Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Spring]

Hi Dingo

I have started a new topic, so we can have a separate and civilised debate, as I genuinely like to understand all sides of an issue before taking an irreversible position. For example I started off defending the current Chairman but was convinced by a number of respondents on this site that they were not a loud mouthed rabble but very genuine supporters of the team, who followed them home and away and did numerous voluntary jobs.

What I am keen to hear, is not a debate about the rights or wrongs of the walk out but more why you believe in the present leadership of the club and wish to preserve the status quo as regards the chairman.

On the face of it :
- he has made or endorsed a series of disastrous managerial appointments
- the team are just about to be relegated for the second season running to the lowest level in the clubs history 
- we were recently dubbed the most unsuccessful football team in England
- the recent strategic review admitted the Board (under his chairmanship) were divided and dysfunctional (my interpretation from the words used)
- at the open meeting his performance was recognised as being substandard and did not provide either confidence or inspiration
- at that same meeting a crude form of censorship was applied and no senior figure spoke against this
- recently volunteers on the Twitter account were locked out for what can only be described as an honest assessment of what was going on
- those volunteers have had no explanation and nobody at the club has owned up to making and explaining the decision
- previously the chairman alienated supporters at a match v Braintree and by comments about fans to the press

I could go on but the point I am trying to make is that surely the debate should be about these issues rather than a slanging match which tends to obscure rather than provide focus on the facts.

Will you take each of the above points or at least some of them and comment from your perspective on the facts, as I genuinely wish to appreciate why some clearly sensible people support the status quo, as I fully accept that I might be missing something or do not fully appreciate the implications of change to the well being of the football club. This latter factor should be the one that is uppermost in all our mind and I feel sure we will start with common ground on that.

regards Spring

[Mausoleum Alty]

Not sure if you're aware but there is a private message option available

[bighairedmike]

Not sure if you're aware but there is a private message option available

To be fair pal, I think these are answers a lot of fans would like to hear, especially those who are against the current Chairman retaining his position.

[York Alty is back]

Dingo did not answer a couple of straightforward questions from me on an earlier thread, so please don't hold your breath Spring.

[Mausoleum Alty]

Not sure if you're aware but there is a private message option available

To be fair pal, I think these are answers a lot of fans would like to hear, especially those who are against the current Chairman retaining his position.

Fair enough mate,maybe I was a bit hasty,apologies Spring.

[dingo]

Hi Dingo

I have started a new topic, so we can have a separate and civilised debate, as I genuinely like to understand all sides of an issue before taking an irreversible position. For example I started off defending the current Chairman but was convinced by a number of respondents on this site that they were not a loud mouthed rabble but very genuine supporters of the team, who followed them home and away and did numerous voluntary jobs.

What I am keen to hear, is not a debate about the rights or wrongs of the walk out but more why you believe in the present leadership of the club and wish to preserve the status quo as regards the chairman.

On the face of it :
- he has made or endorsed a series of disastrous managerial appointments
- the team are just about to be relegated for the second season running to the lowest level in the clubs history 
- we were recently dubbed the most unsuccessful football team in England
- the recent strategic review admitted the Board (under his chairmanship) were divided and dysfunctional (my interpretation from the words used)
- at the open meeting his performance was recognised as being substandard and did not provide either confidence or inspiration
- at that same meeting a crude form of censorship was applied and no senior figure spoke against this
- recently volunteers on the Twitter account were locked out for what can only be described as an honest assessment of what was going on
- those volunteers have had no explanation and nobody at the club has owned up to making and explaining the decision
- previously the chairman alienated supporters at a match v Braintree and by comments about fans to the press

I could go on but the point I am trying to make is that surely the debate should be about these issues rather than a slanging match which tends to obscure rather than provide focus on the facts.

Will you take each of the above points or at least some of them and comment from your perspective on the facts, as I genuinely wish to appreciate why some clearly sensible people support the status quo, as I fully accept that I might be missing something or do not fully appreciate the implications of change to the well being of the football club. This latter factor should be the one that is uppermost in all our mind and I feel sure we will start with common ground on that.

regards Spring

Hi Spring I will reply to the above in due course, bit late tonight

[dingo]

Dingo did not answer a couple of straightforward questions from me on an earlier thread, so please don't hold your breath Spring.

Sorry York, just because u were 2 lazy to reread a thread don't accuse me of not answering a question, I'm not ur secretary. See many alty matches in the flesh recently.......

[York Alty is back]

No. You failed to answer the questions. Your earlier posts made no reference to the questions I asked you.

I see as many games as my domestic, work, financial and family commitments permit. I don't know how that relates to your inability to answer a straightforward question. X  

[dingo]

No. You failed to answer the questions. Your earlier posts made no reference to the questions I asked you.

I see as many games as my domestic, work, financial and family commitments permit. I don't know how that relates to your inability to answer a straightforward question. X 

York just to put you back in your box on the thread no twitter updates on page 4 I stated in inverted commas' the offending tweet was " it was well applauded and supported by a sizeable number". On page 9 you ask what's was the offending tweet, I reply that I have stated and commented on it previously in the thread which I did on page 4 as can be seen. You even have a comment on page 4 of the thread!! You then ask again on page 9 about what is the offending tweet etc!!!

An apology would be the decent thing

[York Alty is back]

Oh bless. All that work and you still didnt answer the questions. Gotta love you though. Big hug right here for you. X.

[dingo]

Oh bless. All that work and you still didnt answer the questions. Gotta love you though. Big hug right here for you. X.

Me thinks you look like a bit of jackass right now

[SW]

Oh bless. All that work and you still didnt answer the questions. Gotta love you though. Big hug right here for you. X.

Me thinks you look like a bit of jackass right now

Who actually are you?

[dingo]

Oh bless. All that work and you still didnt answer the questions. Gotta love you though. Big hug right here for you. X.

Me thinks you look like a bit of jackass right now

Who actually are you?

Pat Mustard, u?

[dingo]

Hi Dingo

I have started a new topic, so we can have a separate and civilised debate, as I genuinely like to understand all sides of an issue before taking an irreversible position. For example I started off defending the current Chairman but was convinced by a number of respondents on this site that they were not a loud mouthed rabble but very genuine supporters of the team, who followed them home and away and did numerous voluntary jobs.

What I am keen to hear, is not a debate about the rights or wrongs of the walk out but more why you believe in the present leadership of the club and wish to preserve the status quo as regards the chairman.

On the face of it :
- he has made or endorsed a series of disastrous managerial appointments
- the team are just about to be relegated for the second season running to the lowest level in the clubs history 
- we were recently dubbed the most unsuccessful football team in England
- the recent strategic review admitted the Board (under his chairmanship) were divided and dysfunctional (my interpretation from the words used)
- at the open meeting his performance was recognised as being substandard and did not provide either confidence or inspiration
- at that same meeting a crude form of censorship was applied and no senior figure spoke against this
- recently volunteers on the Twitter account were locked out for what can only be described as an honest assessment of what was going on
- those volunteers have had no explanation and nobody at the club has owned up to making and explaining the decision
- previously the chairman alienated supporters at a match v Braintree and by comments about fans to the press

I could go on but the point I am trying to make is that surely the debate should be about these issues rather than a slanging match which tends to obscure rather than provide focus on the facts.

Will you take each of the above points or at least some of them and comment from your perspective on the facts, as I genuinely wish to appreciate why some clearly sensible people support the status quo, as I fully accept that I might be missing something or do not fully appreciate the implications of change to the well being of the football club. This latter factor should be the one that is uppermost in all our mind and I feel sure we will start with common ground on that.

regards Spring

Hi Spring I will reply to the above in due course, bit late tonight

Hi Spring I will start with the managerial appointments, these are just my opinions

Sinnott - good appointment although some didnt like that he wasn't about the club enough. I hear he lost interest and walked but cant confirm that.

Tolson- bad appointment, no track record to speak of. Nice guy but easy option

Young- On paper at colwyn bay and Chester got numerous promotions and won cups, at Stockport it didnt work out but from the info at the time good appointment. Even fergie and Wenger got the chop in their careers. At the time of his appointment even at the meeting introducing him it was mostly positive from fans, I was there and I was impressed although it proved a disaster.

Harvey - again on paper looked like exactly what we needed, generally positive response from fans unfortunately it didn't work.

Buz and robbie - initially I was sceptical but they have slowly stopped the rot and started to turn things around. Wednesday no disrespect to aj in goal with the chances created we should have won that. If they can keep newby imagine him and miller attacking the wings next season with a young goal hungry striker.

[Spring]

Thanks Dingo

I will not comment on your thoughts until you have finished otherwise it all gets disjointed and I would humbly suggest that other respondents do the same and give Dingo the courtesy of explaining his views. I for one am interested in 'listening' and not trying to points score. As long as we have a civilised debate, nobody loses out and we might better understand each other's points of view.

Spring