Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:02 pm
Silly comment? Silly response !
You have your opinion, I have mine.
I agree to disagree
I’m happy for you to have an opinion, I just think it’s a very silly one.
It’s a false equivalence that because the owners aren’t as bad as the mad Italians that nothing they do can be questioned.
Would you be comfortable with the new ‘National Front North Stand’? As long as they stumped up enough cash and it was agreed by Nigel and kent?
(P.s I know some of you would be fine with it)
Another even sillier response. How can you compare the National Front with a legally trading company. Your comment is an insult to our owners and management and find it very hard to believe that any O’s fans would support the National Front and their abhorrent views.
I think you'd be surprised.
My point is, the principle you seem to want to follow is a dangerous one. By not questions anything our owners do because they saved us from nutcases doesn't make any sense and is how clubs get into bad situations. We need to hold anyone who runs our club to account, otherwise we risk going back to being a basket case club (not with T&T, that's probably true).
As you say, let's agree to disagree but people have the right to question these decisions.
Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:02 pm
Silly comment? Silly response !
You have your opinion, I have mine.
I agree to disagree
I’m happy for you to have an opinion, I just think it’s a very silly one.
It’s a false equivalence that because the owners aren’t as bad as the mad Italians that nothing they do can be questioned.
Would you be comfortable with the new ‘National Front North Stand’? As long as they stumped up enough cash and it was agreed by Nigel and kent?
(P.s I know some of you would be fine with it)
I appreciate you're just trying to wind people up but, without gong into meltdown, I'd be uncomfortable with that to the point that I'd be withdrawing all forms of support to the club. As would others if it was renamed the Socialist Workers Party Stand. The essential point here is that nothing that controversial would happen as the owners would be well aware of the potential impact.
I'm, personally, not happy with the Cash Converters thing but not to the point of pulling my support.
Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:02 pm
Silly comment? Silly response !
You have your opinion, I have mine.
I agree to disagree
I’m happy for you to have an opinion, I just think it’s a very silly one.
It’s a false equivalence that because the owners aren’t as bad as the mad Italians that nothing they do can be questioned.
Would you be comfortable with the new ‘National Front North Stand’? As long as they stumped up enough cash and it was agreed by Nigel and kent?
(P.s I know some of you would be fine with it)
I appreciate you're just trying to wind people up but, without gong into meltdown, I'd be uncomfortable with that to the point that I'd be withdrawing all forms of support to the club. As would others if it was renamed the Socialist Workers Party Stand. The essential point here is that nothing that controversial would happen as the owners would be well aware of the potential impact.
I'm, personally, not happy with the Cash Converters thing but not to the point of pulling my support.
An extreme example, but the point is relevant around who the club takes money from.
I still can’t quite believe that Macklin etc thought that this would be a good idea. Not just having pawnbrokers as a club sponsor, but an entire stand, and one named after TJ at that. Would the club have taken a bit more money off them and called it The Cash Converters Justin Edinburgh Stand? No they wouldn’t, because there’d have been an uproar. Thus you have to conclude that they thought Tommy Johnston was a lesser figure and it was fine. Well it’s not. I wonder what the Johnson family think of it? I bet they weren’t even consulted.
Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:02 pm
Silly comment? Silly response !
You have your opinion, I have mine.
I agree to disagree
I’m happy for you to have an opinion, I just think it’s a very silly one.
It’s a false equivalence that because the owners aren’t as bad as the mad Italians that nothing they do can be questioned.
Would you be comfortable with the new ‘National Front North Stand’? As long as they stumped up enough cash and it was agreed by Nigel and kent?
(P.s I know some of you would be fine with it)
I appreciate you're just trying to wind people up but, without gong into meltdown, I'd be uncomfortable with that to the point that I'd be withdrawing all forms of support to the club. As would others if it was renamed the Socialist Workers Party Stand. The essential point here is that nothing that controversial would happen as the owners would be well aware of the potential impact.
I'm, personally, not happy with the Cash Converters thing but not to the point of pulling my support.
They weren’t well aware of taking the money from a company that preys on the community the club supports so well in many ways.
I’m happy for you to have an opinion, I just think it’s a very silly one.
It’s a false equivalence that because the owners aren’t as bad as the mad Italians that nothing they do can be questioned.
Would you be comfortable with the new ‘National Front North Stand’? As long as they stumped up enough cash and it was agreed by Nigel and kent?
(P.s I know some of you would be fine with it)
I appreciate you're just trying to wind people up but, without gong into meltdown, I'd be uncomfortable with that to the point that I'd be withdrawing all forms of support to the club. As would others if it was renamed the Socialist Workers Party Stand. The essential point here is that nothing that controversial would happen as the owners would be well aware of the potential impact.
I'm, personally, not happy with the Cash Converters thing but not to the point of pulling my support.
They weren’t well aware of taking the money from a company that preys on the community the club supports so well in many ways.
I appreciate you're just trying to wind people up but, without gong into meltdown, I'd be uncomfortable with that to the point that I'd be withdrawing all forms of support to the club. As would others if it was renamed the Socialist Workers Party Stand. The essential point here is that nothing that controversial would happen as the owners would be well aware of the potential impact.
I'm, personally, not happy with the Cash Converters thing but not to the point of pulling my support.
They weren’t well aware of taking the money from a company that preys on the community the club supports so well in many ways.
Not at all what I said. Try and keep up.
“ the owners would be well aware of the potential impact”
You don’t like the South Stand sponsors because you say they are pawnbrokers and take from the poor. Are loan sharks better than Cash Convertors? Pawnbrokers have been in existence since pre Roman times. At least they are now heavily regulated and have to be licensed. They provide a service that is perfectly legal.
Our football neighbours are run and owned, apparently by people also involved in porn and who also provide a service .
Nigel was CEO of Dunkin Donuts is he guilty of encouraging unhealthy eating?
Kent is involved in financial services, is he guilty of encouraging investment that could lose money.
If people want/ need any of the services mentioned above who are we to decide if they can or can’t ? That is none of our business.
I love donuts, take advice on investments and with regards to pawn and/or porn , it’s a free country.
You don’t like the South Stand sponsors because you say they are pawnbrokers and take from the poor. Are loan sharks better than Cash Convertors? Pawnbrokers have been in existence since pre Roman times. At least they are now heavily regulated and have to be licensed. They provide a service that is perfectly legal.
Our football neighbours are run and owned, apparently by people also involved in porn and who also provide a service .
Nigel was CEO of Dunkin Donuts is he guilty of encouraging unhealthy eating?
Kent is involved in financial services, is he guilty of encouraging investment that could lose money.
If people want/ need any of the services mentioned above who are we to decide if they can or can’t ? That is none of our business.
I love donuts, take advice on investments and with regards to pawn and/or porn , it’s a free country.
We all realise sponsorship is important and we may or may not agree with the companies we do deals with. That’s not the issue for me. I just don’t like the link between this company and a former great player for us.
I would hate the JE stand to be sponsored in the same way. Porn or pawn. Tacky. I guess you wouldn’t care who the JE stand was paired with.
You don’t like the South Stand sponsors because you say they are pawnbrokers and take from the poor. Are loan sharks better than Cash Convertors? Pawnbrokers have been in existence since pre Roman times. At least they are now heavily regulated and have to be licensed. They provide a service that is perfectly legal.
Our football neighbours are run and owned, apparently by people also involved in porn and who also provide a service .
Nigel was CEO of Dunkin Donuts is he guilty of encouraging unhealthy eating?
Kent is involved in financial services, is he guilty of encouraging investment that could lose money.
If people want/ need any of the services mentioned above who are we to decide if they can or can’t ? That is none of our business.
I love donuts, take advice on investments and with regards to pawn and/or porn , it’s a free country.
We all realise sponsorship is important and we may or may not agree with the companies we do deals with. That’s not the issue for me. I just don’t like the link between this company and a former great player for us.
I would hate the JE stand to be sponsored in the same way. Porn or pawn. Tacky. I guess you wouldn’t care who the JE stand was paired with.
So you are not worried about the link between the company and the club? That great player lived 10,000 miles away. He may have cared but he could hardly care from farther away.
