board members on here and at the latest Trust meeting have given me serious cause for concern.
Plus more recent open lies, misrepresentation and attempts to stifle debate by Ux show this type of attitude / behaviour towards members is far from a thing of the past.
One of the many correct things E20 said on here
They shouldn’t be “getting the fanbase to vote in favour” of anything. This is the fundamental problem.
The supporters need fair and balanced information on the pros and cons of each argument. Which is why I suggested at the last 2 Trust meetings I attended, as a prudent precaution (after all the claims of bias on the last voting papers) that members be allowed to review and comment on the voting documentation prior to its formal issue, to ensure all issues and concerns are raised.
I don’t think you were at either of those meetings Lisa as far as I know (I understand you live away) However at the previous meeting when asked who would do this I said “well me, and anyone else who is interested” and at the last meeting I clearly stated in my question that this should be “from all sides of the argument” This was obvious to make clear as nothing else would be fair.
This was dismissed by the Chair basically saying the Trust Board were best equipped to handle this. Umm remember last time. When I tried to interrupt what was effectively the Trust Chairs dismissal of the memberships ability to add value and give protection from accusations of bias, I was told I would be given the opportunity to respond at the end, although that never occurred as it moved straight on to other questions.
Why would the Trust Board fear a review from all sides of the argument to ensure the document fairly reflected all the actual pros and cons. Why would the Trust Board think other members did not have something to offer after what occurred last time. Is it not a little arrogant to consider that amongst the membership there is not a shared knowledge, logic and business skills that meets and very possibly exceeds that of the Board. Especially as it is always possible to fine tune a product at review.
Such a review process on fitness for purpose is long established good business practice. Why would the Trust dismiss out of hand. Why would the Vice Chair subsequently mock me on this site and totally twist what I said, to say I was presenting myself as some sort of balanced arbiter when I made it clear it should be reviewed by all sides of the argument, which of course would be the only fair thing to do.
Why also would he accuse me of misrepresenting people at the Trust meeting but sit silent at the meeting and not mention this. I am totally unaware of misrepresenting anyone in the few questions I raised, neither would have any wish to do so. Perhaps the Vice Chair should speak up at meetings if we he has any actual valid concerns of this nature, as he had plenty of opportunity to do that |
Is that all? |  |
| 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.
|
| |
| Conflict of interest on 21:29 - Feb 28 with 1811 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Conflict of interest on 21:23 - Feb 28 by The_E20 |
I didn’t say you weren’t banned because you were too vociferous at all, just as a point of order. I said they ban the I need they feel they can get away with, of which you were not really one, there are several reasons for that. [Post edited 28 Feb 2019 21:47]
|
Yes, you’re right - you did say that. I was paraphrasing in an overly simplistic fashion for the sake of ease. |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 21:29 - Feb 28 with 1811 views | Loyal |
| Conflict of interest on 21:07 - Feb 28 by Phil_S |
I think its probably time to kill the myths just to try and bring it to a close.
Nobody has EVER been banned from here for disagreeing from the Trust. Those that have been banned will tell you that is the very reason they have been banned. But it's simply not. If it were the case then anyone who posted disagreeing would be banned. They aren't. Go figure.
Huw Cooze resigned from the Trust. The 'evidence' of otherwise has been shared with all three people, all three have pointed out that it doesn't prove what is being suggested but it is being ignored. People can choose to believe otherwise but I remember the conversation and Huw himself says that he resigned. Again, people can choose to believe otherwise (and I have no doubt that they will post to say so) but the fact remains that is what happened. Did I agree with his decision? Yes I did totally (and that will be no surprise to him) but it was with the same heavy heart when we had the conversation.
Is any of this discussion helping? Of course it is, it is helping those that people want to take legal action against. i find that very odd indeed. But indeed as I said earlier in the thread, go figure.
To those that will want to reply, feel free but the above will not be a change in view from me so I won't spend my time posting the same thing over and over using different words (sound familiar) and - much like Lisa - continually being called a liar and having integrity questioned is tiresome in the extreme and that is without the legal side that is reasonably obvious from making such accusations.
To the point that was made of setting up another forum to air the views then go ahead or use one of the excellent ones already available.
And finally, the decision on who can or cannot post on a website is the decision of the site owner (fansnetwork) and the people entrusted with providing the moderation of their sites. Ultimately the name www.planetswans.co.uk is owned by me ad whether you want to agree or not that means I can make the calls as to who can post or who can't. Or at least what usernames can or cannot post. But nobody will ever be banned for disagreeing with a Trust stance (oh and for the record Lisa and I had quite a frank exchange of views several times over the previous vote and also a few discussions in her early days on the board, she and i are in a very similar place on what should happen next)
So there you have it, over to the last word to have the last word I will read with great amusement the absolute novel that I read at some point (oh and for the record I dont generally check this website at 630 unless it has been targetted by the spambots that we used to get,just another myth that people make up)
Have a good evening - anybody fancy some football chat |
Having just had my head ripped off by a very close mate of yours I would also be very pleased for you as the site main admin to clear up the fact that I am not your co author and friend Keith. Thank you, to do so I think will save some seriously emabaressing moments for the couple of tools on here who continued to stalk, harrass and continually ask for an old fashioned spanking due to their inadequate posts and pathetic and cowardly behind a computer screen bullshit. | |
| 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 |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 21:32 - Feb 28 with 1794 views | whitemountains |
| Conflict of interest on 21:07 - Feb 28 by Phil_S |
I think its probably time to kill the myths just to try and bring it to a close.
Nobody has EVER been banned from here for disagreeing from the Trust. Those that have been banned will tell you that is the very reason they have been banned. But it's simply not. If it were the case then anyone who posted disagreeing would be banned. They aren't. Go figure.
Huw Cooze resigned from the Trust. The 'evidence' of otherwise has been shared with all three people, all three have pointed out that it doesn't prove what is being suggested but it is being ignored. People can choose to believe otherwise but I remember the conversation and Huw himself says that he resigned. Again, people can choose to believe otherwise (and I have no doubt that they will post to say so) but the fact remains that is what happened. Did I agree with his decision? Yes I did totally (and that will be no surprise to him) but it was with the same heavy heart when we had the conversation.
Is any of this discussion helping? Of course it is, it is helping those that people want to take legal action against. i find that very odd indeed. But indeed as I said earlier in the thread, go figure.
To those that will want to reply, feel free but the above will not be a change in view from me so I won't spend my time posting the same thing over and over using different words (sound familiar) and - much like Lisa - continually being called a liar and having integrity questioned is tiresome in the extreme and that is without the legal side that is reasonably obvious from making such accusations.
To the point that was made of setting up another forum to air the views then go ahead or use one of the excellent ones already available.
And finally, the decision on who can or cannot post on a website is the decision of the site owner (fansnetwork) and the people entrusted with providing the moderation of their sites. Ultimately the name www.planetswans.co.uk is owned by me ad whether you want to agree or not that means I can make the calls as to who can post or who can't. Or at least what usernames can or cannot post. But nobody will ever be banned for disagreeing with a Trust stance (oh and for the record Lisa and I had quite a frank exchange of views several times over the previous vote and also a few discussions in her early days on the board, she and i are in a very similar place on what should happen next)
So there you have it, over to the last word to have the last word I will read with great amusement the absolute novel that I read at some point (oh and for the record I dont generally check this website at 630 unless it has been targetted by the spambots that we used to get,just another myth that people make up)
Have a good evening - anybody fancy some football chat |
Please feel free to disagree but the more that you do, the more hits the site has, the more advertising the site has and therefore the more income the site has ( which is not a COI by the way, just because the site owner looks after 20% of our club as chair of the trust ) .
The non stop betting advertising on the twitter account . Evens it will continue for purely informative reasons . | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Conflict of interest on 21:33 - Feb 28 with 1786 views | whitemountains |
| Conflict of interest on 21:29 - Feb 28 by Loyal |
Having just had my head ripped off by a very close mate of yours I would also be very pleased for you as the site main admin to clear up the fact that I am not your co author and friend Keith. Thank you, to do so I think will save some seriously emabaressing moments for the couple of tools on here who continued to stalk, harrass and continually ask for an old fashioned spanking due to their inadequate posts and pathetic and cowardly behind a computer screen bullshit. |
Oh dear | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 21:33 - Feb 28 with 1786 views | Phil_S |
| Conflict of interest on 21:29 - Feb 28 by Loyal |
Having just had my head ripped off by a very close mate of yours I would also be very pleased for you as the site main admin to clear up the fact that I am not your co author and friend Keith. Thank you, to do so I think will save some seriously emabaressing moments for the couple of tools on here who continued to stalk, harrass and continually ask for an old fashioned spanking due to their inadequate posts and pathetic and cowardly behind a computer screen bullshit. |
I am now intrigued as to who the close mate is and why they would rip my head off but to my knowledge unless you have been keeping a very good surprise you are indeed not Keith (although he does have a username on here)
In fact I know that you cannot possibly be because you would have a significantly different IP address
Interestingly Keith mentioned me on his radio show a month or so back referencing my running and weight loss and dedicated Bohemian Rhapsody to me (the song not the oscar winning film) | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 21:35 - Feb 28 with 1774 views | Phil_S |
| Conflict of interest on 21:32 - Feb 28 by whitemountains |
Please feel free to disagree but the more that you do, the more hits the site has, the more advertising the site has and therefore the more income the site has ( which is not a COI by the way, just because the site owner looks after 20% of our club as chair of the trust ) .
The non stop betting advertising on the twitter account . Evens it will continue for purely informative reasons . |
This is right I am totally minted
Even the post you made in response probably put upwards of £37.80 into my pocket. Double that now as I responded.
Now lets think this through logically. This thread is currently on around 7000 views in total. Given all the server costs of the network etc and the two adverts on the page I am looking at which are clearly placed by an agency (who in itself will be taking a cut from any income) how much do you think it makes.
The site gets around 1.5m page views per month. Do you think that makes a fortune.
Trust me if there was money to be made on the site then I would spend time lovingly maintaining it and doing that rather than spending on average 80-100 nights a year away from home.
Next myth please
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 21:36 - Feb 28 with 1755 views | builthjack |
| Conflict of interest on 21:33 - Feb 28 by Phil_S |
I am now intrigued as to who the close mate is and why they would rip my head off but to my knowledge unless you have been keeping a very good surprise you are indeed not Keith (although he does have a username on here)
In fact I know that you cannot possibly be because you would have a significantly different IP address
Interestingly Keith mentioned me on his radio show a month or so back referencing my running and weight loss and dedicated Bohemian Rhapsody to me (the song not the oscar winning film) |
Is this the real life ?
Is this just fantasy ? | |
| 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.
|
| |
| Conflict of interest on 21:39 - Feb 28 with 1742 views | Phil_S |
| Conflict of interest on 21:36 - Feb 28 by builthjack |
Is this the real life ?
Is this just fantasy ? |
 | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 21:42 - Feb 28 with 1731 views | Darran |
| Conflict of interest on 21:29 - Feb 28 by Loyal |
Having just had my head ripped off by a very close mate of yours I would also be very pleased for you as the site main admin to clear up the fact that I am not your co author and friend Keith. Thank you, to do so I think will save some seriously emabaressing moments for the couple of tools on here who continued to stalk, harrass and continually ask for an old fashioned spanking due to their inadequate posts and pathetic and cowardly behind a computer screen bullshit. |
You’ll be having your head ripped when I get hold of you. |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 21:43 - Feb 28 with 1722 views | Zaxx |
| Conflict of interest on 21:35 - Feb 28 by Phil_S |
This is right I am totally minted
Even the post you made in response probably put upwards of £37.80 into my pocket. Double that now as I responded.
Now lets think this through logically. This thread is currently on around 7000 views in total. Given all the server costs of the network etc and the two adverts on the page I am looking at which are clearly placed by an agency (who in itself will be taking a cut from any income) how much do you think it makes.
The site gets around 1.5m page views per month. Do you think that makes a fortune.
Trust me if there was money to be made on the site then I would spend time lovingly maintaining it and doing that rather than spending on average 80-100 nights a year away from home.
Next myth please
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Ignore the white noise mate. |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 21:44 - Feb 28 with 1707 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 21:07 - Feb 28 by Phil_S |
I think its probably time to kill the myths just to try and bring it to a close.
Nobody has EVER been banned from here for disagreeing from the Trust. Those that have been banned will tell you that is the very reason they have been banned. But it's simply not. If it were the case then anyone who posted disagreeing would be banned. They aren't. Go figure.
Huw Cooze resigned from the Trust. The 'evidence' of otherwise has been shared with all three people, all three have pointed out that it doesn't prove what is being suggested but it is being ignored. People can choose to believe otherwise but I remember the conversation and Huw himself says that he resigned. Again, people can choose to believe otherwise (and I have no doubt that they will post to say so) but the fact remains that is what happened. Did I agree with his decision? Yes I did totally (and that will be no surprise to him) but it was with the same heavy heart when we had the conversation.
Is any of this discussion helping? Of course it is, it is helping those that people want to take legal action against. i find that very odd indeed. But indeed as I said earlier in the thread, go figure.
To those that will want to reply, feel free but the above will not be a change in view from me so I won't spend my time posting the same thing over and over using different words (sound familiar) and - much like Lisa - continually being called a liar and having integrity questioned is tiresome in the extreme and that is without the legal side that is reasonably obvious from making such accusations.
To the point that was made of setting up another forum to air the views then go ahead or use one of the excellent ones already available.
And finally, the decision on who can or cannot post on a website is the decision of the site owner (fansnetwork) and the people entrusted with providing the moderation of their sites. Ultimately the name www.planetswans.co.uk is owned by me ad whether you want to agree or not that means I can make the calls as to who can post or who can't. Or at least what usernames can or cannot post. But nobody will ever be banned for disagreeing with a Trust stance (oh and for the record Lisa and I had quite a frank exchange of views several times over the previous vote and also a few discussions in her early days on the board, she and i are in a very similar place on what should happen next)
So there you have it, over to the last word to have the last word I will read with great amusement the absolute novel that I read at some point (oh and for the record I dont generally check this website at 630 unless it has been targetted by the spambots that we used to get,just another myth that people make up)
Have a good evening - anybody fancy some football chat |
In order to kill the myths, it means you have to kill the myths. Saying “it’s not true” isn’t going to do that, you did similar when the “myth” surrounding the payments to the Trust SD came about - turns out they were very much true,
YES people have been banned for speaking out and Chad has provided you with a comprehensive, although still somewhat limited list. I don’t know how you can attempt to say otherwise and you are making things far worse by denying it, people being banned off here for being correctly critical of the Trust is an obvious and well trodden path.
Yes we know Cooze resigned from the Trust, nobody has said otherwise. What was said however is that nobody in the Trust told him to - that is a lie isn’t it. And the evidence shows just that. And as for ECB saying people are trying to link what happened back then to people now - no. I blame ECB for closing ranks, denying the clear evidence and refusing to address it while other Trust board members conti he to openly lie about it.
Why is this helping those you wish to take legal action against? Your conduct has absolutely naff all to do with the case or indeed the Americans or former shareholders. But of course you do like to link the two to force people to subconsciously pick a side.
So you go from “nobody gets banned for disagreeing with Trust views” despite the evidence suggesting otherwise and then go on to say it’s your website so you can ban whoever you like. This is where the conflict of interest comes in, if you owned the site and left people discuss things freely then fine - yet you are banning good people who have done nothing other than speak out and making up some rubbish cock and bul alternate reason in order to do it.
Don’t make me laugh regarding legal threats. Even your good mate Darran admitted you were a liar a couple of weeks back. If you are telling me that nobody within the Trust told Huw Cooze he had to resign then I will happily call you a liar because either way I would be correct. You either lied when you told someone that, or you are lying now. Go for it, you will probably need OJ Simpson’s lawyers though.
I take it I will have to wait until 6:30 for this to be read. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 21:44 - Feb 28 with 1708 views | Phil_S |
| Conflict of interest on 21:43 - Feb 28 by Zaxx |
Ignore the white noise mate. |
I generally do but having a rare night off running and enjoying a cuppa and a biscuit with nothing on the TV  | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 21:46 - Feb 28 with 1705 views | whitemountains |
| Conflict of interest on 21:35 - Feb 28 by Phil_S |
This is right I am totally minted
Even the post you made in response probably put upwards of £37.80 into my pocket. Double that now as I responded.
Now lets think this through logically. This thread is currently on around 7000 views in total. Given all the server costs of the network etc and the two adverts on the page I am looking at which are clearly placed by an agency (who in itself will be taking a cut from any income) how much do you think it makes.
The site gets around 1.5m page views per month. Do you think that makes a fortune.
Trust me if there was money to be made on the site then I would spend time lovingly maintaining it and doing that rather than spending on average 80-100 nights a year away from home.
Next myth please
This post has been edited by an administrator |
One does protest too much . Thanks for your charity Sir | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 21:49 - Feb 28 with 1683 views | Phil_S |
| Conflict of interest on 21:46 - Feb 28 by whitemountains |
One does protest too much . Thanks for your charity Sir |
You're very welcome. And there's another £75. Ker-ching
Oh and it would read better if you put doth instead of does. That's the traditional response. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 21:56 - Feb 28 with 1633 views | whitemountains |
| Conflict of interest on 21:44 - Feb 28 by The_E20 |
In order to kill the myths, it means you have to kill the myths. Saying “it’s not true” isn’t going to do that, you did similar when the “myth” surrounding the payments to the Trust SD came about - turns out they were very much true,
YES people have been banned for speaking out and Chad has provided you with a comprehensive, although still somewhat limited list. I don’t know how you can attempt to say otherwise and you are making things far worse by denying it, people being banned off here for being correctly critical of the Trust is an obvious and well trodden path.
Yes we know Cooze resigned from the Trust, nobody has said otherwise. What was said however is that nobody in the Trust told him to - that is a lie isn’t it. And the evidence shows just that. And as for ECB saying people are trying to link what happened back then to people now - no. I blame ECB for closing ranks, denying the clear evidence and refusing to address it while other Trust board members conti he to openly lie about it.
Why is this helping those you wish to take legal action against? Your conduct has absolutely naff all to do with the case or indeed the Americans or former shareholders. But of course you do like to link the two to force people to subconsciously pick a side.
So you go from “nobody gets banned for disagreeing with Trust views” despite the evidence suggesting otherwise and then go on to say it’s your website so you can ban whoever you like. This is where the conflict of interest comes in, if you owned the site and left people discuss things freely then fine - yet you are banning good people who have done nothing other than speak out and making up some rubbish cock and bul alternate reason in order to do it.
Don’t make me laugh regarding legal threats. Even your good mate Darran admitted you were a liar a couple of weeks back. If you are telling me that nobody within the Trust told Huw Cooze he had to resign then I will happily call you a liar because either way I would be correct. You either lied when you told someone that, or you are lying now. Go for it, you will probably need OJ Simpson’s lawyers though.
I take it I will have to wait until 6:30 for this to be read. |
Vendetta + ego + perceived importance + no personal liability = danger | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 22:02 - Feb 28 with 1603 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 21:56 - Feb 28 by whitemountains |
Vendetta + ego + perceived importance + no personal liability = danger |
It’s just nonsense really, anyone with half a brain will know something isn’t right with the Trust.
Although half get back on side and become part of the problem when the Trust go on their “defensive offensive” on here (as seen today) as Phil likes to tar the other side with that of the former shareholders. It’s propaganda 101, “if you aren’t with us, then you are with them”. The problem with such long term times is that you become very familiar with your membership and know exactly how to control them.
I am not with the former shareholders, I’m not with the Yanks. I’m a fan of the club that sees its supporters Trust in yes another utter mess acting in a destructive and counter productive way - again. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 22:36 - Feb 28 with 1549 views | swanforthemoney |
The thing is at least Sumbler is a real person. He is accountable to the extent I have spoken to him a couple of times at Trust meetings and asked him questions. He is also accountable to the electorate of the Trust every couple of years.
What about yourself E20? How do we hold you to account ? |  |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| Conflict of interest on 22:37 - Feb 28 with 1547 views | atSwansea |
| Conflict of interest on 22:02 - Feb 28 by The_E20 |
It’s just nonsense really, anyone with half a brain will know something isn’t right with the Trust.
Although half get back on side and become part of the problem when the Trust go on their “defensive offensive” on here (as seen today) as Phil likes to tar the other side with that of the former shareholders. It’s propaganda 101, “if you aren’t with us, then you are with them”. The problem with such long term times is that you become very familiar with your membership and know exactly how to control them.
I am not with the former shareholders, I’m not with the Yanks. I’m a fan of the club that sees its supporters Trust in yes another utter mess acting in a destructive and counter productive way - again. |
Would you be willing to give your views for FourFourTwo? | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 22:39 - Feb 28 with 1543 views | Darran |
| Conflict of interest on 22:37 - Feb 28 by atSwansea |
Would you be willing to give your views for FourFourTwo? |
You haven’t got enough paper. | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 22:46 - Feb 28 with 1514 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 22:36 - Feb 28 by swanforthemoney |
The thing is at least Sumbler is a real person. He is accountable to the extent I have spoken to him a couple of times at Trust meetings and asked him questions. He is also accountable to the electorate of the Trust every couple of years.
What about yourself E20? How do we hold you to account ? |
Accountable for what? You can by all means ask me anything you like regarding my views, my facts and my actions. As long as they don’t compromise people’s privacy I will answer all completely openly and honesty as I usually do. But I am not in an elected position of power so there is nothing I am accountable for other than my own views, and by its very nature am happy to be accountable for every single post I make. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
