A New Group of Attention Seekers

[Reesh]

1 hour ago, Jake said:

Expected nothing less. 

Well take the fucking hint.

 

I'd go one further and set fire to the protestors and spit on em.

[Reesh]

46 minutes ago, Jake said:

It isn’t the job of the 1867 group, or indeed any other disgruntled supporter to find a buyer. 
 

Nobody “found” Chansiri, he came along because the club was for sale. This notion that you can’t air discontent without a solution is just not how life works. 

You're kids playing at being grown ups, you don't have a clue how business works and are stuck in dead end jobs earning other people money. Out of the 10 at the front of the 1867 I only have time for Jim, cos he's not a ****.

[mkowl]

46 minutes ago, Jake said:

It isn’t the job of the 1867 group, or indeed any other disgruntled supporter to find a buyer. 
 

Nobody “found” Chansiri, he came along because the club was for sale. This notion that you can’t air discontent without a solution is just not how life works. 

I will respectfully disagree, your right to protest and agitate the current set up absolutely comes with a responsibility to look for a buyer. 

Completely different to the Mandaric sale to Chansiri. I trust you grasp that it is different, there was no pressure exerted on the former.

Who despite his saviour status actually secured loans against the stadium, borrowed money off questionable sources and there was zero transparency behind who were the ultimate owners due to an offshore structure.

I am no huge fan of Chansiri BTW as my posts on here will testify, but with your rights to protest comes an absolute responsibility to address the next stage. That will always be a lot of fans stance whether you accept that or not

[nickswfc]

1 hour ago, Jake said:

It isn’t the job of the 1867 group, or indeed any other disgruntled supporter to find a buyer. 
 

Nobody “found” Chansiri, he came along because the club was for sale. This notion that you can’t air discontent without a solution is just not how life works. 

I don't wanna turn this into a pile on, especially given this is one of my main gripes with the other forum, I respect that you're coming into an area where your opinion is in the minority.

But you must see the logic right, and the justifiable criticism of things that come across as unprofessional and amateurish? It's potentially serious stuff you're dealing with here.

You've got a group set up, with the purpose of disruption and raising awareness about the shortcomings of the one man who owns and funds the club. Yet you don't have an alternative solution as it's supposedly "not your job". You can't have it both ways.

You've caused more division in the fanbase than any other time I've seen.

Yet rather than trying to provide suggestions and solutions, you want to position yourselves as these heroic underdogs fighting against the evil oppressive regime. Thankfully a lot of fans see this and are able to look at the bigger picture, it's why (at least in current form) you'll never get a majority of the fanbase on your side.

Edited March 11 by nickswfc

[BraddersTim]

When you've got one of the leaflet distributors on X complaining about the abuse he got on Friday night (which is of course, wrong) but for months on end he's been dishing out abuse to anyone who doesn't share his anti DC views, labelling them with all sorts of names.  Do these folk not realise that words and actions can have consequences and if you deliberately divide a fanbase, then you might be contributing to bad feelings and resentment against you.  I tried to make this point on X, but some just don't get it..the Group is the shining paragon of virtue in all of this in some folks minds.

[Jake]

37 minutes ago, nickswfc said:

I don't wanna turn this into a pile on, especially given this is one of my main gripes with the other forum, I respect that you're coming into an area where your opinion is in the minority.

But you must see the logic right, and the justifiable criticism of things that come across as unprofessional and amateurish? It's potentially serious stuff you're dealing with here.

You've got a group set up, with the purpose of disruption and raising awareness about the shortcomings of the one man who owns and funds the club. Yet you don't have an alternative solution as it's supposedly "not your job". You can't have it both ways.

You've caused more division in the fanbase than any other time I've seen.

Yet rather than trying to provide suggestions and solutions, you want to position yourselves as these heroic underdogs fighting against the evil oppressive regime. Thankfully a lot of fans see this and are able to look at the bigger picture, it's why (at least in current form) you'll never get a majority of the fanbase on your side.

The group haven’t attempted to position themselves as anything, you’ve created that image in your own head, so that you have something to tear to pieces. 
 

The group has only ever served as a vehicle to offer the thousands of likeminded Wednesday fans, a method of showing their displeasure and desire for change, given fans forums and engagement panel events are simply an evening of Chansiri talking without listening. Of course everyone has a choice and the people who respectfully disagree, I have plenty of time for. 
 

If you stay on here long enough, you may believe nobody wants Chansiri out but presumably you don’t walk around the stadium with your eyes and ears closed? 

[Reesh]

1 minute ago, Jake said:

The group haven’t attempted to position themselves as anything, you’ve created that image in your own head, so that you have something to tear to pieces. 
 

The group has only ever served as a vehicle to offer the thousands of likeminded Wednesday fans, a method of showing their displeasure and desire for change, given fans forums and engagement panel events are simply an evening of Chansiri talking without listening. Of course everyone has a choice and the people who respectfully disagree, I have plenty of time for. 
 

If you stay on here long enough, you may believe nobody wants Chansiri out but presumably you don’t walk around the stadium with your eyes and ears closed? 

People want Chansiri out and with reason but without a feasible replacement and not the fuckwits who led you ***** on it is better the devil you know. Now go pick which crayon you're having for lunch!

[Retro Owl]

Lets drive the chairman out then - with out a buyer. 

Great idea that FFS 

[KrolMong]

Herein lies the issue, and this has been solely what the 1867 group has sought to do.

They want to create division. It is either you are with us, or against us and the club.

You can’t have a reasonable debate with them even if you agree with some points and disagree with others. it’s an all or nothing approach, a quick search on X, Facebook etc, and you can find people being hammered for not 100% backing them. That view is echoed on OwlsTalk, where anyone who goes on and offers an alternate view is shot down. That’s called a dictatorship.

I’ll make a big claim. It would be very easy, if the 1867 group wanted to actually get traction, to change the approach and be able to engage with the club.

The fact that the group does not see this is frankly, shameful. In my line of work, we have a saying; ‘You have to win hearts and minds.’. This means be open, willing to engage, work to an end goal but take on all points of view. In some cases, change from the inside.

Now, the pertinent point is always going to be, what does ‘forcing him out’ mean? Is it to force him to sell the club? The only way that happens is actually if he runs out of money or funding. The 1867 group has got as far as driving him out of the club, but hasn’t thought beyond that point - they are right, it’s not there job to find a buyer, but they need to understand the impact of what forcing him out means. I can tell you right now, they have not got that far which is a major failing. That’s why I can’t back them, and more so due to the embarrassing tactics they take when people disagree with them.

The reactions they are getting is directly as a result of that. I don’t condone any physical activity in the slightest, that is just wrong, bit if a fan wants to verbally have a go, no issues because that’s the exact approach they have taken on social media and in other forums.

[Jake]

3 minutes ago, Reesh said:

People want Chansiri out and with reason but without a feasible replacement and not the fuckwits who led you ***** on it is better the devil you know. Now go pick which crayon you're having for lunch!

Yeh, this is really grown up. 

[Andyben]

1 hour ago, Andyben said:

In which case @Jake why don't you take the dozen or so points from the pamphlet and expand on them in a post here to explain what exactly is meant because it's not very clear and you may find more people willing to understand your position, if we actually know what you think is wrong?

I guarantee this will be the best way for you to get your intentions across and without ridicule or abuse.

Unless its really really stupid of course

But if you don't think you can do this, then I'm afraid you're leaving you and the group open to more ridicule.

 

Jake? 

Jake?

[Jake]

2 minutes ago, KrolMong said:

Herein lies the issue, and this has been solely what the 1867 group has sought to do.

They want to create division. It is either you are with us, or against us and the club.

You can’t have a reasonable debate with them even if you agree with some points and disagree with others. it’s an all or nothing approach, a quick search on X, Facebook etc, and you can find people being hammered for not 100% backing them. That view is echoed on OwlsTalk, where anyone who goes on and offers an alternate view is shot down. That’s called a dictatorship.

I’ll make a big claim. It would be very easy, if the 1867 group wanted to actually get traction, to change the approach and be able to engage with the club.

The fact that the group does not see this is frankly, shameful. In my line of work, we have a saying; ‘You have to win hearts and minds.’. This means be open, willing to engage, work to an end goal but take on all points of view. In some cases, change from the inside.

Now, the pertinent point is always going to be, what does ‘forcing him out’ mean? Is it to force him to sell the club? The only way that happens is actually if he runs out of money or funding. The 1867 group has got as far as driving him out of the club, but hasn’t thought beyond that point - they are right, it’s not there job to find a buyer, but they need to understand the impact of what forcing him out means. I can tell you right now, they have not got that far which is a major failing. That’s why I can’t back them, and more so due to the embarrassing tactics they take when people disagree with them.

The reactions they are getting is directly as a result of that. I don’t condone any physical activity in the slightest, that is just wrong, bit if a fan wants to verbally have a go, no issues because that’s the exact approach they have taken on social media and in other forums.

You’ve literally only got to read the responses to my posts on here to see how hypocritical it is to criticise Owlstalk. 

[Teddy Nickelarse]

8 hours ago, Jake said:

You’re much better off here, where they speak of setting fire to protest vehicles and condone spitting at folk. 

We are. The relentless bullying, editing/deletion of posts by admin(s); trolling and belittling; activated, stoked and encouraged from the top for posters not towing the Hargreaves line is enough to drive people away from that site. Factor in the gobsmacking faux virtue and it's easy to see why it's not for some. It's not just the DC debate either.

BTW I am neither pro nor anti DC. Like most on here I'm not blind to his faults and foibles. It's the lies, eggagerations and personal abuse aimed at him relentlessly that is condoned, even encouraged, that provokes strong reactions on here and elsewhere. To be clear though; violence, arson and spitting at people is absolutely NOT my cup of tea either

 

[Jake]

1 minute ago, Andyben said:

Jake? 

Jake?

Sorry I missed you out, it’s coming from all angles, it’s almost like differing opinion isn’t allowed. 
 

Are there any on the pamphlet you don’t agree with because it seems silly to expand on most of them, as they’re pretty black and white? 

[Reesh]

5 minutes ago, Jake said:

Yeh, this is really grown up. 

What time do you start shelf stacking?

[Jake]

2 minutes ago, Reesh said:

What time do you start shelf stacking?

Ooh we’re on to guessing people’s jobs now. Tremendous. 

[KrolMong]

Just now, Jake said:

You’ve literally only got to read the responses to my posts on here to see how hypocritical it is to criticise Owlstalk. 

Because Jake, what you have done is brought that OwlsTalk dictatorship approach here. You’ve come in, tried to force an agenda, had people question that agenda and then you have got defensive. If you start at page one of this thread, you will see arguments both ways. Because the responses don’t fit your agenda, and because you won’t answer pertinent questions, the issues remain.

This is what we are seeing with the 1867 group as a whole. Like I have said, every single supporter will agree with some of what 1867 are doing. But many will not agree with all. But - the issue is that if you don’t agree with all of it, and god forbid, question some of it, then you either don’t get an answer to a question, or you get told you are not a supporter of the club.

Like I said, any supporters group has to at least listen to all points of view and cater for as much as possible, and that’s how you force change. 1867 have come in swinging for a fences, created division amongst the supporter base and then complained they are not getting backed. And if Friday is anything to go by, actually losing support.

[Andyben]

6 minutes ago, Jake said:

Ooh we’re on to guessing people’s jobs now. Tremendous. 

Lets look at Criticising club legends. Should be pretty simple for you to exapand on this, who was criticised and why?

Edited March 11 by Andyben

[Jake]

Just now, KrolMong said:

Because Jake, what you have done is brought that OwlsTalk dictatorship approach here. You’ve come in, tried to force an agenda, had people question that agenda and then you have got defensive. If you start at page one of this thread, you will see arguments both ways. Because the responses don’t fit your agenda, and because you won’t answer pertinent questions, the issues remain.

This is what we are seeing with the 1867 group as a whole. Like I have said, every single supporter will agree with some of what 1867 are doing. But many will not agree with all. But - the issue is that if you don’t agree with all of it, and god forbid, question some of it, then you either don’t get an answer to a question, or you get told you are not a supporter of the club.

Like I said, any supporters group has to at least listen to all points of view and cater for as much as possible, and that’s how you force change. 1867 have come in swinging for a fences, created division amongst the supporter base and then complained they are not getting backed. And if Friday is anything to go by, actually losing support.

Where have a done that? I actually only responded in here because of some of the bile I read. I’ve thrown no insults or forced any opinions, I certainly haven’t questioned anyone’s support. The fact of the matter is I’m being shouted down because I have a differing opinion, which ironically is your apparent issue with the 1867 group. 

[Teddy Nickelarse]

19 minutes ago, Jake said:

You’ve literally only got to read the responses to my posts on here to see how hypocritical it is to criticise Owlstalk. 

That's ostensibly a very reasonable comment. However given the systemic abuses infecting that site it's  easy to see why I and others see this as a bastion from it. Some clearly resent OT aficionados infecting this site. I, on the other hand welcome you and others. This may upset some but come on in. Let's chew the fat even if you do have to put up with a more agricultural response from some than the choreographed and sustained abuses that is the norm on OT.

Edited March 11 by Teddy Nickelarse

[Reesh]

6 minutes ago, Jake said:

Where have a done that? I actually only responded in here because of some of the bile I read. I’ve thrown no insults or forced any opinions, I certainly haven’t questioned anyone’s support. The fact of the matter is I’m being shouted down because I have a differing opinion, which ironically is your apparent issue with the 1867 group. 

If thus was like the other forum your account would have gone by now.

I appreciate you've stuck your head above the parapet mind.

[KrolMong]

2 minutes ago, Jake said:

Where have a done that? I actually only responded in here because of some of the bile I read. I’ve thrown no insults or forced any opinions, I certainly haven’t questioned anyone’s support. The fact of the matter is I’m being shouted down because I have a differing opinion, which ironically is your apparent issue with the 1867 group. 

Jake. Your first post is you saying there is not much to argue about the statement from the 1867 group. When actually, there is. And then when people have actually pointed that out, rather than listen to that opinion and counter it and to try and debate it. You haven’t.

I will repeat, this is what we see from the 1867 group.

So, why don’t we do this, why don’t we list out a load of questions and then have you pass them onto the 1867 group and you get answers? I think that’s a fair approach and will be a good test of how they engage with those people who don’t agree with some or all of what they do?

[Reesh]

9 minutes ago, Andyben said:

Lets look at Criticising club legends. Should be pretty simple for you to exapand on this, who was criticised and why?

It can't be Carlton Palmer because that duplicitous **** is no club legend.

[Andyben]

lets no make assumptions @Reesh allow @Jake to reply.

[Teddy Nickelarse]

8 minutes ago, Jake said:

Where have a done that? I actually only responded in here because of some of the bile I read. I’ve thrown no insults or forced any opinions, I certainly haven’t questioned anyone’s support. The fact of the matter is I’m being shouted down because I have a differing opinion, which ironically is your apparent issue with the 1867 group. 

Have you had any posts deleted yet? OT de rigueur?

[Teddy Nickelarse]

2 minutes ago, Reesh said:

If thus was like the other forum your account would have gone by now.

I appreciate you've stuck your head above the parapet mind.

Spot on.

[Andyben]

Just now, Teddy Nickelarse said:

Have you had any posts deleted yet? OT de rigueur?

My OT account was banned / blocked before i'd even had the chance to respond to some of the outright lies being spouted by the empty heads

[Jake]

11 minutes ago, Andyben said:

Lets look at Criticising club legends. Should be pretty simple for you to exapand on this, who was criticised and why?

Ok, so I didn’t write the pamphlet but happy to try and answer this one;

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-wednesday/he-should-be-more-professional-dejphon-chansiri-fires-back-at-criticism-from-sheffield-wednesday-legend-chris-waddle-2521605

That one was Waddle, then of course there was the Xisco press conference where he talked about Carlton Palmer rather than his incoming manager. 
 

Personally I would have left that one off but it does highlight bad PR from the owner. 

[Teddy Nickelarse]

1 minute ago, Andyben said:

My OT account was banned / blocked before i'd even had the chance to respond to some of the outright lies being spouted by the empty heads

I bailed before that event. The abuses and bullying from, ostensibly, the top man were/are nauseating.

[Jake]

6 minutes ago, KrolMong said:

Jake. Your first post is you saying there is not much to argue about the statement from the 1867 group. When actually, there is. And then when people have actually pointed that out, rather than listen to that opinion and counter it and to try and debate it. You haven’t.

I will repeat, this is what we see from the 1867 group.

So, why don’t we do this, why don’t we list out a load of questions and then have you pass them onto the 1867 group and you get answers? I think that’s a fair approach and will be a good test of how they engage with those people who don’t agree with some or all of what they do?

I’m all for going one step further than that and actually sitting down with people willing to have reasoned debate. This is how the club should approach criticism also. 

[Andyben]

6 minutes ago, Jake said:

Ok, so I didn’t write the pamphlet but happy to try and answer this one;

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-wednesday/he-should-be-more-professional-dejphon-chansiri-fires-back-at-criticism-from-sheffield-wednesday-legend-chris-waddle-2521605

That one was Waddle, then of course there was the Xisco press conference where he talked about Carlton Palmer rather than his incoming manager. 
 

Personally I would have left that one off but it does highlight bad PR from the owner. 

Did you read the 'criticism' of waddle? Quite benign and not in any way controversial. Stuck to facts and that's about it.

 

Chris Waddle does not know how the inside of our club works, he knows very little about the Sheffield Wednesday of today other than our position in the table.

“Would he be saying the same thing if we were still in third place? What experience does he have of running a football club?

“I understand he is a legend of the fans but he should think more if he is trying to influence people. He should be more professional.

“Does he have the answers to his questions? It is too easy to just criticise. I don’t mind anyone having an opinion, but please have respect and the facts.”

Regarding Palmer. This was in response to his mouthing off about Moore 'being sacked'. which didn't actually happen, and subsequently Moore admitted that what DC said about asking for 3x or 4x his L1 salary to renew his contract was in fact true, after CP sating DC was lying. Lets not forget that Palmer also backed down after this, so I don't this thats a fair criticism of DC (and probably covers off the other complaint "ex-managers criticised").

Would you agree?

Going back to the pamphlet, What is the problem with 'North Stand Seats'? 

 

 

Edited March 11 by Andyben

[Jake]

4 minutes ago, Andyben said:

My OT account was banned / blocked before i'd even had the chance to respond to some of the outright lies being spouted by the empty heads

Just so everyone is aware, I haven’t had an owlstalk account for at least 10 years.  I don’t use football forums as a rule but in order to truly understand the opinions of fans on both sides of this debate, I’ve been reading two very different forums the last couple of weeks. 

[mkowl]

6 minutes ago, Andyben said:

My OT account was banned / blocked before i'd even had the chance to respond to some of the outright lies being spouted by the empty heads

That was impressive even by your standards 😃

[KrolMong]

Just now, Jake said:

I’m all for going one step further than that and actually sitting down with people willing to have reasoned debate. This is how the club should approach criticism also. 

Great, so let’s turn this into a normal conversation. Are you actually part of the 1867 committee? If so, we can collect questions and concerns and you and the group can try and get answers.

[Andyben]

1 minute ago, mkowl said:

That was impressive even by your standards 😃

Emma Royds wasn't it - BAD GRASS

[Jake]

1 minute ago, Andyben said:

Did you read the 'criticism' of waddle? Quite benign and not in any way controversial. Stuck to facts and that's about it.

Regarding Palmer. This was in response to his mouthing off about Moore 'being sacked'. which didn't actually happen, and subsequently Moore admitted that what DC said about asking for 3x or 4x his L1 salary to renew his contract was in fact true, after CP sating DC was lying. Lets not forget that Palmer also backed down after this, so I don't this thats a fair criticism of DC (and probably covers off the other complaint "ex-managers criticised").

Would you agree?

Going back to the pamphlet, What is the problem with 'North Stand Seats'? 

 

 

Well in my humble opinion they should read SWFC and not Chansiri. Simply because it’s the ground of Sheffield Wednesday football club. 

[Jake]

1 minute ago, KrolMong said:

Great, so let’s turn this into a normal conversation. Are you actually part of the 1867 committee? If so, we can collect questions and concerns and you and the group can try and get answers.

Yes and yes. 

[KrolMong]

1 minute ago, Jake said:

Yes and yes. 

Excellent. We will pull some stuff together.

[Teddy Nickelarse]

1 minute ago, Jake said:

Ok, so I didn’t write the pamphlet but happy to try and answer this one;

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-wednesday/he-should-be-more-professional-dejphon-chansiri-fires-back-at-criticism-from-sheffield-wednesday-legend-chris-waddle-2521605

That one was Waddle, then of course there was the Xisco press conference where he talked about Carlton Palmer rather than his incoming manager. 
 

Personally I would have left that one off but it does highlight bad PR from the owner. 

DC's PR is crap no doubt. A thin skin and frsustration at trying to communicate in a second language exacerbates this. He should refrain for his own and the club's good even in the face of vile personal abuse, lies and exaggerations. He needs to, IMO, appoint a trusted and effective communicator to respond to some of the misinformed/disingenuous crap aimed at him - sometimes by former player(s).

[Jake]

1 minute ago, Teddy Nickelarse said:

DC's PR is crap no doubt. A thin skin and frsustration at trying to communicate in a second language exacerbates this. He should refrain for his own and the club's good even in the face of vile personal abuse, lies and exaggerations. He needs to, IMO, appoint a trusted and effective communicator to respond to some of the misinformed/disingenuous crap aimed at him - sometimes by former player(s).

Totally agree, but he won’t. 

[mkowl]

Jake - sit back and answer some of the questions about the 1867 Group 

I promise speaking from experience of WTID you have to defend your position at times, don't shut down arguments simply because you do not like the answer. 

I had a half friendly crowd on here most of the time, I occasionally used as a sounding board and often got or WTID did negative opinions. In the main because we were deemed a supporters group and the history of Wednesdayite upto then tainted everyone putting their heads above the parapet.

The irony of Owlstalk is that 10 years ago the concept of a non politicised Supporters Club was raised - I was sort of in that. It got totally pilloried as "uncool" by Hargreaves and his minions. I am not going to re-write history but I think the relationship between the fans and Club would be a lot better if that had come to fruition, it would have developed during the more positive on the field time 

I know in the background there is the potential for an umbrella entity to be formed. I will support that concept, can I suggest 1867 put their weight behind it 

[Skamp]

2 hours ago, Jake said:

If all else fails, call the grammar police and start insulting people. Keeps your argument really credible. 

well, it's a damn sight more credible than the statement is as mine is articulate, to the point and clearly identifies what needs to be done to correct the situation.

 

I see @Andyben has given the same response that I would give and so I await to read it.

[mkowl]

8 minutes ago, Andyben said:

Emma Royds wasn't it - BAD GRASS

Yep that **** - hopefully he still reads this site 

[Andyben]

14 minutes ago, Jake said:

Well in my humble opinion they should read SWFC and not Chansiri. Simply because it’s the ground of Sheffield Wednesday football club. 

This covers 3 or 4 of the same points on the pamphlet:

 

Chansiri is the main sponsor of the club. In order to provide substance to the millions received from it, there needs to be a justifiable 'benefit' for the sponsorship. So in common with the majority of other football clubs, the main sponsor has its name on the seats of a stand. See Old Trafford, Etihad, Emirates etc. 

The seats on the Kop continue to say SWFC don't they?

In order to be able to fund the club within the remit of FFP / P&S DC has utilised as much commercial sponsorship as reasonably able to, without falling into the issues faced by Man City/PSG etc, so he created various companies to do so.

He tried to buy City Cabs to make it our prime sponsor, but the quoted value was extortionate (not far off what he paid for the shares in SWFC from MM). EDIT - City Cabs would have cost MORE than the shares in SWFC 

The club badge was changed to protect its image rights from misuse. This is very common, see Man U, Arsenal etc

this also segues into 'record account loses' - this is actually highlighting just quite how much DC has funded the club, and wouldn't be considered a trading loss - which you'd normally see in other parts of the accounts. 

Due to the FFP restrictions, DC can't simply give money to the club - it has to be accounted for in another way. The only person losing money s DC himself.

 

 

Edited March 11 by Andyben

[Teddy Nickelarse]

1 minute ago, Jake said:

Totally agree, but he won’t. 

Probably. Second best is to do what he is doing currently by keeping his head down and ignoring the abuse and exaggerated attacks on him.

[Andyben]

@Jake

Players Frozen Out - Could you try and explain what is meant here please

[Jake]

5 minutes ago, mkowl said:

Jake - sit back and answer some of the questions about the 1867 Group 

I promise speaking from experience of WTID you have to defend your position at times, don't shut down arguments simply because you do not like the answer. 

I had a half friendly crowd on here most of the time, I occasionally used as a sounding board and often got or WTID did negative opinions. In the main because we were deemed a supporters group and the history of Wednesdayite upto then tainted everyone putting their heads above the parapet.

The irony of Owlstalk is that 10 years ago the concept of a non politicised Supporters Club was raised - I was sort of in that. It got totally pilloried as "uncool" by Hargreaves and his minions. I am not going to re-write history but I think the relationship between the fans and Club would be a lot better if that had come to fruition, it would have developed during the more positive on the field time 

I know in the background there is the potential for an umbrella entity to be formed. I will support that concept, can I suggest 1867 put their weight behind it 

The group attended the umbrella group meeting and are working with other supporters groups. I’m not here to shut down anyone’s arguments and as you can see from my responses, where not being called a crayon muncher or shelf stacker, I’m actually not a bad lad.  

[Jake]

2 minutes ago, Andyben said:

@Jake

Players Frozen Out - Could you try and explain what is meant here please

I would assume this relates to Marvin Johnson and Reece James this season. Previously Westwood and Hutchinson. 
 

Presently the Lee Gregory situation. We seem to pay a lot of money out to players not involved in the squad.
 

Can we categorically claim this is Chansiri and not the manager? Possibly not, but i think with the Gregory situation it’s quite widely accepted that there was a deal that could have been done to get him off the payroll and that Chansiri decided against this.

I’d suggest Xisco maybe decided in Johnson and James but oddly we signed James when we had no manager. Again you can pick fault with points on the pamphlet if you choose but I don’t believe we are being ran in a befitting manner. 

I will return to this later as have to drive somewhere for work, contrary to belief I’m not stacking shelves. 

[Andyben]

1 minute ago, Jake said:

I would assume this relates to Marvin Johnson and Reece James this season. Previously Westwood and Hutchinson. 
 

Presently the Lee Gregory situation. We seem to pay a lot of money out to players not involved in the squad.
 

Can we categorically claim this is Chansiri and not the manager? Possibly not, but i think with the Gregory situation it’s quite widely accepted that there was a deal that could have been done to get him off the payroll and that Chansiri decided against this.

I’d suggest Xisco maybe decided in Johnson and James but oddly we signed James when we had no manager. Again you can pick fault with points on the pamphlet if you choose but I don’t believe we are being ran in a befitting manner. 

I will return to this later as have to drive somewhere for work, contrary to belief I’m not stacking shelves. 

Jake - this has zero to do with DC.

I'm sure @Tylluanwill be more than happy to explain what happened regarding Derby County and the 'offers' for Smith/Gregory etc

[Teddy Nickelarse]

13 minutes ago, Jake said:

The group attended the umbrella group meeting and are working with other supporters groups. I’m not here to shut down anyone’s arguments and as you can see from my responses, where not being called a crayon muncher or shelf stacker, I’m actually not a bad lad.  

It's great to have this debate on here. Although your reception on here was initially less than cordial most will welcome (I hope) a proper debate. The group posts on OT and courts publicity via local media - perfectly fine. It's irksome though to see these exposures being shielded from counter arguments by those whose role should be neutral (and who purport to be neutral/balanced/fair).

The fan base is more divided than I can remember over the past 60 years. Sad.