New manager in already | Page 6 | Vital Football

New manager in already

Well I for one am glad he lost even if it looks like we have another basket case in the prince I’d trust him to look after the club over the Americans running Burnley they’ve gone from strength to strength since they took over
and before you say at least they are in the prem it’s cos they had been there a few yrs and were further up the line than the one we were just starting on nowt to do with them being in charge but they’re looking precarious now after the massive injection of cash !!!!
 
Bulmer1889 said:
Well I for one am glad he lost even if it looks like we have another basket case in the prince I’d trust him to look after the club over the Americans running Burnley they’ve gone from strength to strength since they took over
and before you say at least they are in the prem it’s cos they had been there a few yrs and were further up the line than the one we were just starting on nowt to do with them being in charge but they’re looking precarious now after the massive injection of cash !!!!
Click to expand...
We needed owners like Leicester,good investment but not stupid. Also they go out of their way to connect with the fans. The Prince has bitten off more than chew with the whole United World set up.
 
tomytony said:
Not engaging with you on opinion, not even expressing an opinion.
Just facts as described repeatedly above.
HE LOST THE COURT CASE -can't make it any simpler than that.
Click to expand...
These facts don't change my mind TT and never will so lets just accept neither will
win a vote for best owner (but the Prince is still in the running).
 
Chips1889 said:
These facts don't change my mind TT and never will so lets just accept neither will
win a vote for best owner (but the Prince is still in the running).
Click to expand...
FFS you don't accept facts, you have different meanings for words that are defined in dictionaries.
Last time- this time it's not a discussion about opinions, it's FACTS & DEFINITIONS.
Absolutely no point in re-engaging.
 
tomytony said:
FFS you don't accept facts, you have different meanings for words that are defined in dictionaries.
Last time- this time it's not a discussion about opinions, it's FACTS & DEFINITIONS.
Absolutely no point in re-engaging.
Click to expand...
No mate and why would you baulk at this statement. Was Mr McCabe a perfect owner? No. Was he stucjk with an awkward partner? Yes. I beleive they both tried to out gun each other.

I knew you wouldn't agree to my offer of accepting we have a different view as you seem to only woilling to accept a win. Well you did win and I hope the win seems worth it TT.
We'll both have to wait and see but you say you see no point in continuing but I bet you are back when Mr McCabe is discussed again in future, as he will.
 
Chips1889 said:
No mate and why would you baulk at this statement. Was Mr McCabe a perfect owner? No. Was he stucjk with an awkward partner? Yes. I beleive they both tried to out gun each other.

I knew you wouldn't agree to my offer of accepting we have a different view as you seem to only woilling to accept a win. Well you did win and I hope the win seems worth it TT.
We'll both have to wait and see but you say you see no point in continuing but I bet you are back when Mr McCabe is discussed again in future, as he will.
Click to expand...
I'll discuss what I went when I want to Chips.
You can't try to call an amnesty on opinions when you're dealing with facts.
What you believe is irrelevant. - & for the last time- He LOST the court case, the only issue I have disputed with you on this thread.

For info- pages 137/8 are the most relevant
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...-09-16_Sheffield-United_Approved-Judgment.pdf
 
tomytony said:
I'll discuss what I went when I want to Chips.
You can't try to call an amnesty on opinions when you're dealing with facts.
What you believe is irrelevant. - & for the last time- He LOST the court case, the only issue I have disputed with you on this thread.

For info- pages 137/8 are the most relevant
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...-09-16_Sheffield-United_Approved-Judgment.pdf
Click to expand...


You have every right to your opinions and when you reply or ignore mate. But you (on a number of times) have said you wouldn't comment again then you do. Just that I notice this sort of thing.
I have the right to think better of an owner even if a judge has ruled against him. I will always be thankful for the average £6m spent to keep us going and his decision to write off all our debts.......just my opinion. And he left us one league higher so that counts with me.i

What I believe is relevant to me and I have the same right to comment, ignore or reply on any thread on here TT, I know you agree on that point. to do otheriwse
could be seen in a bad light mate.
 
Chips1889 said:
You have every right to your opinions and when you reply or ignore mate. But you (on a number of times) have said you wouldn't comment again then you do. Just that I notice this sort of thing.
I have the right to think better of an owner even if a judge has ruled against him. I will always be thankful for the average £6m spent to keep us going and his decision to write off all our debts.......just my opinion. And he left us one league higher so that counts with me.i

What I believe is relevant to me and I have the same right to comment, ignore or reply on any thread on here TT, I know you agree on that point. to do otheriwse
could be seen in a bad light mate.
Click to expand...
Hark at you 2.:giggle: UTB
 
I'm stating a fact. You're expressing an opinion so-
As I said in post 104 - no point re-engaging.
 
Chips1889 said:
But I stated a couple of facts but you ignored them, just like me?
Click to expand...
See above posts re FACTS and your comments below
"What I believe is relevant to me"
"These facts don't change my mind TT and never will "

And that's why I am now finished- finally.
 
tomytony said:
See above posts re FACTS and your comments below
"What I believe is relevant to me"
"These facts don't change my mind TT and never will "

And that's why I am now finished- finally.
Click to expand...

You ignored my facts and yet say you've done. Fine but I'll add my two penneth when anyone on here says he was a bad owner (or the like) and you won't resist
adding your two penneth and I won't blame you TT. That is one reason VB exists.
 
Chips1889 said:
You ignored my facts and yet say you've done. Fine but I'll add my two penneth when anyone on here says he was a bad owner (or the like) and you won't resist
adding your two penneth and I won't blame you TT. That is one reason VB exists.
Click to expand...
OK, one more go - show me one of the facts you have posted on this thread.
 
tomytony said:
OK, one more go - show me one of the facts you have posted on this thread.
Click to expand...
One....he left us in a league higher than the one we were in when he stated
Two.....he wrote-off our debts to his company worth miilions
Three...he spend £6m per year to keep us afloat
There are more but you missed my comment about them earlier.
No need to relpy if you've had too much. Soz TT but all I was after was for us
to agree to disagree on Mr McCabe.
 
Chips1889 said:
One....he left us in a league higher than the one we were in when he stated
Two.....he wrote-off our debts to his company worth miilions
Three...he spend £6m per year to keep us afloat
There are more but you missed my comment about them earlier.
No need to relpy if you've had too much. Soz TT but all I was after was for us
to agree to disagree on Mr McCabe.
Click to expand...
Where are any of those ' facts' on THIS thread?- Oh, they're not, are they.
You've moved the goalposts again. I said repeatedly I was commenting on your initial post on THIS thread but you drag up some dubious propositions from over the years.

Maybe you're using a different definition of some words- again.
That's why it's so difficult to engage meaningfully.
 
Fact 2 he wrote the debts off but took all the real estate to make sure he didn’t lose out so the debt had to be paid anyway it’s the 50m you reckon we wouldn’t owe if he was still here but who ever bought the club would have to buy the ground back so he didn’t write the debt off he just moved it sideways but don’t let facts get in the way of your facts chips
 
Bulmer1889 said:
Fact 2 he wrote the debts off but took all the real estate to make sure he didn’t lose out so the debt had to be paid anyway it’s the 50m you reckon we wouldn’t owe if he was still here but who ever bought the club would have to buy the ground back so he didn’t write the debt off he just moved it sideways but don’t let facts get in the way of your facts chips
Click to expand...

Pro tip: saying something is a "fact" doesn't make it one. McCabe didn't take anything; he already owned the real estate as he owned the football club (and everything it owned.)
 
SirRodneyEffing said:
Pro tip: saying something is a "fact" doesn't make it one. McCabe didn't take anything; he already owned the real estate as he owned the football club (and everything it owned.)
Click to expand...
He separated it from the club so if you bought the club you didn’t get the ground or hotel so would have to pay again for those or pay rent so yes he did move it
 
Bulmer1889 said:
He separated it from the club so if you bought the club you didn’t get the ground or hotel so would have to pay again for those or pay rent so yes he did move it
Click to expand...

He moved it so that he could sell half the club for a pound while retaining full ownership of the real estate, not to make money on rent. That's a perfectly sensible thing to do. There's also a big difference between saying he moved it and saying he took it. One suggests he stole something, which he clearly didn't.
 
tomytony said:
Where are any of those ' facts' on THIS thread?- Oh, they're not, are they.
You've moved the goalposts again. I said repeatedly I was commenting on your initial post on THIS thread but you drag up some dubious propositions from over the years.

Maybe you're using a different definition of some words- again.
That's why it's so difficult to engage meaningfully.
Click to expand...
See 107 TT. I suggeest your stance makes it difficult to engage mate - you don't seem to be willing to accept someone with a different opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.