Rousing defence of Kenwrong

[davek]

Can we put a poll in the thread at this juncture just to gauge opinion?

Something like:

Bill Kenwright's a lying belter?

Yes

Yes

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

It was definitely opinion, but also an incorrect assertion that half the people didn't vote as DK was so bad.

Read it again - I stated the simple fact that less than half of those offered the vote were sufficiently enthused to vote in support. You are misrepresenting what I said.

 

[Goat]

Theres a wild accusation to be had here.

Kenwright, the bad coke head. Thats were its gone. On Coke and men.

Im just asking a question, I didnt actually make an accusation.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

The club are trying to, but they're not being helped by the likes of yourself.

My mistake, I should have said "Somebody should do something positive about it".

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Im just asking a question, I didnt actually make an accusation.

??? Reading between the lines, you suggested it was spent on coke and Barrymore.

DIDNT YOU?

 

[chicoazul]

DK was a bad option - that's why less than half of those asked voted for it.

There you go mate.

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

??? Reading between the lines, you suggested it was spent on coke and Barrymore.

DIDNT YOU?

Careful, he will accuse you of being some ****** and get his clique to reinforce the point. Just bow your head and grovel.

 

[best little spaniard]

Does anyone think that if everything was hunkey dorey, then we'd even be having this argument?

Exactly.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

How so, have we had anyone looking to invest or take over?

One of the reasons were not attractive is the ground issue. Hence why City and that are a much more better prospect for investment than us.

more rhetoric & assumptions. how would you or I know whether there has been any interest in the club or not? why would there be when the club has stated that it's not for sale ? where is your evidence for the assertions you make? where's the evidence to support your view re City?

 

[Goat]

??? Reading between the lines, you suggested it was spent on coke and Barrymore.

DIDNT YOU?

That would have been my next post yes, but still.

Careful, he will accuse you of being some ****** and get his clique to reinforce the point. Just bow your head and grovel.

GOT is GOT and you are SuitsBlue, thems the facts.

 

[chicoazul]

more rhetoric & assumptions. how would you or I knwo whether there has been any interest in the club or not? why would there be when the club has stated that it's not for sale ? where is your evidence for the assertions you make? where's the evidence to support your view re City?

Do you think there would have been media coverage of such a thing?

You're flagging here mate.

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

why would there be when the club has stated that it's not for sale ?

Evidence please.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

There were two options on the poll you know mate, the facts do speak for themselves.

A lot abstained and you don't know the reason why, you assume that its because DK is so bad as that fits your viewpoint. The one's I actually know who didn't vote simply couldn't be arsed.

Hope that clears that up.

what was the alternative choice to voting for DK?

I'm not making any assumptions at all, in fact you rather emphase the point - the DK proposal was so good less than half of those offered a vote felt it was worth supporting. Regardless of whether some voted against or abstained, & whether the abstentions were pro-/anti- but couldn't be arsed or just couldn't decide - the simple fact is that less than half decided to support it. So it's false for people to claim that the majority of supporters are in favour when only a minority of those offered a vote actually voted for it.

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

what was the alternative choice to voting for DK?

I'm not making any assumptions at all, in fact you rather emphase the point - the DK proposal was so good less than half of those offered a vote felt it was worth supporting. Regardless of whether some voted against or abstained, & whether the abstentions were pro-/anti- but couldn't be arsed or just couldn't decide - the simple fact is that less than half decided to support it. So it's false for people to claim that the majority of supporters are in favour when only a minority of those offered a vote actually voted for it.

Utterly utterly utterly bogus. More voted for than did against. So by your 'rat in a red hot sh!t house' logic, the "No" voters are even less valid than the yessers. (*)

 

[chicoazul]

what was the alternative choice to voting for DK?

I'm not making any assumptions at all, in fact you rather emphase the point - the DK proposal was so good less than half of those offered a vote felt it was worth supporting. Regardless of whether some voted against or abstained, & whether the abstentions were pro-/anti- but couldn't be arsed or just couldn't decide - the simple fact is that less than half decided to support it. So it's false for people to claim that the majority of supporters are in favour when only a minority of those offered a vote actually voted for it.

The alternative choice was to stay at Goodison, that's surely clear is it not?

Thats weird logic there Dennis, you could twist it and say that it wasnt that hideous that the vast majority didn't vote against it.

Again, incorrect assertions.