Twat of the week.

Nancy Pelosi and runner up Scofield.

Has to be Trump. Only he could go to a 'prayer breakfast' and spew bile.

Marc Iles for his typically inept Per Frandsen article but I must avoid becoming a Pelosi.
A Pelosi is someone who makes an innocent victim of someone who isn't exactly an innocent victim.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Marc Iles for his typically inept Per Frandsen article but I must avoid becoming a Pelosi.
A Pelosi is someone who makes an innocent victim of someone who isn't exactly an innocent victim.

 

(On both accounts!)

Haven't read the article. What was the problem with it?

boltonbonce wrote:Haven't read the article. What was the problem with it?

Without going into a lengthy tome, let me ask whether you think that the re-signing of Per Frandsen was all down to the brilliance, energy and foresight of Sam Allardyce, as Marc Iles would have BN readers believe. Or do you think it might have had something to do with the Chairman or Eddie Davies who, as supporters, recognised the contribution Frandsen had made to the club's previous success, and who, in typical Iles style, get no mention in his article?


It was the board that made the gamble and the commitment and I'd need persuading that it wasn't members of the board that inititiated the process of re-signing Frandsen, who incidentally had never previously played under Allardyce but had under Phil Brown whilst assistant to Colin Todd.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Without going into a lengthy tome, let me ask whether you think that the re-signing of Per Frandsen was all down to the brilliance, energy and foresight of Sam Allardyce, as Marc Iles would have BN readers believe. Or do you think it might have had something to do with the Chairman or Eddie Davies who, as supporters, recognised the contribution Frandsen had made to the club's previous success, and who, in typical Iles style, get no mention in his article?

I'm sure I'm right in saying that, despite the financial commitments of Eddie Davies and David Speakman, the club was in more debt when the board agreed to re-sign Frandsen than it was when the previous board decided they had to sell him to help balance the books.

It was the board that made the gamble and the commitment and I'd need persuading that it wasn't members of the board that inititiated the process of re-signing Frandsen, who incidentally had never previously played under Allardyce but had under Phil Brown whilst assistant to Colin Todd.

So in other words, you think the article is "inept" because Iles doesn't have the same opinion as you?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Without going into a lengthy tome, let me ask whether you think that the re-signing of Per Frandsen was all down to the brilliance, energy and foresight of Sam Allardyce, as Marc Iles would have BN readers believe. Or do you think it might have had something to do with the Chairman or Eddie Davies who, as supporters, recognised the contribution Frandsen had made to the club's previous success, and who, in typical Iles style, get no mention in his article?

I'm sure I'm right in saying that, despite the financial commitments of Eddie Davies and David Speakman, the club was in more debt when the board agreed to re-sign Frandsen than it was when the previous board decided they had to sell him to help balance the books.

It was the board that made the gamble and the commitment and I'd need persuading that it wasn't members of the board that inititiated the process of re-signing Frandsen, who incidentally had never previously played under Allardyce but had under Phil Brown whilst assistant to Colin Todd.

So in other words, you think the article is "inept" because Iles doesn't have the same opinion as you?

Iles is inept because he ignores facts that contradict his prejudices and he does it over and over again. Some folk don't mind that at all, especially when it suits their own prejudices.

Why don't you try explaining to me why, when Ken Anderson was trying to get Eddie Davies to stump up another £5m to pay off Blumarble, Marc Iles falsely claimed that Gordon Hargreaves funded the building of the Reebok?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Iles is inept because he ignores facts that contradict his prejudices and he does it over and over again. Some folk don't mind that at all, especially when it suits their own prejudices.

Do you have facts to support your theory the Frandsen re-signing was driven by the board?

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Iles is inept because he ignores facts that contradict his prejudices and he does it over and over again. Some folk don't mind that at all, especially when it suits their own prejudices.

Do you have facts to support your theory the Frandsen re-signing was driven by the board?

The fact that I'm alleging is that it was the board that made the gamble and the commitment not Sam Allardyce which Iles typically fails to mention.

Who actually initiated it has not been published so far as I'm aware. What we do know is that the chairman of the board that took the decision to sell Frandsen was very soon afterwards replaced as chairman by Phil Gartside with two new directors (who were also supporters) putting money into the club and it was not long after that Frandsen was back at BWFC.

What I am suggesting is that Iles is misleading the readership of BN in inferring that it was all down to Allardyce when Allardyce was not paying the bill and there were others more influential than Allardyce who had reason to want to see Frandsen back at BWFC and actually made it happen.

You said he’s ignored facts, but which facts are you referring to?

I think you’re probably right by the way, but without being there I think it’s difficult to say anything is 100% certain either way.

T.R.O.Y wrote:You said he’s ignored facts, but which facts are you referring to?

I think you’re probably right by the way, but without being there I think it’s difficult to say anything is 100% certain either way.

In this  particular case the fact Iles ignored was who it was that actually re-signed Per Frandsen.

It seems unlikely that Frandsen would have been re-signed without Allardyce being consulted but the idea that Allardyce had the authority to spend £1.6m (plus wages) of the club's money without board approval is naive but sadly all too typical of Marc Iles reporting.

Just read the article, you’ve gone way over the top on this one I’m afraid - this is all Iles says regarding the transfer:

‘ Just a year later, Sam Allardyce managed to resign him for £1.6m and he became the fulcrum of a team which not only got back into the top flight, but also stayed there.’

From that sentence you’ve decided Iles is claiming Allardyce had the authority to spend without board approval?

Sorry but you’ve lost all credibility on this point, you’ve obviously got an issue with Iles and it’s clouding your judgement.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Just read the article, you’ve gone way over the top on this one I’m afraid - this is all Iles says regarding the transfer:

‘ Just a year later, Sam Allardyce managed to resign him for £1.6m and he became the fulcrum of a team which not only got back into the top flight, but also stayed there.’

From that sentence you’ve decided Iles is claiming Allardyce had the authority to spend without board approval?

Sorry but you’ve lost all credibility on this point, you’ve obviously got an issue with Iles and it’s clouding your judgement.

At least the ST couldn't get dragged in this time.

If one is to be at all objective, it might be possible to consider Marc Iles comments  in the context of his other comments and the comments of the BN over the last twenty years.

An alternative to Marc Iles observations might be that: 'Under the direction of the new chairman, Phil Gartside, and with the financial support of Eddie Davies and David Speakman it wouldn't be long before the excellent and highly respected Frandsen was welcomed back into the fold to help the club secure and sustain its place in the Premiership'.

No Bonce, nowt to do with the ST on this occasion. That's another story.

You’re really clutching at straws here. Theres plenty to criticise Iles about, but you have nothing on that specific point.

You have also failed to point out what facts you have to contradict him.

Much like Sluffy, you seem to be confusing your opinions and theories with fact.

T.R.O.Y wrote:You’re really clutching at straws here. Theres plenty to criticise Iles about, but you have nothing on that specific point.

You have also failed to point out what facts you have to contradict him.

Much like Sluffy, you seem to be confusing your opinions and theories with fact.

Hahaha, somebody is fishing for a bite!

Bob, TROY only posts on this site to engineer arguments for presumably his own amusement.

I guess he thinks he is smarter than anyone else as he will continue arguing ad nauseum until people think 'what's the point replying to him any more'.

I don't know what he seeks to get out of the exercise in what he does, maybe he just likes to get under the skin of people?

He's tried hard to do it with me over the years but as I simply just care what people say on the internet, he's simply wasting his time and effort as far as I'm concerned - his problem, not mine.

If he thinks what I say is only opinions and theories, then good for him, I won't lose any sleep over it.

I've told people, based on my professional knowledge and expertise, numerous explanations as to the 'why's and wherefores' of why various things happened/did not happen, and if people want to believe me, then it's entirely up to them - many didn't - plenty still don't.

Suffice to say that all the regulatory bodies that now must have gone through the Anderson era of ownership leaving no stone unturned have all yet to commence any actions against him, which considering how so many people viewed him as the Devil's spawn and the hatred, threats and abuse against him and the multitude of things he was alleged to have done to benefit himself and his family, that it seems quite extraordinary now in retrospect that no charges whatsoever have yet to be brought against him.

Seems I did know what I was talking about after all!

Not bad for someone who only deals in 'opinions' and 'theories' apparently, eh?

Sluffy you spent 3 years praising Anderson as a savvy business man, even likening him to Jeff Bezos at one point. All most of us tried to do was explain to you why failing to pay players and staff would annoy fans and drive the club into the ground - which it nearly did, and you wouldn’t accept that.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Sluffy you spent 3 years praising Anderson as a savvy business man, even likening him to Jeff Bezos at one point. All most of us tried to do was explain to you why failing to pay players and staff would annoy fans and drive the club into the ground - which it nearly did, and you wouldn’t accept that.

Once again someone who can't understand the fact that BWFC and Ken Anderson are two separate legal entities.

The company that is BWFC employs and pays the players wages not KA the person.

BWFC has year after year spent more than it brought in.

Eddie Davies chose to fund the difference from his own pocket - FV are doing the same now.

Anderson did not wish to lose his personal wealth to do the same - and why should he?

BWFC's been insolvent for decades and once Eddie died the well inevitably ran dry.

It's as simple as that.

If people don't want to accept or understand that, well it's their problem, they are in denial of reality and the legal facts of Company Law.

As for likening Ken (or anyone else for that matter) to Jeff Bezos that is an outright lie as I've never done that on here or even in real life!

No point bothering with you any more.

Go and play your silly games with someone other than me.

Sluffy, since day one you seem to have implied that company owners have no moral responsibility to their employees. Your argument seems to be that as long as they don't break the law they can do what they want.

Is that your thinking?