| Conflict of interest 05:10 - Feb 22 with 24134 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 11:45 - Mar 1 with 1427 views | Chief |
| Conflict of interest on 11:41 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
I am not going to divulge that information.
Although what do you mean nobody can see?
I have seen it. Phil has seen it. Ux has seen it. ECB has seen it. |
Screenshot it on here then in the interests of transparency |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 11:46 - Mar 1 with 1420 views | Phil_S |
Chief - the email is actually a private message sent on here.
Considering this is about someone who has asked it to be stopped but that seems to be ignored lets keep this simple and factual
I broke off a family holiday in the North West to speak to Huw when this broke. We had a long conversation around what had happened and offered his resignation and he asked if he was doing the right thing. I agreed that he was and that he had to resign.
In this 'private' message I put that I broke off the family holiday to tell him he had to resign (or words to that effect). It was asked could that be posted on here and I took that bit out because Huw was broken at the time and I didn't see any reason to bring that back into the public domain. Simply - whatever the rights and wrongs - he was hounded by people at the time and as a friend of mine I wasn't about to see that be repeated (despite agreeing he had to resign)
That is now being discussed as him being forced to resign which simply is not true.
I genuinely will leave it to you and others to make your judgement as to what you think happened but I will say now that any PMs produced on here without permission will result in instant removal and a banning from the site.
This has been asked to end for no reason then it is raking over old ground and distressing for the one individual who has been through more in the three years since than anyone would wish on anybody.
(Edited because I left the F off the first word of the post)
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 11:46 - Mar 1 with 1410 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 11:45 - Mar 1 by Chief |
Screenshot it on here then in the interests of transparency |
It’s not up to me to post someone else’s mail, if they want to then they will.
I am happy for you to not believe it’s existence... even though nobody is denying it. |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 11:49 - Mar 1 with 1398 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 11:46 - Mar 1 by Phil_S |
Chief - the email is actually a private message sent on here.
Considering this is about someone who has asked it to be stopped but that seems to be ignored lets keep this simple and factual
I broke off a family holiday in the North West to speak to Huw when this broke. We had a long conversation around what had happened and offered his resignation and he asked if he was doing the right thing. I agreed that he was and that he had to resign.
In this 'private' message I put that I broke off the family holiday to tell him he had to resign (or words to that effect). It was asked could that be posted on here and I took that bit out because Huw was broken at the time and I didn't see any reason to bring that back into the public domain. Simply - whatever the rights and wrongs - he was hounded by people at the time and as a friend of mine I wasn't about to see that be repeated (despite agreeing he had to resign)
That is now being discussed as him being forced to resign which simply is not true.
I genuinely will leave it to you and others to make your judgement as to what you think happened but I will say now that any PMs produced on here without permission will result in instant removal and a banning from the site.
This has been asked to end for no reason then it is raking over old ground and distressing for the one individual who has been through more in the three years since than anyone would wish on anybody.
(Edited because I left the F off the first word of the post)
This post has been edited by an administrator |
This isn’t about Huw, it’s about you.
Why did you tell him he had to resign but you didn’t feel yourself or Jim should?
Nice spin by the way, it was predicted by myself almost word for word. Nobody said he was forced to resign, it is said that you told him he had to resign - which you did. Whether he felt you influenced him is irrelevant as I have said many times. The fact is you told him he had to.
But yes, what did Huw do for you to feel he had to resign when you felt you and Jim didn’t? [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 11:53]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 11:58 - Mar 1 with 1365 views | Loyal |
Although I can't see the pathetic and cowardly messages from E20 this one has no function on here other than to try to bully and harrass people, expose weaknesses that aren't there to boost their own egos. Now Phil has cleared up their vile attempts to make out I'm someone else ( and by fck you pair of cnts are lucky he has ) why are they not just kicked off here permanently. Because this will not end nicely, continual accusations and <name removed> allegations against Phil about lies and cowardice and fraud do nothing for this site, and others where they are allowed to flourish.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| 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 12:00 - Mar 1 with 1353 views | theloneranger |
| Conflict of interest on 11:41 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
I am not going to divulge that information.
Although what do you mean nobody can see?
I have seen it. Phil has seen it. Ux has seen it. ECB has seen it. |
You said the email is available.
If the said recipient of this email is not willing to divulge or publish said email ...
Then the email is not available!! |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 12:01 - Mar 1 with 1344 views | The_E20 |
By the way I am more than happy to let this drop.
I just want you doing what you should be doing and behaving how you should be. That’s the end of banning of posters such as myself and Chad for nothing, end of the lies, end of the selective abuse that some are allowed to get away with if it suits Trust agenda, end of the victimisation of posters on here etc etc the stuff you should be promoting as Supporters Trust Chair. Right?
A fair and impartial football forum where all opinions are welcome and everyone treated the same.. What an idea eh? [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 12:17]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:05 - Mar 1 with 1323 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 12:00 - Mar 1 by theloneranger |
You said the email is available.
If the said recipient of this email is not willing to divulge or publish said email ...
Then the email is not available!! |
Of course it is available.
J-Lo is available, doesn’t mean you can have her though. But those with access have it available on demand.
What you mean is it’s currently unavailable to you. That’s just circumstances unfortunately. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Conflict of interest on 12:07 - Mar 1 with 1316 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 11:58 - Mar 1 by Loyal |
Although I can't see the pathetic and cowardly messages from E20 this one has no function on here other than to try to bully and harrass people, expose weaknesses that aren't there to boost their own egos. Now Phil has cleared up their vile attempts to make out I'm someone else ( and by fck you pair of cnts are lucky he has ) why are they not just kicked off here permanently. Because this will not end nicely, continual accusations and <name removed> allegations against Phil about lies and cowardice and fraud do nothing for this site, and others where they are allowed to flourish.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Where have I bullied anyone?
I made the factual statement that a Trust board member told another to resign. This has now been admitted (although heavily sugarcoated and watered down)... This after they lied about the payments to him. Banned and allowed posters to be abused because it was convenient.
Stating facts isn’t bullying, it’s seeking the truth. Tell you what is bullying though, constant threats of violence. Silly boy. [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 12:15]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:18 - Mar 1 with 1287 views | Chief |
| Conflict of interest on 12:01 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
By the way I am more than happy to let this drop.
I just want you doing what you should be doing and behaving how you should be. That’s the end of banning of posters such as myself and Chad for nothing, end of the lies, end of the selective abuse that some are allowed to get away with if it suits Trust agenda, end of the victimisation of posters on here etc etc the stuff you should be promoting as Supporters Trust Chair. Right?
A fair and impartial football forum where all opinions are welcome and everyone treated the same.. What an idea eh? [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 12:17]
|
Probably for the best seeing as it was a long time ago, the eventual outcome was what was needed and I doubt people are going to agree on the wording of what was said or what wasnt.
More pressing things to talk about.
And people will probably take you more seriously if you just spoke about normal current events more instead of taking every opportunity to take a swipe at the trust. | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 12:24 - Mar 1 with 1267 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 12:18 - Mar 1 by Chief |
Probably for the best seeing as it was a long time ago, the eventual outcome was what was needed and I doubt people are going to agree on the wording of what was said or what wasnt.
More pressing things to talk about.
And people will probably take you more seriously if you just spoke about normal current events more instead of taking every opportunity to take a swipe at the trust. |
It was this week and last month, that’s not a long time ago.
Nobody has to agree the wording, it’s clear. There wasn’t a “I agreed with him he had to resign” there wasn’t a “I gave him advice” it was a very, VERY clear.
“Just so you are aware, I was the one who broke off time with my family to tell Huw he had to resign”.
You can’t really make that fit the hastily cobbled together explanation no matter how one eyed you are.
I don’t have an interest in people taking me seriously, I know the ones that matter do and the countlesss neutrals that are made aware by these things where they normally would be oblivious. The irony being however, if I hadn’t been as persistent as I am I would have my posting ability removed and unable to do as you say.
I will always stand up for fairness and always speak out about wrongdoing. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:25 - Mar 1 with 1266 views | Millie |
| Conflict of interest on 12:07 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
Where have I bullied anyone?
I made the factual statement that a Trust board member told another to resign. This has now been admitted (although heavily sugarcoated and watered down)... This after they lied about the payments to him. Banned and allowed posters to be abused because it was convenient.
Stating facts isn’t bullying, it’s seeking the truth. Tell you what is bullying though, constant threats of violence. Silly boy. [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 12:15]
|
Phil Sumbler, Ux and ECB (whom I've never met in person) didn't tell me to resign, I did speak to Phil and other trust board members at the time and I decided it was best for the organisation if I went, those are the facts.
Huw Cooze |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:28 - Mar 1 with 1256 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 12:25 - Mar 1 by Millie |
Phil Sumbler, Ux and ECB (whom I've never met in person) didn't tell me to resign, I did speak to Phil and other trust board members at the time and I decided it was best for the organisation if I went, those are the facts.
Huw Cooze |
I didn’t say Ux or ECB did. I said they have seen the facts and refused to come forward.
You are a good friend of Phil’s and fully understand you jumping to his aid. But unfortunately he nailed his own colours to the mast by telling someone what happened. Rewriting that now isn’t going to change anything.
You may well have decided it was best that you left (which I have said), but you were also told you had to resign. If that isn’t true then the initial claim was a lie. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:33 - Mar 1 with 1250 views | Chief |
| Conflict of interest on 12:24 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
It was this week and last month, that’s not a long time ago.
Nobody has to agree the wording, it’s clear. There wasn’t a “I agreed with him he had to resign” there wasn’t a “I gave him advice” it was a very, VERY clear.
“Just so you are aware, I was the one who broke off time with my family to tell Huw he had to resign”.
You can’t really make that fit the hastily cobbled together explanation no matter how one eyed you are.
I don’t have an interest in people taking me seriously, I know the ones that matter do and the countlesss neutrals that are made aware by these things where they normally would be oblivious. The irony being however, if I hadn’t been as persistent as I am I would have my posting ability removed and unable to do as you say.
I will always stand up for fairness and always speak out about wrongdoing. |
Yea and you've said your piece ad nausuem about an event years ago.
I thought you were prepared to leave it there? | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 12:35 - Mar 1 with 1238 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 12:33 - Mar 1 by Chief |
Yea and you've said your piece ad nausuem about an event years ago.
I thought you were prepared to leave it there? |
It was this week. I have no idea why you keep saying it was years ago.
You have either not understood any of what has been said or you are being silly now after it being revealed that it’s true.
I said I was prepared to leave it there if the Trust chairman decided to act appropriately and behave as he should being in his position. I have not had those assurances as of yet. [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 12:37]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:40 - Mar 1 with 1218 views | Chief |
| Conflict of interest on 12:35 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
It was this week. I have no idea why you keep saying it was years ago.
You have either not understood any of what has been said or you are being silly now after it being revealed that it’s true.
I said I was prepared to leave it there if the Trust chairman decided to act appropriately and behave as he should being in his position. I have not had those assurances as of yet. [Post edited 1 Mar 2019 12:37]
|
Keep droning on to yourself and keep losing credibility then. | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 12:41 - Mar 1 with 1217 views | Millie |
| Conflict of interest on 12:28 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
I didn’t say Ux or ECB did. I said they have seen the facts and refused to come forward.
You are a good friend of Phil’s and fully understand you jumping to his aid. But unfortunately he nailed his own colours to the mast by telling someone what happened. Rewriting that now isn’t going to change anything.
You may well have decided it was best that you left (which I have said), but you were also told you had to resign. If that isn’t true then the initial claim was a lie. |
I am not jumping to anyone's aid, I am stating a fact, I resigned, no one encouraged me to resign, it was time to go, I can't say it any plainer. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:45 - Mar 1 with 1200 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 12:40 - Mar 1 by Chief |
Keep droning on to yourself and keep losing credibility then. |
I’m simply correcting your mistakes when surmising what I am saying.
If you want to turn that into faux and deflective nonsense then go for it. The only people losing credibility are the ones who are lying, the ones defending those lies and those that are intentionally being silly as they don’t like how this thread has gone.
I will and always have acted with great integrity. I tried to do it privately however the behaviour of the chairman prevented that on two occasions. I have refused to post the PM even though Phil has now gone to lengths of saying that if anyone posts it they will be banned instantly.
As always I am fair and level headed and judge things in its own merits. As it stands the behaviour of some has been despicable. Utterly despicable. But always open to people admitting those errors, commiting to acting appropriately and moving on. However pride usually gets in the way. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:47 - Mar 1 with 1192 views | Uxbridge |
| Conflict of interest on 12:41 - Mar 1 by Millie |
I am not jumping to anyone's aid, I am stating a fact, I resigned, no one encouraged me to resign, it was time to go, I can't say it any plainer. |
And that really should be the end of this sorry thread.
Sorry this has been dragged up again. |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 12:49 - Mar 1 with 1180 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 12:41 - Mar 1 by Millie |
I am not jumping to anyone's aid, I am stating a fact, I resigned, no one encouraged me to resign, it was time to go, I can't say it any plainer. |
I agree it was time to go. I think there should have been 3 or 4. Nothing against you at all, in fact I put you at the bottom of the blame pile. The issue for me was that it was denied and covered up more that it happening in the first place, without guidelines I sort of see how it happened.
I am also not denying that you decided to resign off your own back. But I am not accepting you also we’re not told to because it’s blatently clear you were. We can speculate why that is the case but I think for me personally, the reason is pretty obvious. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:50 - Mar 1 with 1170 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 12:47 - Mar 1 by Uxbridge |
And that really should be the end of this sorry thread.
Sorry this has been dragged up again. |
Of course you think it should be, it’s showing the Trust in a horrendous light - yet again. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:55 - Mar 1 with 1157 views | longlostjack |
| Conflict of interest on 12:50 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
Of course you think it should be, it’s showing the Trust in a horrendous light - yet again. |
 |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 12:57 - Mar 1 with 1151 views | The_E20 |
Smileys? Really? Surely the apologists haven’t resorted to that already? | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:58 - Mar 1 with 1149 views | longlostjack |
| Conflict of interest on 12:57 - Mar 1 by The_E20 |
Smileys? Really? Surely the apologists haven’t resorted to that already? |
 | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 12:59 - Mar 1 with 1144 views | The_E20 |
That’s a yes then. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
