| Conflict of interest 05:10 - Feb 22 with 24062 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 16:10 - Feb 23 with 1892 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 16:07 - Feb 23 by Loyal |
We will have a healthy debate soon enough as long as you don't imply you are being bullied or threatened.
Yes, that old chestnut. Teams are out. |
And in the time it took to type that you could have backed up your dubious claim.
Well that gives you 45 minutes to think of something I suppose. Looks like you need it. |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 16:14 - Feb 23 with 1877 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Conflict of interest on 15:40 - Feb 23 by The_E20 |
Around £4m after tax is what I said. I stand by that until someone informs me otherwise.
I should have put “saleable” in front of shares then for the pedantic. £4m after tax is what the Trust would have at this point in time - plus some worthless and ubsaleable shares without any scope to take legal action.
Bend it however you like and play the word police - these are facts. If you think the Trust would have £4m after tax and a load of saleable shares left then I am seriously worried that you take a position on the board - that’s on top of already trying to dictate to other supporters what they can and cannot talk about and with whom. These are very important matters you are trying to stifle debate on.
Do you have any comment on the latest lies from the Trust regarding Coozegate? A public retraction? Revision? Apology?
Didn’t think so. [Post edited 23 Feb 2019 15:44]
|
I’m not getting into the Cooze thing with you out of resect for the man himself. Suffice to say they aren’t lies. The person who’s telling you they are (and we all know who that is) is lying to you. You’re a useful idiot propaganda tool, you’re just too Dim to realise it. |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 21:24 - Feb 23 with 1789 views | jackrmee |
| Conflict of interest on 22:19 - Feb 22 by The_E20 |
Well, the people that wouldn’t like it are the ones that want the power with the fans not manipulated by the board. You say the Trust are accessible on here, how? They are accessible if you have an opinion that matches theirs.
I was trying to get to the bottom of a blatant lie and cover up this week and in response the chairman locks the threads to shut down that line of questioning while other board members discredit the poster and attempt to stifle debate.
The sinister part is, it’s then hidden behind “it’s not a Trust forum, they can do what they like”. If they wish to have maximum exposure to the fans by using this site, then to avoid the clear conflict of interest it needs to be officially Trust run - but they won’t do that as they know they will then be held accountable for their actions on here. |
WHat threads got locked? |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 21:24 - Feb 23 with 1789 views | jackrmee |
| Conflict of interest on 20:01 - Feb 22 by ItchySphincter |
Yeah, the mods locked my thread so that it would sink. Not really fair as it was a perfect representation of who is wrong with this board. |
Which thread? | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 21:36 - Feb 23 with 1783 views | jasper_T |
| Conflict of interest on 21:24 - Feb 23 by jackrmee |
WHat threads got locked? |
The old one about should Trust reps get paid. |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 22:43 - Feb 23 with 1743 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Conflict of interest on 16:14 - Feb 23 by exiledclaseboy |
I’m not getting into the Cooze thing with you out of resect for the man himself. Suffice to say they aren’t lies. The person who’s telling you they are (and we all know who that is) is lying to you. You’re a useful idiot propaganda tool, you’re just too Dim to realise it. |
Methinks he dost protest too much. (Not E20). | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 00:39 - Feb 24 with 1684 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 16:14 - Feb 23 by exiledclaseboy |
I’m not getting into the Cooze thing with you out of resect for the man himself. Suffice to say they aren’t lies. The person who’s telling you they are (and we all know who that is) is lying to you. You’re a useful idiot propaganda tool, you’re just too Dim to realise it. |
Desperately trying to insult supporters that you incorrectly disagree with isn’t doing your cause or the cause of the organisation you represent any good... (although I use that term loosely as it isn’t apparent what it is you actually do).
But alas, I would suggest it’s more a case of the person telling you they are not lies is hoodwinking you, and you are too giddy as you feel important now to realise you are being lied to. As usual you remain about 3 steps behind what is actually happening, which is useful to have on the board considering the Trust likes it when their affiliates cannot work out what is going on for toffee until it’s too late.
I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. Let’s say for arguments sake I am right. Do you think this is yet another own goal from the Trust? If there is a case to answer would you recommend they come clean? Hypothetically speaking of course.
And this ridiculous notion about refusing to discuss stuff and deleting/locking things because of Huw is nonsense, nobody is blaming Huw anymore. The accusation is at the Trust door. In that case anything bad said about the Americans - can we delete and lock them? You know, to be consistent like? Course not, that won’t help Trust propaganda now will it.
What say ye Andrew? [Post edited 24 Feb 2019 3:19]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 00:50 - Feb 24 with 1671 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 22:43 - Feb 23 by exiledclaseboy |
Methinks he dost protest too much. (Not E20). |
And just like that Andrew gets sent the evidence and his tail goes back between his legs. So that’s Andrew, Ux and Phil all now know the truth and not one peep. Very odd indeed. The response instead? Try and find out who I am - priceless.
Apology accepted then, old bean. Think for yourself next time and stop getting giddy because people fell for your act on here which inexplicably got you a seat on the board. You are doing the fans, the club and the organisation no good at all with your current attitude and the “police ourselves” type approach.
So a third (probably more) of board members know this information. All I sense is a circling of the wagons, close ranks and hope it goes away type of thought while doing their best to discredit the other party. Am I right? Do you think that is working for the best interests of the club and membership... or just the best thing for the people within the Trust that occupy positions they are protecting?
This set of Trust members are becoming a bigger joke than the last ones and I really wish I was exaggerating. Can anybody take these clowns seriously? It’s embarassing. [Post edited 24 Feb 2019 1:19]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Conflict of interest on 01:00 - Feb 24 with 1664 views | The_E20 |
And Loyal is still trying to think of my agenda too. Bless him. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 01:34 - Feb 24 with 1645 views | Chief |
So in a nutshell,
What exactly is your point you're trying to get across E20? |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 02:07 - Feb 24 with 1636 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 01:34 - Feb 24 by Chief |
So in a nutshell,
What exactly is your point you're trying to get across E20? |
Well I was asked a question directly in the OP, my point was to answer that as fully as I could. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 03:12 - Feb 24 with 1621 views | Loyal |
| Conflict of interest on 01:00 - Feb 24 by The_E20 |
And Loyal is still trying to think of my agenda too. Bless him. |
I know exactly what your agenda is, it's to believe you are right so you can rest easy and not get too worried about the fact you are generally very, very wrong. Self confirming to be right to yourself continuously is a terrible addiction. | |
| 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 04:14 - Feb 24 with 1607 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 03:12 - Feb 24 by Loyal |
I know exactly what your agenda is, it's to believe you are right so you can rest easy and not get too worried about the fact you are generally very, very wrong. Self confirming to be right to yourself continuously is a terrible addiction. |
And there was me thinking you actually thought there was an alternative agenda as opposed to a cheap opportunity to do the usual “you are always wrong although cannot tell you where, cannot tell you how and cannot tell you specifics”. The calling card of the poster completely at a loss as to how to respond.
But you are correct in the sense that you note how I put great importance on accuracy of view and being right behind the premise of a post. I think that is just good standards of discourse isn’t it? Everyone should have the same standards on here and if they did we wouldn’t have threads that degenerate into rubbish.
The fact is, my views and posts are so startlingly correct that people like yourself go to great lengths to point out any tiny detail you can find, even if it’s a typing error or a detail in which it has no bearing on the post itself. Due to being proven right time and time again people would completely go against common sense, their own aims and common decency just to have a stab at proving me wrong, even if it means they have to concoct a stance they don’t actually believe in themselves to try it - hence opposition to me is usually wafer thin and can be obliterated simply by lightly asking for specifics.
It is not only me that has noted the desire is not for me to prove myself correct (I take that as a given) but other people harbour the agenda to try and prove me wrong - when they can’t, they verbally abuse me and we get to the situation highlighted above.
Now the key:-
I have told you what my agenda is. That is to have people represent the fans that want to do just that. Do it with honesty, integrity and openness - even if that means some level of personal accountability.
Do you think that is a good agenda or a bad one? Honest answer please. [Post edited 24 Feb 2019 4:26]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 08:13 - Feb 24 with 1557 views | jackrmee |
| Conflict of interest on 01:34 - Feb 24 by Chief |
So in a nutshell,
What exactly is your point you're trying to get across E20? |
I was thinking the same...
I still don't get what the trust have actually done wrong. | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 09:06 - Feb 24 with 1494 views | exiledclaseboy |
Thanks for further confirmation that you’re his bitch. The first thing he sent me last night proves nothing other than that.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 09:08 - Feb 24 with 1485 views | jackrmee |
What does ECB mean again? | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 09:13 - Feb 24 with 1473 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 09:06 - Feb 24 by exiledclaseboy |
Thanks for further confirmation that you’re his bitch. The first thing he sent me last night proves nothing other than that.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Thanks for confirming you are the Trust’s bitch. Your silly words don’t affect me, my boy.
Now again, would you like to read out the very first message he sent you yesterday in response to you making a fool of yourself on this thread?
We can then discuss your position on it.
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 09:14 - Feb 24 with 1468 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 09:08 - Feb 24 by jackrmee |
What does ECB mean again? |
I don’t even think he knows what he means anymore. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 11:02 - Feb 24 with 1398 views | Loyal |
| Conflict of interest on 04:14 - Feb 24 by The_E20 |
And there was me thinking you actually thought there was an alternative agenda as opposed to a cheap opportunity to do the usual “you are always wrong although cannot tell you where, cannot tell you how and cannot tell you specifics”. The calling card of the poster completely at a loss as to how to respond.
But you are correct in the sense that you note how I put great importance on accuracy of view and being right behind the premise of a post. I think that is just good standards of discourse isn’t it? Everyone should have the same standards on here and if they did we wouldn’t have threads that degenerate into rubbish.
The fact is, my views and posts are so startlingly correct that people like yourself go to great lengths to point out any tiny detail you can find, even if it’s a typing error or a detail in which it has no bearing on the post itself. Due to being proven right time and time again people would completely go against common sense, their own aims and common decency just to have a stab at proving me wrong, even if it means they have to concoct a stance they don’t actually believe in themselves to try it - hence opposition to me is usually wafer thin and can be obliterated simply by lightly asking for specifics.
It is not only me that has noted the desire is not for me to prove myself correct (I take that as a given) but other people harbour the agenda to try and prove me wrong - when they can’t, they verbally abuse me and we get to the situation highlighted above.
Now the key:-
I have told you what my agenda is. That is to have people represent the fans that want to do just that. Do it with honesty, integrity and openness - even if that means some level of personal accountability.
Do you think that is a good agenda or a bad one? Honest answer please. [Post edited 24 Feb 2019 4:26]
|
Thanks for agreeing with me. | |
| 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 11:06 - Feb 24 with 1384 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 11:02 - Feb 24 by Loyal |
Thanks for agreeing with me. |
Which part agreed with you?
That I put importance on accuracy of concept is a standard of discourse that we should all have, it’s not an agenda. My agenda has been highlighted to you twice now, which of course should also be everybodies agenda. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 11:16 - Feb 24 with 1363 views | Dewi1jack |
| Conflict of interest on 09:13 - Feb 24 by The_E20 |
Thanks for confirming you are the Trust’s bitch. Your silly words don’t affect me, my boy.
Now again, would you like to read out the very first message he sent you yesterday in response to you making a fool of yourself on this thread?
We can then discuss your position on it.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Is there any reason you won't post the proof you have?
Nearly 300 trust members went against the so obviously wanted direction in the vote.
Badly worded voting papers led imho to a wrong voting outcome |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 11:28 - Feb 24 with 1343 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 11:16 - Feb 24 by Dewi1jack |
Is there any reason you won't post the proof you have?
Nearly 300 trust members went against the so obviously wanted direction in the vote.
Badly worded voting papers led imho to a wrong voting outcome |
I don’t think it’s my place to do so. It’s not my email to post.
I would much prefer the Trust to be open and honest about it which will allow posters to make more sense of a very important period that of time in the organisation and the self preservation attitudes held. I don’t consider myself a whistleblower, I’m just shocked and appalled continually, at how the Trust acts and behaves.
Edit* I see this was directed at ECB not me. The floor is his. [Post edited 24 Feb 2019 11:32]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 11:32 - Feb 24 with 1403 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Conflict of interest on 11:28 - Feb 24 by The_E20 |
I don’t think it’s my place to do so. It’s not my email to post.
I would much prefer the Trust to be open and honest about it which will allow posters to make more sense of a very important period that of time in the organisation and the self preservation attitudes held. I don’t consider myself a whistleblower, I’m just shocked and appalled continually, at how the Trust acts and behaves.
Edit* I see this was directed at ECB not me. The floor is his. [Post edited 24 Feb 2019 11:32]
|
No it was a reply to you which quoted your post. The floor is all yours. | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 11:34 - Feb 24 with 1393 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 11:32 - Feb 24 by exiledclaseboy |
No it was a reply to you which quoted your post. The floor is all yours. |
So it was. In which case the original reply stands.
It is down to the Trust to be open and honest with its members. Feel free... | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:41 - Feb 24 with 1328 views | Dewi1jack |
| Conflict of interest on 11:34 - Feb 24 by The_E20 |
So it was. In which case the original reply stands.
It is down to the Trust to be open and honest with its members. Feel free... |
No.
It's you accusing the Trust of wrong doing.
Help the members who took the wrong direction in the legal vote.
Properly worded and I do believe the outcome would have different.
Especially if every party involving the sale had been open and honest.
Especially dimwit as he'd been top end of the Trust.
No Mark friends like that are no use to anyone | |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
