Who Says No Expectations

[OnLoanfromEnfield]

Interesting that one supporter rumbled the house of cards, simply by reading documentation and using his own expertise ?
Wrote letters to all concerned parties too.

 

[Lazysid]

This is where the disconnect is, you feel things went wrong when the club was sold to Au Yeung. I think it was here: http://www.ientcorp.com/attachment/pdf/1581683928Camqf.pdf

There was a member of the forum sounding warnings about this not longer afterwards.

For me Jackson has to take some of the blame as he should have been prepared what to expect when the new loan agreement was put in place (May 2020) with the 20% interest rate which would see a weekly increase from £38k to £94k (as highlighted by pies'r'us)

Not sure if Jay Whittle or Paul Kendrick have ever questioned Jonathan about this.

 

[Lazysid]

Interesting that one supporter rumbled the house of cards, simply by reading documentation and using his own expertise ?
Wrote letters to all concerned parties too.

Ha - great minds!!

 

[C_Latic]

Interesting that one supporter rumbled the house of cards, simply by reading documentation and using his own expertise ?
Wrote letters to all concerned parties too.

Spot on. That fan has individually put every single party to shame. The EFL, the UK directors at Latics and the local media.

 

[Nottingham]

Not if the criticism is unsubstantiated which yours clearly is, as despite my repeated asking for proof of your claims you have so far failed to produce any.

Please, and don't take this wrongly, put up or shut up.

TB...I do take it wrongly. What claims are you talking about? I'm merely saying that he should not be considered as a supporters' rep on the board.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

TB...I do take it wrongly. What claims are you talking about? I'm merely saying that he should not be considered as a supporters' rep on the board.

You certainly have a short memory. I am talking about the claims of JJ having a "dubious history". The one that you made in response to my original post. The one I have asked for proof of in a number of responses.

I have said I, and I am sure others, have no problem with you opposing him for the post, but your argument for him not being considered is based on supposition, rumour and an accusation of possible wrong doing (dubious history).

If that is not what you were meaning then why not retract your statement and apologise to JJ and those members of the board who were offended as I have previously suggested instead of trying to act as if you didn't make the comment.

 

[moonay]

TB...I do take it wrongly. What claims are you talking about? I'm merely saying that he should not be considered as a supporters' rep on the board.

Sorry Notts, but in support of TB's response above (not that he needs any support), to refresh your memory, here's a reminder of some of your comments (that I'd already posted a couple of pages ago).

- he has a dubious history
- he must have had an inkling
- was taken in by a bunch of conmen
- may have something to hide
- too risky
- didn't put up a fight
- not worthy of protecting the club
- incompetent
- negligent
- should have known better

Like TB says, make your mind up.

 

[Nottingham]

You certainly have a short memory. I am talking about the claims of JJ having a "dubious history". The one that you made in response to my original post. The one I have asked for proof of in a number of responses.

I have said I, and I am sure others, have no problem with you opposing him for the post, but your argument for him not being considered is based on supposition, rumour and an accusation of possible wrong doing (dubious history).

If that is not what you were meaning then why not retract your statement and apologise to JJ and those members of the board who were offended as I have previously suggested instead of trying to act as if you didn't make the comment.

 

[Nottingham]

[/QUOTE

Look up your definition of dubious before you start false accusations. We all have parts of our lives which could be slightly dubious. For whatever reasons and whatever circumstances there was a period for Mr Jackson....as well as the other Board members...where there remains an air of doubt. I'm not for a moment accusing him of them of criminal acts, so I don't think an apology is appropriate. As for apologising to other Board members....what for? You expect me to apologise for having a different opinion from them....you're having a laugh. That's what the board is for, isn't it, squire?

 

[Nottingham]

Sorry Notts, but in support of TB's response above (not that he needs any support), to refresh your memory, here's a reminder of some of your comments (that I'd already posted a couple of pages ago).

- he has a dubious history
- he must have had an inkling
- was taken in by a bunch of conmen
- may have something to hide
- too risky
- didn't put up a fight
- not worthy of protecting the club
- incompetent
- negligent
- should have known better

Like TB says, make your mind up.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my recent statement to Mr T. Believer

 

[moonay]

I refer the honourable gentleman to my recent statement to Mr T. Believer

Sorry mate, that in no way covers it.

Regardless of whatever definition you're putting on "dubious", I think a brief explanation of why you think him to be negligent, incompetent, not worthy, too risky, and having summat to hide is a fair request. We can skip the others as they're just your assumption and opinion.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

dubious
adjective

probably not true or not completely true; doubtful:
The team had the dubious distinction of ranking 31st in the league.
Dubious can also mean not to be trusted, or not completely moral:
a dubious character

The definition is clear and certainly does not apply to Jonathon Jackson.

 

[Wlatic]

dubious
adjective

probably not true or not completely true; doubtful:
The team had the dubious distinction of ranking 31st in the league.
Dubious can also mean not to be trusted, or not completely moral:
a dubious character

The definition is clear and certainly does not apply to Jonathon Jackson.

He could be doubtful that this came completely out of the blue/belief that he's been allowed to be more of a victim by certain people than he would like, and that could fit the definition of dubious. "Dubious history". Morals are a pretty hard thing to have people agree on, some people could feel morally compelled to do things / speak up or indeed keep quiet.

 

[Nottingham]

Sorry mate, that in no way covers it.

Regardless of whatever definition you're putting on "dubious", I think a brief explanation of why you think him to be negligent, incompetent, not worthy, too risky, and having summat to hide is a fair request. We can skip the others as they're just your assumption and opinion.

I think I have explained enough....not that I need to explain

 

[moonay]

I think I have explained enough....not that I need to explain

Of course you don't need to explain what you've posted ......................... and I'm not really surprised that you'd rather not ................... especially if you're now embarrassed by it.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

He could be doubtful that this came completely out of the blue/belief that he's been allowed to be more of a victim by certain people than he would like, and that could fit the definition of dubious. "Dubious history". Morals are a pretty hard thing to have people agree on, some people could feel morally compelled to do things / speak up or indeed keep quiet.

Certainly you could take the view that you are and words do have different meanings dependant on the context in which they are used.

If the way it was used had been "I think it would be a dubious appointment" I could have accepted that but the actual context was that " he has a dubious history". That left me, and most of this board, with no doubts about its context.

Dubious can also mean not to be trusted, or not completely moral:
a dubious character.

There is no doubt in my mind as to which context it was used.

If Notts believes it was taken out of context then why not say so instead of trying to defend his action. Apologise and move on.

 

[Nottingham]

Certainly you could take the view that you are and words do have different meanings dependant on the context in which they are used.

If the way it was used had been "I think it would be a dubious appointment" I could have accepted that but the actual context was that " he has a dubious history". That left me, and most of this board, with no doubts about its context.

Dubious can also mean not to be trusted, or not completely moral:
a dubious character.

There is no doubt in my mind as to which context it was used.

If Notts believes it was taken out of context then why not say so instead of trying to defend his action. Apologise and move on.

Maybe, you should apologise to me for making accusations without evidence..... but you are always right aren't you, so I won't hold my breath.

 

[Nottingham]

Of course you don't need to explain what you've posted ......................... and I'm not really surprised that you'd rather not ................... especially if you're now embarrassed by it.

You are a master of wriggling out of awkward situations, Moonay.... embarrassed... that's s good 'un.

 

[moonay]

You are a master of wriggling out of awkward situations, Moonay.... embarrassed... that's s good 'un.

Hahaha, is that projection there Notts?

Seriously, all I've done is quote your words back to you, and suggested you might like to defend or explain them.

I'd hope that you'd have the grace to back up your comments .................... or alternatively, admit that they may have been poorly chosen words ............... as I did to KDZ when suggesting that Jones was a "scapegoat".

Of course, there's no obligation on your part, though to suggest that I'm "wriggling out of an awkward situation" is a strange response.

Obviously, you don't need to do anything if you don't wish to .................. but don't be surprised if we (well, I at least) think a little less of your input in future if you choose not to clarify your initial comments.

 

[jocklatic]

Hahaha, is that projection there Notts?

Seriously, all I've done is quote your words back to you, and suggested you might like to defend or explain them.

I'd hope that you'd have the grace to back up your comments .................... or alternatively, admit that they may have been poorly chosen words ............... as I did to KDZ when suggesting that Jones was a "scapegoat".

Of course, there's no obligation on your part, though to suggest that I'm "wriggling out of an awkward situation" is a strange response.

Obviously, you don't need to do anything if you don't wish to .................. but don't be surprised if we (well, I at least) think a little less of your input in future if you choose not to clarify your initial comments.

Has someone 'hacked' Notts account cos from what I've been following on this discussion re "dubiousgate' I think what urself, TB & others are saying is reasonably correct n normally Notts would see the points put across. So either his account has been taken over or he's so far entrenched in his stance that he's gonna carry on regardless......

If your reading this post Notts just concede the point or go back over the posts with a friend n see what they think...or perhaps you can just tell me to do one....