Can someone tel wtf has all this to do with meet the manager what I want to know is what happened to the second half of the meeting

tompkip wrote: July 6th, 2022, 5:36 pm Can someone tel wtf has all this to do with meet the manager what I want to know is what happened to the second half of the meeting

You are quite right. Absolutely nothing is the answer. Unfortunately Banginternet is obsessed with me and my profession. It is very sad. However when he spouts absolute tripe I feel compelled to correct him. My apologies to yourself and other readers of this board.

Lads can we move on now

I also apologise for wasting people’s time by pointing out idiocies when I see them. I’ll no longer bother replying to the poster in question.
What were the questions to the manager?

Stan A. Einstein wrote: July 6th, 2022, 6:05 pm

tompkip wrote: July 6th, 2022, 5:36 pm Can someone tel wtf has all this to do with meet the manager what I want to know is what happened to the second half of the meeting

You are quite right. Absolutely nothing is the answer. Unfortunately Banginternet is obsessed with me and my profession. It is very sad. However when he spouts absolute tripe I feel compelled to correct him. My apologies to yourself and other readers of this board.

It's in the news, the barrister's in the UK are on strike, you are no longer a barrister so this has absolutely nothing to do with you, accept for your sense of entitlement.

You think that because you purchased as few shares as was possible, that you own the club, and that you are entitled to send open letters to the board, instead of attending the meeting and asking those questions. All those working hard for the club have to put themselves out, but you and only you, are above that. It matches precisely the sense of entitlement of the strike, that they are above working, and should be supported at public expense, simply because they have qualified.

And by the way, it was me that posed the question as to what questions were asked, and were any curtailed, because I don't have the arrogance to think that the club should conduct its affairs in public. Only those entitled to attend should be able to ask and receive answers. The meet the manager part of the meeting was simply just that.

Bangitintrnet wrote: July 6th, 2022, 7:11 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: July 6th, 2022, 6:05 pm

tompkip wrote: July 6th, 2022, 5:36 pm Can someone tel wtf has all this to do with meet the manager what I want to know is what happened to the second half of the meeting

You are quite right. Absolutely nothing is the answer. Unfortunately Banginternet is obsessed with me and my profession. It is very sad. However when he spouts absolute tripe I feel compelled to correct him. My apologies to yourself and other readers of this board.

It's in the news, the barrister's in the UK are on strike, you are no longer a barrister so this has absolutely nothing to do with you, accept for your sense of entitlement.

You think that because you purchased as few shares as was possible, that you own the club, and that you are entitled to send open letters to the board, instead of attending the meeting and asking those questions. All those working hard for the club have to put themselves out, but you and only you, are above that. It matches precisely the sense of entitlement of the strike, that they are above working, and should be supported at public expense, simply because they have qualified.

And by the way, it was me that posed the question as to what questions were asked, and were any curtailed, because I don't have the arrogance to think that the club should conduct its affairs in public. Only those entitled to attend should be able to ask and receive answers. The meet the manager part of the meeting was simply just that.

As this is on topic I’ll respond. I think it’s astonishing to hold the view you expound in the penultimate sentence. Surely in this connected world it is good practice to receive questions and deliver answers by whatever medium. Otherwise just don’t allow questions.

lowandhard wrote: July 6th, 2022, 8:59 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: July 6th, 2022, 7:11 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: July 6th, 2022, 6:05 pm

tompkip wrote: July 6th, 2022, 5:36 pm Can someone tel wtf has all this to do with meet the manager what I want to know is what happened to the second half of the meeting

You are quite right. Absolutely nothing is the answer. Unfortunately Banginternet is obsessed with me and my profession. It is very sad. However when he spouts absolute tripe I feel compelled to correct him. My apologies to yourself and other readers of this board.

It's in the news, the barrister's in the UK are on strike, you are no longer a barrister so this has absolutely nothing to do with you, accept for your sense of entitlement.

You think that because you purchased as few shares as was possible, that you own the club, and that you are entitled to send open letters to the board, instead of attending the meeting and asking those questions. All those working hard for the club have to put themselves out, but you and only you, are above that. It matches precisely the sense of entitlement of the strike, that they are above working, and should be supported at public expense, simply because they have qualified.

And by the way, it was me that posed the question as to what questions were asked, and were any curtailed, because I don't have the arrogance to think that the club should conduct its affairs in public. Only those entitled to attend should be able to ask and receive answers. The meet the manager part of the meeting was simply just that.

As this is on topic I’ll respond. I think it’s astonishing to hold the view you expound in the penultimate sentence. Surely in this connected world it is good practice to receive questions and deliver answers by whatever medium. Otherwise just don’t allow questions.

How exactly do you achieve that? How do you check that the people who are entitled, are those attending? Anyone can access IFollow, not simply the people who have a right to ask questions. Normally at these meetings, questions are received before the meeting, and answered, before it is opened out to the floor for further questions.

So what you are now advocating is that say, Cardiff City fans, could vote (by whatever means) on the running of the club?

It was a formal meeting after all. What you are suggesting, just doesn't stack up for any business does it?

Now it was obvious that you encouraged Stan to write his open letter, but it appears that you didn't take up your opportunity to ask questions at the meeting. I have to say that if that is in fact the case,
why couldn't you attend, and ask the questions knowing that Stan was not going?

Seems a bit strange to suggest that Stan was encouraged to 'write' his open letter. It first appeared as an opening post on its own thread.

Bangitintrnet wrote: July 6th, 2022, 10:10 pm

lowandhard wrote: July 6th, 2022, 8:59 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: July 6th, 2022, 7:11 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: July 6th, 2022, 6:05 pm

tompkip wrote: July 6th, 2022, 5:36 pm Can someone tel wtf has all this to do with meet the manager what I want to know is what happened to the second half of the meeting

You are quite right. Absolutely nothing is the answer. Unfortunately Banginternet is obsessed with me and my profession. It is very sad. However when he spouts absolute tripe I feel compelled to correct him. My apologies to yourself and other readers of this board.

It's in the news, the barrister's in the UK are on strike, you are no longer a barrister so this has absolutely nothing to do with you, accept for your sense of entitlement.

You think that because you purchased as few shares as was possible, that you own the club, and that you are entitled to send open letters to the board, instead of attending the meeting and asking those questions. All those working hard for the club have to put themselves out, but you and only you, are above that. It matches precisely the sense of entitlement of the strike, that they are above working, and should be supported at public expense, simply because they have qualified.

And by the way, it was me that posed the question as to what questions were asked, and were any curtailed, because I don't have the arrogance to think that the club should conduct its affairs in public. Only those entitled to attend should be able to ask and receive answers. The meet the manager part of the meeting was simply just that.

As this is on topic I’ll respond. I think it’s astonishing to hold the view you expound in the penultimate sentence. Surely in this connected world it is good practice to receive questions and deliver answers by whatever medium. Otherwise just don’t allow questions.

How exactly do you achieve that? How do you check that the people who are entitled, are those attending? Anyone can access IFollow, not simply the people who have a right to ask questions. Normally at these meetings, questions are received before the meeting, and answered, before it is opened out to the floor for further questions.

So what you are now advocating is that say, Cardiff City fans, could vote (by whatever means) on the running of the club?

It was a formal meeting after all. What you are suggesting, just doesn't stack up for any business does it?

Now it was obvious that you encouraged Stan to write his open letter, but it appears that you didn't take up your opportunity to ask questions at the meeting. I have to say that if that is in fact the case,
why couldn't you attend, and ask the questions knowing that Stan was not going?

Again nonsense. I did NOT encourage him at all, he sent the letter of his own volition. As for the asking of questions do you really imagine fans from other club are fascinated by JR’s pontifications

It is a fact that there were a number of private exchanges mentioned by you two, in the day's running up to Stan posting the letter.

Clearly you are still struggling with the concept of a two part meeting, first part meet the manager, then formal meeting.

It is noticeable also, that you can't confirm why you didn't attend a meeting, when you clearly had a question to ask.

I believe we are also still waiting for the person who mentioned that there were two questions asked, to provide more detail. Or indeed anyone who attended?

Bangitintrnet wrote: July 7th, 2022, 1:16 am

Clearly you are still struggling with the concept of a two part meeting, first part meet the manager, then formal meeting.

There was no formal element to the meeting, as I understand it Part 2 was just a slot for Darren Kelly and a Q&A with Rowberry. So perhaps you can explain what the formal agenda was that appears to have generated a news blackout?

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: July 7th, 2022, 6:43 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: July 7th, 2022, 1:16 am

Clearly you are still struggling with the concept of a two part meeting, first part meet the manager, then formal meeting.

There was no formal element to the meeting, as I understand it Part 2 was just a slot for Darren Kelly and a Q&A with Rowberry. So perhaps you can explain what the formal agenda was that appears to have generated a news blackout?

No idea, I didn't go. So what happened to the trust meeting? Was that on a different night?

As for a news blackout, it appears that whoever said on here, that there were two questions asked at the meeting, is in control of that.

Bangitintrnet wrote: July 7th, 2022, 1:16 am It is a fact that there were a number of private exchanges mentioned by you two, in the day's running up to Stan posting the letter.

Clearly you are still struggling with the concept of a two part meeting, first part meet the manager, then formal meeting.

It is noticeable also, that you can't confirm why you didn't attend a meeting, when you clearly had a question to ask.

I believe we are also still waiting for the person who mentioned that there were two questions asked, to provide more detail. Or indeed anyone who attended?

I post what I think. Nobody encourages me. You will find that people such as Highandwide, whilst they often agree with me sometimes don't. And when they disagree they say so. As I would expect. Your obsession with me and how I earned my living is bordering on the pathetic. I use 'pathetic' in it's original sense. Please stop.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: July 7th, 2022, 8:17 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: July 7th, 2022, 1:16 am It is a fact that there were a number of private exchanges mentioned by you two, in the day's running up to Stan posting the letter.

Clearly you are still struggling with the concept of a two part meeting, first part meet the manager, then formal meeting.

It is noticeable also, that you can't confirm why you didn't attend a meeting, when you clearly had a question to ask.

I believe we are also still waiting for the person who mentioned that there were two questions asked, to provide more detail. Or indeed anyone who attended?

I post what I think. Nobody encourages me. You will find that people such as Highandwide, whilst they often agree with me sometimes don't. And when they disagree they say so. As I would expect. Your obsession with me and how I earned my living is bordering on the pathetic. I use 'pathetic' in it's original sense. Please stop.

No, because you are a troll, simply looking for an argument. The only way to stop that is to attack you, because it is what you don't like.

You brought your profession to the forum, nobody asked you too, but you did. Now when it doesn't suit you because your ex colleagues are behaving with the exact same sense of entitlement that you express, for a job - which let's face facts, is a made up job for the unemployable - you don't wish me to discuss anything. They should earn their living from private client's, just like those they are mentioning in their whattaboutisms. The days are over of wasting public resources on people who are described as : "as much use as a steaming bucket of bile and puke"

Now, as you are the official opposition to the board of directors, perhaps you can do something useful for the first time in your life, and establish if the trust meeting followed on from the meet the manager meeting, as it has on previous occasions?

Sorry to put you out so much old chap, but I think you have an enormous amount to pay back to society in general. Especially as you jumped ship when you could no longer leach off the State, and moved to Eire to pay tax. Call me pathetic all you like, at least I have more about me than to be a total parasite.

Have a good day in opposition old chap.

It would seem to me that Bangitintrnet has strayed off the point yet again and just does get it.
The topic was about meet the manager night, and nothing to do with Baristas or Barristers.
As most of the early posters including myself commentated, the overall quality and presentation was very poor to say the least.
The Club are putting themselves in the shop window every time they perform a video or live stream, and should endeavour to produce the best possible product.
As for Bangitintrnet's comments about the manager puttying himself out - IT IS part of his job to be interviewed and to portray the club in the best possible light, so no he is not putting himself out.