|
|
Post by androclese on Jan 6, 2017 9:18:32 GMT
Not much these days, apart from a list of all the ways you can contribute financially to the club.
And to think the old lot were criticised for outright commercialism.
Oh, and don't start me on the programme quality. Anybody semi-literate available for some basic proof-reading?
|
|
|
|
Post by fcum on Jan 6, 2017 13:41:25 GMT
Not much these days, apart from a list of all the ways you can contribute financially to the club. And to think the old lot were criticised for outright commercialism. Oh, and don't start me on the programme quality. Anybody semi-literate available for some basic proof-reading? It's a shame the previous programme editor felt he had to step down.. |
|
|
|
Post by jeepster on Jan 6, 2017 13:46:04 GMT
He didn't have to do anything, he decided to do so.
And as a contractor it was his call, just after he submitted his biggest ever bill for pennies short of £1000 for the Benfica game. All under duress obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Jan 6, 2017 13:58:46 GMT
Not much these days, apart from a list of all the ways you can contribute financially to the club. And to think the old lot were criticised for outright commercialism. Oh, and don't start me on the programme quality. Anybody semi-literate available for some basic proof-reading? It's a shame the previous programme editor felt he had to step down.. FCUM - you made this comment a couple of weeks ago - "I was (perhaps clumsily) making the point that I find dragging up very old misdemeanours in an attempt to discredit people quite desperate and distasteful".
Dragging up things like that from a long time ago to discredit the former programme editor is pretty distasteful.
|
|
|
|
Post by fcum on Jan 6, 2017 14:42:01 GMT
It's a shame the previous programme editor felt he had to step down.. FCUM - you made this comment a couple of weeks ago - "I was (perhaps clumsily) making the point that I find dragging up very old misdemeanours in an attempt to discredit people quite desperate and distasteful".
Dragging up things like that from a long time ago to discredit the former programme editor is pretty distasteful.
I wasn't in any way discrediting the former programme editor but I suspect you know that. |
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Jan 6, 2017 17:25:28 GMT
FCUM - you made this comment a couple of weeks ago - "I was (perhaps clumsily) making the point that I find dragging up very old misdemeanours in an attempt to discredit people quite desperate and distasteful".
Dragging up things like that from a long time ago to discredit the former programme editor is pretty distasteful.
I wasn't in any way discrediting the former programme editor but I suspect you know that. You left a few full stops at the end of your first post - you didn't on your subsequent post - which suggests you were implying something rather than making a simple observation.
If it wasn't what I assumed, then what was it?
You've got to admit though, you've given in to the temptation of dragging things up from the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by fcum on Jan 6, 2017 18:36:36 GMT
I wasn't in any way discrediting the former programme editor but I suspect you know that. You left a few full stops at the end of your first post - you didn't on your subsequent post - which suggests you were implying something rather than making a simple observation.
If it wasn't what I assumed, then what was it?
You've got to admit though, you've given in to the temptation of dragging things up from the past.
Sometimes the past is relevant to the present. Non-FC related misdemeanors from 10-15 years ago have no relevance to somebody's ability to be an effective board member. Linking the decline in the quality of the programme to the departure of the previous editor is entirely relevant to the point the original poster was making. Perhaps if the Benfica programme affair had been handled better,the previous editor would still be in place and people wouldn't be complaining about the quality of the programme. |
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Jan 6, 2017 20:06:25 GMT
Its funny how things from the past that back up your points are relevant but those that don't aren't.
|
|
callum
Junior Member
Posts: 59 
|
Post by callum on Jan 6, 2017 20:56:11 GMT
He didn't have to do anything, he decided to do so. And as a contractor it was his call, just after he submitted his biggest ever bill for pennies short of £1000 for the Benfica game. All under duress obviously. and freed from the penury of editing the programme, I assume that he and his fragrant partner are enjoying the fruits of the thousands he was previously sacrificing by refusing jobs elsewhere. No more than they deserve IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by mufcum on Jan 6, 2017 21:28:08 GMT
He didn't have to do anything, he decided to do so. And as a contractor it was his call, just after he submitted his biggest ever bill for pennies short of £1000 for the Benfica game. All under duress obviously. and freed from the penury of editing the programme, I assume that he and his fragrant partner are enjoying the fruits of the thousands he was previously sacrificing by refusing jobs elsewhere. No more than they deserve IMHO. Callum, with such a vocabulary you should apply for the position of programme editor. |
|
|
|
Post by jeepster on Jan 6, 2017 21:32:16 GMT
and freed from the penury of editing the programme, I assume that he and his fragrant partner are enjoying the fruits of the thousands he was previously sacrificing by refusing jobs elsewhere. No more than they deserve IMHO. Callum, with such a vocabulary you should apply for the position of programme editor. Just what I was thinking. And Fragrant partner? As in the fragrance by Britney Spears. |
|
|
|
Post by androclese on Jan 6, 2017 21:43:18 GMT
You left a few full stops at the end of your first post - you didn't on your subsequent post - which suggests you were implying something rather than making a simple observation.
If it wasn't what I assumed, then what was it?
You've got to admit though, you've given in to the temptation of dragging things up from the past.
Sometimes the past is relevant to the present. Non-FC related misdemeanors from 10-15 years ago have no relevance to somebody's ability to be an effective board member. Linking the decline in the quality of the programme to the departure of the previous editor is entirely relevant to the point the original poster was making. Perhaps if the Benfica programme affair had been handled better,the previous editor would still be in place and people wouldn't be complaining about the quality of the programme. A conviction for football hooliganism, although not specifically FC-related, is ALWAYS going to be relevant to your suitability (not ability) to be a football club board member. Perhaps this occurred to Holts' after the photo opportunity shared so widely. Or maybe it WAS just the board statement that resulted in the renegotiation of terms? |
|
|
|
Post by frankbough on Jan 7, 2017 0:13:45 GMT
He didn't have to do anything, he decided to do so. And as a contractor it was his call, just after he submitted his biggest ever bill for pennies short of £1000 for the Benfica game. All under duress obviously. and freed from the penury of editing the programme, I assume that he and his fragrant partner are enjoying the fruits of the thousands he was previously sacrificing by refusing jobs elsewhere. No more than they deserve IMHO. You mean Mother Lynsey of Calcutta? Bullied, abused and subjugated so much she was forced to leave early one morning with the.................of course I meant the stress of it all silly, what did you think I meant? |
|
|
|
Post by fcum on Jan 7, 2017 11:54:52 GMT
Sometimes the past is relevant to the present. Non-FC related misdemeanors from 10-15 years ago have no relevance to somebody's ability to be an effective board member. Linking the decline in the quality of the programme to the departure of the previous editor is entirely relevant to the point the original poster was making. Perhaps if the Benfica programme affair had been handled better,the previous editor would still be in place and people wouldn't be complaining about the quality of the programme. A conviction for football hooliganism, although not specifically FC-related, is ALWAYS going to be relevant to your suitability (not ability) to be a football club board member. Perhaps this occurred to Holts' after the photo opportunity shared so widely. Or maybe it WAS just the board statement that resulted in the renegotiation of terms? If Holts had any concerns on that score, I don't see how spreading the same level of payments over a longer term would be a solution. |
|
