Take Over

[Howardroark]

1 minute ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Don't flatter yourself, Howard. I'm not interested in you in the slightest but I am interested in accuracy and the unspun facts.

You have indicated to me the souce of information, that some might have regarded as confidential, and I have noted that you have chosen to put information into the public domain for reasons that you will know best.

The assertions that you have made, and that I have challenged, are on the record should anyone want to be bothered checking them out.

 

By indicated I told you the very name of the person, a person who’s name I have not publicised on this forum. 

You have a blatant ignorance of anything that remotely resembles me being informed, whilst choosing to press ahead with an agenda of attempting to discredit things I mention. 

In respect of PBP I have long said that it was only my belief that it could’ve been structured in such a way, and not that it was fact. 

In the words of David Brent 

“Chris, why don’t you fuck off”?

[darrener]

5 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Don't flatter yourself, Howard. I'm not interested in you in the slightest but I am interested in accuracy and the unspun facts.

You have indicated to me the souce of information, that some might have regarded as confidential, and I have noted that you have chosen to put information into the public domain for reasons that you will know best.

The assertions that you have made, and that I have challenged, are on the record should anyone want to be bothered checking them out.

 

Oh give it a rest Chris if you don't believe Howard then that's fine, he/she has still been more accurate than anyone else and that's good enough for me. There's always someone trying to put a spanner in the works. 

[Ros Coe]

1 minute ago, Howardroark said:

By indicated I told you the very name of the person, a person who’s name I have not publicised on this forum. 

You have a blatant ignorance of anything that remotely resembles me being informed, whilst choosing to press ahead with an agenda of attempting to discredit things I mention. 

In respect of PBP I have long said that it was only my belief that it could’ve been structured in such a way, and not that it was fact. 

In the words of David Brent 

“Chris, why don’t you fuck off”?

[MickyD]

2 hours ago, SatanGreavsie said:

quam magnus sunt ubera

I googled it. Very good.

[Escobarp]

Got the makings of a straightener this 

May I suggest outside Waterstones which seems more fitting than the club shop in this instance. 

‘Howard roared on by his/her/it’s raucous following of wwayers 

[Bridger]

Howard on a scale of 1-10 how confident are you that the mystery purchaser will conclude a deal ?

[DazBob]

4 hours ago, RoadRunnerFan said:

Isn't it just the same result as the debt is secured on the shares and the shares are in effect worthless? 

And Howard what type of organisation do you do PR for? 

 

Biscuit manufacturers.

[Chris Custodiet]

1 hour ago, Howardroark said:

By indicated I told you the very name of the person, a person who’s name I have not publicised on this forum. 

You have a blatant ignorance of anything that remotely resembles me being informed, whilst choosing to press ahead with an agenda of attempting to discredit things I mention. 

In respect of PBP I have long said that it was only my belief that it could’ve been structured in such a way, and not that it was fact. 

In the words of David Brent 

“Chris, why don’t you fuck off”?

I'd rather not sink to that level, Howard, but if I may be forgiven for saying so, it seems to me that you have an exaggerated expectation that everyone on WW will swallow everything you post irrespective of whether it makes sense or not. Some things do make sense, some don't.  Simple as that really.

[Mantra]

Howard, can I be your PR protégée, so that in 10 years when another club is at risk of going under, I can carry the baton and be a Z-List celebrity who’s ITK on a football forum?

also why tell Chris, your biggest nemesis, the name of a source?

[Howardroark]

2 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

I'd rather not sink to that level, Howard, but if I may be forgiven for saying so, it seems to me that you have an exaggerated expectation that everyone on WW will swallow everything you post irrespective of whether it makes sense or not. Some things do make sense, some don't.  Simple as that really.

I believe that people will use my words to form an opinion, the strength of my words can only be proven by fact, and the fact is that I have yet to be wrong on anything that I have expressed as a fact. 

Whilst there maybe a discrepancy on my understanding of accounting procedures, that doesn’t give you his cause to denigrate the rest of my assertions.

[Howardroark]

2 minutes ago, Mantra said:

Howard, can I be your PR protégée, so that in 10 years when another club is at risk of going under, I can carry the baton and be a Z-List celebrity who’s ITK on a football forum?

also why tell Chris, your biggest nemesis, the name of a source?

In the misguided hope that he would take comfort from it and give credence to my opinions validity.

[MancWanderer]

Strikes me as someone getting jealous of the new kid in the playground who is getting all the attention 

[Dr Faustus]

[Chris Custodiet]

8 minutes ago, Mantra said:

Howard, can I be your PR protégée, so that in 10 years when another club is at risk of going under, I can carry the baton and be a Z-List celebrity who’s ITK on a football forum?

also why tell Chris, your biggest nemesis, the name of a source?

He may have thought that I would be impressed by his willingness to name his contact. Actually I thought something quite different. Who would reveal the source of potentially confidential information to a stranger?

[Howardroark]

38 minutes ago, Bridger said:

Howard on a scale of 1-10 how confident are you that the mystery purchaser will conclude a deal ?

8.5/10 

What I would say is that any funny business from Ken would not be tolerated, he is out of his depth with this mob. 

The reality is that it remains Ken’s business and whilst it’s his business there is an element of uncertainty.

[Howardroark]

Just now, Chris Custodiet said:

He may have thought that I would be impressed by his willingness to name his contact. Actually I thought something quite different. Who would reveal the source of potentially confidential information to a stranger?

I don’t seek to impress you and I’m far too experienced to give you anything compromising. 

I would also know a) who you are and b) that only you had been given the information, it wouldn’t be hard to trace back in a libel situation....

[DirtySanchez]

1 hour ago, Mr Grey said:

Tank tops ooze power, espessially donned with a light pink shirt 

That's why that Millwall fan didnt bother me 

Had he complemented with a tank top I would have shit myself 

Good job we had our guardian angel though sorting things out 

[Sluffy]

56 minutes ago, Howardroark said:

By indicated I told you the very name of the person, a person who’s name I have not publicised on this forum. 

You have a blatant ignorance of anything that remotely resembles me being informed, whilst choosing to press ahead with an agenda of attempting to discredit things I mention. 

In respect of PBP I have long said that it was only my belief that it could’ve been structured in such a way, and not that it was fact. 

In the words of David Brent 

“Chris, why don’t you fuck off”?

Chris is old school, like myself.   From what I know of him he seems to have been brought up with many of the values I have and (this is the part I'm trying to make) how the world at the time have shaped and developed them within us.

Back then communication was nothing like it was today, certainly no mobile phones, internet, social media, etc.  My family didn't even have a home phone until I was in my late teens/early twenties because most of our friends and families also hadn't any either - its just how it was at that time.  We relied for information basically from the BBC news on the TV or radio, the national press (Daily Mirror everyone read back then), the BEN, or gossip in the pub.  

Life's experience for many of us took a few knocks along the way when we discovered that nearly all of the gossip down the pub turned out to be just bollocks, and that there were other different ways of understanding news than from a Labour influenced paper, which had its own slant on things.  So much so did our life experiences in that respect taught us that perhaps it manifests itself in us, in this modern day and age, into being extremely cautious what we read on social media (the equivalent of the man down the pub to us) and wanting to understand things from all sides of the argument (the equivalent of not just taking the Mirror as gospel - as many did back then) but to seek and question what we read.

If you add to that how our working lives most probably shaped our behaviour (some had careers where an enquiring mind and attention to detail were more important to them than other professions) and put the two together then maybe you can begin to understand how some of us of a certain age and profession find it a little bit more difficult to be open to what we are told (not specifically you but the world in general) unless and until we have a good think and cogitation about things, pick them apart and put them back together again and feel happy that things are feasible or concerned if they are not.  Even then we are probably more guarded and resistant to go all in until we have seen absolute proof - usually by seeing things with our own eyes.

It's unfair on you (in this day and age of immediate access and response) to expect everything you say to be 100% correct - but by not being correct on some parts even minor ones (or even being right about them but expressing them perhaps poorly initially), it does trigger the response in some (including myself) to wonder if that bit isn't as we understand it should be, then what else may be questionable also?

 You have turned up out of the blue and provided us with all sorts of seemingly informed information - and of course we thank you for that - but of course the question in some of our minds is why?  Yes you have explained yourself about this but some (including myself again) wonder if there is a bit more to it than that?

As I say some of us are of a certain age now in a world that hasn't shaped us and which we probably distrust.  Please forgive and tolerate our reservation, it isn't intended as a criticism, more like an inbuilt defensive mechanism that we've developed over the years.  I'm sure everyone of including Chris and I want you to be right but perhaps we can only fully acknowledge you (and all you have done for us) when it actually happens.

Please no more of the fuck yous and libel talk (if you could understand the dinosaurs that we are you would know that simply isn't relevant to us as we don't function in that way) and accept that no one can 'please all of the people all of the time' and tolerate as best you can that some healthy scepticism is actually a good thing in life.

No insult or criticism of you or what you've said intended, you clearly know more about what is happening and why than I ever would, and irrespective of what reasons you are doing it for I obviously thank you and trust it will work out as you've predicted.  I am sure Chris will thank you too, once it happens.

 

(Obviously I don't speak for Chris - he's big enough to do that himself - I just wanted to try and explain how and why he probably views things as he does and I do).

[enzo gambaro]

I don’t think the bandwidth would cope if you were speaking for Chris too. 

[Daveh]

Bloody hell Sluffy, that was brilliant!! 

I’m the new kid on the block on this forum, but it sounds like we are of a similar vintage....

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you’ve just said 👍🏻

[Chris Custodiet]

I must confess, Sluffy,  that when I was in my teens there were occasions when I might have used crude language about referees and so forth but most of our generation grew out of that kind of immaturity pretty soon. Doesn't seem to happen in the same way these days but its nowt to do with dinosaurs.

And I might struggle to play 90 minutes of footie nowadays but I'm still quite capable of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Chris Custodiet

[Burndens Bogs]

21 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Chris is old school, like myself.   From what I know of him he seems to have been brought up with many of the values I have and (this is the part I'm trying to make) how the world at the time have shaped and developed them within us.

Back then communication was nothing like it was today, certainly no mobile phones, internet, social media, etc.  My family didn't even have a home phone until I was in my late teens/early twenties because most of our friends and families also hadn't any either - its just how it was at that time.  We relied for information basically from the BBC news on the TV or radio, the national press (Daily Mirror everyone read back then), the BEN, or gossip in the pub.  

Life's experience for many of us took a few knocks along the way when we discovered that nearly all of the gossip down the pub turned out to be just bollocks, and that there were other different ways of understanding news than from a Labour influenced paper, which had its own slant on things.  So much so did our life experiences in that respect taught us that perhaps it manifests itself in us, in this modern day and age, into being extremely cautious what we read on social media (the equivalent of the man down the pub to us) and wanting to understand things from all sides of the argument (the equivalent of not just taking the Mirror as gospel - as many did back then) but to seek and question what we read.

If you add to that how our working lives most probably shaped our behaviour (some had careers where an enquiring mind and attention to detail were more important to them than other professions) and put the two together then maybe you can begin to understand how some of us of a certain age and profession find it a little bit more difficult to be open to what we are told (not specifically you but the world in general) unless and until we have a good think and cogitation about things, pick them apart and put them back together again and feel happy that things are feasible or concerned if they are not.  Even then we are probably more guarded and resistant to go all in until we have seen absolute proof - usually by seeing things with our own eyes.

It's unfair on you (in this day and age of immediate access and response) to expect everything you say to be 100% correct - but by not being correct on some parts even minor ones (or even being right about them but expressing them perhaps poorly initially), it does trigger the response in some (including myself) to wonder if that bit isn't as we understand it should be, then what else may be questionable also?

 You have turned up out of the blue and provided us with all sorts of seemingly informed information - and of course we thank you for that - but of course the question in some of our minds is why?  Yes you have explained yourself about this but some (including myself again) wonder if there is a bit more to it than that?

As I say some of us are of a certain age now in a world that hasn't shaped us and which we probably distrust.  Please forgive and tolerate our reservation, it isn't intended as a criticism, more like an inbuilt defensive mechanism that we've developed over the years.  I'm sure everyone of including Chris and I want you to be right but perhaps we can only fully acknowledge you (and all you have done for us) when it actually happens.

Please no more of the fuck yous and libel talk (if you could understand the dinosaurs that we are you would know that simply isn't relevant to us as we don't function in that way) and accept that no one can 'please all of the people all of the time' and tolerate as best you can that some healthy scepticism is actually a good thing in life.

No insult or criticism of you or what you've said intended, you clearly know more about what is happening and why than I ever would, and irrespective of what reasons you are doing it for I obviously thank you and trust it will work out as you've predicted.  I am sure Chris will thank you too, once it happens.

 

(Obviously I don't speak for Chris - he's big enough to do that himself - I just wanted to try and explain how and why he probably views things as he does and I do).

Basically what you’re saying is “Howard why are you giving us all this info?” 

[Eavesy]

2 hours ago, Ratwhite said:

Last week we wre dead and fucking burried. Now they queing out of the fucing door to buy us.............

Apparently a lot went to the Wigan match and saw the potential in the club...

[HomerJay]

1 hour ago, Howardroark said:

8.5/10 

What I would say is that any funny business from Ken would not be tolerated, he is out of his depth with this mob. 

The reality is that it remains Ken’s business and whilst it’s his business there is an element of uncertainty.

do you know who the buyer is?

[Mantra]

6 hours ago, lowcarbon said:

Ah, So IF the new buyer decides not to follow through with the deal(Buy the club), Then admin to claim their money back for the initial cost of buying the debt from Moonshift.

But would still cost them for Admin??

Why would they buy the Moonshift debt but not follow through on buying the club?