Dean Wilkins - Saints assistant manager!

[WATFORD zero]

But then you'll have to ban yourself again

 

[El Presidente]

But then you'll have to ban yourself again

Some sacrifices are worth it

 

[BigGully]

Really ... unless you can back this up with documentation from a credited source then its opinion or hearsay, it is certainly NOT fact.

Its only not fact if it is not true ....

Just because I cannot offer you the assurances you require to accept it, doesn't mean that it is NOT fact.

Of course you will choose to dismiss this as readily as you accepted the following

1) Adams was a good appointment
2) Falmer Funding was in place in November 2008
3) It was a unanimous decision to sack Wilkins


No big deal

 

[Easy 10]

Its only not fact if it is not true ....

Just because I cannot offer you the assurances you require to accept it, doesn't mean that it is NOT fact.

Of course you will choose to dismiss this as readily as you accepted the following

1) Adams was a good appointment
2) Falmer Funding was in place in November 2008
3) It was a unanimous decision to sack Wilkins


No big deal

Points 1 and 3 have been done to death.

Re point 2 though, I still find it curious that those posters who generally have a complete downer on the club and its board, choose to take the view that the club had been LYING about funding being in place all the way along, right up until the moment Tony Bloom made his momentous public announcenment a few months ago that he was underwriting the whole project.

All the club ever said, via MP, was that the funding would be in place when required, and that is PRECISELY what has transpired. Sure we were all left guessing about bank loans and commerical mortgages, and then fretting when the global economy started collapsing around our ears. But Tony Bloom didn't wash up with a load of driftwood on Brighton Beach under the pier some time over Christmas. He's been on the board for YEARS, so his money was always there to underwrite the thing, even in the worst-case scenario of the banks not lending (which is what transpired).

Bloom was there, so the money was there. Simples.
Otherwise, I very much doubt we'd have been allowed to start LEVELLING the site last December.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I think he may have trouble replying. It's not easy to type when you have your fingers in your ears singing LA LA LA at the top of your voice

 

[El Presidente]

I think he may have trouble replying. It's not easy to type when you have your fingers in your ears singing LA LA LA at the top of your voice

Are you accusing BG of being a TELLYTUBBY? Is that a FACT or an unfounded ALLEGATION?

 

[El Presidente]

Of course you will choose to dismiss this as readily as you accepted the following

1) Adams was a good appointment
2) Falmer Funding was in place in November 2008
3) It was a unanimous decision to sack Wilkins

Can you show me BG where he readily accepted these three issues, as I can't find it.

Ta

EP

x

 

[sten_super]

Are you accusing BG of being a TELLYTUBBY? Is that a FACT or an unfounded ALLEGATION?

PO, of course he isn't. Stop being such a TINKY-WINKY.

 

[The Large One]

All I can say is thank god 'The Large One' is back and posting so that we know the thoughts from INSIDE the camp

You be quiet, you.

 

[Easy 10]

Have him Alan

HAVE HIM

 

[The Large One]

Just because I cannot offer you the assurances you require to accept it, doesn't mean that it is NOT fact.

Cannot or will not?

 

[The Large One]

Have him Alan

HAVE HIM

If he means 'inside the camp' to mean 'entire NSC', he didn't need me back for that.

 

[Easy 10]

If he means 'inside the camp' to mean 'entire NSC', he didn't need me back for that.

Just good to have you back anyway, big boy.

x

 

[Brovion]

Ah the return of BigGully; serenely steaming through threads like a World War One Dreadnought, impervious to both reason and criticism.

...and we never did find out the truth about Hammond did we?

(Don't take it personally BG, although we didn't always see eye-to-eye I agreed with a lot of what you said with regard to the Wilkins/Adams fiasco. Although as has been mentioned before it's now a subject of interest mainly to archeologists).

 

[Ernest]

Is there a word for 'UNFLOUNCE' or is that the CORRECT term ?

 

[bhadebenhams]

Its only not fact if it is not true ....

Just because I cannot offer you the assurances you require to accept it, doesn't mean that it is NOT fact.

Of course you will choose to dismiss this as readily as you accepted the following

1) Adams was a good appointment
2) Falmer Funding was in place in November 2008
3) It was a unanimous decision to sack Wilkins


No big deal

here here. Big Gully is one of the few who talk sence on this board. DK CANNOT be trusted, he has knived one of the best coaches outside the premeirship in the back, who bought through loads of youth players such as Robinson, Fraser, Lynch, Elphich, El Pres and Virgo, many of whom have gone onto better THINGS.

For those that question BG, remember it is well known you cann't trust anyone with a beard, so no more proof is needed than that.

I rest my cases

 

[Stoo82]

here here. Big Gully is one of the few who talk sence on this board. DK CANNOT be trusted, he has knived one of the best coaches outside the premeirship in the back, who bought through loads of youth players such as Robinson, Fraser, Lynch, Elphich, El Pres and Virgo, many of whom have gone onto better THINGS.

For those that question BG, remember it is well known you cann't trust anyone with a beard, so no more proof is needed than that.

I rest my cases

genius

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Its only not fact if it is not true ....

Just because I cannot offer you the assurances you require to accept it, doesn't mean that it is NOT fact.

Of course you will choose to dismiss this as readily as you accepted the following

1) Adams was a good appointment
2) Falmer Funding was in place in November 2008
3) It was a unanimous decision to sack Wilkins


No big deal

It maybe fact to you but as you can't back it up with facts or credable data then it will only be opinion to me. You can't tell someone that something is a fact unless you can back it up with credible data ... end of.

1) I was never MA's biggest fan the first time round ... you won't believe how unpopular I was for that opinion.
2) Funding was in place just wasn't where I thought it was coming from ...
3) We all now know that MP was against it, all I ever said was that it wasn't just DK who wanted him out.

Here's one for you, I heard that the main antagonist of DW were forster, Murray and thomsom ... now that's not fact as I can't prove it but .....
I'm sure you get the drift ....

 

[clapham_gull]

Well it doesn't really matter now, but I'll throw in what I heard.

There was going to be a "mortgage", but it was

.."not the significant amount"...

This came from a very good source a long while ago and I didn't bother posting it because it was open to interpretation.

Personally, I didn't think it was our Tony because I didn't think he had that kind of wonger. However, I've knew for a while that a private individual (as opposed to a bank) was stumping up a lot of cash.

Although, originally it was a sizeable investment ("the significant amount") it became the Jewson lot when capitalism collapsed.

Now, I may of course be talking bollocks but I don't think I am. Giraffe's posts on here seem to be the closest to the truth although he took tons of grief regarding it.

So is BigGully correct by saying the club lied ? - Absolutely not.

Were the few but much maligned posters who questioned the belief that banks were stumping up the cash correct in their fears ? - Absolutely yes.