| This jackarmy site 21:22 - Feb 9 with 42228 views | perchrockjack |
Some alarming stuff on there..
Very disconcerting
Seems we basically have directors and a trust that cannot be trusted.
Well, are we in shite or not |  |
| |  |
| This jackarmy site on 18:09 - Feb 10 with 1109 views | Darran |
| This jackarmy site on 18:07 - Feb 10 by BobJack |
You are making a few look foolish by stating facts and not throwing personal abuse back, even when thrown at you.
Totally confused them. Now please start swearing or being homophobic / racist so that they can get you banned. |
Well in all fairness to him he hasn't set out to get someone sacked from their job like you. |  |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:11 - Feb 10 with 1106 views | Parlay |
| This jackarmy site on 18:08 - Feb 10 by perchrockjack |
So you posted a screenshot of your card....on an Internet site....but then forgot to blank out....
Son, you are insane.
Seek help..
I can see for miles
No more |
Ah so we have now established that you do not have me on ignore, excellent.
Yes thats right, i didn't blank out that figure. Silly me eh? Insane? Not quite Richard.
Now then lets get down to the nitty gritty....
You have made a lot of accusations over the past weeks, and stated some lies on this thread to further your agenda.... here is your chance to explore them, the only caveat being you must respond to the requests of an explanation.
Line in the sand, time to stop boring everybody and let it all out.
You have been found out by many posters in this thread. Let this be the thread it comes to an end because i take no prisoners.
The floor is yours Richard. |  |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:11 - Feb 10 with 1105 views | budegan |
| This jackarmy site on 17:59 - Feb 10 by Parlay |
But in what way am I winding them up? What am i doing exactly?
These posters you claim only get wound up because i do not allow them to bully or silence me. That isnt me setting out to wind them up, that is a by product of being a good human being with morals. [Post edited 10 Feb 2015 18:04]
|
Lol - if you don't know then you really have social problems!
It's sickeningly predictable that in regurgitating an issue with Darren you've found the excuse you needed to avoid admitting that you won't be going anywhere near the forum. Cowardice upon cowardice. |  | | |
| This jackarmy site on 18:12 - Feb 10 with 1099 views | Parlay |
| This jackarmy site on 18:07 - Feb 10 by BobJack |
You are making a few look foolish by stating facts and not throwing personal abuse back, even when thrown at you.
Totally confused them. Now please start swearing or being homophobic / racist so that they can get you banned. |
Innit.
Its an amazing place at times, they can throw all the abuse they like at you safe in the knowledge they cant get banned, then if met with a polite but to the point reply then you are the devil incarnate.
I think some posters need to get a backbone and stop running away personally. | |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:14 - Feb 10 with 1097 views | sixpenses |
| This jackarmy site on 16:50 - Feb 10 by skippyjack |
It's gone from 'conflict of interest' to 'potential conflict of interest'.. considering I know the facts.. and the facts are on this 'thread' it's foolish to think a conflict of interest exists.. Huw is potentially morally wrong.. but I'm sure he'll explain how he was 'morally' wrong in the benefit of the football club..(which has been stated on this thread).
I haven't had contact with anybody on this matter.. but I've worked it all out.. not for the 1st time.. people are so 'wrong' about this issue. |
No, actual conflict of interests, as defined below
As you are determined it is not, I would politely pose the following question again hoping for an answer this time. I am sure if you know it is not a conflict of interests as you say then you will be happy to clear up any misunderstanding and explain why it is not:-
Conflict of Interest..........
A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self-interest and professional interest or public interest
Perhaps you can explain why you consider the conflicting interests not a conflict of interests and why the overwhelming majority in that poll considered it an issue | | | |
| This jackarmy site on 18:15 - Feb 10 with 1091 views | Parlay |
| This jackarmy site on 18:11 - Feb 10 by budegan |
Lol - if you don't know then you really have social problems!
It's sickeningly predictable that in regurgitating an issue with Darren you've found the excuse you needed to avoid admitting that you won't be going anywhere near the forum. Cowardice upon cowardice. |
Well if you cannot explain then id suggest you have social problems.
I have absolutely no problems in discussing whether or not I am attending the fans forum. None what so ever.
I have simply asked Darran if he would answer my question he ignored first.
Surely it is good practice to have a good standing when it comes to discourse. To be expected to answer questions at will while others ignore mine is not good practice and have stood up for that standard.
If that stance upsets you. Tough. [Post edited 10 Feb 2015 18:16]
| |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:16 - Feb 10 with 1088 views | budegan |
| This jackarmy site on 17:59 - Feb 10 by Parlay |
But in what way am I winding them up? What am i doing exactly?
These posters you claim only get wound up because i do not allow them to bully or silence me. That isnt me setting out to wind them up, that is a by product of being a good human being with morals. [Post edited 10 Feb 2015 18:04]
|
"A good human being with morals". I think your stance on rape and sexual assault proved otherwise, and marked you out as at worst a dangerous misogynist, at best someone who has little understanding of women. | | | |
| This jackarmy site on 18:16 - Feb 10 with 1085 views | Darran |
| This jackarmy site on 18:11 - Feb 10 by budegan |
Lol - if you don't know then you really have social problems!
It's sickeningly predictable that in regurgitating an issue with Darren you've found the excuse you needed to avoid admitting that you won't be going anywhere near the forum. Cowardice upon cowardice. |
Spot on he's a coward but he's not the only one. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| This jackarmy site on 18:18 - Feb 10 with 1081 views | Darran |
| This jackarmy site on 18:16 - Feb 10 by budegan |
"A good human being with morals". I think your stance on rape and sexual assault proved otherwise, and marked you out as at worst a dangerous misogynist, at best someone who has little understanding of women. |
Great post and totally true. | |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:18 - Feb 10 with 1076 views | sixpenses |
| This jackarmy site on 15:38 - Feb 10 by ScoobyWho |
I would say it is because they don't understand what a true conflict of interest is. |
Conflict of Interest..........
A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self-interest and professional interest or public interest
That is a clear and accurate definition of the phrase conflict of interests in English language and I would suggest its most common definition
Even in natural language terms it is a situation not an action so I am unclear how it can be an offence.
Perhaps you are referring to deliberately acting in conflict of interest in the circumstances when that is legislated against - for instance the example I gave earlier of the solicitor taking on 2 clients who are opposing each other
"They don't know what a true conflict of interest is" !
This is like you asking me what a pole is
Me saying it is a long cylindrical object
and you telling me I don't know what a real pole is because the true definition is
any of the two opposite points on the surface of a magnet at which magnetic forces are strongest
As far as I am concerned it has been repeatedly made clear the way this term has been used. We deal with conflict of interests all the time
to exercise and be fit when we want to slob out and eat and drink
family members needing your help at the same time
helping someone out when you could be working and earning
These are conflicts we face every day and we generally balance the relative needs of each to come up with the solution that best works for us and those involved
In the case of any shareholders that want to make a big profit selling their shares there is an obvious conflict of interest, massive profit against deciding what is best for the club. They may convince themselves that there is no conflict as the best solution for the club is the one that makes them loads of cash. However that decision can not have been reached with total objectivity because of the influence of the massive profit - regardless if they believe that is not the most important thing to them.
In the case of the Trust Board Member. We are quite clearly in a position currently where our views (the Trust v the majority of the Board) of what is in the best interest for the club is diametrically opposed. The trust has come to that conclusion based on the objectives of the trust and with no personal gain involved. The other shareholders have come to that conclusion with the potential of taking massive amounts of money out of the club now or in the near future as part of the background of that decision. With the prospect of those shares being worth a fraction of this price if this deal is not pushed through now, with them possibly being near worthless in years to come if we are relegated.
If our Board member has to ruthlessly stand against the rest of the Board to best pursue the objectives of the Trust (to protect the club in ongoing mode - especially at this watershed in our club's future) then this is going to be much more difficult if that person has a separate subservient business relationship with the club which requires a good relationship to be maintained.
It is therefore preferable to have someone represent us who has no business or close personal relationship with the other shareholders (I have no idea if the latter applies in this situation) as there would be no conflict to cope with.
I do not see any problem with that nor is it any reflection on anyone currently doing the job. It is merely a prudent precaution to ensure our representatives are not distracted by conflicts that could result in balancing the needs of other shareholders along with the needs of the Trust, rather than single mindedly and relentlessly pursuing the the aims of the Trust. | | | |
| This jackarmy site on 18:19 - Feb 10 with 1078 views | Parlay |
| This jackarmy site on 18:16 - Feb 10 by budegan |
"A good human being with morals". I think your stance on rape and sexual assault proved otherwise, and marked you out as at worst a dangerous misogynist, at best someone who has little understanding of women. |
Is this another where you make a vague accusation and run away, ignoring requests to explain similar to your last cowardly post?
1) my stance on rape is that it is an abhorrent crime. Why does that make me a dangerous misogynist? Or are you referring to my view that to convict someone you need solid proof?
2) how does this show a lack of understanding of women?
I understand the need to troll someone you can not get the better of but surely you realise when you clearly cant explain the above it is going to make you look awful?
Do your best. | |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:19 - Feb 10 with 1075 views | Parlay |
| This jackarmy site on 18:18 - Feb 10 by sixpenses |
Conflict of Interest..........
A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self-interest and professional interest or public interest
That is a clear and accurate definition of the phrase conflict of interests in English language and I would suggest its most common definition
Even in natural language terms it is a situation not an action so I am unclear how it can be an offence.
Perhaps you are referring to deliberately acting in conflict of interest in the circumstances when that is legislated against - for instance the example I gave earlier of the solicitor taking on 2 clients who are opposing each other
"They don't know what a true conflict of interest is" !
This is like you asking me what a pole is
Me saying it is a long cylindrical object
and you telling me I don't know what a real pole is because the true definition is
any of the two opposite points on the surface of a magnet at which magnetic forces are strongest
As far as I am concerned it has been repeatedly made clear the way this term has been used. We deal with conflict of interests all the time
to exercise and be fit when we want to slob out and eat and drink
family members needing your help at the same time
helping someone out when you could be working and earning
These are conflicts we face every day and we generally balance the relative needs of each to come up with the solution that best works for us and those involved
In the case of any shareholders that want to make a big profit selling their shares there is an obvious conflict of interest, massive profit against deciding what is best for the club. They may convince themselves that there is no conflict as the best solution for the club is the one that makes them loads of cash. However that decision can not have been reached with total objectivity because of the influence of the massive profit - regardless if they believe that is not the most important thing to them.
In the case of the Trust Board Member. We are quite clearly in a position currently where our views (the Trust v the majority of the Board) of what is in the best interest for the club is diametrically opposed. The trust has come to that conclusion based on the objectives of the trust and with no personal gain involved. The other shareholders have come to that conclusion with the potential of taking massive amounts of money out of the club now or in the near future as part of the background of that decision. With the prospect of those shares being worth a fraction of this price if this deal is not pushed through now, with them possibly being near worthless in years to come if we are relegated.
If our Board member has to ruthlessly stand against the rest of the Board to best pursue the objectives of the Trust (to protect the club in ongoing mode - especially at this watershed in our club's future) then this is going to be much more difficult if that person has a separate subservient business relationship with the club which requires a good relationship to be maintained.
It is therefore preferable to have someone represent us who has no business or close personal relationship with the other shareholders (I have no idea if the latter applies in this situation) as there would be no conflict to cope with.
I do not see any problem with that nor is it any reflection on anyone currently doing the job. It is merely a prudent precaution to ensure our representatives are not distracted by conflicts that could result in balancing the needs of other shareholders along with the needs of the Trust, rather than single mindedly and relentlessly pursuing the the aims of the Trust. |
Great post and totally true | |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:22 - Feb 10 with 1065 views | perchrockjack |
Parlay..
Look..
Seek ye the Lord.
Reflect, pray, meditate but just do someting.
Prisoners aren't taken via Internet.
Now , I'll let you annoy the crap out of someone else. | |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:24 - Feb 10 with 1058 views | Parlay |
| This jackarmy site on 18:22 - Feb 10 by perchrockjack |
Parlay..
Look..
Seek ye the Lord.
Reflect, pray, meditate but just do someting.
Prisoners aren't taken via Internet.
Now , I'll let you annoy the crap out of someone else. |
I will take that as you having absolutely no ability to back up any sort of claim you make then Richard. As usual talk is cheap, then when confronted you run away very much like Dazza does and this new budedan or whatever his name is.
Next time you make vile accusations, back them up or don't bother stating them as you will look foolish as many posters have told you. | |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:27 - Feb 10 with 1054 views | budegan |
| This jackarmy site on 18:19 - Feb 10 by Parlay |
Is this another where you make a vague accusation and run away, ignoring requests to explain similar to your last cowardly post?
1) my stance on rape is that it is an abhorrent crime. Why does that make me a dangerous misogynist? Or are you referring to my view that to convict someone you need solid proof?
2) how does this show a lack of understanding of women?
I understand the need to troll someone you can not get the better of but surely you realise when you clearly cant explain the above it is going to make you look awful?
Do your best. |
Pity. You have my pity. | | | |
| This jackarmy site on 18:29 - Feb 10 with 1041 views | Parlay |
| This jackarmy site on 18:27 - Feb 10 by budegan |
Pity. You have my pity. |
I take that as a complete cowardly white flag to that states "let me abuse you but don't ask me to back up any of my unfounded claims, thats just not cricket".
Learn a lesson many have in this thread. If you want to lie or abuse, then you had better be able to back it up or you are going to look a right pleb.
Learn. | |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:30 - Feb 10 with 1039 views | BobJack |
| This jackarmy site on 18:09 - Feb 10 by Darran |
Well in all fairness to him he hasn't set out to get someone sacked from their job like you. |
Not true.
Unlike your obvious homophobia and racism, as proven.
Carry on digging though. You are losing every argument. | |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:31 - Feb 10 with 1036 views | budegan |
| This jackarmy site on 18:29 - Feb 10 by Parlay |
I take that as a complete cowardly white flag to that states "let me abuse you but don't ask me to back up any of my unfounded claims, thats just not cricket".
Learn a lesson many have in this thread. If you want to lie or abuse, then you had better be able to back it up or you are going to look a right pleb.
Learn. |
Pity and  | | | |
| This jackarmy site on 18:32 - Feb 10 with 1030 views | SkewenJack |
| This jackarmy site on 18:31 - Feb 10 by budegan |
Pity and |
Parlay has done you there, fair play. | | | |
| This jackarmy site on 18:33 - Feb 10 with 1027 views | Parlay |
| This jackarmy site on 18:31 - Feb 10 by budegan |
Pity and |
Apology accepted. | |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:35 - Feb 10 with 1012 views | Millie |
Facts are Trust director makes representation on behalf of Trust, reports it back. The Trust then make informed decision, not an individual.... | | | |
| This jackarmy site on 18:39 - Feb 10 with 1003 views | Darran |
| This jackarmy site on 18:30 - Feb 10 by BobJack |
Not true.
Unlike your obvious homophobia and racism, as proven.
Carry on digging though. You are losing every argument. |
No it's 100% true that you had your previous username banned for continually threatening someone's job LibertyJack,absolutely 100% true. | |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:41 - Feb 10 with 995 views | Jackfath |
| This jackarmy site on 18:39 - Feb 10 by Darran |
No it's 100% true that you had your previous username banned for continually threatening someone's job LibertyJack,absolutely 100% true. |
Yes. That is true.
100%. |  |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:41 - Feb 10 with 995 views | BobJack |
| This jackarmy site on 12:53 - Feb 10 by Darran |
Yeah I'm not a homophobic racist are you going to the meeting? [Post edited 10 Feb 2015 18:43]
|
This is the only truth I see from you.
Rest is bollux. | |
| |
| This jackarmy site on 18:45 - Feb 10 with 978 views | BobJack |
| This jackarmy site on 18:41 - Feb 10 by Jackfath |
Yes. That is true.
100%. |
You could lose your job over things you were posting in my opinion.
That is / was not a threat.
You have taken advice on and have stopped posting certain material that your pupils read.
A simple 'thankyou' will suffice. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
