The Board

Log in to stop seeing adverts
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase

Status
Not open for further replies.
newtonfox said:
:015: :015: :015: :015: same old replys your boring now ferk off and post on your own site :icon_wink
Click to expand...

:018: :018: :018: :018: However I would say, as I have said on many occasions, the FT is falling between two stools and satisfying nothing. They would be better off becoming a fully fledged member of the board or being something detached from the inner workings of the Club altogether.

They have taken fans money but are not doing the fans bidding. ;)
 
Fox Fan said:
If they are looking to invest in a football club they won't find a better bargain than Leicester. If your going to spend £70 million buying Villa well buy us for £10 million, Give us 30 million to spend, Upgrade the stadium to 40,000 (cost £5-10 million) and you have what could easily be a top 6 team in the Premiership for what would be the inital investment in Villa.
Click to expand...


get real Foxfan FFS................. dont live in the clouds.
 
bocadillo said:
The fans were confused on the issue of the Gang of Four by their support for Martin O'Neill. Their downfall led to a situation where the governance of the club went out of control and ultimately to the club almost going out of existence. I have often said that if a working relationship had been forged between MON and Barry Pierpoint, the Club would be in a far healthier state today.

Some of the present lot are 'plastics' compared with what we had then.
Click to expand...


so very near the truth there Boc...............
 
Steven said:
:018: :018: :018: :018: However I would say, as I have said on many occasions, the FT is falling between two stools and satisfying nothing. They would be better off becoming a fully fledged member of the board or being something detached from the inner workings of the Club altogether.

They have taken fans money but are not doing the fans bidding. ;)
Click to expand...

sorry about the post I'm so angry with the FT e-mailing a radio program which they have already asked AT and there members play for that right it just takes the rip out of there members which have parted with there money :mad:
 
Last edited:
newtonfox said:
sorry about the post I'm so angry with the FT e-mailing a radio program which they have already asked AT and there members play for that right it just takes the rip out of there members which have parted with there money :mad:
Click to expand...

I really don't see the problem you have with this.

Do you think it's important for the chairman to answer questions from fans?

If you do, then surely it's a good thing that the trust is asking him those questions on a radio programme. Far more people will hear the answer on the radio than will have done by reading it on the Trust website.

I would think that most people who have paid to become members are glad that the trust is taking part in programmes like this - or do you think the phone in should just be for non trust members?
 
Jeff said:
I really don't see the problem you have with this.

Do you think it's important for the chairman to answer questions from fans?

If you do, then surely it's a good thing that the trust is asking him those questions on a radio programme. Far more people will hear the answer on the radio than will have done by reading it on the Trust website.

I would think that most people who have paid to become members are glad that the trust is taking part in programmes like this - or do you think the phone in should just be for non trust members?
Click to expand...

I can understand the FT wanting to take the opportunity to get a little free publicity but I would have thought they could have had the gumption to ask something that they hadn't asked before. There must be other questions that they want answering.

To the people who are aware that the question had been asked before, it just appeared that the FT was throwing a 'patsy' at the Chairman. All this kind of thing does is to strengthen the belief that the FT is in the club's pocket. (Cue the FT to pop in and say they are nothing of the sort)
 
Last edited:
bocadillo said:
I can understand the FT wanting to take the opportunity to get a little free publicity but I would have thought they could have had the gumption to ask soemthing that they hadn't asked before. There must be other questions that they want answering.

To the people who are aware that the question had been asked before, it just appeared that the FT was throwing a 'patsy' at the Chairman. All this kind of thing does is to strengthen the belief that the FT is in the club's pocket. (Cue the FT to pop in and say they are nothing of the sort)
Click to expand...


hence my angry post :102:
 
bocadillo said:
There must be other questions that they want answering.
Click to expand...

There has been a whole series of articles on the trust website where the chairman answered a lot of questions on various subjects. Any that weren't answered at the time were probably fairly trivial, and if that kind of question had been asked on the radio they'd probably be criticised for not asking him something more important.

I missed the start of the programme so I don't know how many questions the trust had read out and what they were, but when I heard the chairman talking about the trust's observer who attends board meetings it seemed obvious the chairman wanted to give the trust more involvement on the board. Although I'm sure if that happens people will probably say the only reason it happens is because the trust is in the club's pocket - which it isn't.
 
bocadillo said:
The fans were confused on the issue of the Gang of Four by their support for Martin O'Neill. Their downfall led to a situation where the governance of the club went out of control and ultimately to the club almost going out of existence. I have often said that if a working relationship had been forged between MON and Barry Pierpoint, the Club would be in a far healthier state today.

Some of the present lot are 'plastics' compared with what we had then.
Click to expand...

Not going through this whole argument from nearly 10 years ago again, but Pierpoint made a rod for his own back and O'Neill wasn't going to stand for it.

Pierpoint should have realised that getting involved in football matters in a Kenyon style role was a) out of his depth as he knew nothing about football and b) sidelining one of the shrewdest operators in the transfer market at the time.

To then say that by trying to undermine MON's role should have been accepted because the club should have been able to foresee the ineptness of PT is something called hindsight.

To an extent you are right that if a relationship could have been forged the club would have been better, but quite frankly Pierpoint made his Machiavellian move for power and got what he deserved.
 
Foxes_Trust said:
Erm his latest company went belly up......
Click to expand...

I was referring to his time at City, I am well aware that his company bit the dust... :icon_roll
 
Jeff said:
There has been a whole series of articles on the trust website where the chairman answered a lot of questions on various subjects. Any that weren't answered at the time were probably fairly trivial, and if that kind of question had been asked on the radio they'd probably be criticised for not asking him something more important.

I missed the start of the programme so I don't know how many questions the trust had read out and what they were, but when I heard the chairman talking about the trust's observer who attends board meetings it seemed obvious the chairman wanted to give the trust more involvement on the board. Although I'm sure if that happens people will probably say the only reason it happens is because the trust is in the club's pocket - which it isn't.
Click to expand...

That latter statement can only ever be a matter of opinion. Yours and mine clearly differ.
 
bocadillo said:
That latter statement can only ever be a matter of opinion. Yours and mine clearly differ.
Click to expand...


I am with you on this one Boc.......
 
Dunc said:
To an extent you are right that if a relationship could have been forged the club would have been better, but quite frankly Pierpoint made his Machiavellian move for power and got what he deserved.
Click to expand...

He had glasses like Deirdrie Rachid from what i can remember.
 
BOB HAZELL said:
Alledgedly, some might say the same taste in "associates" too.....
Click to expand...

What like Bill Roache?
 
Last edited:
PFKAKTF FOX said:
FFS RovRum don't be silly he means Dev !!!
Click to expand...

I love Dev, the asian David Essex, "Gina, Gina".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool2150
2Arsenal2244
3Nottm F2244
4Chelsea2240
5Manchester C  2238
6Newcastle2238
7Bournemouth2237
8Aston Villa2236
9Brighton2234
10Fulham2233
11Brentford2228
12Palace2227
13Manchester U2226
14West Ham2226
15Tottenham 2224
16Everton2120
17Wolves2216
18Ipswich2216
19Leicester2214
20Southampton226

Latest posts

Back
Top