How Not to Run a Football Club - Official Discussion Thread

Exactly


The last thing BST could ‘ afford ‘ was either the organisation or its committee being targeted for further litigation

In 2014/15 there was a conscious decision taken by the membership to protect it

It was an unanimous vote as I recall

That’s the only reason I and others didn’t go on the pitch at JD1

Pauline got threatened with legal action after her twin sister did !

Steve Smith was certainly threatened with legal action if not sued

Anyone they knew in BST / TKs and even on AVFTT was in the firing line

Many of the TKs maintained anonymity for that very reason

The BST chair and the committee couldn’t

There was even a spreadsheet of names on here cross-referenced against what they said and who they were ( most weren’t known by them )

It was a dangerous time to be a prominent protester
Very, some clearly had to be seen.
 
Yep agree with this, loads had stopped going way before any NAPM campaign as it was clear there was no money being spent on the team etc…
Not got the book, is there a chapter on the bst bid for the club? The one where they wanted it for free and a load of cash(was it £2m?)to run it…?still makes me laugh now…😎
No, but ironically that would have been a steal for Owen. He could have walked away from the football club in a clean break, but instead he was forced to sell it by court order in order to help raise about £40,000,000 he lost.
 
As of yet the only real objective 'inaccuracy' pointed out is that Smith got the meeting in Latvia, not Tim...but I didn't really want Smith to be a character in the book.
Irrespective of future events, the book loses some authority if the author has purposefully removed from history one of the main early characters.
 
Irrespective of future events, the book loses some authority if the author has purposefully removed from history one of the main early characters.
He's in there as I talk about textgate, I just didnt dwell on him. It's literally just a line about the meeting. Smith moved out of the picture and Tim was the one in dialogue with Kaspars and Valeri (as well as others like Sharpey who I mention), so I didn't really see him as a main early character, it's not even much to do with what he did, he just wasnt a name that came up at lot, at least not in the context of the book. I actually interviewed him twice in 2014/15 but there wasn't much to glean from that time. There were others like Pete Wands who set up SISA originally who also weren't mentioned as the book as naming every single person involved and divvying up appropriate credit or discredit sounds intensely boring.
 
He's in there as I talk about textgate, I just didnt dwell on him. It's literally just a line about the meeting. Smith moved out of the picture and Tim was the one in dialogue with Kaspars and Valeri (as well as others like Sharpey who I mention), so I didn't really see him as a main early character, it's not even much to do with what he did, he just wasnt a name that came up at lot, at least not in the context of the book. There were others like Pete Wands who set up SISA originally who also weren't mentioned as the book as naming every single person involved and divvying up appropriate credit or discredit sounds intensely boring.
He was certainly one of the people who took SISA forwards and definitely a main character in the beginning. He provided a lot of the energy to get things moving. He's obviously been discredited since then but he played a huge part in getting the ball rolling.
 
He was certainly one of the people who took SISA forwards and definitely a main character in the beginning. He provided a lot of the energy to get I things moving. He's obviously been discredited since then but he played a huge part in getting the ball rolling.
Sure I don't really disagree with that, I just didn't feel compelled to include him as it's not a book about the history of SISA/BST. Tim became the head of the organisation, was sued, had connections to Latvia, so he made more sense to focus on as a conduit in a sort of way. I know some people have spoken about writing a sort of historical document about the history of SISA/BST but that would be a bit dry for me
 
I agree with Daz, this is an important book and it needs to be as accurate as possible,

Does it? Not in my opinion it doesn't. It's only important to Blackpool supporters - and even then there was that much going on it's almost impossible to untangle it.

It's all history now. It's an interesting read for those that lived through it but is it important? Not at all. It's really really not important. If some of the major ego's on here pulling it apart are SO enraged by some so called inaccuracies - then go and write a new book. There is nothing stopping them. Or maybe shut up because they are boring everyone else who are simply reading it for entertainment?
 
Does it? Not in my opinion it doesn't. It's only important to Blackpool supporters - and even then there was that much going on it's almost impossible to untangle it.

It's all history now. It's an interesting read for those that lived through it but is it important? Not at all. It's really really not important. If some of the major ego's on here pulling it apart are SO enraged by some so called inaccuracies - then go and write a new book. There is nothing stopping them. Or maybe shut up because they are boring everyone else who are simply reading it for entertainment?
If there are any glaring inaccuracies, which I doubt there are they can be edited in future editions, but I agree, we were all there through it, many from long before the Oystons. We have our own thoughts and recollections and many will be skewed over time o based on rumour or myth. Foggy has asked for comments, and on the whole they have been very decent and I'm sure he appreciates the feedback. However there are always those fw who just want to piss on the bonfire, they can't help themselves because they're very important people!

It is important to us a s supporters and it was unique even in footballing history so having a record of it that puts you back in the thick of it is important to us, to our future supporters and to football in general. Well done Foggy.
 
Sure I don't really disagree with that, I just didn't feel compelled to include him as it's not a book about the history of SISA/BST. Tim became the head of the organisation, was sued, had connections to Latvia, so he made more sense to focus on as a conduit in a sort of way. I know some people have spoken about writing a sort of historical document about the history of SISA/BST but that would be a bit dry for me
I think most of us can appreciate that there needs to be a certain amount of literary licence, but it’s also important to tread with a certain amount of sensitivity too.

I think that attributing what can be seen as key factors in the campaign to the wrong individuals crosses a line between literary licence and factual inaccuracy. So failing to mention Smith might be one thing, but attributing the role he played to someone else is another thing entirely.

The same with the BST thing… To essentially credit them for driving a campaign, that they actively encouraged their members to vote against lending an official endorsement to feels like a disservice to others and to the facts.


Does it? Not in my opinion it doesn't. It's only important to Blackpool supporters - and even then there was that much going on it's almost impossible to untangle it.

It's all history now. It's an interesting read for those that lived through it but is it important? Not at all. It's really really not important. If some of the major ego's on here pulling it apart are SO enraged by some so called inaccuracies - then go and write a new book. There is nothing stopping them. Or maybe shut up because they are boring everyone else who are simply reading it for entertainment?

Why do you always have to focus on attacking individuals?

The writer of the book has included a sticky at the top of the forum, asking people to provide feedback. You feel the need to aggressively attack and insult people for offering up some feedback...Why?

If you view the inaccuracies as unimportant, then that's fine, I don't have an issue with you holding that perspective, nor do I feel the need to call you names for it. Some people clearly do feel that certain inaccuracies are important and, given the author has requested feedback, then this feels like a reasonable and appropriate place to communicate them, without fear of insult and abuse from others. Further, I'm not sure it is necessary for anyone to write an alternative book, just because they have challenged some inaccuracies with this one on here.

I'm pretty sure that Foggy was careful to fact check any reference to Oyston extremely thoroughly.... So clearly accuracy will have been important to him at least in certain respects.

Incidentally, if you are reading the book for entertainment, then that's great.... If you feel bored or that you need to attack people for leaving feedback on this thread, then perhaps just ignore it.👍
 
I think most of us can appreciate that there needs to be a certain amount of literary licence, but it’s also important to tread with a certain amount of sensitivity too.

I think that attributing what can be seen as key factors in the campaign to the wrong individuals crosses a line between literary licence and factual inaccuracy. So failing to mention Smith might be one thing, but attributing the role he played to someone else is another thing entirely.

The same with the BST thing… To essentially credit them for driving a campaign, that they actively encouraged their members to vote against lending an official endorsement to feels like a disservice to others and to the facts.
You agreed earlier in the thread

"I won't deny that BST subsequent became an enthusiastic backer of the campaign"

That's what I wrote, they encouraged people to join the NAPM campaign. I think if the largest fan group around encourages people to join, pickets outside the stadium every game, liases with sponsors and local businesses, they did become a driving force. I take your point they could/should have done it sooner, but as you yourself wrote, they did become enthusiastic backers - which is exactly what I was referencing?

As for Smith, I didn't go into detail about how the meeting came about just that Tim was able to get one, which is true. He was invited to Latvia.
 
Whatever happened to Steve Smith - does he still live locally - has he ever shown his face at a match since the bucket incident ?
 
You agreed earlier in the thread

"I won't deny that BST subsequent became an enthusiastic backer of the campaign"

That's what I wrote, they encouraged people to join the NAPM campaign. I think if the largest fan group around encourages people to join, pickets outside the stadium every game, liases with sponsors and local businesses, they did become a driving force. I take your point they could/should have done it sooner, but as you yourself wrote, they did become enthusiastic backers - which is exactly what I was referencing?

As for Smith, I didn't go into detail about how the meeting came about just that Tim was able to get one, which is true. He was invited to Latvia.
I think the key point is

a) reference to them as a driving force (they weren’t… they eventually went on to actively support an already well established campaign).

and

What you actually wrote was

b) “They were a driving force behind NAPM & encouraged fans to join the ethical boycott.”Again this simply isn’t true… By contrast they encouraged the membership to vote against BST endorsing the ethical boycott.

and

c) Tim wasn’t able to get a meeting… He attended a meeting that Smith had arranged.


Had you said that BST had gone on to play an active role in the established NAPM campaign, I’d have agreed with that…

Had you said Tim attended a prearranged meeting with VB, then I’d have agreed with that too.

In the end, the reality is that it has no major impact on my life either way. I’ve offered up the facts as they actually were. What you choose to do with that information is your choice. The only reason, I’ve posted further is that some have sought to challenge the facts.
 
What you actually wrote was

b) “They were a driving force behind NAPM & encouraged fans to join the ethical boycott.”Again this simply isn’t true…

Again, here's what you wrote earlier.


"I won't deny that BST subsequent became an enthusiastic backer of the campaign"
 
You agreed earlier in the thread

"I won't deny that BST subsequent became an enthusiastic backer of the campaign"

That's what I wrote, they encouraged people to join the NAPM campaign. I think if the largest fan group around encourages people to join, pickets outside the stadium every game, liases with sponsors and local businesses, they did become a driving force. I take your point they could/should have done it sooner, but as you yourself wrote, they did become enthusiastic backers - which is exactly what I was referencing?

As for Smith, I didn't go into detail about how the meeting came about just that Tim was able to get one, which is true. He was invited to Latvia.
I’ve always credited SS with securing that meeting with VB as I’m sure Foggy will confirm
It was pivotal
He did it though as part of an agreed action through the SISA committee albeit he did stick to the task doggedly
When the invite came it was out of the blue after he’d been emailing VBs office for a while trying to get him to meet with SISA on one of his UK visit
VB’s PA asked if we’d travel over to meet him
SS and I attended the first meet in Riga in March 14 after which Steve dropped out for a while ( b4 re-emerging as part of the TKs in the summer ) and so at the next meet in London in June 14 it was Mosser and myself who went
Mosser was targeted for legal action as a result of some of the actions that flowed from that - as Foggy deals with
There was loads of meetings after that - maybe 5-6 with VB himself and plenty more with Kaspars
Mosser and I were in almost daily contact at one point with Kaspars and later Normunds ( when he returned to run the litigation ) - and we are still in contact even now
Members of the BST committee also had various meets - certainly Christine and Steve but mainly Mosser and myself as VB only really wanted one point of contact
What we planned at the time didn’t work for a variety of reasons but at the time it seemed to offer the best solution
As it happens the ultimate outcome was far more beneficial but Simon’s interest hadn’t crystallised then although Brett had mentioned ‘ his friend in HK ‘ to me from time to time without divulging his name
I had a lot of time for SS and still do despite everything else as he got things done
 
Last edited:
From what I can recall the position of BST in the early days (when the possibility of legal action against the trust and committee members was very, very real) was along the lines of “we can’t officially endorse it but can’t stop members from doing so if that’s what they choose wink wink. And by the way I’m boycotting as an individual”. That’s very different to actively trying to discourage members from boycotting.

In fact I seem to recall one committee member continued to attend and had to stand down as that didn’t appear to be compatible with the Trust’s aims and strategy.
 
I think this thread reminds us how lucky we are to be in the position we are today, when grumbling about Critch's late subs is about the sum of my frustrations.
I did NAPM and a couple of marches but did not stick my head over the parapet as he(Oyston) was suing the forums themselves to try to find any poster identity he could sue or threaten to sue for defamation, bullying in the extreme.
I had actually resigned myself to never again watching a live match as could never follow another team




h's
 
From what I can recall the position of BST in the early days (when the possibility of legal action against the trust and committee members was very, very real) was along the lines of “we can’t officially endorse it but can’t stop members from doing so if that’s what they choose wink wink. And by the way I’m boycotting as an individual”. That’s very different to actively trying to discourage members from boycotting.

In fact I seem to recall one committee member continued to attend and had to stand down as that didn’t appear to be compatible with the Trust’s aims and strategy.
The position of the BST hierarchy concerning the validity of the boycott was extremely mixed at the time in truth. So it would be wrong to suggest there was any consensus. It was a good way before the other matter to which you refer concerning the committee member, who was wrongly removed from post with the type of slight of hand and let’s just say (bending of the rules) that you might expect from the current Tory Party.

There was an official BST meeting where Tim gave a lengthy and questionable legal argument (no counter argument was submitted to members for consideration) and members were encouraged to vote against BST endorsing the ethical boycott.

Members and fans were advised simply that they were free to make their own choices to attend or not and that BST would support them either way.

Not wishing to be a stickler for the facts, but given my post is on this same page.. I didn’t say that BST were actively encouraging members not to boycott. I said they were actively encouraging members to vote against BST endorsing the Boycott.
 
The position of the BST hierarchy concerning the validity of the boycott was extremely mixed at the time in truth. So it would be wrong to suggest there was any consensus. It was a good way before the other matter to which you refer concerning the committee member, who was wrongly removed from post with the type of slight of hand and let’s just say (bending of the rules) that you might expect from the current Tory Party.

There was an official BST meeting where Tim gave a lengthy and questionable legal argument (no counter argument was submitted to members for consideration) and members were encouraged to vote against BST endorsing the ethical boycott.

Members and fans were advised simply that they were free to make their own choices to attend or not and that BST would support them either way.

Not wishing to be a stickler for the facts, but given my post is on this same page.. I didn’t say that BST were actively encouraging members not to boycott. I said they were actively encouraging members to vote against BST endorsing the Boycott.
It was a questionable legal argument but that was the whole point - could the Oystons come up with an argument to target BST / committee for formally promoting NAPM

The answer was unlikely but there was some supporting case law and the important thing was to protect the Trust and it’s committee from unnecessary risk

The members didn’t need BST to tell them what to do - they were already doing it and that’s what I argued Why create the risk when letters were flying around like confetti

Was NAPM harmed by that vote ?

And there’s your answer
 
Last edited:
Even for those who don’t support Blackpool, this is a must read. If there was a league table of football books, this would be at the top. It is very well written and certainly worthy of a film.

It is a well researched story with many new revelations. I found it difficult to put down and didn’t want this story to end but the Epilogue did bring a tear to my eye.

Be sure to stick “post-it notes” whenever you find a funny line. It has so many and you’ll want to read them again.

I have one minor criticism and that is the over use of the word “gotten”. It’s a North American word and upsets the flow of a sentence when you are not used to reading such words as this.

Thank you Nathan. I wish you every success with sales of this fantastic book.
 
By gibbon

It was a questionable legal argument but that was the whole point - could the Oystons come up with an argument to target BST / committee for formally promoting NAPM

The answer was unlikely but there was some supporting case law and the important thing was to protect the Trust and it’s committee from unnecessary risk

The members didn’t need BST to tell them what to do - they were already doing it and that’s what I argued Why create the risk when letters were flying around like confetti

Was NAPM harmed by that vote ?

And there’s your answer
Of course it wasn't harmed (not that it would have made any difference to BST's stance either way) because as I've already said, the NAPM wheels had long since been in motion and the 'driving force behind the campaign' was already well underway and rolling full steam ahead. Hence why I object to the idea that BST were some kind of 'driving force' behind a campaign that had already long since established itself and passed BST by.... BST piggy backed on an established NAPM campaign after some procrastination.

If you want to pretend it was different, then that's fine by me, but it's nothing other than 'BST centric' fantasy.
 
By gibbon

It was a questionable legal argument but that was the whole point - could the Oystons come up with an argument to target BST / committee for formally promoting NAPM

The answer was unlikely but there was some supporting case law and the important thing was to protect the Trust and it’s committee from unnecessary risk

The members didn’t need BST to tell them what to do - they were already doing it and that’s what I argued Why create the risk when letters were flying around like confetti

Was NAPM harmed by that vote ?

And there’s your answer
Exactly. When you have two options that achieve the same outcome, but one involves more risk, why would you choose the riskier? It’d be bonkers if you did.

As for the likelihood of litigation against the Trust well I know for a fact one poster (and I’m not sure if it’s the one mentioned but not named in the book) received a letter before action for posting about information in the published accounts (the £11m and c27m in unsecured and interest free loans) and simply asking questions about which directors had approved them. There was no merit to a defamation action at all but it didn’t prevent the Os from sending the letter and extracting an apology. Legal letters could be sent with very little merit behind them.
 
Of course it wasn't harmed (not that it would have made any difference to BST's stance either way) because as I've already said, the NAPM wheels had long since been in motion and the 'driving force behind the campaign' was already well underway and rolling full steam ahead. Hence why I object to the idea that BST were some kind of 'driving force' behind a campaign that had already long since established itself and passed BST by.... BST piggy backed on an established NAPM campaign after some procrastination.

If you want to pretend it was different, then that's fine by me, but it's nothing other than 'BST centric' fantasy.
I’m not pretending anything

Neither I not so far as I am aware anyone representing BST have ever claimed ownership of NAPM and well knew that they would have had no right doing so

What Nathan was no doubt alluding to was there fact that BST became the spokespeople for the boycott - particularly to the outside world and so could be seen to spearhead ( the one word you seen to object to )

That’s simply because they were the ones being interviewed by journos in the build up to the court cases and leafleting fans at BFC games week in week out

Christine banged the drum at every opportunity she could and rightly so

I think Nathan’s terminology is fine You clearly don’t but either way it’s splitting hairs over what is an excellent read and a well-researched narrative
 
Anybody know who the guy on the cover is?
Neil, he did more behind the scenes than a lot of people will ever know. He was a great person to bounce ideas off and had a great way of calming us down and look at things another way. He will always have my respect and admiration. If he hadn't stood there btw it would have been Bobby mack on his scooter on that picture. We felt it would be a more iconic photo opportunity to have Neil stood there
 
I’m not pretending anything

Neither I not so far as I am aware anyone representing BST have ever claimed ownership of NAPM and well knew that they would have had no right doing so

What Nathan was no doubt alluding to was there fact that BST became the spokespeople for the boycott - particularly to the outside world and so could be seen to spearhead ( the one word you seen to object to )

That’s simply because they were the ones being interviewed by journos and leafleting fans at BFC games week in week out

I think Nathan’s terminology is fine You clearly don’t but either way it’s splitting hairs over what is an excellent read and a well-researched narrative
It’s not splitting hairs at all, it’s a complete misrepresentation of the facts. It completely disregards the input of others and falsely represents BST as a driving force in a campaign that they jumped on late in the day.

I’m sure you do think Nathan’s terminology is fine because a) it gives you personal recognition for something that someone else did and b) gives an organisation you led credit for a campaign you played no role in establishing whatsoever…😂😂😂

I can tell you for a fact though, if anyone had misrepresented BST in the negative that you and others would be all over it like a rash. Why should this be any different?
 
I’m going to leave this thread as quite frankly you are trying to twist one word in perhaps 100 thousand ( maybe more ) to argue black is blue
As I’ve repeatedly said neither I and ( so far as I am aware ) no one else ever associated with BST has ever claimed credit for the idea of NAPM
If you want to keep trying to invent an issue that doesn’t exist you can do it on your own
 
Last edited:
Neil, he did more behind the scenes than a lot of people will ever know. He was a great person to bounce ideas off and had a great way of calming us down and look at things another way. He will always have my respect and admiration. If he hadn't stood there btw it would have been Bobby mack on his scooter on that picture. We felt it would be a more iconic photo opportunity to have Neil stood there
Agree,it's a great picture!
 
Neil, he did more behind the scenes than a lot of people will ever know. He was a great person to bounce ideas off and had a great way of calming us down and look at things another way. He will always have my respect and admiration. If he hadn't stood there btw it would have been Bobby mack on his scooter on that picture. We felt it would be a more iconic photo opportunity to have Neil stood there
That photo is my all time favourite of the whole campaign brings a tear to your eye, fantastic!
 
Yep agree with this, loads had stopped going way before any NAPM campaign as it was clear there was no money being spent on the team etc…
Not got the book, is there a chapter on the bst bid for the club? The one where they wanted it for free and a load of cash(was it £2m?)to run it…?still makes me laugh now…😎
Would have been a much cheaper option than £31 million
 
I’m going to leave this thread as quite frankly you are trying to twist one word in perhaps 100 thousand ( more maybe more ) to argue black is blue
As I’ve repeatedly said neither I and ( so far as I am aware ) no one else ever associated with BST has ever claimed credit for the idea of NAPM
If you want to keep trying to invent an issue that doesn’t exist you can do it on your own
I’m not twisting anything Tim and you’re totally out of order suggesting that I am. I’m not arguing black is blue or just focusing on one word either.I’m expressing the truth (something that some seem to have a hazy vision of)

I’m focusing on a very clear and obvious misrepresentation of the facts as they were. You can wrap that up any way you like, but the words as they are put a completely different complexion on reality than exists.

As I said, had a BST action have been misappropriated to the Knights then you’d be the first one to speak up (whether it be one word or a dozen)

BST deserve plenty of credit for their own efforts in the campaign without taking credit for other peoples endeavours.

Total bollocks 👎👎👎
 
The position of the BST hierarchy concerning the validity of the boycott was extremely mixed at the time in truth. So it would be wrong to suggest there was any consensus. It was a good way before the other matter to which you refer concerning the committee member, who was wrongly removed from post with the type of slight of hand and let’s just say (bending of the rules) that you might expect from the current Tory Party.

There was an official BST meeting where Tim gave a lengthy and questionable legal argument (no counter argument was submitted to members for consideration) and members were encouraged to vote against BST endorsing the ethical boycott.

Members and fans were advised simply that they were free to make their own choices to attend or not and that BST would support them either way.

Not wishing to be a stickler for the facts, but given my post is on this same page.. I didn’t say that BST were actively encouraging members not to boycott. I said they were actively encouraging members to vote against BST endorsing the Boycott.
You also said “BST failed to grasp the nettle and let down their members”.

Well I’ve been a member of BST pretty much since inception and don’t recall ever feeling particularly let down and certainly not over their position on the boycott. I adopted NAPM along with a number of mates who were also BST members and I can’t recall any of them ever saying they felt let down by BST over the boycott either.

I can understand why the Trust and committee members didn’t want to officially endorse a boycott. Why on Earth would you give the Os a stick to potentially beat you with when the same outcome could be achieved without that risk?

It’s also been repeatedly accepted that NAPM was a grass roots action and BST have never claimed it was their idea or that they could claim all the credit. But I do recall BST spokespeople (Christine principally I suppose) speaking to the media about NAPM. Clearly that was a key factor in promoting the campaign and material in making the boycott known to a wider audience. Certainly it wasn’t the only driving force but it was a very important one.

So you seem to be upset:

1. Because you think BST have claimed to have been the main instigator of NAPM when, as far as I can see, they have never made that claim at all; and
2. Foggy described them as a driving force behind NAPM which they clearly were. Not exclusively but I don’t think BST or Foggy ever claimed they were.

TBH I think you’ve made a massive mountain out of a molehill on this point and also about precisely arranged the meeting in Latvia.

Anyway I’m off out again to enjoy the last of the sunshine.
 
I was always under the impression that Holloway was interviewed at the Tickled Trout not Bloomfield. Karl of course was late and scruffy. Why would Ollie buy the coffee at Bloomfield?
Pretty certain it was BR, and have a memory of IH getting a coffee at McD's beforehand- possibly in the hope that KO would be serving and get the interview over with.
 
You also said “BST failed to grasp the nettle and let down their members”.

Well I’ve been a member of BST pretty much since inception and don’t recall ever feeling particularly let down and certainly not over their position on the boycott. I adopted NAPM along with a number of mates who were also BST members and I can’t recall any of them ever saying they felt let down by BST over the boycott either.

I can understand why the Trust and committee members didn’t want to officially endorse a boycott. Why on Earth would you give the Os a stick to potentially beat you with when the same outcome could be achieved without that risk?

It’s also been repeatedly accepted that NAPM was a grass roots action and BST have never claimed it was their idea or that they could claim all the credit. But I do recall BST spokespeople (Christine principally I suppose) speaking to the media about NAPM. Clearly that was a key factor in promoting the campaign and material in making the boycott known to a wider audience. Certainly it wasn’t the only driving force but it was a very important one.

So you seem to be upset:

1. Because you think BST have claimed to have been the main instigator of NAPM when, as far as I can see, they have never made that claim at all; and
2. Foggy described them as a driving force behind NAPM which they clearly were. Not exclusively but I don’t think BST or Foggy ever claimed they were.

TBH I think you’ve made a massive mountain out of a molehill on this point and also about precisely arranged the meeting in Latvia.

Anyway I’m off out again to enjoy the last of the sunshine.
I’m not upset..

1. I don’t have an issue with a claim from BST to have been a main instigator of NAPM. nor have I suggested they made that claim (although it might be easy for someone to infer that based upon the reference in the book).

2. I do have an issue with the claim that “BST were a driving force behind NAPM and that they encouraged fans to join the ethical boycott”

The reason I object (for the sake of repeating myself) is that NAPM was well established long before BST belatedly jumped on the bandwagon. It required no ‘driving force’ at that stage as the bandwagon was already rolling full steam ahead.

In addition (again as already said, and as you, Tim and everyone else acknowledge)… far from encouraging fans to join the “ethical boycott” they made a case and encouraged their members to vote against them doing so.

As I said, it is what it is… I don’t really want to get into a lengthy debate as usual, but at the same time I’m not going to sit here while people bullshit either.
 
Last edited:
Even for those who don’t support Blackpool, this is a must read. If there was a league table of football books, this would be at the top. It is very well written and certainly worthy of a film.

It is a well researched story with many new revelations. I found it difficult to put down and didn’t want this story to end but the Epilogue did bring a tear to my eye.

Be sure to stick “post-it notes” whenever you find a funny line. It has so many and you’ll want to read them again.

I have one minor criticism and that is the over use of the word “gotten”. It’s a North American word and upsets the flow of a sentence when you are not used to reading such words as this.

Thank you Nathan. I wish you every success with sales of this fantastic book.
Thank you very much, lovely to read that. Sorry about the Americanisations, I've been a huge NBA fan for a while now, so they've slipped into my lexicon through osmosis - I tried really hard to not use any but I'm so used to it now it's impossible to fully eradicate.
 
Thank you very much, lovely to read that. Sorry about the Americanisations, I've been a huge NBA fan for a while now, so they've slipped into my lexicon through osmosis - I tried really hard to not use any but I'm so used to it now it's impossible to fully eradicate.
Same, going to knicks v cavs in a few weeks
 
I'm only a third of the way through, but I've already lost count of the number of incidents that Koko has denied.
Just how much of a charmless twunt can a man be?
The next 170 pages may well tell...
 
Back
Top