Time for Anderson to deliver

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
In fact EVERY single person with any authority, say, influence, financing or future direction of the club - I repeat, every single one of them - have backed Mr Kenneth Anderson on the running of the club - and those that are still relevant to its future still obviously do - or we would have soon heard otherwise!

You talk about "financing and future direction of the club" and yet every single investor that has expressed an interest in putting money into the club since he arrived has walked. 

And regardless of the spin Anderson has put on that unfortunate situation, it remains a fact.

If what you are saying here is a fact, then could you please provide links to the sources where you are reading these facts so that we can all see them for ourselves.

Because of course, you wouldn’t want to say anything that was “based on unprovable accusations and the absence of evidence” would you?

Maurice Greene wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
In fact EVERY single person with any authority, say, influence, financing or future direction of the club - I repeat, every single one of them - have backed Mr Kenneth Anderson on the running of the club - and those that are still relevant to its future still obviously do - or we would have soon heard otherwise!

You talk about "financing and future direction of the club" and yet every single investor that has expressed an interest in putting money into the club since he arrived has walked. 

And regardless of the spin Anderson has put on that unfortunate situation, it remains a fact.

If what you are saying here is a fact, then could you please provide links to the sources where you are reading these facts so that we can all see them for ourselves.

Because of course, you wouldn’t want to say anything that was “based on unprovable accusations and the absence of evidence” would you?

No problem. You show me the list of new investors in the club and I'll agree with you.

Let's have a little decorum.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

boltonbonce wrote:Let's have a little decorum.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I don't fight girls, but that lad needs to tuck in behind his guard and build on his jab. Plus she's wide open for an uppercut.

wanderlust wrote:

Maurice Greene wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
In fact EVERY single person with any authority, say, influence, financing or future direction of the club - I repeat, every single one of them - have backed Mr Kenneth Anderson on the running of the club - and those that are still relevant to its future still obviously do - or we would have soon heard otherwise!

You talk about "financing and future direction of the club" and yet every single investor that has expressed an interest in putting money into the club since he arrived has walked. 

And regardless of the spin Anderson has put on that unfortunate situation, it remains a fact.

If what you are saying here is a fact, then could you please provide links to the sources where you are reading these facts so that we can all see them for ourselves.

Because of course, you wouldn’t want to say anything that was “based on unprovable accusations and the absence of evidence” would you?

No problem. You show me the list of new investors in the club and I'll agree with you.

There is no argument that there are no new investors. All I am doing is asking for the evidence for the assertion you make, that it is a fact that every single investor...has walked.

So if you are saying that they were all genuine potential investors, with verifiable funding, who were dissuaded after discussions with Ken Anderson, then I again ask for the evidence that proves your fact.

Maurice Greene wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Maurice Greene wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
In fact EVERY single person with any authority, say, influence, financing or future direction of the club - I repeat, every single one of them - have backed Mr Kenneth Anderson on the running of the club - and those that are still relevant to its future still obviously do - or we would have soon heard otherwise!

You talk about "financing and future direction of the club" and yet every single investor that has expressed an interest in putting money into the club since he arrived has walked. 

And regardless of the spin Anderson has put on that unfortunate situation, it remains a fact.

If what you are saying here is a fact, then could you please provide links to the sources where you are reading these facts so that we can all see them for ourselves.

Because of course, you wouldn’t want to say anything that was “based on unprovable accusations and the absence of evidence” would you?

No problem. You show me the list of new investors in the club and I'll agree with you.

There is no argument that there are no new investors. All I am doing is asking for the evidence for the assertion you make, that it is a fact that every single investor...has walked.

So if you are saying that they were all genuine potential investors, with verifiable funding, who were dissuaded after discussions with Ken Anderson, then I again ask for the evidence that proves your fact.

I still don't get what you're rambling on about. The facts are there. Anderson spun a story about how it was his job to bring in the much needed investment and cited 20 or 30 million was needed. Fact. Anderson has spoken to loads of potential investors over his tenure. Fact. They've all walked away - after meeting Anderson. Fact. What more do you want? A description of how they walked? This bit is only speculation but I imagine the answer is "quickly".

Meanwhile does anyone reckon that Anderson will spend more than half a million on the team? I don't but I hope he's going to surprise me.

“I still don't get what you're rambling on about.”

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Prov. You cannot make someone pay attention to something that he or she does not want to notice.

wanderlust. wrote:
Meanwhile does anyone reckon that Anderson will spend more than half a million on the team? I don't but I hope he's going to surprise me.

I think today has answered that question for you.

MartinBWFC wrote:

wanderlust. wrote:
Meanwhile does anyone reckon that Anderson will spend more than half a million on the team? I don't but I hope he's going to surprise me.

I think today has answered that question for you.

TBH I thought the 200k was a surprise but I guess he had to do something to have any sort of credence in his PR output left - I anticipate the "we tried, but..." story mentioned in the top of the thread will be out shortly. Hopefully we'll be lucky in the loanee department? Noticed Spurs have put enormous faith in their youth development programme having played them in the preseason so I imagine we won't be getting anyone from them. United lad perhaps?
Also wondering if Connor Hall will be kept on now.

Maurice Greene wrote:“I still don't get what you're rambling on about.”

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Prov. You cannot make someone pay attention to something that he or she does not want to notice.

...and yet it is you that has blind faith in a previously convicted man so clearly you "don't want to notice" his previous form and are not only prepared to completely trust him despite the facts, but to have the cheek to admonish me for not putting my complete faith in him.

wanderlust wrote:

Maurice Greene wrote:“I still don't get what you're rambling on about.”

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Prov. You cannot make someone pay attention to something that he or she does not want to notice.

...and yet it is you that has blind faith in a previously convicted man so clearly you "don't want to notice" his previous form and are not only prepared to completely trust him despite the facts, but to have the cheek to admonish me for not putting my complete faith in him.

Oh dear... there you go again.

I have not proffered my views on Ken Anderson so you’re making things up - yet again.

Of course I have views on Ken but, for the record, they are not the ones you have made up.

And neither have I admonished you for not putting your complete faith in him. I have no problem with that if it is your opinion, to which you are entitled.

All I have done is to ask for the evidence for your statements of facts, which, by the way, are still not forthcoming.

Maurice Greene wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Maurice Greene wrote:“I still don't get what you're rambling on about.”

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Prov. You cannot make someone pay attention to something that he or she does not want to notice.

...and yet it is you that has blind faith in a previously convicted man so clearly you "don't want to notice" his previous form and are not only prepared to completely trust him despite the facts, but to have the cheek to admonish me for not putting my complete faith in him.

Oh dear... there you go again.

I have not proffered my views on Ken Anderson so you’re making things up - yet again.

Of course I have views on Ken but, for the record, they are not the ones you have made up.

And neither have I admonished you for not putting your complete faith in him. I have no problem with that if it is your opinion, to which you are entitled.

All I have done is to ask for the evidence for your statements of facts, which, by the way, are still not forthcoming.

Apologies if I've misunderstood you, however the facts are in post 166. 
The widespread distrust of Anderson is not unjustifiable but I imagine we'll only know the truth after he has exited as every single press release is spun to death.

wanderlust wrote:

Maurice Greene wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Maurice Greene wrote:“I still don't get what you're rambling on about.”

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Prov. You cannot make someone pay attention to something that he or she does not want to notice.

...and yet it is you that has blind faith in a previously convicted man so clearly you "don't want to notice" his previous form and are not only prepared to completely trust him despite the facts, but to have the cheek to admonish me for not putting my complete faith in him.

Oh dear... there you go again.

I have not proffered my views on Ken Anderson so you’re making things up - yet again.

Of course I have views on Ken but, for the record, they are not the ones you have made up.

And neither have I admonished you for not putting your complete faith in him. I have no problem with that if it is your opinion, to which you are entitled.

All I have done is to ask for the evidence for your statements of facts, which, by the way, are still not forthcoming.

Apologies if I've misunderstood you, however the facts are in post 166. 
The widespread distrust of Anderson is not unjustifiable but I imagine we'll only know the truth after he has exited as every single press release is spun to death.

He had previous form, which he has paid the price for. He still denies he did anything wrong by the way.

However, just because he made a mistake once, doesn't mean he's wrong this time. 

He seems to be getting things right on and of the pitch. Only time will tell.

Nigelbwfc wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Maurice Greene wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Maurice Greene wrote:“I still don't get what you're rambling on about.”

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Prov. You cannot make someone pay attention to something that he or she does not want to notice.

...and yet it is you that has blind faith in a previously convicted man so clearly you "don't want to notice" his previous form and are not only prepared to completely trust him despite the facts, but to have the cheek to admonish me for not putting my complete faith in him.

Oh dear... there you go again.

I have not proffered my views on Ken Anderson so you’re making things up - yet again.

Of course I have views on Ken but, for the record, they are not the ones you have made up.

And neither have I admonished you for not putting your complete faith in him. I have no problem with that if it is your opinion, to which you are entitled.

All I have done is to ask for the evidence for your statements of facts, which, by the way, are still not forthcoming.

Apologies if I've misunderstood you, however the facts are in post 166. 
The widespread distrust of Anderson is not unjustifiable but I imagine we'll only know the truth after he has exited as every single press release is spun to death.

He had previous form, which he has paid the price for. He still denies he did anything wrong by the way.

However, just because he made a mistake once, doesn't mean he's wrong this time. 

He seems to be getting things right on and of the pitch. Only time will tell.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that we all hope that this austerity is for the benefit of the club and not to line his family's pockets. As you say, time will tell.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that we all hope that this austerity is for the benefit of the club and not to line his family's pockets. As you say, time will tell.

I agree with that.