Chris Garland

[Durham Fox]

Good of you to admit it at last DF

Thats your finest hour HF.

 

[bocadillo]

sorry chaps bear with me .....nearly there

You might think so!
:icon_wink

 

[lazzer]

If 1 had not been true, 2 could not have happened because of 1

If 2 had not been true, 3 could not have happened because of 2

and so on, down to 6.

I say again, the real pity is that there was nobody willing and able to stop the progression. I believe that the Club would have been stronger if MON and Pierpoint had been able to settle their differences and to have come to some kind of healthy working relationship. This would have left us in a far stronger position when the time came for MON to leave.

let me explain so you undertstand

so indirectly MON 's actions in NO1 brought about NO 6

YES/NO (WHICH MEANS YES OR NO ANSWER)

 

[Joe_Fox]

maybe

 

[lazzer]

maybe

shut up joe and be quiet joe the grown ups are talking

 

[Joe_Fox]

shut up joe and be quiet joe the grown ups are talking

Ok lazzer, sorry lazzer, lazzer lazzer lazzer. :icon_bigg

 

[highland fox]

Thats your finest hour HF.

I think that says more about my 'Quality' of posting than anything else DF :icon_wink

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

i would never have imagined the words 'you' and 'quality' appearing in the same sentence h truly astounding

 

[Durham Fox]

i would never have imagined the words 'you' and 'quality' appearing in the same sentence h truly astounding

I can't see where they do. :icon_wink

 

[highland fox]

i would never have imagined the words 'you' and 'quality' appearing in the same sentence h truly astounding

Lovely stuff YV.Waited for your moment,a Equaliser after this morning.Back of the Net:icon_wink

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

:icon_wink get in there!! :icon_lol:

 

[highland fox]

:icon_wink get in there!! :icon_lol:

It didn't surprise me YV...you were funny once.I'll PM Webbo and see if he can find the Post....:icon_wink

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

once more than you :icon_wink :icon_bigg

 

[bocadillo]

let me explain so you undertstand

so indirectly MON 's actions in NO1 brought about NO 6

YES/NO (WHICH MEANS YES OR NO ANSWER)

I don't know how to be more clear than I have already been. There was a progression from 1 to 6 - that is not to say that 1 was the cause of 6.

It takes two (at least) to have an alienation, so if Pierpoint (and others) had acted differently 2 might not have occurred. So you could call Pierpoint the cause of 6.

The downfall at 3 was very much at the hands of the shareholders and the fans. In particular, I would suggest that the fans acted in an emotive way and without much objectivity. If the fans and shareholders had acted differently 4 would certainly not have occurred. So you could say say the fans and the shareholders were the cause of 6.

The people described at 4 and their lack of action at 5 could certainly be accused of being a cause of 6.


Your interpretation of my initial remarks was that I was saying or inferring that MON was the cause of us going into administration. I say that that was not a fair interpretation. I do believe there was a clear progression along the lines indicated, but to believe that MON's way of working caused us to go into administration is clearly ridiculous because of the many variables in between.

I don't know whether that is a YES or a NO.

Sorry!

 

[highland fox]

once more than you :icon_wink :icon_bigg

I leave the funny stuff to the funny people,you know that YV..

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

me too h

 

[Boy Genius]

I don't know how to be more clear than I have already been. There was a progression from 1 to 6 - that is not to say that 1 was the cause of 6.

It takes two (at least) to have an alienation, so if Pierpoint (and others) had acted differently 2 might not have occurred. So you could call Pierpoint the cause of 6.

The downfall at 3 was very much at the hands of the shareholders and the fans. In particular, I would suggest that the fans acted in an emotive way and without much objectivity. If the fans and shareholders had acted differently 4 would certainly not have occurred. So you could say say the fans and the shareholders were the cause of 6.

The people described at 4 and their lack of action at 5 could certainly be accused of being a cause of 6.


Your interpretation of my initial remarks was that I was saying or inferring that MON was the cause of us going into administration. I say that that was not a fair interpretation. I do believe there was a clear progression along the lines indicated, but to believe that MON's way of working caused us to go into administration is clearly ridiculous because of the many variables in between.

I don't know whether that is a YES or a NO.

Sorry!

Last night I had put a lot of drink down my throat, but today I see you have put my point across very well. The reason ( so I have been told) Pierpoint did not get on with MON (and visa versa) was that he blocked a couple of transfers, because they would not have been good for the club etc.
What followed was:
Pierpoint out, goons in, MON off to Celtic, crap manager in goons saying yes to bad financial matters involving wages and transfers, City down the crapper

The main point of our downfall was a bad board and a bad choice of manager

 

[lazzer]

keep on waffling boc dont answer yes/no only expect other people to do that to you.the simple matter of the fact is you articulated the sentiment that MON's actions started a sequence of events that ended in the club going into admin. you wont discuss it to a conclusion so debate is futile as your superior manner wouldnt allow you any humility.

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

well done on the 8800 :icon_lol:

 

[bocadillo]

keep on waffling boc dont answer yes/no only expect other people to do that to you.the simple matter of the fact is you articulated the sentiment that MON's actions started a sequence of events that ended in the club going into admin. you wont discuss it to a conclusion so debate is futile as your superior manner wouldnt allow you any humility.

My manner is what my manner is; I can't change it just to suit.

My remarks were made in response to a particular comment by Brauny Blue and related to the fact that I believe that MON's managership was only good for us in the short term. I note that you have still not denied that there was a progression along the lines I quoted. If you want to suggest that I was inferring that MON was the cause of us going into administration, that is a matter for you. What I have written since should make it clear that I think there was a variety of causes - and there are others which I have not mentioned.

I do believe however that the board pre-the Donington Park showdown held a tighter rein than the one that was formed after it. I do believe that that board would have not give PT the amount of latitude to spend, spend, spend. I do believe that with that board we would not have reached the position where we had to go into administration. MON and his methods started the process that got rid of that board.

In a sense what I am saying is that MON became bigger than the Club and in the long-term, I believe that was not of service to the Club. In years to come, it may be seen that CL's rebuilding has a longer-lasting effect than did MON's few years of glory.

I'm sorry that you feel that I will not discuss this to a conclusion; I have difficulty in knowing what you would like the conclusion to be. Please continue to debate or not - as you choose.