Bangitintrnet wrote: February 28th, 2024, 7:10 pm

pembsexile wrote: February 28th, 2024, 6:56 pm I wonder if the thread starter could consider either closing, locking or deleting this thread. Then, start two new threads, one with the original title, Scott Bennet etc and another with the club/trust view. That way we could have a serious discussion about whether we want SB to remain and allow the pompous self centred narcissist who wants to hijack this thread because his view is more important than anyone else, to argue with himself. Just a thought, I would suggest that is a win, win.

As usual say absolutely nothing, simply try to stop discussion. What are you all so fearful of? You all back openness, the decision the trust made on openness was made just over a month ago? But it doesn't apply to yourselves does it? The trust lost its reason to exist just over a month ago, and what matters is the heading on a post that has 21 thousand views. That's right, 21 thousand views, but what's important is closing it.................so that no further discussion takes place.
That's how interested you are in the trust/club relationship...............

Stan A. Einstein wrote: February 28th, 2024, 9:32 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 28th, 2024, 7:10 pm

pembsexile wrote: February 28th, 2024, 6:56 pm I wonder if the thread starter could consider either closing, locking or deleting this thread. Then, start two new threads, one with the original title, Scott Bennet etc and another with the club/trust view. That way we could have a serious discussion about whether we want SB to remain and allow the pompous self centred narcissist who wants to hijack this thread because his view is more important than anyone else, to argue with himself. Just a thought, I would suggest that is a win, win.

As usual say absolutely nothing, simply try to stop discussion. What are you all so fearful of? You all back openness, the decision the trust made on openness was made just over a month ago? But it doesn't apply to yourselves does it? The trust lost its reason to exist just over a month ago, and what matters is the heading on a post that has 21 thousand views. That's right, 21 thousand views, but what's important is closing it.................so that no further discussion takes place.
That's how interested you are in the trust/club relationship...............

You're missing Mike's point. This thread is or at least should be about contract negotiations. Now obviously discussion develops but every contribution you make is about the trust. It strikes me that all you're concerned about is arguing for the sake of it.

But we all must take some blame, you are rather like an irritating mouth ulcer. We all know we should ignore you but for some reason we just can't resist poking our tongues just to make sure it's still there.

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 28th, 2024, 9:44 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: February 28th, 2024, 9:32 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 28th, 2024, 7:10 pm

pembsexile wrote: February 28th, 2024, 6:56 pm I wonder if the thread starter could consider either closing, locking or deleting this thread. Then, start two new threads, one with the original title, Scott Bennet etc and another with the club/trust view. That way we could have a serious discussion about whether we want SB to remain and allow the pompous self centred narcissist who wants to hijack this thread because his view is more important than anyone else, to argue with himself. Just a thought, I would suggest that is a win, win.

As usual say absolutely nothing, simply try to stop discussion. What are you all so fearful of? You all back openness, the decision the trust made on openness was made just over a month ago? But it doesn't apply to yourselves does it? The trust lost its reason to exist just over a month ago, and what matters is the heading on a post that has 21 thousand views. That's right, 21 thousand views, but what's important is closing it.................so that no further discussion takes place.
That's how interested you are in the trust/club relationship...............

You're missing Mike's point. This thread is or at least should be about contract negotiations. Now obviously discussion develops but every contribution you make is about the trust. It strikes me that all you're concerned about is arguing for the sake of it.

But we all must take some blame, you are rather like an irritating mouth ulcer. We all know we should ignore you but for some reason we just can't resist poking our tongues just to make sure it's still there.

The point is irrelevant just like you.....

What is obvious after 21,000 views is it is the same people trying to close down the discussion. Why because after 25 years of listening to Stan, that attack will bring openness and decision making, it is even less likely. Now they have the trust's backing for openness what now? They don't have a clue. Not a clue how to actually get a trust/club relationship other than its my ball and you will play by my rules.......

It's no wonder the kids don't want to join a Dads Amber Army group at £60 a year, who have absolutely no idea how to move forward now attacking is dead.......

And guess who will be dead before the kids? So it's the kids, that Dad's Amber Army needs............

pembsexile wrote: February 28th, 2024, 6:56 pm I wonder if the thread starter could consider either closing, locking or deleting this thread. Then, start two new threads, one with the original title, Scott Bennet etc and another with the club/trust view. That way we could have a serious discussion about whether we want SB to remain and allow the pompous self centred narcissist who wants to hijack this thread because his view is more important than anyone else, to argue with himself. Just a thought, I would suggest that is a win, win.

Risca_Exile wrote: February 28th, 2024, 10:39 pm

pembsexile wrote: February 28th, 2024, 6:56 pm I wonder if the thread starter could consider either closing, locking or deleting this thread. Then, start two new threads, one with the original title, Scott Bennet etc and another with the club/trust view. That way we could have a serious discussion about whether we want SB to remain and allow the pompous self centred narcissist who wants to hijack this thread because his view is more important than anyone else, to argue with himself. Just a thought, I would suggest that is a win, win.

Sorry Pembs, I couldn't work out how to Lock or Delete thread.

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 29th, 2024, 6:29 am

Risca_Exile wrote: February 28th, 2024, 10:39 pm

pembsexile wrote: February 28th, 2024, 6:56 pm I wonder if the thread starter could consider either closing, locking or deleting this thread. Then, start two new threads, one with the original title, Scott Bennet etc and another with the club/trust view. That way we could have a serious discussion about whether we want SB to remain and allow the pompous self centred narcissist who wants to hijack this thread because his view is more important than anyone else, to argue with himself. Just a thought, I would suggest that is a win, win.

Sorry Pembs, I couldn't work out how to Lock or Delete thread.

It's sad isn't it, they don't want the future of the Trust debated, they want the thread locked or deleted why?

Because it highlights that in 15 pages, all they want to do is reinforce the concept that openness is the answer, and nothing else matters. Well openness does nothing for those in charge of priorities, except make it difficult because they know they can't make everyone happy. What matters is what works in running the club, not keeping people happy. So a Dads Amber Army of fans will keep choosing those standing on an openness platform, whether or not that is beneficial to the running of the club. Its what the Dads Amber Army want, and what they have always voted for, including the last vote a month ago.

The Dad's Amber Army know what they want. What they don't know is how a new Trust can operate with a brand new regime that wants the Trust to represent ALL fans. So what is now important is not to discuss how that relationship between ALL fans and HJ could work, at all costs. Try to shut down the debate, get people thinking it is not something worthwhile. Stop people viewing this thread, get it to drop to the bottom and dissappear. What are they so frightened of? Could it be that as it is ALL fans that HJ wants involved, that openness will no longer be the number one priority? Could it be that ALL fans will water down the polarised views of the Dads Amber Army?

25 years and counting of attacking the people who run the club, has achieved what exactly? How has it helped? Yet it is the same people saying the same things, on and on we go.

15 pages of this thread, I have asked on each of them numerous times for people to discuss what the new trust/club relationship could look like? 15 pages of no answers, simply attack me, because they can't attack anyone making priority decisions at present.

So there we have it, they don't see a relationship, because they don't want a relationship that includes ALL fans. They need to spend their money their way, and if that doesn't integrate with the club, tough titties.......its not important, only openness..............

Exile 1976 wrote: February 29th, 2024, 7:32 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 29th, 2024, 6:29 am

Risca_Exile wrote: February 28th, 2024, 10:39 pm

pembsexile wrote: February 28th, 2024, 6:56 pm I wonder if the thread starter could consider either closing, locking or deleting this thread. Then, start two new threads, one with the original title, Scott Bennet etc and another with the club/trust view. That way we could have a serious discussion about whether we want SB to remain and allow the pompous self centred narcissist who wants to hijack this thread because his view is more important than anyone else, to argue with himself. Just a thought, I would suggest that is a win, win.

Sorry Pembs, I couldn't work out how to Lock or Delete thread.

It's sad isn't it, they don't want the future of the Trust debated, they want the thread locked or deleted why?

Because it highlights that in 15 pages, all they want to do is reinforce the concept that openness is the answer, and nothing else matters. Well openness does nothing for those in charge of priorities, except make it difficult because they know they can't make everyone happy. What matters is what works in running the club, not keeping people happy. So a Dads Amber Army of fans will keep choosing those standing on an openness platform, whether or not that is beneficial to the running of the club. Its what the Dads Amber Army want, and what they have always voted for, including the last vote a month ago.

The Dad's Amber Army know what they want. What they don't know is how a new Trust can operate with a brand new regime that wants the Trust to represent ALL fans. So what is now important is not to discuss how that relationship between ALL fans and HJ could work, at all costs. Try to shut down the debate, get people thinking it is not something worthwhile. Stop people viewing this thread, get it to drop to the bottom and dissappear. What are they so frightened of? Could it be that as it is ALL fans that HJ wants involved, that openness will no longer be the number one priority? Could it be that ALL fans will water down the polarised views of the Dads Amber Army?

25 years and counting of attacking the people who run the club, has achieved what exactly? How has it helped? Yet it is the same people saying the same things, on and on we go.

15 pages of this thread, I have asked on each of them numerous times for people to discuss what the new trust/club relationship could look like? 15 pages of no answers, simply attack me, because they can't attack anyone making priority decisions at present.

So there we have it, they don't see a relationship, because they don't want a relationship that includes ALL fans. They need to spend their money their way, and if that doesn't integrate with the club, tough titties.......its not important, only openness..............

Fair play muc, you’re ******* mental.

Risca_Exile wrote: February 28th, 2024, 10:39 pm

pembsexile wrote: February 28th, 2024, 6:56 pm I wonder if the thread starter could consider either closing, locking or deleting this thread. Then, start two new threads, one with the original title, Scott Bennet etc and another with the club/trust view. That way we could have a serious discussion about whether we want SB to remain and allow the pompous self centred narcissist who wants to hijack this thread because his view is more important than anyone else, to argue with himself. Just a thought, I would suggest that is a win, win.

Sorry Pembs, I couldn't work out how to Lock or Delete thread.

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 29th, 2024, 6:29 am
It's sad isn't it, they don't want the future of the Trust debated, they want the thread locked or deleted why?

Because it highlights that in 15 pages, all they want to do is reinforce the concept that openness is the answer, and nothing else matters. Well openness does nothing for those in charge of priorities, except make it difficult because they know they can't make everyone happy. What matters is what works in running the club, not keeping people happy. So a Dads Amber Army of fans will keep choosing those standing on an openness platform, whether or not that is beneficial to the running of the club. Its what the Dads Amber Army want, and what they have always voted for, including the last vote a month ago.

The Dad's Amber Army know what they want. What they don't know is how a new Trust can operate with a brand new regime that wants the Trust to represent ALL fans. So what is now important is not to discuss how that relationship between ALL fans and HJ could work, at all costs. Try to shut down the debate, get people thinking it is not something worthwhile. Stop people viewing this thread, get it to drop to the bottom and dissappear. What are they so frightened of? Could it be that as it is ALL fans that HJ wants involved, that openness will no longer be the number one priority? Could it be that ALL fans will water down the polarised views of the Dads Amber Army?

25 years and counting of attacking the people who run the club, has achieved what exactly? How has it helped? Yet it is the same people saying the same things, on and on we go.

15 pages of this thread, I have asked on each of them numerous times for people to discuss what the new trust/club relationship could look like? 15 pages of no answers, simply attack me, because they can't attack anyone making priority decisions at present.

So there we have it, they don't see a relationship, because they don't want a relationship that includes ALL fans. They need to spend their money their way, and if that doesn't integrate with the club, tough titties.......its not important, only openness..............

Risca_Exile wrote: March 1st, 2024, 1:13 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 29th, 2024, 6:29 am
It's sad isn't it, they don't want the future of the Trust debated, they want the thread locked or deleted why?

Because it highlights that in 15 pages, all they want to do is reinforce the concept that openness is the answer, and nothing else matters. Well openness does nothing for those in charge of priorities, except make it difficult because they know they can't make everyone happy. What matters is what works in running the club, not keeping people happy. So a Dads Amber Army of fans will keep choosing those standing on an openness platform, whether or not that is beneficial to the running of the club. Its what the Dads Amber Army want, and what they have always voted for, including the last vote a month ago.

The Dad's Amber Army know what they want. What they don't know is how a new Trust can operate with a brand new regime that wants the Trust to represent ALL fans. So what is now important is not to discuss how that relationship between ALL fans and HJ could work, at all costs. Try to shut down the debate, get people thinking it is not something worthwhile. Stop people viewing this thread, get it to drop to the bottom and dissappear. What are they so frightened of? Could it be that as it is ALL fans that HJ wants involved, that openness will no longer be the number one priority? Could it be that ALL fans will water down the polarised views of the Dads Amber Army?

25 years and counting of attacking the people who run the club, has achieved what exactly? How has it helped? Yet it is the same people saying the same things, on and on we go.

15 pages of this thread, I have asked on each of them numerous times for people to discuss what the new trust/club relationship could look like? 15 pages of no answers, simply attack me, because they can't attack anyone making priority decisions at present.

So there we have it, they don't see a relationship, because they don't want a relationship that includes ALL fans. They need to spend their money their way, and if that doesn't integrate with the club, tough titties.......its not important, only openness..............

Sorry I totally disagree, there are plenty of people willing to discuss the future of the Trust, the annoying part is yet again you have hijacked a thread about Scott Bennett wanting to stay and GC talking to players about contracts for next season. Why don't you start a new thread about the future of the trust or comment on threads regarding the Trust not hijack every other threads (for your own purpose) which have nothing to do with the future of the trust.

Bonson&Hunt wrote: March 1st, 2024, 1:44 pm I think Scott wants to stay too!!

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 1st, 2024, 3:17 pm

Bonson&Hunt wrote: March 1st, 2024, 1:44 pm I think Scott wants to stay too!!

You should have started a new thread for that, now the title of this one has been changed.........

But of course that doesn't suit your mindset does it?

The narrative on this forum has always been attack anyone who doesn't tow the forum line.

So we have things like "there are only two possible answers" when there isn't, to put off anyone wishing to post a different viewpoint. And if they ignore that, then they are called an idiot or such like. Why do people in there 60's and 70's find it necessary to close down debate, rather than justify their own position? It just stops youngsters having their input, which basically suits......
If I was in my 20's I would be concerned if people called me an idiot on a public forum and my friends found out. It would stop me posting my thoughts in the first place. I am old enough not to care these days, so it's a waste of time doing it to me, but they still do.

It's all part of treating those with different opinions as the enemy. We must stop these different opinions before they are encouraged to post others.......

Making out I know someone who ran the club, and therefore I need to be attacked, just highlights the total control that is desired.

I wanted to keep this thread up, because it simply highlights the issues with the trust membership. They want control, whether it be of money or decisions or even this forum. If you don't think that is true, then look back at this entire thread and you will see it played out in action.

Wanting knowledge of who someone is on a anonymous forum can only be because they need to attack that person. When room101 was a moderator he used to pass on details of members to Stan so that he could out them. Why? It's all about control.......

And where has that control policy led to? What affect did attacking the trust hierarchy on this forum have. Did it help attract more people to stand in elections? Did it help the club get its message across to the fans?
No, the Trust hierarchy were seen as the enemy of truth and control. It didn't matter that the numbers of people running the club was diminishing year by year, not helped by people saying they would stand, only to pull out and leave a void.

However the years of attack did achieve something, as when people got fed up of the constant criticism and attack, they chose to pass the control to other more Knowledgeable people, experts if you like.

Now I am pretty sure that process happens by accident rather than design. I.E. Managers saying I won't come unless I have total control. However when it came to Mike Flynn's turn, and we had little to lose from the trust conceding control, we can see the result. Nearly £2 million from cup winnings against £4 -500k of trust contributions. So conceding control played a vital part in County being not only still in the EFL but in the position to be as competitive as we are, against all the odds.

Now the control is with HJ, and Stan has lost interest in attacking, its just me who he paints as the enemy left to attack. His logic being if I remain anonymous I am related to someone with some sort of control.

Well he thinks I am two people, presumably both know someone who either ran the trust or ran the club. His wingman from Pembrokeshire - who once arranged to meet up with Stan before the first trust meeting and later denied ever doing so, because he forgot that the arranging was on this forum. Now mentions above, that I must be very very worried. Presumably that is because he thinks I know someone who is not going to be voted back in. Well as I understand it, the last 4 trust reps are leaving as soon as they are able to. So is he refering to trust reps that haven't been voted into position? Well I doubt they would be looking to now be voted into position as one of the two trust reps on HJ'S board. If any were to sit on HJ'S board, it would be at his request surely? So this attacking me continues, with absolutely no basis. And it never produced the desired control in the first place.

So what happens next, do we just continue to attack like the the trust is a political party in opposition to those who have control?

wattsville_boy wrote: March 1st, 2024, 5:55 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 1st, 2024, 3:17 pm

Bonson&Hunt wrote: March 1st, 2024, 1:44 pm I think Scott wants to stay too!!

You should have started a new thread for that, now the title of this one has been changed.........

But of course that doesn't suit your mindset does it?

The narrative on this forum has always been attack anyone who doesn't tow the forum line.

So we have things like "there are only two possible answers" when there isn't, to put off anyone wishing to post a different viewpoint. And if they ignore that, then they are called an idiot or such like. Why do people in there 60's and 70's find it necessary to close down debate, rather than justify their own position? It just stops youngsters having their input, which basically suits......
If I was in my 20's I would be concerned if people called me an idiot on a public forum and my friends found out. It would stop me posting my thoughts in the first place. I am old enough not to care these days, so it's a waste of time doing it to me, but they still do.

It's all part of treating those with different opinions as the enemy. We must stop these different opinions before they are encouraged to post others.......

Making out I know someone who ran the club, and therefore I need to be attacked, just highlights the total control that is desired.

I wanted to keep this thread up, because it simply highlights the issues with the trust membership. They want control, whether it be of money or decisions or even this forum. If you don't think that is true, then look back at this entire thread and you will see it played out in action.

Wanting knowledge of who someone is on a anonymous forum can only be because they need to attack that person. When room101 was a moderator he used to pass on details of members to Stan so that he could out them. Why? It's all about control.......

And where has that control policy led to? What affect did attacking the trust hierarchy on this forum have. Did it help attract more people to stand in elections? Did it help the club get its message across to the fans?
No, the Trust hierarchy were seen as the enemy of truth and control. It didn't matter that the numbers of people running the club was diminishing year by year, not helped by people saying they would stand, only to pull out and leave a void.

However the years of attack did achieve something, as when people got fed up of the constant criticism and attack, they chose to pass the control to other more Knowledgeable people, experts if you like.

Now I am pretty sure that process happens by accident rather than design. I.E. Managers saying I won't come unless I have total control. However when it came to Mike Flynn's turn, and we had little to lose from the trust conceding control, we can see the result. Nearly £2 million from cup winnings against £4 -500k of trust contributions. So conceding control played a vital part in County being not only still in the EFL but in the position to be as competitive as we are, against all the odds.

Now the control is with HJ, and Stan has lost interest in attacking, its just me who he paints as the enemy left to attack. His logic being if I remain anonymous I am related to someone with some sort of control.

Well he thinks I am two people, presumably both know someone who either ran the trust or ran the club. His wingman from Pembrokeshire - who once arranged to meet up with Stan before the first trust meeting and later denied ever doing so, because he forgot that the arranging was on this forum. Now mentions above, that I must be very very worried. Presumably that is because he thinks I know someone who is not going to be voted back in. Well as I understand it, the last 4 trust reps are leaving as soon as they are able to. So is he refering to trust reps that haven't been voted into position? Well I doubt they would be looking to now be voted into position as one of the two trust reps on HJ'S board. If any were to sit on HJ'S board, it would be at his request surely? So this attacking me continues, with absolutely no basis. And it never produced the desired control in the first place.

So what happens next, do we just continue to attack like the the trust is a political party in opposition to those who have control?

I'm a very tolerant person. But I've really had enough of reading the crap you post. My only course of action is to foe you. It is up to others to decide if they wish to do similar...