George Street-Bridge wrote:
Dave Boddy was a disaster. It wasn't his fault he was totally out of his depth. (No pun intended.)

So, on the credit side he oversaw a successful transition to League football. On the debit side, he was involved in an attempt to cover the pitch which didn't produce the desired results, meaning a game that was already in jeopardy was indeed postponed and some supporters who helped out got wet.

Yeah, right.[/quote]

George,

You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that Boddy was a disaster. You disagree. Although as the club fired him, and please don't pretend that he wasn't fired, it would seem for once the club and the majority of supporters agree with me.

Not that that is of any significance.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:

Please can you tell us what player agency we rely on for all our signings?

And our first close season signing is represented by whom?

I genuinely do not know , his profile says he is listed with star management, I do not doubt Bush saying that elite management tweeted either, however there is a degree of ambiguity about it all. Just out if interest though, how many players in our squad are registered with Elite Management? Earlier you implied they all are, I make it three, possibly four depending on Franks, this includes two youths who are clearly hoping to follow in the footsteps of the likes of Evans , Poole , Washington and Collins.

I have to say though that since it has been pointed out that our link to Elite management is so detrimental to our football club they have represented both us and Aaron Collins in a transfer for a reported £70k, Lee Evans for an initial undisclosed fee that resulted in a £150k sell on clause, Regan Poole for £100k and Conor Washington for a sell on fee of £600k, so perhaps you, Bush, or anyone can provide a comparable in terms of what transfer fees other agents have yielded in that same period. That would be of interest, of that I am sure.

Now, let's get back to that £19k we paid Elite management last year, £19k for a near £1m return, absolutely scandalous!

I think having a good relationship with an agent or agency can be a good thing.

Exile 1976 wrote:I think having a good relationship with an agent or agency can be a good thing.

As Big Baz alluded to earlier. Every business has a preferred supplier whom they trust. I just simply do not understand how some people do not get this.

Alan G Bryant wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:I think having a good relationship with an agent or agency can be a good thing.

As Big Baz alluded to earlier. Every business has a preferred supplier whom they trust. I just simply do not understand how some people do not get this.

Perhaps it doesn't fit their 'agenda'.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: Dave Boddy was a disaster. It wasn't his fault he was totally out of his depth. (No pun intended.)

George Street-Bridge wrote: So, on the credit side he oversaw a successful transition to League football. On the debit side, he was involved in an attempt to cover the pitch which didn't produce the desired results, meaning a game that was already in jeopardy was indeed postponed and some supporters who helped out got wet.

Yeah, right.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: George, You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that Boddy was a disaster. You disagree. Although as the club fired him, and please don't pretend that he wasn't fired, it would seem for once the club and the majority of supporters agree with me.

Not that that is of any significance.

Corrected your quoting error for you.

Neither of us has any idea what the majority of supporters think about any subject. Don't confuse the club as it's painted by a few dozen of us forum users with the club in the real world.

George Street-Bridge wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote: Dave Boddy was a disaster. It wasn't his fault he was totally out of his depth. (No pun intended.)

George Street-Bridge wrote: So, on the credit side he oversaw a successful transition to League football. On the debit side, he was involved in an attempt to cover the pitch which didn't produce the desired results, meaning a game that was already in jeopardy was indeed postponed and some supporters who helped out got wet.

Yeah, right.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: George, You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that Boddy was a disaster. You disagree. Although as the club fired him, and please don't pretend that he wasn't fired, it would seem for once the club and the majority of supporters agree with me.

Not that that is of any significance.

Corrected your quoting error for you.

Neither of us has any idea what the majority of supporters think about any subject. Don't confuse the club as it's painted by a few dozen of us forum users with the club in the real world.

Fair point about we don't know what the majority of supporters think. Although I strongly suspect that majority of supporters don't and didn't give Boddy a second thought. Although as usual you miss the point I was making. That being that it doesn't matter what people think and if you are correct you are correct even if you are in a minority of one.

I suppose that is the difference between us. I enjoy listening to what people say. As you see above I can be persuaded I am wrong by rational argument. You should try it more often. When you liken those who don't share your view as 'dogs sniffing turds in the park' in my opinion you look foolish. Perhaps you too might like to consider rational argument and take this opportunity to apologize.

Here we go again, that thing about craving apologies.

In consecutive posts you claim the majority of supporters agree with you on a point, then say "Fair point about we don't know what the majority of supporters think".

I enjoy listening to what people say, but what passes for "rational argument" here doesn't always cut it. Hence people whining about "You're not allowed to voice an opinion here", when the reality is anyone can express an opinion but if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny it's likely to be challenged.

It's not "those who don't share my view", it's reserved for the only forum user who as I see it makes a habit of encouraging rows between supporters and seeking to paint them as being in one of two camps, the better to set one group off against the other.

George Street-Bridge wrote:Here we go again, that thing about craving apologies.

Oh dear George,

I am not craving an apology as you put it. I was merely suggesting that that you consider how others living in the real world feel. Would say a woman with a responsible job such as teaching children be best pleased to know her father goes on social media and refers to others as 'dogs sniffing turds in the park'?

I wouldn't know. But I did rather think that you might just consider that you are letting people down rather. Then again such imagery might be what passes for wit in the Street-Bridge household.

I rest my case.

George Street-Bridge wrote:I rest my case.

What case?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

George Street-Bridge wrote:Here we go again, that thing about craving apologies.

Would say a woman with a responsible job such as teaching children be best pleased to know her father goes on social media and refers to others as 'dogs sniffing turds in the park'?

I wouldn't know. But I did rather think that you might just consider that you are letting people down rather. Then again such imagery might be what passes for wit in the Street-Bridge household.

Wow, a new low for stan bringing peoples families into his petty postings.

Jimmy Exile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

George Street-Bridge wrote:Here we go again, that thing about craving apologies.

Would say a woman with a responsible job such as teaching children be best pleased to know her father goes on social media and refers to others as 'dogs sniffing turds in the park'?

I wouldn't know. But I did rather think that you might just consider that you are letting people down rather. Then again such imagery might be what passes for wit in the Street-Bridge household.

Wow, a new low for stan bringing peoples families into his petty postings.

As a regular reader of this forum, I think there’s a fair bit of “ history “ in this regard between these posters that has caused their posts sometimes to descend to a personal vendetta between them and often confuses and makes threads sometimes go off topic, I’m sure they’ll correct me if I’m wrong . Most of their arguments are cogent and interesting but it gets boring when they get to petty point-scoring. I felt Stan was trying to be conciliatory earlier in this thread but that mini peace didn’t last too long, did it? As an ex-player and ex-ref, come on boys, keep your eyes on the ball.

If you want to see what any user brings to the forum, click on the name at the top of a message and then on "search user's posts". This gives a list of all their contributions and the first few lines of each. (Beware it wraps any starting with a quote from an earlier post into the same piece of text.)

It’s more like two dogs in a park arguing over who gets to sniff the turd. Think that’s a better analogy.