ST demand meeting with Anderson after administration drama

wanderlust wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

wanderlust wrote:So if they aren't going to get a meeting and even if they did he'd tell them nothing, what is all the fuss about?

No fuss lusty, simply answering your assertion that they're more likely to get answers they'll publish for everyone's benefit.

There you go - straight out of the Sluffy school of deliberate misquoting to make a point

What I actually said was they were more likely to get a meeting with Anderson etc than me - which is a 100% true bald fact as I have no intention whatsoever of even trying.

What on earth are you whittering on about lusty? I wasn't taking a dig at you in any way shape or form. I did not include the words "than you" because it never occurred to me you'd be so insanely paranoid as to think a rather simple comment concerning the likelihood of the ST getting answers at all was any kind of attack on you.

For the record, I don't care who you mean when you say they're more likely to get answers, you'd still be wrong if you said "The ST is more likely to get answers than Elvis Presley."

The point I make has nothing whatsoever to do with you. It's entirely about the ST and the fact they've burnt every possible bridge they could have had with the club and have absolutely no chance of getting any kind of meeting with Ken Anderson. In truth even though you're not even going to try and get a meeting I'd still say the ST's chances are no better than yours.

Don't be so quick to assume you know my motives or meaning please. As to being "straight from the sluffy school" well, there are times when I agree with him and times when I don't. On the subject of the ST and Ken Anderson I'm broadly in agreement with sluffy but even there we've disagreed on certain things such as the late payments to Ben Amos and Karl Henry.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:As ever I still find it hard to tell when someone is joking on a forum unless there's an emoji to make it obvious. Oops. Sorry Nat.

I don't do emojis Peter, they're for teenagers and KP.

I don't use them either Nat and I never will.

   [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Me neither. And apologies for being arsey.

Natasha Whittam wrote:GazVickers got a ban for a similar outburst.

I trust LPP will be taking a break for a day or two?

Absolutely no need for that.

Nobody likes a grass.

No worries lusty.

This is the sort of thread that makes grown men cry.

What has happened to the world?

Nothing really cajun. It's just a case of us going round in circles because it seems every time things are finally getting sorted another 'crisis' pops out of the woodwork. In truth though I find it absolutely astonishing that the Supporter's Trust believe they have any credibility left at all. Worse yet Iles still seems to take them seriously when even the thickest, most myopic idiot on the planet knows there's no way in hell Ken, Lee or anyone in any position of power at BWFC is going to meet with them under any circumstances. Bluntly put Satan will drive to work in a snow plough before Ken Anderson gives so much as one second of his time to the ST.

That in my opinion is a crying shame even though I believe he's fully justified in that stance. There is and always will be a need for a football club's fans to have a strong, independent voice that can ask the questions we can't as individuals and get the answers that could assuage so much of the concern we all feel about our club and its future.