Is There An OSP Update ?

[essex canary 498]

4 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Very well said wolfie. 

Meanwhile the grown ups in the room are on the Attanasio thread.

[wcorkcanary 4,336]

22 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Meanwhile the grown ups in the room are on the Attanasio thread.

Well, someone has to look after you don't they? 

[TIL 1010 4,776]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

Meanwhile the grown ups in the room are on the Attanasio thread.

Yes and you have had a telling off for being a naughty boy by one of the grown ups for posting something that is factually incorrect.

[Greavsy 2,418]

2 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

Yes and you have had a telling off for being a naughty boy by one of the grown ups for posting something that is factually incorrect.

Again.

[essex canary 498]

21 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Again.

'Factually incorrect? You really would have someone from his professional background would be very cautious about that allegation.

[Greavsy 2,418]

16 minutes ago, essex canary said:

'Factually incorrect? You really would have someone from his professional background would be very cautious about that allegation.

And in English please? 

BTW you never did answer my question about if you have joined the Trust's committee following your membership of said group.   

[essex canary 498]

8 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

And in English please? 

BTW you never did answer my question about if you have joined the Trust's committee following your membership of said group.   

I presume you and @TIL 1010 are referring to a reaction I got from a Trust Officer on the MA thread? If so my response can be clearly tracked and whatever issues there were don't concern factual correctness.

I haven't joined the Trust's committee. I may be willing to serve but if I did I would need to be elected in accordance with the enhanced democratic procedures they are currently implementing.

[Greavsy 2,418]

6 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I presume you and @TIL 1010 are referring to a reaction I got from a Trust Officer on the MA thread? If so my response can be clearly tracked and whatever issues there were don't concern factual correctness.

I haven't joined the Trust's committee. I may be willing to serve but if I did I would need to be elected in accordance with the enhanced democratic procedures they are currently implementing.

Im sure they would be honoured to have a man of your standing on their committee. Soon sort out any issues they dont have! 

I assume you need to be nominated, and that person has to be a trust member too, which is a shame as that means I cannot provide that service - which I would willing do, in the hope that it took up enough of your time, and stopped you posting your constant one man agenda driven drivel on here. Although that would very unfair on the Trust and their decent members. 

[essex canary 498]

2 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Im sure they would be honoured to have a man of your standing on their committee. Soon sort out any issues they dont have! 

I assume you need to be nominated, and that person has to be a trust member too, which is a shame as that means I cannot provide that service - which I would willing do, in the hope that it took up enough of your time, and stopped you posting your constant one man agenda driven drivel on here. Although that would very unfair on the Trust and their decent members. 

Whatever. The problem that many people have with their elected representatives is they don't get answers or explanations. But democracy permits the opposite viewpoint.

The issue raised and debated was one of procedural , rather than factual, correctness or otherwise, so very transparent amongst those who took part and those who can read it after the event. The debate has moved on. We could be converging on a consensus as per my latest posting on the MA thread. Could be very good to get there as there are very delicate and important issue at stake.

Quite happy to acknowledge that rather like yourself 'toeing the line' doesn't come easy. I don't see that as a reason for non participation though.

[Greavsy 2,418]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

Whatever. The problem that many people have with their elected representatives is they don't get answers or explanations. But democracy permits the opposite viewpoint.

The issue raised and debated was one of procedural , rather than factual, correctness or otherwise, so very transparent amongst those who took part and those who can read it after the event. The debate has moved on. We could be converging on a consensus as per my latest posting on the MA thread. Could be very good to get there as there are very delicate and important issue at stake.

Quite happy to acknowledge that rather like yourself 'toeing the line' doesn't come easy. I don't see that as a reason for non participation though.

I would give that consideration if I gave a to$$ about your point of view, which quite frankly I dont. 

Glad to note that you reading my posts has been educational for you. You're welcome. 

Ill leave you to the MA thread, as I have some paint to watch dry.

[essex canary 498]

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

I would give that consideration if I gave a to$$ about your point of view, which quite frankly I dont. 

Glad to note that you reading my posts has been educational for you. You're welcome. 

Ill leave you to the MA thread, as I have some paint to watch dry.

Each to his own.

[Greavsy 2,418]

Just now, essex canary said:

Each to his own.

You're too kind! 

 

[essex canary 498]

10 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

You're too kind! 

 

One other thing we share is a love of football that goes a bit broader than NCFC. Keep that going.

[Greavsy 2,418]

5 minutes ago, essex canary said:

One other thing we share is a love of football that goes a bit broader than NCFC. Keep that going.

I dont need an endorsement from you - You're just not my type. 

I prefer people with at least some self awareness. 

[essex canary 498]

47 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

I dont need an endorsement from you - You're just not my type. 

I prefer people with at least some self awareness. 

Apparently NCFCs price levels are just business whilst Daggers low price levels are good. That is a little curious.

Our friend @Capt. Pantsasks who will buy the 195,000 shares if MA doesn't? With 50,000 shares that is only 4 each on average though clearly many people would have to buy more far more than 4. That is what happened in 2002 though we would have to do around 3 times better this time round. 

What do you think - Captain or Pants?

[Greavsy 2,418]

5 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Apparently NCFCs price levels are just business whilst Daggers low price levels are good. That is a little curious.

Our friend @Capt. Pantsasks who will buy the 195,000 shares if MA doesn't? With 50,000 shares that is only 4 each on average though clearly many people would have to buy more far more than 4. That is what happened in 2002 though we would have to do around 3 times better this time round. 

What do you think - Captain or Pants?

BORING! 

[Duncan Edwards 2,247]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Apparently NCFCs price levels are just business whilst Daggers low price levels are good. That is a little curious.

Our friend @Capt. Pantsasks who will buy the 195,000 shares if MA doesn't? With 50,000 shares that is only 4 each on average though clearly many people would have to buy more far more than 4. That is what happened in 2002 though we would have to do around 3 times better this time round. 

What do you think - Captain or Pants?

What is this in English?

Do you mean 50,000 supporters/fans? Your constant references back to 2002 are, at best, dull. You weren’t pressured into buying 1000 shares at £25 a piece, you did so because you could and you were starry eyed by the meaningless title of Associate Director.

You’ve been bleating and whining ever since, mistaking your meaningless label for some form of importance. You’ve exhausted all lines of complaint apart from posting on here. You haven’t lost anything, you still own what you paid for at a price you found acceptable.

Yet at every turn you want to dig at the club, they pay too much but if they took the “cheap” option I’m sure you’d determine that they lack ambition.

Couldn’t get favourable treatment for Chelsea away? Whine.

Not understanding the difference between being alive and dead? Whine.

Birds ****ting on your seat? Whine.

You’ve complained and complained and complained and been told you’ve got NOTHING at every turn, yet you still pebbledash this board with your, clearly determined, pointless moaning day after day.

Your only goal is self. For all the “helping the club” rhetoric it’s now self evident that you expected a return on your input; a poxy input that bought you a few ties and a title you can put on your Facebook profile. It’s 25k ffs. It’s minuscule. It’s what? A weeks wages for a decent player? You chucked it in over 20 years ago, how often do you think the club can spend your one off input?

Cambridge is your level. Not academically, obviously. You are boring. 

 

 

[Greavsy 2,418]

I think you should show more respect @Duncan Edwards for not only a shareholder, but also a trust member.  We are lucky to have such a selfless person at the club. 

You certainly can't accuse him of a hidden agenda. And of course all this goodwill will pass to his descendents to continue his good work. We are indeed blessed and the future looks golden.

You forgot the canary embossed travel wallet. I wonder if its monochromed......

 

[essex canary 498]

2 hours ago, Greavsy said:

I think you should show more respect @Duncan Edwards for not only a shareholder, but also a trust member.  We are lucky to have such a selfless person at the club. 

You certainly can't accuse him of a hidden agenda. And of course all this goodwill will pass to his descendents to continue his good work. We are indeed blessed and the future looks golden.

You forgot the canary embossed travel wallet. I wonder if its monochromed......

 

How do you know you are not my type? If you sat in meetings with people pompously discussing the Chatham House Rules, I am guessing you would find toeing that line very challenging. Ditto @Duncan Edwards. Actually it is Chatham House Rule singular. The OSP isn't operating to that.

No problem personally with different types of people as long as they are broad minded.

 

[Greavsy 2,418]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

How do you know you are not my type?

Because I don't like self obsessed, out for themselves, boring, repetitive, tw@ts, so its irrelevant.  Idiot

Edited September 14, 2023 by Greavsy

[essex canary 498]

7 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Because I don't like self obsessed, out for themselves, boring, repetitive, tw@ts, so its irrelevant.  Idiot

Meaning you are unable to or incapable of responding to the completeness of my last post. 

A common trait on here. Pick an odd phrase out of something and take it out of context in order to hurl abuse.

[Greavsy 2,418]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Meaning you are unable to or incapable of responding to the completeness of my last post. 

A common trait on here. Pick an odd phrase out of something and take it out of context in order to hurl abuse.

Yawn. Yawn Yawn. 

I'm going to cease responding to you now. 

Try to cope.

[essex canary 498]

6 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Yawn. Yawn Yawn. 

I'm going to cease responding to you now. 

Try to cope.

You reached the end of the road. Couldn't respond politely.

[TIL 1010 4,776]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

You reached the end of the road. Couldn't respond politely.

When are you going to grasp that this forum has reached the end of the road with you ?

[TIL 1010 4,776]

16 hours ago, essex canary said:

I presume you and @TIL 1010 are referring to a reaction I got from a Trust Officer on the MA thread? If so my response can be clearly tracked and whatever issues there were don't concern factual correctness.

 

A reaction ? Dear God he told you that what you posted was incorrect you clown.

[essex canary 498]

7 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

A reaction ? Dear God he told you that what you posted was incorrect you clown.

Further response provided to him on that thread.

[TIL 1010 4,776]

42 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Further response provided to him on that thread.

Not surprised as you never accept one word that is said to you unless it suits your agenda.

Just had a look for the first time today and my opinion, just my opinion mind you is that you are getting under the skin of an officer of the Trust however you no doubt see it totally different.

Edited September 14, 2023 by TIL 1010

[GMF 756]

36 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Further response provided to him on that thread.

I didn’t respond to your initial question because I didn’t understand it… 

[TIL 1010 4,776]

4 minutes ago, GMF said:

I didn’t respond to your initial question because I didn’t understand it… 

Saved you some time then Gary as no doubt had you responded that response would not suit.

[Greavsy 2,418]

59 minutes ago, GMF said:

I didn’t respond to your initial question because I didn’t understand it… 

He must be correct then, in that case........obviously.