John Elsom

[Steven]

AFAIK he isn't dead - just gone to Grimsby, which may explain the confusion.

ps I don't remember any "lifelong association" - IIRC he came onto the board in the early 1980s with Tom Smeaton and Martin George - when the real lifers Len Shipman, Tom Bloor, Sid Needham and Alf Pallett were prised out of the boardroom as we took a nosedive following the McLintock year.

I just remember his company Page & Moy being part of that monumental rip-off in that nightmare bus trip to Madrid in our UEFA days, and the club adding insult to the general misery by offering vouchers for the club shop as compensation. Still rumoured to be a couple of fans stuck in the service station outside Zaragoza 13 years later.

Quite.

 

[bornslippy]

Because a large proportion of so-called Leicester fans are idiots.

You need to worry less about the percentage game, pick a few off and tell them that to their faces

 

[Macky]

You need to worry less about the percentage game, pick a few off and tell them that to their faces

In fairness, I've heard BF's sick of being told

 

[bornslippy]

I just remember his company Page & Moy being part of that monumental rip-off in that nightmare bus trip to Madrid

The club were naive in their approach to the Madrid trip, but then so were a lot of the supporters.

I had friendly discussions with several LCFC employees about the arrangements at the time. I will never forget the look of shock on their faces when I told them I had spoken to people at Atletico, as though I had somehow cracked the enigma code in order to do so.

It was a reflection of the club at the time. Their customer service was, from a professional point of view, appalling, but at the same time they would be more than willing to speak to each and every individual that wanted to have a word out the back.

Perhaps it was the same regarding transfer and wage policies. The chairman appeared to have the best of intentions and did exactly what the fanzines and the phone-in callers had asked for. And then it all fell over. Its still very hard to decide whether it was all very unfortuate or whether it was all very preventable. Inevitably, for many of us, our views may be prejudiced by the fact that many of the lesser salaried employees at the time were the ones that took the hit first.

That said.. we are back with a big fat cheque book and will tonk the Mancs come Sunday!

 

[beaumontfox]

You need to worry less about the percentage game, pick a few off and tell them that to their faces

He does.

In fairness, I've heard BF's sick of being told

He's mean to me.:icon_sad:

 

[David Gwilliam]

Surely the mark of a good man is to fess up to his mistakes and not repeat them?

Previously Mawsley has chided me for long answers and I almost provided a long answer for this.

Instead I will use just one word - No.

 

[David Gwilliam]

Surely the mark of a good man is to fess up to his mistakes and not repeat them?

Previously Mawsley has chided me for long answers and I almost provided a long answer for this.

Instead I will use just one word - No.

Looking at my answer I realise that brief questions can be interesting but brief answers are of no use at all.

Surely being a good man involves integrity, duty and kindness.

To "fess up" to your mistakes has nothing to do with being good though it may or may not be w*s* depending on the mistake. For minor mistakes I have often found a casual "I make many mistakes" usually brings the response of "Oh no you don't" or makes the critic seem foolish. Obviously it is a technique that should not be used too often.

For major mistakes - of which I deny any personal knowledge - to "fess up" will inevitably be used against you. The secret is to "muddy the waters" - perhaps you did well to choose the lesser of two evils, perhaps it was six of one and half a dozen of the other, perhaps the blame needs to be spread among a lot of people. Certainly anyone accusing you of a major mistake really ought to have looked deeper. Third parties usually agree if you hint that your critics are being - to use a favourite criticism of mine -superficial.

From previous threads we know that Mawsley is a physicist. If he should choose a different vocation may I suggest he would be very good at setting philosophy examination questions.

 

[Mawsley]

Mawsley does so love being referred to in the third person.

 

[David Gwilliam]

.

Gwilliam - brevity is everything.

A surname read with surprise and amusement but without any rancour - as insults go it was very mild by the standards of this forum.

Mawsley does so love being referred to in the third person.

Not even intended as an insult. I seem to remember that some time ago on a long forgotten thread I compared you to Jas123 - now that was intended to provoke and I accept an insult that went too far.

I used the third person in the expectation that this was not a private conversation but a post read avidly by thousands of followers of this forum. This is what I have done in, I think, all my replies to members,To the best of my recollection I think I have only used the second person on this forum on the rare occasion I have sent a private message.

Like many of my posts the comments were iintended to provoke (though I have never posted anything I did not believe). As so often I am amazed and fascinated at what actually provokes.I had been hoping to read the response of you (note - second person) and other members on what you call "fessing up" - isn't that a criminal phrase, I am sure I heard it in The Bill[.

 

[Mawsley]

Do you do drugs?

 

[David Gwilliam]

Do you do drugs?

Sorry I don't - you will have to try elsewhere.

 

[spionfox]

.
Like many of my posts the comments were iintended to provoke

You've got a long way to go to catch up with Steven in the Tuscon thread.

 

[Mawsley]

Sorry I don't - you will have to try elsewhere.

Any suggestions? I tried Steven but he was too busy laughing at a picture of a dead baby.