| A question 09:51 - Feb 7 with 7227 views | Boundy |
Ask yourselves this and please respond if you wish
Why would an investment group purchase a football Club in another country with no previous even tenuous connections to that Club ?
If you're not sure then consider this and within that group a set of individuals who may have more money than they know what to do with other than to make more |  |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |  |
| A question on 22:53 - Feb 8 with 665 views | STID2017 |
| A question on 21:49 - Feb 8 by vetchonian |
Lets forget Cooper shall we lets discuss the merits of Martin managment how did our owners influence our managers game managment on Saturday total cock up on the use of subs no use of experience in Naughton....OR were Jase ,Steve and Jake telling him via a ear piece what to do? |
On game day the owners of course have no influence and the second half, particularly the last 30 minutes, was an unmitigated disaster.
Martin's poor game management, coupled with our failure defend, was totally to blame.
We should have been out of sight way before their second goal went in.
There have been quite a few examples of this poor game management.
Both the players and the manager are to blame for not seeing a game over the line.
As I posted earlier, the owners are in no way free from blame.
They should either have backed Martin and got the players in that he needed or sacked him and got a new manager in to rebuild.
Now we are in a state of limbo.
Do they stick or twist.
Only the owners know |  |
| |
| A question on 22:53 - Feb 8 with 665 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| A question on 21:42 - Feb 8 by vetchonian |
So ok how do we deal with the owners?
Run them out of town?
What happens then? |
They say OK. In view of fan opinion we have put the club up for sale.
"We want £11m back within 90 days (or as appropriate) as the terms of the Convertible loan note they have given to the club states (notionally) "
The Morfa complex keys will be handed over as a security. |  |
| |
| A question on 22:55 - Feb 8 with 665 views | STID2017 |
| A question on 21:57 - Feb 8 by Dr_Parnassus |
Moaning about people talking about Cooper.
You start the threads about him more often than not, or bring him up in general (like now). Then complain about people talking about him.
A bit like when you complain about me, get intentionally take me off ignore to debate with me, which only leads you to complain again.
You create your own issues for attention. |
Who's complaining?
Not me
Just debating.
That is what a forum is for | |
| |
| A question on 22:55 - Feb 8 with 656 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| A question on 22:43 - Feb 8 by STID2017 |
Was never made to put anyone on ignore.
Please don't try and stir again.
As I told you I chose to put you on ignore, then after a suitable time decided to take you off.
If my posting about Forest upsets you so much, then why don't you put me on ignore?
At the end of the day it is no different to the banter which many millions of posters on all the different social media platforms exchange daily without any recourse for anyone taking offence ( of course you wouldn't know as you previously stated you do not partake in Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc).
Perhaps if you didn't take mine and others posts seriously all the time, you would see it is not trolling and attention seeking, but just a little fun.
Maybe lighten up a little ? |
Yes you were, it was the rules.
You even then created a thread a week later asking for permission to remove, which presumably you never got. But did it anyway.
Where did I say you posting about Forest upsets me? You said people shouldn’t talk about Cooper, I said but you do more than anyone… you then accused me of having an issue with it. 
So it’s all just banter with the owners? Aye I’m sure that’s the case.
Again, you are the one complaining about the Cooper subject, not me. You are essentially complaining about yourself.
Maybe it’s you that you should talk to about lightening up? |  |
| |
| A question on 23:01 - Feb 8 with 641 views | STID2017 |
| A question on 22:16 - Feb 8 by vetchonian |
thats ok I have been called a muppet but apparantly thats was ok |
TBH if someone wants to call me a muppet, a moron, or any other host of names then it really wouldn't worry me.
Been called a lot worse in real life.
I think some are being a touch sensitive.
I am sure our owners have a million and one real matters to worry about every day and won't give a second thought to what some supporters 3,000 miles away care to call them | |
| |
| A question on 23:06 - Feb 8 with 623 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| A question on 23:01 - Feb 8 by STID2017 |
TBH if someone wants to call me a muppet, a moron, or any other host of names then it really wouldn't worry me.
Been called a lot worse in real life.
I think some are being a touch sensitive.
I am sure our owners have a million and one real matters to worry about every day and won't give a second thought to what some supporters 3,000 miles away care to call them |
You do have a habit of reporting things though, which suggests maybe you aren’t as fine with it as you make out.
As for the abuse of the owners, what you think they think is irrelevant. You have no idea the impact it has on people. | |
| |
| A question on 05:44 - Feb 9 with 578 views | vetchonian |
| A question on 22:31 - Feb 8 by Whiterockin |
If you think reducing the owners income for 12 months will achieve anything you are very nieve, they will just write it off against tax. |
I dont my comments about not renewing seasons are from what is being said by many that they wont renew whilst the damn Yanks are still here. | |
| |
| A question on 07:25 - Feb 9 with 553 views | Dr_Winston |
This one has run for a bit.
Despite the strong opinions (and a bit of trolling) on both sides, I'm going to stick with my opinion that current ownership are generally average rather than Saints or Demons. They have been guilty of some pretty terrible decision making during their tenure and their attempts at PR even worse on the whole.
On the flip side, the oft stated belief that "They won't spend a penny on the squad" is simply and demonstrably not true. They do appear to have learned, probably five years too late, not to waste money. Unfortunately for most football supporters a wasteful club ownership is preferable to a sensible one, which is why no fan base ever has collectively demanded that their team spend less.
As for Russy, there was a very real danger in about October that they were actually going to extend his contract, but our form since then gave them pause. I wouldn't actually be surprised if there's a bit of truth in the theory that they held back from spending in January to either avoid throwing good money after bad or to put him in a position where he'd consider resignation.
It's a wild assumption that if he'd been given the "three or four players he needed" to make an assault on the playoffs the season would pan out differently. In the first instance because the benefit of any attacking players we signed would be negated by the continued state of our defence, and in the second because there would remain a fairly high chance that they'd be banished from the squad because they wore socks that offended him.
I mean, we gave him the thick end of £1.5m to sign Harry Darling last summer and that's been working out gangbusters so far. [Post edited 9 Feb 2023 7:50]
|  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| A question on 12:02 - Feb 9 with 489 views | STID2017 |
| A question on 07:25 - Feb 9 by Dr_Winston |
This one has run for a bit.
Despite the strong opinions (and a bit of trolling) on both sides, I'm going to stick with my opinion that current ownership are generally average rather than Saints or Demons. They have been guilty of some pretty terrible decision making during their tenure and their attempts at PR even worse on the whole.
On the flip side, the oft stated belief that "They won't spend a penny on the squad" is simply and demonstrably not true. They do appear to have learned, probably five years too late, not to waste money. Unfortunately for most football supporters a wasteful club ownership is preferable to a sensible one, which is why no fan base ever has collectively demanded that their team spend less.
As for Russy, there was a very real danger in about October that they were actually going to extend his contract, but our form since then gave them pause. I wouldn't actually be surprised if there's a bit of truth in the theory that they held back from spending in January to either avoid throwing good money after bad or to put him in a position where he'd consider resignation.
It's a wild assumption that if he'd been given the "three or four players he needed" to make an assault on the playoffs the season would pan out differently. In the first instance because the benefit of any attacking players we signed would be negated by the continued state of our defence, and in the second because there would remain a fairly high chance that they'd be banished from the squad because they wore socks that offended him.
I mean, we gave him the thick end of £1.5m to sign Harry Darling last summer and that's been working out gangbusters so far. [Post edited 9 Feb 2023 7:50]
|
Agree there is blame on both sides - owners and manager.
However they appointed him, it is up to them to work with them or fire him.
Personally never suggested they don't make signings.
They just aren't generally very good at it.
The reason everything came to a head is that it seemed to be generally agreed that we sign a few players in the window, but our owners pulled the rug for reasons best known to them.
This was then followed by the second half disaster against Birmingham for which the manager and players have to take responsibility | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
