Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

33
Threadbare wrote:Should that be so Bush, I would hope we hear no more of eat and drink in the RP bars from the club.
Always a bit quid pro quo before but if we are that far down the line maybe time to stop being so sub servient, and I say that as one who loves the venue ( but not the terms).
Agree if it is definate, but wouldn't want to cut off my nose to spite my face?

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

34
All I got from that was the knowledge that someone has learned how to embed YouTube clips of something I have no intention of ever wasting my time watching. Oh, and put a face to a name, which I *really* didn't want to do because I don't particularly want real life to leak into my postings on here either.

I've saved everyone the trouble of having to see it again, anyway.

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

35
George Street-Bridge wrote:How would the WRU make money from a land swap while the only rugby team taking significant revenue left town?
They'd still make revenue off the Dragons name and the "franchise" elsewhere, not sure what the land swap entails though, wouldn't they just want to sell (and the Council probably isn't in a position for any great expenditure given the lack of central government funding for a lot of what they're obliged to provide and the pressure on reserves for more essential functions)?

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

36
SJG99 wrote: They'd still make revenue off the Dragons name and the "franchise" elsewhere, not sure what the land swap entails though, wouldn't they just want to sell (and the Council probably isn't in a position for any great expenditure given the lack of central government funding for a lot of what they're obliged to provide and the pressure on reserves for more essential functions)?
The Council could sell some prime assets (eg. the Library & Museum in Josh Frost Sq) and use that money. They could also move those facilities to a new stand at Rodney Parade?

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

37
SJG99 wrote:
All I got from that was the knowledge that someone has learned how to embed YouTube clips of something I have no intention of ever wasting my time watching. Oh, and put a face to a name, which I *really* didn't want to do because I don't particularly want real life to leak into my postings on here either.

I've saved everyone the trouble of having to see it again, anyway.
Well you’ve hardly done that have you? The link is still in my first post. Of course you don’t have to watch it. As for the first bit, posting a link is hardly rocket science is it? I’ve always taken the attitude that I’ll listen to a point of view rather than not but that’s up to you.

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

39
Willthiswork wrote:It's all, "me, me, me" on those YouTube videos from Stan!
Surely not? :shock:

It's a bit below the belt to mention this while he is serving yet another ban, but I could never get my head round the contrast between his attitude to confidentiality around club business and the fact he worked in a field where the same approach would have been professional suicide.

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

40
George Street-Bridge wrote:
Willthiswork wrote:It's all, "me, me, me" on those YouTube videos from Stan!
Surely not? :shock:

It's a bit below the belt to mention this while he is serving yet another ban, but I could never get my head round the contrast between his attitude to confidentiality around club business and the fact he worked in a field where the same approach would have been professional suicide.
Far be it from me to make apologies for Stan but surely there’s work and there’s play and I suspect for him , this is play. He enjoys winding people up while maintaining the skin of a rhinoceros.

Edit. I should have added though that what he is dead serious about I’m sure is the safe future of our club. If he isn’t then I have seriously misjudged his utterings and intentions.

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

41
George Street-Bridge wrote:
Willthiswork wrote:It's all, "me, me, me" on those YouTube videos from Stan!
Surely not? :shock:

It's a bit below the belt to mention this while he is serving yet another ban, but I could never get my head round the contrast between his attitude to confidentiality around club business and the fact he worked in a field where the same approach would have been professional suicide.
Someone told me the other day that the guy advocated publishing the salaries of players. I genuinely laughed out loud.

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

42
Willthiswork wrote:
SJG99 wrote: They'd still make revenue off the Dragons name and the "franchise" elsewhere, not sure what the land swap entails though, wouldn't they just want to sell (and the Council probably isn't in a position for any great expenditure given the lack of central government funding for a lot of what they're obliged to provide and the pressure on reserves for more essential functions)?
The Council could sell some prime assets (eg. the Library & Museum in Josh Frost Sq) and use that money. They could also move those facilities to a new stand at Rodney Parade?
Yes I’m sure that move would be very popular with the other 107,000 people in the city that don’t watch the county! What dream world do you live in?

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

43
Bush wrote:
Willthiswork wrote:
SJG99 wrote: They'd still make revenue off the Dragons name and the "franchise" elsewhere, not sure what the land swap entails though, wouldn't they just want to sell (and the Council probably isn't in a position for any great expenditure given the lack of central government funding for a lot of what they're obliged to provide and the pressure on reserves for more essential functions)?
The Council could sell some prime assets (eg. the Library & Museum in Josh Frost Sq) and use that money. They could also move those facilities to a new stand at Rodney Parade?
Yes I’m sure that move would be very popular with the other 107,000 people in the city that don’t watch the county! What dream world do you live in?
Why? They would still have the same facilities (even though they have talked about closing it for years).

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

45
Willthiswork wrote:It's all, "me, me, me" on those YouTube videos from Stan!
I'm not really aware what the terms of a ban entail. Can the banned person access the forum but not post any messages, or is there a total block? I suppose it's largely irrelevant as a banned member could just rejoin under a different identity, we know that's been done :lol: Who knows, maybe Stan is doing so at present. :?: :wink:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users