How Not to Run a Football Club - Official Discussion Thread

Phil_bfc deux said:
Here you go again being rude

I certainly didn't make anything up

The fire alarms being set off at the Hudds game were the signal for the pitch invasion thats fact and isn't from any second hand source

You don't

I didn't specifically say you credited the Knights with Derby how could they the Knights weren't even a thing then

My point was more general about the book making out that BST and Knights planned and led the majority of the protests

You have your sources i get that

I'm talking first hand as i was directly involved in both of the above incidents and both have inaccuracies
Click to expand...
You've not actually explained what was inaccurate about the Derby protest. Rather you just seem miffed you aren't mentioned for some reason.
 
foggy said:
You said the book makes out BST and the Knights organised protests that you didn't think they did. When someone asked you which ones you are talking about, you said "the Derby one for a start". But I didn't mention the Knights or BST at Derby. This is something you've just misread. I'm not being rude, it's a fact you made that up.
Click to expand...
Ffs..

We are going around in circles now

There are inaccuracies in both your accounts of the Hudds protest and the Derby one

Ok?
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
His objective at and around that time was largely about trying to undermine the integrity of the Trust and the collective will of the fans.

You’re right, he was deluded, but to be honest, at the time, so were we to a large extent. I think we still thought that engaging with Owen might offer a productive solution.

He played the crowd, encouraged the heckling, revelled in his notoriety. He was in his element.
Click to expand...
Still think a couple of the hecklers in there were Oyston stooges…… especially that clown who used to be on Radio Wave 🙄
As Tim said it gave him great opportunity to avoid questions he was uncomfortable answering
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
Ffs..

We are going around in circles now

There are inaccuracies in both your accounts of the Hudds protest and the Derby one

Ok?
Click to expand...
Well, no, because you've not actually said what was inaccurate about the Derby protest yet.

Also hang on, I just showed you exactly where you misquoted me, which you said you didn't. No comment on that at all? Youve tried to point out inaccuracies, and won't even admit to your own? Poor form
 
foggy said:
You said the book makes out BST and the Knights organised protests that you didn't think they did. When someone asked you which ones you are talking about, you said "the Derby one for a start". But I didn't mention the Knights or BST at Derby. This is something you've just misread. I'm not being rude, it's a fact you made that up.
Click to expand...
I can see where Phil is coming from here foggy. At the risk of going over old ground again, I think it’s possible for the book to give an ‘overall impression’ without necessarily going into the specifics. That can as much be about what isn’t said (or clarified) as what is.

I think “give me an example of why you feel that way” as your response maybe misunderstands where he is coming from.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I can see where Phil is coming from here foggy. At the risk of going over old ground again, I think it’s possible for the book to give an ‘overall impression’ without necessarily going into the specifics. That can as much be about what isn’t said (or clarified) as what is.

I think “give me an example of why you feel that way” as your response maybe misunderstands where he is coming from.
Click to expand...
But he literally said I gave credit for the Derby protest to BST and the Knights. When I didn't. And now he's saying he never did. I think I'm well within my rights to point out where I've been misquoted.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I can see where Phil is coming from here foggy. At the risk of going over old ground again, I think it’s possible for the book to give an ‘overall impression’ without necessarily going into the specifics. That can as much be about what isn’t said (or clarified) as what is.

I think “give me an example of why you feel that way” as your response maybe misunderstands where he is coming from.
Click to expand...
Page 3 of this thread Phil scoffs at Foggy:

'What sort of protest movement talks to the police and tells them what they are doing
** hell man
How naive ...'

When Foggy pointed out the police were informed he's had a flounce and wanted a refund, bit churlish really.

I've just got to the Appleton reign, OMG the club was a total farce!
 
foggy said:
But he literally said I gave credit for the Derby protest to BST and the Knights. When I didn't. And now he's saying he never did. I think I'm well within my rights to point out where I've been misquoted.
Click to expand...
So now you have talked to your 'sources' are you going to apologise for basically calling me a liar regarding the Hudds protest, as i said back on Friday i don't need to 'get over myself' as i was there i know exactly what happened at half time

I didn't make anything up

This is the problem with books like this when an author who wasn't at all involved in anything he writes about just takes opinions from sources as fact and presumes that if he didn't speak to you you simply don't know

There is loads wrong with what you wrote about Derby and i have no inclination to highlight it all on here when you don't read what i say anyway

As I've previously explained the protest chapters in the book give generalisations and characterise BST as the organisers and the Knights as the protest movement
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
So now you have talked to your 'sources' are you going to apologise for basically calling me a liar regarding the Hudds protest, as i said back on Friday i don't need to 'get over myself' as i was there i know exactly what happened at half time

I didn't make anything up

This is the problem with books like this when an author who wasn't at all involved in anything he writes about just takes opinions from sources as fact and presumes that if he didn't speak to you you simply don't know

There is loads wrong with what you wrote about Derby and i have no inclination to highlight it all on here when you don't read what i say anyway

As I've previously explained the protest chapters in the book give generalisations and characterise BST as the organisers and the Knights as the protest movement
Click to expand...
You've made up that I gave credit to BST and the Knights for the Derby game, on post 61 of this thread.

There's nothing inaccurate about what I wrote about it. If there is, quote it. That shouldn't be so hard to do? You're saying that I can't accept criticism, but won't even go into detail about what it is - so I have to guess whats in your head.

I never called you a liar about the Hudds game. It was planned days in advance and people were in talks with the police. As I said, you can either believe that or not, but several people will confirm it. I can't make you believe it, but I stand by it, if that's what you're asking. Whether some other things were introduced on the day, it's possible. But there was organisation and planning by the Knights with the police beforehand, which you denied.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I can see where Phil is coming from here foggy. At the risk of going over old ground again, I think it’s possible for the book to give an ‘overall impression’ without necessarily going into the specifics. That can as much be about what isn’t said (or clarified) as what is.

I think “give me an example of why you feel that way” as your response maybe misunderstands where he is coming from.
Click to expand...

Impressions based upon perception are very personal, aren't they?

Mine is that Nathan has taken a very complex and long-running story and told it well. He could have gone into a lot more detail about some aspects of it, but that would have made the book very long. The whole thrust of the book is one of mismanagement and misjudgement (of Belokon, in particular) and a collective fan reaction to what they saw and were able to find out. To that extent, I think he has done a very good job.

You and Phil seem not to understand that this book isn't really about any one fan, or part of the fan base. If it had been as BST centric as you seem to think it is, it would have been a very, very different book, and probably not the one that Nathan wanted to write. Your impressions of it are your own, but maybe you should reflect about why you are in a minority of two ; neither of you knows more than pieces of the overall picture (which is true of most of us), and a great many other people seem to have no difficulty in enjoying the book for what it is.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Impressions based upon perception are very personal, aren't they?

Mine is that Nathan has taken a very complex and long-running story and told it well. He could have gone into a lot more detail about some aspects of it, but that would have made the book very long. The whole thrust of the book is one of mismanagement and misjudgement (of Belokon, in particular) and a collective fan reaction to what they saw and were able to find out. To that extent, I think he has done a very good job.

You and Phil seem not to understand that this book isn't really about any one fan, or part of the fan base. If it had been as BST centric as you seem to think it is, it would have been a very, very different book, and probably not the one that Nathan wanted to write. Your impressions of it are your own, but maybe you should reflect about why you are in a minority of two ; neither of you knows more than pieces of the overall picture (which is true of most of us), and a great many other people seem to have no difficulty in enjoying the book for what it is.
Click to expand...

What has been listed as "inaccuracies" seem to be where I didn't list minor details which they wanted to see in. But that doesn't make anything I wrote inaccurate. Just that it was a book with a 65,000 word limit, which I ended up at about 75,000 - and the protests were only around a third of the book. I also didn't go into every detail about the Cardiff walkout, or the £90m note, or even mention Neil Holden on the Arsenal bus, or the Lancaster friendly. Because I had about 10-15,000 words to work with.

What this means is I didn't focus on every fan who held up a flare, or chanted Oyston Out, or threw up a homemade sign. And Phil is unhappy some details he was apparently involved in were left out. But that's not an inaccuracy on my part. Nothing I wrote is inaccurate about those things, and despite many protestations by Phil to the contrary, he's yet to quote what I got wrong. Instead he threw out a misrepresentation and bizarrely now pretends he didn't, even though it's plain for everyone to see on post 61.

The real inaccuracies so far have been saying Ollie interviewed at Bloomers when it was Preston Marriott, and upon reflection I should have used different wording in Tim's first meeting in Latvia on how it came about.
 
foggy said:
You've made up that I gave credit to BST and the Knights for the Derby game, on post 61 of this thread.

There's nothing inaccurate about what I wrote about it. If there is, quote it. That shouldn't be so hard to do? You're saying that I can't accept criticism, but won't even go into detail about what it is - so I have to guess whats in your head.

I never called you a liar about the Hudds game. It was planned days in advance and people were in talks with the police. As I said, you can either believe that or not, but several people will confirm it. I can't make you believe it, but I stand by it, if that's what you're asking. Whether some other things were introduced on the day, it's possible. But there was organisation and planning by the Knights with the police beforehand, which you denied.
Click to expand...
I know people from BST and the Knights met with police i haven't once denied that. Whilst I don't agree with that approach i know they did meet

That isn't my point at all and for a bright lad I'm amazed at how many times you miss the point

My point is there is no mention of the fire alarms in the book this was critical in the pitch invasion working and when i mentioned it you basically tried to make out i was lying

Anyway its gone round in circles again

To me there is loads of important stuff missing and inaccuracies in some of the protests stuff

Well done for writing the book though

I really don't have the time or inclination to keep banging my head against a brick wall though
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Impressions based upon perception are very personal, aren't they?

Mine is that Nathan has taken a very complex and long-running story and told it well. He could have gone into a lot more detail about some aspects of it, but that would have made the book very long. The whole thrust of the book is one of mismanagement and misjudgement (of Belokon, in particular) and a collective fan reaction to what they saw and were able to find out. To that extent, I think he has done a very good job.

You and Phil seem not to understand that this book isn't really about any one fan, or part of the fan base. If it had been as BST centric as you seem to think it is, it would have been a very, very different book, and probably not the one that Nathan wanted to write. Your impressions of it are your own, but maybe you should reflect about why you are in a minority of two ; neither of you knows more than pieces of the overall picture (which is true of most of us), and a great many other people seem to have no difficulty in enjoying the book for what it is.
Click to expand...
I’d rather prefer not to be categorised as “You & Phil” if that’s OK. We’re two different people with very different perspectives (especially on the campaign).

I’m not sure I’d describe the book as ‘BST centric’ to be honest. Nor have I been critical of the book, in fact by contrast, I’ve stated more than once how much I enjoyed it.

My contribution (in regard to the book itself has been three things)

1. That I believe Karl Oyston’s assessment of DH to have been accurate.

2. That it was SS and not TF, who secured the initial meeting . (A fact acknowledged by TF and the Author)

3. That I felt the description of BST as a driving force behind NAPM to be inaccurate.

None of that materially changes the overall thrust of the book or my enjoyment reading it. Though that’s what I find most puzzling in some respects (particularly the SS bit). It really would have made no difference at all to just go with the truth. As the small embellishment added nothing. Instead (as I said) it just left me wondering what else might be made up.
 
Last edited:
Despite my username I no longer have any real inside information. I did however have a few gems (my perception) from this period. I shared some of them privately at the appropriate time but I didn't share them with Foggy when he asked for stories from posters. It would seem no one else did and they are not included in the book.
It doesn't leave me thinking the book is lacking.
There always 2 ways of reviewing anything. You can look at the positives and give praise or look at negatives and criticise. I've always preferred the former and with this book I honestly think the positives outweigh the negatives so I'll concentrate on those.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’d rather prefer not to be categorised as “You & Phil” if that’s OK. We’re two different people with very different perspectives (especially on the campaign).

I’m not sure I’d describe the book as ‘BST centric’ to be honest. Nor have I been critical of the book, in fact by contrast, I’ve stated more than once how much I enjoyed it.

My contribution (in regard to the book itself has been three things)

1. That I believe Karl Oyston’s assessment of DH to have been accurate.

2. That it was SS and not TF, who secured the initial meeting . (A fact acknowledged by TF and the Author)

3. That I felt the description of BST as a driving force behind NAPM to be inaccurate.

None of that materially changes the overall thrust of the book or my enjoyment reading it. Though that’s what I find most puzzling in some respects (particularly the SS bit). It really would have made no difference at all to just go with the truth. As the smell embellishment added nothing. Instead (as I said) it just left me wondering what else might be made up.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how you can claim not to be critical of the book and then a few lines down imply that some of it is made up.

As to being categorised - well, there are only two you, as far as I can see. I agree that you are moaning about different things though.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I'm not sure how you can claim not to be critical of the book and then a few lines down imply that some of it is made up.

As to being categorised - well, there are only two you, as far as I can see. I agree that you are moaning about different things though.
Click to expand...
Why double down, instead of simply acknowledging what I actually said Robbie.

I didn’t imply that anything was made up, I stated the bit that knew had actually been made up, made me question what else might be.

Additionally I’m not ‘moaning’ about anything. I’m simply just expressing a view…It seems to me that the loaning and issues are coming from those having difficulty with that…

I’ve been called names (Once from a BST committee member), accused of being pernickety and generally put down, for trying to contribute to a discussion where feedback was requested.

I think the issue here is some of you are overly precious tbh.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
I know people from BST and the Knights met with police i haven't once denied that. Whilst I don't agree with that approach i know they did meet

That isn't my point at all and for a bright lad I'm amazed at how many times you miss the point

My point is there is no mention of the fire alarms in the book this was critical in the pitch invasion working and when i mentioned it you basically tried to make out i was lying

Anyway its gone round in circles again

To me there is loads of important stuff missing and inaccuracies in some of the protests stuff

Well done for writing the book though

I really don't have the time or inclination to keep banging my head against a brick wall though
Click to expand...
If you do ever get around to posting these "inaccuracies" which as yet remain a mystery, I'm all ears. In terms of the stuff missing you were there for, i'm sorry there simply wasnt enough time and space in the book to detail every aspect of every protest, but perhaps one day someone will write that book or article on it.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’d rather prefer not to be categorised as “You & Phil” if that’s OK. We’re two different people with very different perspectives (especially on the campaign).

I’m not sure I’d describe the book as ‘BST centric’ to be honest. Nor have I been critical of the book, in fact by contrast, I’ve stated more than once how much I enjoyed it.

My contribution (in regard to the book itself has been three things)

1. That I believe Karl Oyston’s assessment of DH to have been accurate.

2. That it was SS and not TF, who secured the initial meeting . (A fact acknowledged by TF and the Author)

3. That I felt the description of BST as a driving force behind NAPM to be inaccurate.

None of that materially changes the overall thrust of the book or my enjoyment reading it. Though that’s what I find most puzzling in some respects (particularly the SS bit). It really would have made no difference at all to just go with the truth. As the small embellishment added nothing. Instead (as I said) it just left me wondering what else might be made up.
Click to expand...
I think I missed first one before, but when you mean his assesment of DH was right, what do you mean? Karl said he didn't think he had the money, but even himself said to me 'but to be fair to him he did go on to plough a load into AFC Blackpool' (not a direct quote but words to that effect).
 
Jesus this thread is a total mess. Some people are so up for an argument about nothing that they’re happy to contradict themselves constantly to prove that they’re right and “I told you so”. It’s actually laughable.

Foggy, well done for keeping your cool, lad. I still haven’t got my copy from Amazon yet but I can’t wait to read it. I won’t cry because I didn’t get a mention either.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Why double down, instead of simply acknowledging what I actually said Robbie.

I didn’t imply that anything was made up, I stated the bit that knew had actually been made up, made me question what else might be.

Additionally I’m not ‘moaning’ about anything. I’m simply just expressing a view…It seems to me that the loaning and issues are coming from those having difficulty with that…

I’ve been called names (Once from a BST committee member), accused of being pernickety and generally put down, for trying to contribute to a discussion where feedback was requested.

I think the issue here is some of you are overly precious tbh.
Click to expand...

I think we have different ideas of what words like "imply" and "moaning" mean, but there you are.

As for being precious - do you think so? The book is written, hopefully thousands of people are going to read it and yours is close to being a lone voice. I think it is a well written piece that does the job that Nathan wanted it to do. It reflects well on quite a wide range of people, including but not confined to BST. I don't actually see anything to get precious about - like 90 odd per cent of the people who have posted.
 
foggy said:
I think I missed first one before, but when you mean his assesment of DH was right, what do you mean? Karl said he didn't think he had the money, but even himself said to me 'but to be fair to him he did go on to plough a load into AFC Blackpool' (not a direct quote but words to that effect).
Click to expand...
Yes… At the time he didn’t have the money himself to mount a serious bid for a club the size of Blackpool, in my view.. I’d rather not say why I would say that, but I’m sure people who know him would back it up.

Things have certainly changed since, although AFC Fylde isn’t Blackpool FC by a long way. I’ve no great insight into the funding, but it might not be as straightforward as you imagine.
 
LeedsSeasider said:
Jesus this thread is a total mess. Some people are so up for an argument about nothing that they’re happy to contradict themselves constantly to prove that they’re right and “I told you so”. It’s actually laughable.

Foggy, well done for keeping your cool, lad. I still haven’t got my copy from Amazon yet but I can’t wait to read it. I won’t cry because I didn’t get a mention either.
Click to expand...
I'm just waiting to hear these inaccuracies. They're there! I just can't tell you them. It's a bit like that mate who tells you about his summer girlfriend in high school. She definitely exists, you just don't know her cause she goes to a different school...
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I think we have different ideas of what words like "imply" and "moaning" mean, but there you are.

As for being precious - do you think so? The book is written, hopefully thousands of people are going to read it and yours is close to being a lone voice. I think it is a well written piece that does the job that Nathan wanted it to do. It reflects well on quite a wide range of people, including but not confined to BST. I don't actually see anything to get precious about - like 90 odd per cent of the people who have posted.
Click to expand...
Imply means exactly what is says. I stated a fact as a fact.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Yes… At the time he didn’t have the money himself to mount a serious bid for a club the size of Blackpool, in my view.. I’d rather not say why I would say that, but I’m sure people who know him would back it up.

Things have certainly changed since, although AFC Fylde isn’t Blackpool FC by a long way. I’ve no great insight into the funding, but it might not be as straightforward as you imagine.
Click to expand...
That's a whole can of worms that wouldn't have made it into the book had I investigated it anyway, as this was about the Oystons, not DH. I included the quote that Karl thought he was a chancer writing cheques in the press he couldn't actually cash because that was his opinion at the time and presumably informed some of his thinking, however Karl himself admitted in hindsight that was wrong. And without going into too much detail - and you'll obviously know what I mean - but if you write an accusation that a rich man actually doesn't have money, that's potentially problematic. All DH has to do is point to his very public spending record at AFC Blackpool. However, on writing that passage I was well aware that most older fans will have their own view on him, and left it at that.
 
foggy said:
If you do ever get around to posting these "inaccuracies" which as yet remain a mystery, I'm all ears. In terms of the stuff missing you were there for, i'm sorry there simply wasnt enough time and space in the book to detail every aspect of every protest, but perhaps one day someone will write that book or article on it.
Click to expand...
I've already told you that you missed the bit about the fire alarm break glasses being set off

Kinda important given that was the signal for the pitch invasion and without that there probably wouldn't have been a successful pitch invasion that ultimately led to the match abandonment

I also think it strange that other protests that made local and national headlines didn't get much if any mention

Arsenal Lancaster and Morecambe spring to mind

I can't help but wonder it thats because they weren't BST organised ones

Its also a bit bizarre that given we all post on this site there wasn't a further piece on the several hundred posts from multiple users that had to get deleted

Avftt got several letters and emails after the suing of Tim, Raggy and Sharpy threatening various other posters on this site with the libel laws to dampen down this sites comms after the 11 million was removed

It was all bully boy tactics and about removing free speech

I was moderating for a bit after Robbie spat his dummy out and i saw an email asking for posts from various users removed

I might try and find it in archive, be interesting to read who they didn't like

I get you couldn't include everything but there are several more important things that happened in the great scheme of things that didn't make the book, probably more important than the dust on the hotel vents

You did write an Interesting bit at the start of the book regarding OO getting sucked off in the back of a car, you may need good lawyers for that bit

Book all packaged up ready to send on for free to a true hero of the protests

Anyway I'm out now

Good luck
 
Last edited:
Phil_bfc deux said:
I've already told you that you missed the bit about the fire alarm break glasses being set off

Kinda important given that was the signal for the pitch invasion and without that there probably wouldn't have been a successful pitch invasion wish ultimately led to the match abandonment

I also think it strange that other protests that made local and national headlines didn't get much if any mention

Arsenal Lancaster and Morecambe spring to mind

I can't help but wonder it thats because they weren't BST organised ones

Its also a bit bizarre that given we all post on this site there wasn't a further piece on the several hundred posts from multiple users that had to get deleted

Avftt got several letters and emails after the suing of Tim, Raggy and Sharpy threatening various other posters on this site with the libel laws to dampen down this sites comms after the 11 million was removed

It was all bully boy tactics and about removing free speech

I was moderating for a bit after Robbie spat his dummy out and i saw an email asking for posts from various users removed

I might try and find it in archive, be interesting to read who they didn't like

I get you couldn't include everything but there are several more important things that happened in the great scheme of things that didn't make the book, probably more important than the dust on the hotel vents

You did write an Interesting bit at the start of the book regarding OO getting sucked off in the back of a car, you may need good lawyers for that bit

Book all packaged up ready to send on for free to a true hero of the protests

Anyway I'm out now

Good luck
Click to expand...
Again, none of these are inaccuracies. Just things you wanted in.

The 'dust in the hotel vents' as you put it, was a significant build up of grease and fat in an industrial cooker vent which led all the way under all the guests rooms, which allegedly hadn't been cleaned for years and the hotel manager feared was a massive fire risk and potentially could have had the hotel shut down, or brought much worse, more devastating consequences. The fact you think this isn't an interesting or important detail, is incredibly startling, and makes me think your judgement on what should and shouldn't be included in the book, isn't very valuable.

Your casual depiction of a 16 year old victim of rape being that Owen 'got sucked off in the back of a car' with what, a suggestion I may get sued for repeating court record, is also pretty disgusting. And I'll leave that at that.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
I've already told you that you missed the bit about the fire alarm break glasses being set off
Click to expand...
How's that an inaccuracy? It would be an inaccuracy if he wrote there was no fire alarm set off and there was, but because he didn't describe everything in minute detail doesn't mean it's inaccurate, it just means he chose what to include in the book. Given the title is "How not to run a football club" and not "How to start a protest" the machinations of how a protest was set off isn't paticularly important, nor is it necessary to include for it to be accurate.
 
foggy said:
That's a whole can of worms that wouldn't have made it into the book had I investigated it anyway, as this was about the Oystons, not DH. I included the quote that Karl thought he was a chancer writing cheques in the press he couldn't actually cash because that was his opinion at the time and presumably informed some of his thinking, however Karl himself admitted in hindsight that was wrong. And without going into too much detail - and you'll obviously know what I mean - but if you write an accusation that a rich man actually doesn't have money, that's potentially problematic. All DH has to do is point to his very public spending record at AFC Blackpool. However, on writing that passage I was well aware that most older fans will have their own view on him, and left it at that.
Click to expand...
Sorry, in my original comment, I wasn’t suggesting it was something you should write about or change, it was just an observation really.

I think the word “chancer” is a bit insulting to be fair, but at the same time it would have needed to be a consortium bid, I’d have thought.👍
 
Foggy

Please do not get sucked into (to use the word of the moment) continuing debate with Phil.. You know he is a glass half empty person . As someone else has said, he is in a minority of two and as such you probably have better use of your time.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Sorry, in my original comment, I wasn’t suggesting it was something you should write about or change, it was just an observation really.

I think the word “chancer” is a bit insulting to be fair, but at the same time it would have needed to be a consortium bid, I’d have thought.👍
Click to expand...
Oh no I get that, just thought I'd explain more, that section was tweaked late on so it's still fresh in my mind.

I think he was something of a chancer in that he saw an opportunity and tried to stoke up flames in the press, get fans on his side, negotiate in public. Ive never tried to buy a multi million pound business before, but when it's a business with an incredibly vocal (and let's be honest, fickle) customer base, that strikes me as probably a good idea. But it's safe to say it put Karl and Vicki right off, and they probably saw him as less than professional for it.

Without looking it up because I can't be bothered, I think he offered 4m for the club without the stadium. Which considering VB paid 4.5 for 50% after they built the new north and west stands, seems a pretty fair price actually?
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I think we have different ideas of what words like "imply" and "moaning" mean, but there you are.

As for being precious - do you think so? The book is written, hopefully thousands of people are going to read it and yours is close to being a lone voice. I think it is a well written piece that does the job that Nathan wanted it to do. It reflects well on quite a wide range of people, including but not confined to BST. I don't actually see anything to get precious about - like 90 odd per cent of the people who have posted.
Click to expand...
I hope the attached definition helps with your understanding.

I’m not really sure what your ‘loan voice’ reference relates to. Though if you’re trying to imply that a falsehood becomes a truth based on how many people are prepared to believe it, then I suggest your logic is pretty skewed.

As for the section highlighted, I agree with you and I’ve said as much a good few times on here.

Frankly I’m m not sure my describing a couple of things as “minor inaccuracies” was something to get so hot under the collar about. It seems thin skin isn’t a trait unique to the Oystons….4BC196CB-CC75-47AE-B74C-45C0CDC06865.jpeg
 
Last edited:
foggy said:
Oh no I get that, just thought I'd explain more, that section was tweaked late on so it's still fresh in my mind.

I think he was something of a chancer in that he saw an opportunity and tried to stoke up flames in the press, get fans on his side, negotiate in public. Ive never tried to buy a multi million pound business before, but when it's a business with an incredibly vocal (and let's be honest, fickle) customer base, that strikes me as probably a good idea. But it's safe to say it put Karl and Vicki right off, and they probably saw him as less than professional for it.

Without looking it up because I can't be bothered, I think he offered 4m for the club without the stadium. Which considering VB paid 4.5 for 50% after they built the new north and west stands, seems a pretty fair price actually?
Click to expand...
The stands were obviously not part of the VB arrangement, but based on that valuation the Club excluding property was worth £4.5M. So yes, it probably wasn’t a bad offer…. I suspect there were other considerations for the Oystons though and the fans tbh…. I’m not convinced it would have been good for the Club.

If nothing else though it prompted the Oystons to bring in the VB investment. I’m not sure DH would have much positive to say about VB, but I could be wrong.
 
tangysider said:
This is going to get a hell of a lot more posts, than a certain dark Lord thread.
By the way was that genuine?
Click to expand...
I dont know the specific thread you are referring to, but Karl tried to deny using the Dark Lord username many times to me. But I kept collaring him on it. If I can give myself a bit of a pat on the back, I was very pleased when I finally got him to admit it (or rather...not deny it).

The words he used were, after repeated questioning 'erm...I could have done'
 
foggy said:
Again, none of these are inaccuracies. Just things you wanted in.

The 'dust in the hotel vents' as you put it, was a significant build up of grease and fat in an industrial cooker vent which led all the way under all the guests rooms, which allegedly hadn't been cleaned for years and the hotel manager feared was a massive fire risk and potentially could have had the hotel shut down, or brought much worse, more devastating consequences. The fact you think this isn't an interesting or important detail, is incredibly startling, and makes me think your judgement on what should and shouldn't be included in the book, isn't very valuable.

Your casual depiction of a 16 year old victim of rape being that Owen 'got sucked off in the back of a car' with what, a suggestion I may get sued for repeating court record, is also pretty disgusting. And I'll leave that at that.
Click to expand...
The offences for which the jury found him guilty included hearing the evidence of the victim relating to this incident. That evidence was accepted. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and the European Court of Human Rights; often quoted as being Lilly livered and soft, described his application to them as ‘manifestly unfounded’.

That’s what you referenced.

Seems rather straight forward to me.
 
Hockaday’s Quiff said:
The offences for which the jury found him guilty included hearing the evidence of the victim relating to this incident. That evidence was accepted. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and the European Court of Human Rights; often quoted as being Lilly livered and soft, described his application to them as ‘manifestly unfounded’.

That’s what you referenced.

Seems rather straight forward to me.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the description of events comes from court records too. A very odd post indeed, and very crass. I did point out in the book, I remember when everyone all of a sudden thought Owen's rape conviction was the absolute most heinous, worst thing in the world, which I said was partly the Streisand Effect but also a bit hypocritical, because I never remembered anyone talking about it before really. It seems like now he's gone, it's a bit of a laugh again to some.
 
Biff

"indicate the ..... existence (of something) by suggestion rather than by explicit reference"

So posting along the lines of "I think A is made up, therefore I wonder what else is" doesn't qualify, does it?

I apologise for "loan voice" (sic). But you acted all offended when I lumped you in with Phil. There's a lot of thin skin about today, isn't there?

I'm bowing out now, as we are going round in circles and it isn't doing either of you any favours.
 
Last edited:
foggy said:
I dont know the specific thread you are referring to, but Karl tried to deny using the Dark Lord username many times to me. But I kept collaring him on it. If I can give myself a bit of a pat on the back, I was very pleased when I finally got him to admit it (or rather...not deny it).

The words he used were, after repeated questioning 'erm...I could have done'
Click to expand...
He was one of several users of the same account I believe….. another one being that grass The Duke of Lancaster who used to post on here and originally set the Dark Lord account up 😡
 
Not really one for forums nowadays, but thought I'd log in here to say congratulations Nathan, and thank you, not only for immortalising what we all went through in the book but also, once again, for all the help back then as well.

Also, thanks again to everyone else for the help and support, with obvious special mentions to Tim, Mosser, Christine, Jez, Andy Grice, The Knights, BST, Raggy & Afro and the old Back Henry Street lot, plus many more that got me through it.

I think it was worth it all in the end.

Hope all of you are well.

Paul C
 
TheSteed said:
Not really one for forums nowadays, but thought I'd log in here to say congratulations Nathan, and thank you, not only for immortalising what we all went through in the book but also, once again, for all the help back then as well.

Also, thanks again to everyone else for the help and support, with obvious special mentions to Tim, Mosser, Christine, Jez, Andy Grice, The Knights, BST, Raggy & Afro and the old Back Henry Street lot, plus many more that got me through it.

I think it was worth it all in the end.

Hope all of you are well.

Paul C
Click to expand...
You're welcome Paul. Glad you enjoyed it. If they ever cut that cheque, let me know. Might be worth more than book sale royalties 😉
 
foggy said:
Yes, and the description of events comes from court records too. A very odd post indeed, and very crass. I did point out in the book, I remember when everyone all of a sudden thought Owen's rape conviction was the absolute most heinous, worst thing in the world, which I said was partly the Streisand Effect but also a bit hypocritical, because I never remembered anyone talking about it before really. It seems like now he's gone, it's a bit of a laugh again to some.
Click to expand...
In many ways this thread is somewhat of an example. People would tend to prefer to believe a manufactured, but convenient story, than face up to an inconvenient truth.

OO’s protestations of a stitch up we’re probably good enough for a lot of fans to latch on to. (I’ll certainly admit to going along with it).

That said, I’m not sure the whole return of the ‘rape’ thing was entirely hypocritical. In many ways it came about (rightly or wrongly) as an association with the rape of the club…

I also think that times have probably changed, that people had subsequently had their eyes opened to Owen’s character as well as changing attitudes towards that type of crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top