A New Group of Attention Seekers

[Jake]

2 hours ago, Andyben said:

thanks. so the Comms & News accounts are unrelated.

Just to clarify, are you part of the leadership of the group?

Apart from 'Jim' it seems nobody else is willing to admit this. Geoff did and didn't, BazPeps said he just handed out some fliers, and nobody was involved when the group appeared to get quite angsty against the club.

If you aren't do you know who is?

I openly said on X at the same time as Jim that I was involved. Geoff isn't. Bazpeps told you the truth. 

[Andyben]

I don't really go on x much but thanks for confirming.

 

[Jake]

35 minutes ago, Andyben said:

I don't really go on x much but thanks for confirming.

 

Hopefully, there’s no need for such a group moving forward. I can’t deny that I’m very happy as a supporter at the minute, on the whole. I still don’t like the pricing or the clubs communication with supporters, but I appreciate I’m very much in the minority in terms of people arsed enough to challenge it. 

[Tylluan]

2 hours ago, Jake said:

still don’t like the pricing or the clubs communication with supporters, but I appreciate I’m very much in the minority in terms of people arsed enough to challenge it. 

In much the same way The Trust did, 1867group initially went about it all the wrong way. The object throwing onto the pitch, the yellow cards, the billboard van, all came across as 'look at me' publicity stunts. As has been said on here many times the group (hereby known as 'you') had no plans, much like The Trust, other than to disrupt. I've no idea if you were hijacked by more militant elements than what you set out with or whether this was the plan all along but you came across as a small set of knobheads for your behaviour. Some of the stuff posted on your X feed (maybe not by the group) was racist and libelous but you let it ride because it got you hits. 

But there may still be a place for you going forward. I believe you had a place at the last fans group forum. The problem you now have is Mr Chansiri will look at 1867news and, like many others, assume it's you. You have to differentiate and disassociate yourselves from the negative attraction of 1867news by using 1867group official X feed to comment "1867news is nothing to do with and has no affiliation to 1867group" then post the same under everything they post that may harm your brand, because brand is what it's all about. 

At its height The Trust reached about 700 paying members out of an average home crowd of 20k. They didn't fail because of apathy. They failed because they thought they could lead the charge for change as THE only group who's voice should count and then rabidly antagonised the club at every opportunity in the hope their membership would grow. The ACV debacle was a prime example, as was losing their place on the fans forum. 

1867group could still have a positive impact but you need a complete change of direction. You need to talk to people who have a professional understanding and stop riding the coat tails of those with loud voices and opinions but know fuck all. 45 years supporting a club doesn't mean they know how to run it. Some kid with a degree in business management but no practical experience in being in the highly individualised environment of a football club won't cut it. 

But above all you need to stop asking for clarity on funding. The accounts are published yearly and if you need clarity there are plenty on here who are chartered and regularly disect in an informative way. The problem is the 'experts' on the other site shout louder. 

 

[Billysboy]

23 minutes ago, Tylluan said:

In much the same way The Trust did, 1867group initially went about it all the wrong way. The object throwing onto the pitch, the yellow cards, the billboard van, all came across as 'look at me' publicity stunts. As has been said on here many times the group (hereby known as 'you') had no plans, much like The Trust, other than to disrupt. I've no idea if you were hijacked by more militant elements than what you set out with or whether this was the plan all along but you came across as a small set of knobheads for your behaviour. Some of the stuff posted on your X feed (maybe not by the group) was racist and libelous but you let it ride because it got you hits. 

But there may still be a place for you going forward. I believe you had a place at the last fans group forum. The problem you now have is Mr Chansiri will look at 1867news and, like many others, assume it's you. You have to differentiate and disassociate yourselves from the negative attraction of 1867news by using 1867group official X feed to comment "1867news is nothing to do with and has no affiliation to 1867group" then post the same under everything they post that may harm your brand, because brand is what it's all about. 

At its height The Trust reached about 700 paying members out of an average home crowd of 20k. They didn't fail because of apathy. They failed because they thought they could lead the charge for change as THE only group who's voice should count and then rabidly antagonised the club at every opportunity in the hope their membership would grow. The ACV debacle was a prime example, as was losing their place on the fans forum. 

1867group could still have a positive impact but you need a complete change of direction. You need to talk to people who have a professional understanding and stop riding the coat tails of those with loud voices and opinions but know fuck all. 45 years supporting a club doesn't mean they know how to run it. Some kid with a degree in business management but no practical experience in being in the highly individualised environment of a football club won't cut it. 

But above all you need to stop asking for clarity on funding. The accounts are published yearly and if you need clarity there are plenty on here who are chartered and regularly disect in an informative way. The problem is the 'experts' on the other site shout louder. 

 

Bang on.

[mkowl]

53 minutes ago, Tylluan said:

In much the same way The Trust did, 1867group initially went about it all the wrong way. The object throwing onto the pitch, the yellow cards, the billboard van, all came across as 'look at me' publicity stunts. As has been said on here many times the group (hereby known as 'you') had no plans, much like The Trust, other than to disrupt. I've no idea if you were hijacked by more militant elements than what you set out with or whether this was the plan all along but you came across as a small set of knobheads for your behaviour. Some of the stuff posted on your X feed (maybe not by the group) was racist and libelous but you let it ride because it got you hits. 

But there may still be a place for you going forward. I believe you had a place at the last fans group forum. The problem you now have is Mr Chansiri will look at 1867news and, like many others, assume it's you. You have to differentiate and disassociate yourselves from the negative attraction of 1867news by using 1867group official X feed to comment "1867news is nothing to do with and has no affiliation to 1867group" then post the same under everything they post that may harm your brand, because brand is what it's all about. 

At its height The Trust reached about 700 paying members out of an average home crowd of 20k. They didn't fail because of apathy. They failed because they thought they could lead the charge for change as THE only group who's voice should count and then rabidly antagonised the club at every opportunity in the hope their membership would grow. The ACV debacle was a prime example, as was losing their place on the fans forum. 

1867group could still have a positive impact but you need a complete change of direction. You need to talk to people who have a professional understanding and stop riding the coat tails of those with loud voices and opinions but know fuck all. 45 years supporting a club doesn't mean they know how to run it. Some kid with a degree in business management but no practical experience in being in the highly individualised environment of a football club won't cut it. 

But above all you need to stop asking for clarity on funding. The accounts are published yearly and if you need clarity there are plenty on here who are chartered and regularly disect in an informative way. The problem is the 'experts' on the other site shout louder. 

 

And in answer to the latter point it is always with the caveat that the accounts only show what you have to. That is not Chansiri hiding stuff it's we all in practice declare the minimum. 

Therefore you can give a broad brush review nothing more. I mean Reesh will say about the chap on X basically suggesting Chansiri was committing fraud not physically handing over cash for the rent.

I have shown how you could account for all this properly without a penny moving between bank accounts. It's called inter company accounts 

The problem is the false narratives get shared on social media, I mean fairly topical on other matters. But the problem is no one sits back but charges in

[Reesh]

9 minutes ago, mkowl said:

And in answer to the latter point it is always with the caveat that the accounts only show what you have to. That is not Chansiri hiding stuff it's we all in practice declare the minimum. 

Therefore you can give a broad brush review nothing more. I mean Reesh will say about the chap on X basically suggesting Chansiri was committing fraud not physically handing over cash for the rent.

I have shown how you could account for all this properly without a penny moving between bank accounts. It's called inter company accounts 

The problem is the false narratives get shared on social media, I mean fairly topical on other matters. But the problem is no one sits back but charges in

The same idiot believed we were paying £2.75m a month in rent too.

[Andyben]

What's made the misunderstanding of the financial side worse is people actually thinking that Maguire is any kind of expert who knows what he's talking about. 

He consistently got fundamental accounting matters wrong and has zero experience of real life practice, and has acted the  absolute **** towards DC which has been lapped up by th Nevs and others 

[mkowl]

7 minutes ago, Andyben said:

What's made the misunderstanding of the financial side worse is people actually thinking that Maguire is any kind of expert who knows what he's talking about. 

He consistently got fundamental accounting matters wrong and has zero experience of real life practice, and has acted the  absolute **** towards DC which has been lapped up by th Nevs and others 

Let's be clear most the media think similar, even if you point out to them his technical and practical limitations 

[holmesfield_owl]

5 hours ago, Jake said:

Hopefully, there’s no need for such a group moving forward. I can’t deny that I’m very happy as a supporter at the minute, on the whole. I still don’t like the pricing or the clubs communication with supporters, but I appreciate I’m very much in the minority in terms of people arsed enough to challenge it. 

I'm interested in what's wrong with club communication. The minutes from the fans engagement group were published today, our media team is excellent. Aside from DC not inviting you around to S6 personally for a cup of tea I'm struggling to see the issue

Edited August 12 by holmesfield_owl

[Jake]

1 hour ago, holmesfield_owl said:

I'm interested in what's wrong with club communication. The minutes from the fans engagement group were published today, our media team is excellent. Aside from DC not inviting you around to S6 personally for a cup of tea I'm struggling to see the issue

The minutes aren’t a true reflection of what was said. Unless of course members of the panel told the umbrella group a different story to what happened in the EP meeting. 

[Jake]

4 hours ago, Tylluan said:

In much the same way The Trust did, 1867group initially went about it all the wrong way. The object throwing onto the pitch, the yellow cards, the billboard van, all came across as 'look at me' publicity stunts. As has been said on here many times the group (hereby known as 'you') had no plans, much like The Trust, other than to disrupt. I've no idea if you were hijacked by more militant elements than what you set out with or whether this was the plan all along but you came across as a small set of knobheads for your behaviour. Some of the stuff posted on your X feed (maybe not by the group) was racist and libelous but you let it ride because it got you hits. 

But there may still be a place for you going forward. I believe you had a place at the last fans group forum. The problem you now have is Mr Chansiri will look at 1867news and, like many others, assume it's you. You have to differentiate and disassociate yourselves from the negative attraction of 1867news by using 1867group official X feed to comment "1867news is nothing to do with and has no affiliation to 1867group" then post the same under everything they post that may harm your brand, because brand is what it's all about. 

At its height The Trust reached about 700 paying members out of an average home crowd of 20k. They didn't fail because of apathy. They failed because they thought they could lead the charge for change as THE only group who's voice should count and then rabidly antagonised the club at every opportunity in the hope their membership would grow. The ACV debacle was a prime example, as was losing their place on the fans forum. 

1867group could still have a positive impact but you need a complete change of direction. You need to talk to people who have a professional understanding and stop riding the coat tails of those with loud voices and opinions but know fuck all. 45 years supporting a club doesn't mean they know how to run it. Some kid with a degree in business management but no practical experience in being in the highly individualised environment of a football club won't cut it. 

But above all you need to stop asking for clarity on funding. The accounts are published yearly and if you need clarity there are plenty on here who are chartered and regularly disect in an informative way. The problem is the 'experts' on the other site shout louder. 

 

The idea of protest is to bring an issue to the forefront. There clearly was/is an issue. Of course we went about it the “wrong” way (should we have been looking to engage) it was about raising awareness, which worked. We aren’t claiming credit for change. Clearly Danny Rohl is the man that deserves the plaudits in the main. It did however give Chansiri a warning that he cannot trample on the fanbase. I certainly don’t expect late night phone calls with journalists, or threats to pull the financial plug any time soon. I’ll give him credit of late, I just don’t see the need for the barmy ticketing structure or the merchandising costs. Let’s be fair, we all know the club is charging too much. For me that’s my only “current” gripe. 
 

“Proper” fan groups should take it from here. 

[Tewksbury]

23 minutes ago, Jake said:

The idea of protest is to bring an issue to the forefront. There clearly was/is an issue. Of course we went about it the “wrong” way (should we have been looking to engage) it was about raising awareness, which worked. We aren’t claiming credit for change. Clearly Danny Rohl is the man that deserves the plaudits in the main. It did however give Chansiri a warning that he cannot trample on the fanbase. I certainly don’t expect late night phone calls with journalists, or threats to pull the financial plug any time soon. I’ll give him credit of late, I just don’t see the need for the barmy ticketing structure or the merchandising costs. Let’s be fair, we all know the club is charging too much. For me that’s my only “current” gripe. 
 

“Proper” fan groups should take it from here. 

I was part of the first Q&A on X.

I asked if Chansiri had been informed of your demands to meet with buyers and would you give him time to respond before protesting.

I was told there was no point and they weren't going to try. (This has now been deleted by the 1867)

This implies that there was no aim, it was always going to happen regardless of what Chansiri did.

In the same conversation, it was suggested that Portsmouth's double administration and triple relegation was used as an example of a good outcome from the protests.

[Jake]

12 minutes ago, Tewksbury said:

I was part of the first Q&A on X.

I asked if Chansiri had been informed of your demands to meet with buyers and would you give him time to respond before protesting.

I was told there was no point and they weren't going to try. (This has now been deleted by the 1867)

This implies that there was no aim, it was always going to happen regardless of what Chansiri did.

In the same conversation, it was suggested that Portsmouth's double administration and triple relegation was used as an example of a good outcome from the protests.

All attempts to converse with Chansiri were met with the club refusing to commit to not banning members (who had done nothing wrong). Thats as far as any dialogue got. I was told to “not enter his private space” when emailing his club email address. There were genuine attempts at conversation prior to protest. 

[Tewksbury]

4 minutes ago, Jake said:

All attempts to converse with Chansiri were met with the club refusing to commit to not banning members (who had done nothing wrong). Thats as far as any dialogue got. I was told to “not enter his private space” when emailing his club email address. There were genuine attempts at conversation prior to protest. 

So why not say that at the time?

[Jake]

9 minutes ago, Tewksbury said:

So why not say that at the time?

I wasn’t communicating on the X thread you refer to. Nor do I know what was said. I can only tell you the truth of what went on. 

[Paul from Wisewood]

21 hours ago, fOWLmouth said:

Hey Jake,any chance you could change your name?

I had a dog called Jake and one of my favourite songs is My brother Jake by Free.It’s kind of spoiling my memory of them associating crap with that name.

J ache ?

[Andyben]

@Jake

May I suggest that the group put out a statement thanking DC for all his efforts and continued investment into the club and that you hope the current season is successful.

No ifs/buts or snide remarks, a simple thank you.

That will gain you far more support and respect than anything else amongst the wider fan base.

[Reesh]

Old Jake must have gone to the Alastair Campbell school of waffle and dodging responsibility

[BraddersTim]

9 hours ago, Tewksbury said:

I was part of the first Q&A on X.

I asked if Chansiri had been informed of your demands to meet with buyers and would you give him time to respond before protesting.

I was told there was no point and they weren't going to try. (This has now been deleted by the 1867)

This implies that there was no aim, it was always going to happen regardless of what Chansiri did.

In the same conversation, it was suggested that Portsmouth's double administration and triple relegation was used as an example of a good outcome from the protests.

Wigan, being bought and sold was also used as a good example, ignoring that they were bought by a Hong Kong company, registered in the Cayman Islands, with a hotel and casino in Manila, who immediately plunged them into administration.  I questioned them about this, only response was "there are lots of potential owners out there"  

[Billysboy]

I don't think they ever had a strategy, after the Huddersfield hammering possibly the lowest point of the season they went for the jugular. Leaflets, hiring Van's, banners on ground etc and thought they'd got a movement started after the Brum game even though the ones waving the leaflets were still in the minority. After we stayed up it was saying (hoping) Danny would walk because DC wasnt going to back him, fast forward Danny signed up with a top coaching team, brilliant transfer window and a nice start to season like I've  said in another thread their finished and left to straw clutching with regards statement on fake shirts and the dangers of going on the leppings lane end.

[Jake]

11 minutes ago, Billysboy said:

I don't think they ever had a strategy, after the Huddersfield hammering possibly the lowest point of the season they went for the jugular. Leaflets, hiring Van's, banners on ground etc and thought they'd got a movement started after the Brum game even though the ones waving the leaflets were still in the minority. After we stayed up it was saying (hoping) Danny would walk because DC wasnt going to back him, fast forward Danny signed up with a top coaching team, brilliant transfer window and a nice start to season like I've  said in another thread their finished and left to straw clutching with regards statement on fake shirts and the dangers of going on the leppings lane end.

Again, you’re reading the wrong account. The 1867 group haven’t mentioned either of the two issues at the end of your post. 

[Reesh]

5 minutes ago, Jake said:

Again, you’re reading the wrong account. The 1867 group haven’t mentioned either of the two issues at the end of your post. 

Old Teflon Jake, nowt sticks!

[Jake]

1 hour ago, Andyben said:

@Jake

May I suggest that the group put out a statement thanking DC for all his efforts and continued investment into the club and that you hope the current season is successful.

No ifs/buts or snide remarks, a simple thank you.

That will gain you far more support and respect than anything else amongst the wider fan base.

We’re hoping we don’t require support, as ideally we want Chansiri to finish us with positive actions on and off the field.  I personally don’t think “thank you” is in necessary, more acknowledgement and praise. I’ve done that personally, I want nothing more than to be proven wrong, I’ve said that from the off. I take my lad to the games and he loves it, I want a positive club. 

[Jake]

2 minutes ago, Reesh said:

Old Teflon Jake, nowt sticks!

How so? 

[Reesh]

1 minute ago, Jake said:

How so? 

You and your group chucked a lot of shit at the chairman and even got suckered in by Adam Shaw but you're taking "credit" for the change in DC but refuse to accept any criticisms of your awful and frankly embarrassing antics, bet that fucking mouth breather Rob Oldfield is comfort eating himself to death after this positive summer.

 

Frankly you, Bazapeps and co can fuck right off.

[Otto_Man]

11 hours ago, Jake said:

All attempts to converse with Chansiri were met with the club refusing to commit to not banning members (who had done nothing wrong). Thats as far as any dialogue got. I was told to “not enter his private space” when emailing his club email address. There were genuine attempts at conversation prior to protest. 

I wasn't going to bite, but fuck me how naive is this statement?

"If we protest against your ownership will you commit to not banning us?"

As some of the abuse previously received by the chairman has been racist and that's a criminal offence it's hardly a fucking surprise is it? I'd actually argue there's no way the club could have made that commitment (even if they'd wanted to) as the decision could quite conceivably have been out of their hands (given the courts can impose banning orders).

Honestly the more this group speaks the less I can believe what I'm hearing.

[Jake]

29 minutes ago, Reesh said:

You and your group chucked a lot of shit at the chairman and even got suckered in by Adam Shaw but you're taking "credit" for the change in DC but refuse to accept any criticisms of your awful and frankly embarrassing antics, bet that fucking mouth breather Rob Oldfield is comfort eating himself to death after this positive summer.

 

Frankly you, Bazapeps and co can fuck right off.

I think I’ve been fair in everything I’ve said personally. Was a shit show last season, appears much better this season.

Haven't claimed credit in any way shape or form, simply pointed out that the fans (not me or the 1867 group), made their feelings quite rightly known. Were mistakes made- certainly and in numbers. All I’ve ever been is a Wednesday fan like you, with a differing view. I’m just not incredibly rude and horrible to folk on the internet. 

[Jake]

1 minute ago, Otto_Man said:

I wasn't going to bite, but fuck me how naive is this statement?

"If we protest against your ownership will you commit to not banning us?"

As some of the abuse previously received by the chairman has been racist and that's a criminal offence it's hardly a fucking surprise is it? I'd actually argue there's no way the club could have made that commitment (even if they'd wanted to) as the decision could quite conceivably have been out of their hands (given the courts can impose banning orders).

Honestly the more this group speaks the less I can believe what I'm hearing.

I maybe needed to explain a little further. At the time the group was anonymous. Members offered to give up their identity (which the club naturally wanted), with assurances that they wouldn’t be banned unless they had done anything which contravened ground regulations, or was illegal. The club wouldn’t/couldn’t commit so that particular meeting didn’t go ahead. 

[Reesh]

3 minutes ago, Jake said:

I think I’ve been fair in everything I’ve said personally. Was a shit show last season, appears much better this season.

Haven't claimed credit in any way shape or form, simply pointed out that the fans (not me or the 1867 group), made their feelings quite rightly known. Were mistakes made- certainly and in numbers. All I’ve ever been is a Wednesday fan like you, with a differing view. I’m just not incredibly rude and horrible to folk on the internet. 

So you lot can be very rude to the chairman but take offence when it comes your way? do you not see the hypocrisy that is flowing out of you?

[Tewksbury]

2 minutes ago, Jake said:

I think I’ve been fair in everything I’ve said personally. Was a shit show last season, appears much better this season.

Haven't claimed credit in any way shape or form, simply pointed out that the fans (not me or the 1867 group), made their feelings quite rightly known. Were mistakes made- certainly and in numbers. All I’ve ever been is a Wednesday fan like you, with a differing view. I’m just not incredibly rude and horrible to folk on the internet. 

You have to ask, why was it a shitshow?

Last summer should have been like this summer and the season before. Transfer targets were all identified and work was already being put in, so we should have had a good preseason with early signings, as we had the 2 seasons prior.

Then DM fucked off and told everyone, including his mate Carlton, it was because Chansiri wouldn't fund him and had lied.

Chansiri said it was because of his wage demands.

Guess who admitted the reason, quietly, right at the end of the window?

Darren Fucking Moore.

Last summer was a shitshow because of 1 man, and it wasn't Chansiri.

Chansiri had to confront Palmer, as it was impacting recruitment of a new manager and players.

If DM, who had apparently triggered an extension anyway had operated in anything like good faith, the odds are, based on the 2 seasons before and the one after, that the summer would have gone well and not had to start recruitment 10 days before the season started.

Then you lot kicking off didn't help, in fact it made it all worse.

[Otto_Man]

4 minutes ago, Jake said:

I maybe needed to explain a little further. At the time the group was anonymous. Members offered to give up their identity (which the club naturally wanted), with assurances that they wouldn’t be banned unless they had done anything which contravened ground regulations, or was illegal. The club wouldn’t/couldn’t commit so that particular meeting didn’t go ahead. 

Honestly doesn't make it sound any better.

Out of interest, you say last season was a shit show, do you really apportion the blame for that solely on the chairman and how he runs the club? Cos I'll be honest the one and only person I blame for our start is Darren Moore. Asks the chairman to re-sign all his cronies (at least half of whom should have been released), chairman does it and then he fucks off. We were already behind (as any club promoted via the play off already is) and this just set us further back. He identified the manager he wanted, but couldn't get him so brought in a manager who he probably didn't want,  it he had to get someone and plumped for someone who had experience of taking teams up to the Prem. 

It's funny because if we had retained Moore, I think we would have gone down which really would have been a shit show...

[Jake]

17 minutes ago, Reesh said:

So you lot can be very rude to the chairman but take offence when it comes your way? do you not see the hypocrisy that is flowing out of you?

I’m not “very rude to the chairman”.  I have no personal dislike to him and I’ve always condemned any abuse of him. I’m not the 1867 group, I’m having a discussion from a personal account. That’s pretty much the point of football forums. 

[Jake]

11 minutes ago, Otto_Man said:

Honestly doesn't make it sound any better.

Out of interest, you say last season was a shit show, do you really apportion the blame for that solely on the chairman and how he runs the club? Cos I'll be honest the one and only person I blame for our start is Darren Moore. Asks the chairman to re-sign all his cronies (at least half of whom should have been released), chairman does it and then he fucks off. We were already behind (as any club promoted via the play off already is) and this just set us further back. He identified the manager he wanted, but couldn't get him so brought in a manager who he probably didn't want,  it he had to get someone and plumped for someone who had experience of taking teams up to the Prem. 

It's funny because if we had retained Moore, I think we would have gone down which really would have been a shit show...

It would be very interesting indeed to see the investment into last years’ squad as opposed to this. Both in wages and fees. 

[Reesh]

1 minute ago, Jake said:

It would be very interesting indeed to see the investment into last years’ squad as opposed to this. Both in wages and fees. 

So would you be claiming credit for the difference in wages/fees if it has uplifted?

[Reesh]

5 minutes ago, Jake said:

I’m not “very rude to the chairman”.  I have no personal dislike to him and I’ve always condemned any abuse of him. I’m not the 1867 group, I’m having a discussion from a personal account. That’s pretty much the point of football forums. 

Teflon, as I said.....

[Tylluan]

12 hours ago, Jake said:

The minutes aren’t a true reflection of what was said. Unless of course members of the panel told the umbrella group a different story to what happened in the EP meeting. 

The minutes are signed off by every attendee and sent to the EFL for providence before being released to the public domain. I've also checked with two people in attendance and both have verified, by email, the write up is a true account, especially the bit about the club's response to the umbrella group. 

[Tewksbury]

5 minutes ago, Jake said:

It would be very interesting indeed to see the investment into last years’ squad as opposed to this. Both in wages and fees. 

The issue last season was pull and time.

We were odds on for relegation before DM left, then add him telling everyone that Chansiri wouldn't pay up and doesn't keep his promises, we were a non starter, hence getting unknowns and overpaid journeymen.la s any amitious player wouldn't look twice and most of the others had already signed for other clubs before we started.

[Otto_Man]

6 minutes ago, Jake said:

It would be very interesting indeed to see the investment into last years’ squad as opposed to this. Both in wages and fees. 

It would, but not for the reasons you think. DC said before the start of last season that he thought the team that came up was a championship ready one. Presumably because that's what he been told by his manager who wanted to retain them all. Subsequently he seems to have realised (likely because DR and team have shown him they aren't) hence that's now being addressed.

[Jake]

16 minutes ago, Reesh said:

So would you be claiming credit for the difference in wages/fees if it has uplifted?

I don’t want credit for anything, the club has changed tact in numerous ways. How that came about is completely irrelevant. I won’t/ haven’t criticised Chansiri or the club for a long time other than the £89 kit I gave in and bought for my 5 year old. I want to be positive. That’s all I ever wanted. I enjoyed the game Saturday, seeing the young un’s face was what it was all about. I had a beer when I got in and praised the team all night to anyone who would listen. 

[Reesh]

7 minutes ago, Jake said:

I don’t want credit for anything, the club has changed tact in numerous ways. How that came about is completely irrelevant. I won’t/ haven’t criticised Chansiri or the club for a long time other than the £89 kit I gave in and bought for my 5 year old. I want to be positive. That’s all I ever wanted. I enjoyed the game Saturday, seeing the young un’s face was what it was all about. I had a beer when I got in and praised the team all night to anyone who would listen. 

Who were you watching Saturday, you seem like a Leeds fan?

[Jake]

2 minutes ago, Reesh said:

Who were you watching Saturday, you seem like a Leeds fan?

Very pedantic. 😎

[Tewksbury]

19 minutes ago, Jake said:

I don’t want credit for anything, the club has changed tact in numerous ways. How that came about is completely irrelevant. I won’t/ haven’t criticised Chansiri or the club for a long time other than the £89 kit I gave in and bought for my 5 year old. I want to be positive. That’s all I ever wanted. I enjoyed the game Saturday, seeing the young un’s face was what it was all about. I had a beer when I got in and praised the team all night to anyone who would listen. 

On what ways has the club changed tact?

Or did we have a shitshow due to a Manager fucking us over that needed to be sorted and have now gone back to how we were for the 2 seasons prior?

It amazes me how the narrative has managed to make last season an example of the norm despite all evidence pointing otherwise.

[Reesh]

23 minutes ago, Jake said:

Very pedantic. 😎

Yes I am, it isn't a bad thing, just a shame your group weren't a little more pedantic when it come to club accounts which you don't seem to grasp or understand

Edited August 13 by Reesh

[BraddersTim]

1 minute ago, Reesh said:

Yes I am, it isn't a bad thing, just a shame your group were a little more pedantic when it come to club accounts which you don't seem to grasp or understand

"Weren't" - 😎

[Andyben]

13 minutes ago, Tewksbury said:

On what ways has the club changed tact?

It hasn't in recent seasons, other than when forced to by outside factors  (Moore, Covid, Thai Exchange Control Conditions etc)

[Kaveman]

Whilst we're being pedantic, it's 'changed tack', not 'tact'.

[Teddy Nickelarse]

40 minutes ago, Kaveman said:

Whilst we're being pedantic, it's 'changed tack', not 'tact'.

Yep; up there with sea change and don't get me on the incorrect/americanised 'gotten' - got has always done well enough.

Edited August 13 by Teddy Nickelarse

[BraddersTim]

@ReeshDo you see what you've started? 😂

[Teddy Nickelarse]

22 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

@ReeshDo you see what you've started? 😂

Fair comment. Was bored and feeling a little cantankerous 🤣