| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against 17:29 - Jul 1 with 6750 views | E20Jack |
Before the poll was compromised by multis.
Certainly a clear direction here.
Let's hope the Trust members follow suit in what seems to be a pretty closed book of rhetoric on their part to sway decision one way rather than the other. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 9:16]
|  |
| |  |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:10 - Jul 2 with 1059 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:08 - Jul 2 by Neath_Jack |
Where's the poll gone? |
OP took it down amid allegations of gerrymandering. |  |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:11 - Jul 2 with 1061 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:08 - Jul 2 by Neath_Jack |
Where's the poll gone? |
Been explained in the posts above Neath Jack. People were using multis to fix the vote.
40 votes in 14 hours then 30 in 15 minutes, all one side all from dormant/new accounts filling up the bottom of the screen, in order, one after another.
The question is - "who" would want to do that, and what are they afraid of? [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 10:14]
| |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:15 - Jul 2 with 1054 views | Neath_Jack |
Dirty tactics eh.
I absolutely love this site aye.
On a similar note, there was a player of the year vote on here at the arse end of last season and there were hundreds of votes cast. There was no way those numbers were correct either. |  |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:29 - Jul 2 with 1027 views | Pokerface |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:15 - Jul 2 by Neath_Jack |
Dirty tactics eh.
I absolutely love this site aye.
On a similar note, there was a player of the year vote on here at the arse end of last season and there were hundreds of votes cast. There was no way those numbers were correct either. |
I think poster of the year has been won in a similar way in the past. |  |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:30 - Jul 2 with 1026 views | Uxbridge |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:10 - Jul 2 by exiledclaseboy |
OP took it down amid allegations of gerrymandering. |
But we're assuming the votes in favour of the rather loaded poll were genuine? |  |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:41 - Jul 2 with 1012 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:30 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
But we're assuming the votes in favour of the rather loaded poll were genuine? |
No reason to believe otherwise Ux?
There was nothing loaded about the poll at all.
1) £5m and limited protection
2) take them to court for the lot
Fair wording surely?
I don't think anyone from the Trust can comment on loaded statements with a straight face. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:48 - Jul 2 with 988 views | Uxbridge |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:41 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
No reason to believe otherwise Ux?
There was nothing loaded about the poll at all.
1) £5m and limited protection
2) take them to court for the lot
Fair wording surely?
I don't think anyone from the Trust can comment on loaded statements with a straight face. |
Surely? Quite the opposite I'd say. It's one take of course, but it's not one I agree with in terms of summing up the options. It's the wording of someone advocating legal action. If you can't see that then not a lot I can say.
As for closing the vote when it was turning against how you wanted it to go, I think that's poor form. I doubt either side has a monopoly on multiple usernames. If you're going to do a loaded poll at least have the courage to see it through. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:52 - Jul 2 with 985 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:48 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
Surely? Quite the opposite I'd say. It's one take of course, but it's not one I agree with in terms of summing up the options. It's the wording of someone advocating legal action. If you can't see that then not a lot I can say.
As for closing the vote when it was turning against how you wanted it to go, I think that's poor form. I doubt either side has a monopoly on multiple usernames. If you're going to do a loaded poll at least have the courage to see it through. |
If that is your view of this particular situation then that is horrendously frightening considering you are tasked with looking out for such dodgy dealings in far more important scenarios.
If your ability to deduce what is corrupt and what is not is indicative of the general Trusts ability to do so then it is absolutely no wonder the organisation has been shafted time and time again and faces this exact situation it's in.
I find your disingenuous attitude nauseating. More than happy for a fair poll, but a fair poll it most certainly was not in what was an incredibly fair worded poll representing the actual situation, not one you are trying to make out it is. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 11:02]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:03 - Jul 2 with 963 views | Uxbridge |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:52 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
If that is your view of this particular situation then that is horrendously frightening considering you are tasked with looking out for such dodgy dealings in far more important scenarios.
If your ability to deduce what is corrupt and what is not is indicative of the general Trusts ability to do so then it is absolutely no wonder the organisation has been shafted time and time again and faces this exact situation it's in.
I find your disingenuous attitude nauseating. More than happy for a fair poll, but a fair poll it most certainly was not in what was an incredibly fair worded poll representing the actual situation, not one you are trying to make out it is. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 11:02]
|
Heh. Rightio. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:06 - Jul 2 with 953 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:30 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
But we're assuming the votes in favour of the rather loaded poll were genuine? |
I've no idea. It's the intrigue that amuses me. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:06 - Jul 2 with 956 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:03 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
Heh. Rightio. |
How predictable. Unfortunately despressingly so.
Trust needs a reform more than ever and these past few weeks have shown that more than ever. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:08 - Jul 2 with 950 views | Uxbridge |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:06 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
How predictable. Unfortunately despressingly so.
Trust needs a reform more than ever and these past few weeks have shown that more than ever. |
It was either laugh it off or respond in similar terms. It seemed pointless. I'll leave you to it. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:13 - Jul 2 with 942 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:08 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
It was either laugh it off or respond in similar terms. It seemed pointless. I'll leave you to it. |
You could not respond in similar terms as I have obviously got a fair grasp on what is a fair poll and what is a corrupt one. The wording can be debated if you like but I would win hands down. What cannot be debated is the legitimacy of the poll today which is something you attempted to do quite disingenuously in order to push a certain agenda - so I am afraid you do not have the moral footing to respond in kind which is why you were left with the reply you were left with - as stated deapressingly predictably so. | |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 11:14 - Jul 2 with 942 views | max936 |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 19:52 - Jul 1 by Oldjack |
Grow a pair and fight the robbing bastards all the way ,
What's amazed me was the reluctance of the share holders to give /sell shares to the trust to reach that o powerful 25% . we all know why now .,Devious sly underhand dealings to line their pockets and the Yanks must have known this yet still employed him ,it stinks to the core
Sorry if i was Phil i wouldn't give treacherous Huw & co the time of day |
Great Post AG  |  |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 11:20 - Jul 2 with 929 views | max936 |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 22:49 - Jul 1 by fbreath |
The initial £6million offer is not sufficient compensation for the way the supporters have been treated (the trust is the supporters as well as those elected to represent the supporters).
I believe there is more to be gotten. This is serious business. What would the Americans do if the shoe was on the other foot. |
Spot on. | |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 11:21 - Jul 2 with 926 views | E20Jack |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 11:20 - Jul 2 by max936 |
Spot on. |
Yep there simply is no other legitimate course of action. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:02 - Jul 2 with 833 views | Oldjack |
Right who took the poll off and why ? |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:06 - Jul 2 with 824 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:02 - Jul 2 by Oldjack |
Right who took the poll off and why ? |
The OP took it down himself. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:08 - Jul 2 with 818 views | raynor94 |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:02 - Jul 2 by Oldjack |
Right who took the poll off and why ? |
OP, because the tide had turned |  |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:29 - Jul 2 with 790 views | trampie |
I voted for legal action and I reckon the vote for legal action was 69% for and at that stage the poll had been up a long time.
It's seems like there is skullduggery afoot.
I do not trust the people running the club or sorry to say I do not trust the people running the supporters trust either. |  |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:34 - Jul 2 with 779 views | trampie |
It seems to me people running the club and people running the supporters trust are way to friendly and seem in lots of cases to put their own interests first before what's best for Swansea football club and it's fans. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:57 - Jul 2 with 756 views | Jack_y_Jwc |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:41 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
No reason to believe otherwise Ux?
There was nothing loaded about the poll at all.
1) £5m and limited protection
2) take them to court for the lot
Fair wording surely?
I don't think anyone from the Trust can comment on loaded statements with a straight face. |
Was this really the wording?!
If only it was that cut & dry | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:59 - Jul 2 with 752 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:08 - Jul 2 by raynor94 |
OP, because the tide had turned |
I hope you aren't that stupid, for your sake. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:01 - Jul 2 with 747 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:29 - Jul 2 by trampie |
I voted for legal action and I reckon the vote for legal action was 69% for and at that stage the poll had been up a long time.
It's seems like there is skullduggery afoot.
I do not trust the people running the club or sorry to say I do not trust the people running the supporters trust either. |
Of course there was. Only a complete idiot would think otherwise.... or someone with a convenient agenda to push if cousre. To think a member of the Trust board has come on trying to defend the defenceless says it all. I surely don't need to expand? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
