| Removal of the current CEO 21:06 - Nov 24 with 12918 views | SI_Blue |
Not sure about any planned protests but the time has come to remove the current CEO before too much damage is done. There are people who have in the past, taken action against the board ready to do the same again.
Nobody is against BBM and everybody is for the continuation of this club with sustainability and some much needed backing for new recruits in January. Signings that will not place the club in jeopardy in the long run. Nobody is against the Trust but more direct action is needed and if you cannot ramp the pressure up on the toy maker, then we will make sure he leaves by continued pressure and exposing him for what he is.
This club was here before DB and will be here after he is gone! As supporters we have a duty to be the custodians of the future and plan a replacement when the tide rises and washes this fraud out to sea.
He managed to slip the net given the sacking of KH and the fight for survival last season. Well what goes around comes around and people have not forgotten how CD was treated by these frauds and karma is a bastard when served correctly.
Long live our beautiful club, it is time for those who care to stand up and take action. [Post edited 24 Nov 2019 21:10]
|  |
| Backs Against The Wall Since 1907 |
| |  |
| Removal of the current CEO on 21:47 - Nov 27 with 1518 views | SuddenLad |
My understanding is that I showed no proof of what I had claimed, (i.e. did not supply any corroborating evidence for the story), therefore it was 'pulled'.
It is true that I did not provide any link in that specific post, but previous posts by me (and others) on previous threads, had. Indeed, posts on this thread have provided the relevant links. It is in the public domain and widely known.
I was given an explanation by a moderator in a private message, which with a shrug of my shoulders, I accepted, but think it was a bit pedantic. I do, however accept that moderators have a role to play in protecting us all - and themselves.
I urge people with any doubts to click the several links which exist to discover more. Or this one:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5guXDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA280&ots=CefIL43O2N&dq=Has [Post edited 27 Nov 2019 21:52]
|  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Removal of the current CEO on 21:54 - Nov 27 with 1489 views | judd |
| Removal of the current CEO on 21:47 - Nov 27 by SuddenLad |
My understanding is that I showed no proof of what I had claimed, (i.e. did not supply any corroborating evidence for the story), therefore it was 'pulled'.
It is true that I did not provide any link in that specific post, but previous posts by me (and others) on previous threads, had. Indeed, posts on this thread have provided the relevant links. It is in the public domain and widely known.
I was given an explanation by a moderator in a private message, which with a shrug of my shoulders, I accepted, but think it was a bit pedantic. I do, however accept that moderators have a role to play in protecting us all - and themselves.
I urge people with any doubts to click the several links which exist to discover more. Or this one:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5guXDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA280&ots=CefIL43O2N&dq=Has [Post edited 27 Nov 2019 21:52]
|
The Trust published minutes here:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2019/02/meeting-with-the-club-27th-feb/
Only credible witness. You may wish to research this further in the report of the appeal by Argos and Littlewoods.
It is in the public domain and no accusations are being levelled. |  |
| |
| Removal of the current CEO on 21:54 - Nov 27 with 1489 views | Dorislove |
| Removal of the current CEO on 21:47 - Nov 27 by SuddenLad |
My understanding is that I showed no proof of what I had claimed, (i.e. did not supply any corroborating evidence for the story), therefore it was 'pulled'.
It is true that I did not provide any link in that specific post, but previous posts by me (and others) on previous threads, had. Indeed, posts on this thread have provided the relevant links. It is in the public domain and widely known.
I was given an explanation by a moderator in a private message, which with a shrug of my shoulders, I accepted, but think it was a bit pedantic. I do, however accept that moderators have a role to play in protecting us all - and themselves.
I urge people with any doubts to click the several links which exist to discover more. Or this one:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5guXDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA280&ots=CefIL43O2N&dq=Has [Post edited 27 Nov 2019 21:52]
|
What was the exact reason for taking it down ,content or your grammer. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
