|
|
Post by Incognito on Aug 25, 2015 11:14:31 GMT
There is and never was any "love in". I was as critical of some of his decisions as most other people. I guess the difference is that I still believe the intentions, until perhaps the last few months were in the interest of saving HUFC.
Can anyone be certain that the actions of some of the Trust Board were for the same purpose? I'm not.
Meanwhile, shouldn't you be concerning yourself more with the Munsley issue?
I'm detecting a slight shift in your stance here (until perhaps the last few months etc) if you keep shifting at this speed you should be able to support HFC without ever admitting you have been wrong by about 2030. No shift in position. I believe in what I believe and think I've said the same things all along. |
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Aug 25, 2015 11:16:56 GMT
There is and never was any "love in". I was as critical of some of his decisions as most other people. I guess the difference is that I still believe the intentions, until perhaps the last few months were in the interest of saving HUFC.
Can anyone be certain that the actions of some of the Trust Board were for the same purpose? I'm not.
Meanwhile, shouldn't you be concerning yourself more with the Munsley issue?
During which time you still defended him to the hilt on BB. If you could see he was acting maliciously why didn't you speak up? There's a big difference between acting maliciously (which is not what I said) to acting to protect his own interest (his personal investment in HUFC). |
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Aug 25, 2015 11:22:56 GMT
There is and never was any "love in". I was as critical of some of his decisions as most other people. I guess the difference is that I still believe the intentions, until perhaps the last few months were in the interest of saving HUFC.
Can anyone be certain that the actions of some of the Trust Board were for the same purpose? I'm not.
Meanwhile, shouldn't you be concerning yourself more with the Munsley issue?
So after everything, you basically agree with everyone else? (I'm sure it's a very tiny minority that actually believe Keyte arrived at the club with bad intentions). DK wanted out. He'd over committed financially with his support for HUFC. I believe he may have panicked over his over-investment and grabbed the opportunity that appeared to be offered by Agombar.
I remain convinced that had the HUST offer been made to "look" better then it may have been accepted. Of course, for that to happen the negotiation would have needed to have been conducted in a different mood to the way it was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 11:46:53 GMT
So after everything, you basically agree with everyone else? (I'm sure it's a very tiny minority that actually believe Keyte arrived at the club with bad intentions). DK wanted out. He'd over committed financially with his support for HUFC. I believe he may have panicked over his over-investment and grabbed the opportunity that appeared to be offered by Agombar.
I remain convinced that had the HUST offer been made to "look" better then it may have been accepted. Of course, for that to happen the negotiation would have needed to have been conducted in a different mood to the way it was.
You've repeated that about 20 times over the past week, there's no point in labouring the point. You need a few lessons from the masters of manipulation - for it to become common opinion you need to make up twenty new user names to agree with you and push the point, morning noon and night. Ask Jonny to ban anybody who disagrees with you and log back into BN a write a few pieces by a guest columnist named Alan Marden which support your views. Bound to work. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Branflakes on Aug 25, 2015 11:58:19 GMT
So after everything, you basically agree with everyone else? (I'm sure it's a very tiny minority that actually believe Keyte arrived at the club with bad intentions). DK wanted out. He'd over committed financially with his support for HUFC. I believe he may have panicked over his over-investment and grabbed the opportunity that appeared to be offered by Agombar.
I remain convinced that had the HUST offer been made to "look" better then it may have been accepted. Of course, for that to happen the negotiation would have needed to have been conducted in a different mood to the way it was.
DK never took responsibility for his mistakes and kept blaming otters when things went wrong. |
|
bsm
Junior Member
Posts: 34 
|
Post by bsm on Aug 25, 2015 13:37:09 GMT
I agree with ex-landlord, and always have on the point that a proper deal could/should have been discussed with Keyte. He openly stated he was happy to go but kept propping the club up, with his colleagues, till the end of the season. I can't believe relegation would have improved his chances of moving the club on so don't believe the line that he was trying to do that. Anyway, how can a Chairman influence results on the pitch? We were technically a Conference club when Keyte left.
I think I would accept accepting £1 for £300,000 worth of shares and striking a deal to get another £300,000 back over 10 years (allegedly) a decent first step to accepting any responsibility for the poor performance of the football club "on his watch", whilst helping the club in some small way into the future. Seems Agombar agreed the deal but HUST couldn't get passed a £1 and 'on yer bike, mate'! I might of gone the same way as Keyte myself with those two options on the table.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 14:34:45 GMT
without ever admitting you have been wrong by about 2030
Be fair mate. Ex's statement was that 1,000 would return when GT left, not 2,030.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 14:57:46 GMT
DK wanted out. He'd over committed financially with his support for HUFC. I believe he may have panicked over his over-investment and grabbed the opportunity that appeared to be offered by Agombar.
I remain convinced that had the HUST offer been made to "look" better then it may have been accepted. Of course, for that to happen the negotiation would have needed to have been conducted in a different mood to the way it was.
DK never took responsibility for his mistakes and kept blaming otters when things went wrong. Otters have long, slim bodies and relatively short limbs with webbed paws. A slightly different take on events, Jim, but I think I know where you're coming from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peroni on Aug 25, 2015 15:14:14 GMT
DK never took responsibility for his mistakes and kept blaming otters when things went wrong. Otters have long, slim bodies and relatively short limbs with webbed paws. A slightly different take on events, Jim, but I think I know where you're coming from.
Makes a change from the rats |
|
