Latest Takeover Rumour. The Moores / Noell one

[Watch this space]

A bit of BU input in this thread lately too.

I've no problem with BU members posting here, as we're all Evertonians and are entitled to our own opinions - I am not a member and never have been, and I'll keep my opinion of the group to myself (how's that for fence sitting @chicoazul lol ).

One thing that always strikes me about BU posts here though, is that there is nearly always a (verbally) aggressive undertone to their posts, initially at least.

I wish people would remain civil, which I'll admit is difficult with such an emotive subject ie. the welfare of the club. Remember, we all want the best for the club, whatever your outlook.

We need to remember that you can disagree with out being nasty folks.

Anyway....

Tbf to @Billyliar9 he was getting some unwarranted grief when people found out he was from the BU
His convo was civil with Esk before people started criticising

 

[Nobby Nobbs]

Haha..i coudnt....much as i would like too....but we gave our word..

Well that's got the spidey senses tingling

 

[Lanolin]

Wait its you who called someone a seven year old and then assumed that the "they" in his post meant pro board.

That's a massive jump considering the most obvious assumption would just be the people who believed/questioned the quote and the people who didn't.

So you've resorted to petty name calling and a pretty big assumption of your own all whilst not even questioning what the quote means about Everton

Ok, final post from me on the subject. I was just giving an opinion on the way certain points were being put across, I didn't intend to create a BU debate and railroad the thread so i won't go any further.

Firstly, my remark about acting like a seven year old was to do with the response I got to my previous post. Saying 'oh it's the grammar police' and 'grow a pair' is schoolyard stuff so I was pointing it out. If you feel that it was petty name calling then I apologise as that wasn't the intention.

Believing that 'they' was intended in the way I took it is not a massive leap at all. The full quote suggested that 'they' were using a smoke and mirrors tactic to deliberately take away from the real issue. If i wanted to take away from the point he was making, it would most likely be because I was pro board and didn't like what he was saying. I can't think of any other reason why I would use smoke and mirrors to deflect attention away from anti-board sentiment. If you were in any more doubt, see his later post which stated that I was 'anti-BU' and had 'preconceived ideas'. This is exactly the type of thing i was talking about to start with. It's total rubbish, i've been to BU meetings and not liked the way they went. The preconceived idea I had was that the BU would be a good thing, my experience was that it was not. But that can't possibly be the case can it? I must 'lack gumption'.

 

[magicjuan]

A bit of BU input in this thread lately too.

I've no problem with BU members posting here, as we're all Evertonians and are entitled to our own opinions - I am not a member and never have been, and I'll keep my opinion of the group to myself (how's that for fence sitting @chicoazul lol ).

One thing that always strikes me about BU posts here though, is that there is nearly always a (verbally) aggressive undertone to their posts, initially at least.

I wish people would remain civil, which I'll admit is difficult with such an emotive subject ie. the welfare of the club. Remember, we all want the best for the club, whatever your outlook.

We need to remember that you can disagree with out being nasty folks.

Anyway....

Think that's a bit harsh tbh, there is usually a pre concieved opinion of any BU member or representative or supporter as an antagonist and usually, again, are met with, wait for it, antagonism.

Frustration does rear up but it is disingenuous to just highlight BU as aggressive when both sides are equally guilty (who knows, perhaps Rossy is back?), but perhaps you should call on Chico for some wax on wax off lessons in fence sitting?

 

[joey_macmo]

A bit of BU input in this thread lately too.

I've no problem with BU members posting here, as we're all Evertonians and are entitled to our own opinions - I am not a member and never have been, and I'll keep my opinion of the group to myself (how's that for fence sitting @chicoazul lol ).

One thing that always strikes me about BU posts here though, is that there is nearly always a (verbally) aggressive undertone to their posts, initially at least.

I wish people would remain civil, which I'll admit is difficult with such an emotive subject ie. the welfare of the club. Remember, we all want the best for the club, whatever your outlook.

We need to remember that you can disagree with out being nasty folks.

Anyway....

Once again could somebody point out the aggressive posts to me because I must have missed them.

However I have seen someone being called all sorts for posting a simple conversation where the poster admits he was probably being lied to in one way or another.

I've seen said poster being hung drawn and quartered for his confusion over who wrote a book when it actually didn't matter as he was using a quote from green that has been published several times and I've seen the same poster being called silly names for no apparent reason.

The reaction by some on here to one poster who by his own admission is representing his own opinion not that of an organisation he is a member off has been bizarre.

 

[joey_macmo]

Ok, final post from me on the subject. I was just giving an opinion on the way certain points were being put across, I didn't intend to create a BU debate and railroad the thread so i won't go any further.

Firstly, my remark about acting like a seven year old was to do with the response I got to my previous post. Saying 'oh it's the grammar police' and 'grow a pair' is schoolyard stuff so I was pointing it out. If you feel that it was petty name calling then I apologise as that wasn't the intention.

Believing that 'they' was intended in the way I took it is not a massive leap at all. The full quote suggested that 'they' were using a smoke and mirrors tactic to deliberately take away from the real issue. If i wanted to take away from the point he was making, it would most likely be because I was pro board and didn't like what he was saying. I can't think of any other reason why I would use smoke and mirrors to deflect attention away from anti-board sentiment. If you were in any more doubt, see his later post which stated that I was 'anti-BU' and had 'preconceived ideas'. This is exactly the type of thing i was talking about to start with. It's total rubbish, i've been to BU meetings and not liked the way they went. The preconceived idea I had was that the BU would be a good thing, my experience was that it was not. But that can't possibly be the case can it? I must 'lack gumption'.

So you went to a meeting didn't like what they had to say so then when a BU member began posting on here you decided to attack his source despite not even questioning the quote which in itself is extremely bizarre.

You're pretty much admitting you had a pre conceived idea about the member before he began posting.

Hence his point which is extremely valid. You still have yet to make a clear argument if you don't doubt the quote then I'm honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make apart from attack the poster for what appears to be no reason other than you don't like the organisation he is from.

Which is a preconception by anyone's standards

 

[joey_macmo]

Think that's a bit harsh tbh, there is usually a pre concieved opinion of any BU member or representative or supporter as an antagonist and usually, again, are met with, wait for it, antagonism.

Frustration does rear up but it is disingenuous to just highlight BU as aggressive when both sides are equally guilty (who knows, perhaps Rossy is back?), but perhaps you should call on Chico for some wax on wax off lessons in fence sitting?

Spot on, only one poster has been called a liar, a seven year old, vitriolic and aggressive in the last few pages without much foundation which in this context is quite ironic.

 

[Tramps_mate]

Too many people with no connection claim jet fuel cant melt steel beams
And Muslims use Alien Ray guns.

In short, people are morons.

You are sooooooo wrong...





It's Muslamic ray guns.

 

[Sapie88]

Too many people with no connection claim jet fuel cant melt steel beams
And Muslims use Alien Ray guns.

In short, people are morons.

It can't, jet fuel or Avtur as it's known in the business burns at highest 800 Celsius, steel has a melting point of around 1510 Celsius.

I used to work with the stuff.

 

[bluestevon]

@Groucho mate that's not fence sitting, you basically comment straight off the bat about BU members having a verbally aggressive undertone to their posts - totally disregarding other peoples posts which led him to kick back to to speak - It's as far from fence sitting as it's possible to get, fence sitting would have been to point out that one poster who posted perfectly fine on here - initially to refute various posts accusing him of being a liar, since then had then been constantly poked and prodded by people obviously pro board or certainly against the BU at best and naturally he defended himself - hard to defend yourself without becoming a bit more aggressive really mate.

Call a horse a horse, else your taking sides under the pretence of 'fence sitting' which isn't fair at all

 

[eddy]

Are we sold yet? You would think any serious buyer would have performed a certain amount of due dilligence before hand, so 6 weeks
should be enough to arrange finance etc
Edd

 

[Sapie88]

Are we sold yet? You would think any serious buyer would have performed a certain amount of due dilligence before hand, so 6 weeks
should be enough to arrange finance etc
Edd

Not yet mate. I reckon it'll be done by March.

 

[The Esk]

when both sides

I've seen said poster being hung drawn and quartered for his confusion over who wrote a book

I don't understand this "both sides" argument. Why the need for such division? Surely we are all Blues and we should have enough common ground to overcome any differences in approach and strategies when dealing with the board.

With regards to the issue of biography or auto-biography the whole discussion arose when I made the distinction. In the same post I also highlighted the claim the Green had bought Everton.

My point in highlighting this is not to embarrass an individual poster (he and I have had perfectly amicable private conversations) but to highlight that any fan group that wishes to take on someone like Green to task must be extremely precise in their comments and claims. The lack of precision does two things. Firstly it makes any defence by the board or others much easier as the inaccuracies will be highlighted to discredit the bigger argument and secondly people who recognise the inaccuracies are less likely to join a group because of them.

On a wider note, if there is such a body of evidence against substantial claims why has there been no meaningful action to bring any wrongdoing to the authorities and to shareholders ? There may be perfectly legitimate reasons, lack of resources, lack of expertise etc but from my perspective to make claims and then not to follow them through is an odd strategy. What does it hope to achieve?

As I said to begin with, there's more common ground than there is areas of division, let's debate but let's not be devisive.

 

[magicjuan]

I don't understand this "both sides" argument. Why the need for such division? Surely we are all Blues and we should have enough common ground to overcome any differences in approach and strategies when dealing with the board.

With regards to the issue of biography or auto-biography the whole discussion arose when I made the distinction. In the same post I also highlighted the claim the Green had bought Everton.

My point in highlighting this is not to embarrass an individual poster (he and I have had perfectly amicable private conversations) but to highlight that any fan group that wishes to take on someone like Green to task must be extremely precise in their comments and claims. The lack of precision does two things. Firstly it makes any defence by the board or others much easier as the inaccuracies will be highlighted to discredit the bigger argument and secondly people who recognise the inaccuracies are less likely to join a group because of them.

On a wider note, if there is such a body of evidence against substantial claims why has there been no meaningful action to bring any wrongdoing to the authorities and to shareholders ? There may be perfectly legitimate reasons, lack of resources, lack of expertise etc but from my perspective to make claims and then not to follow them through is an odd strategy. What does it hope to achieve?

As I said to begin with, there's more common ground than there is areas of division, let's debate but let's not be devisive.

As I have said many many times this 'division' will be Bill's legacy. There is a commonality in Everton FC but the club's board has alienated itself from a sizeable amount of support and that has increased with time, not decreased.
Supporters haven't chosen to be divided but it is easier to create diversionary tactics to blindside and alter perceptions.

 

[Groucho]

@Groucho mate that's not fence sitting, you basically comment straight off the bat about BU members having a verbally aggressive undertone to their posts - totally disregarding other peoples posts which led him to kick back to to speak - It's as far from fence sitting as it's possible to get, fence sitting would have been to point out that one poster who posted perfectly fine on here - initially to refute various posts accusing him of being a liar, since then had then been constantly poked and prodded by people obviously pro board or certainly against the BU at best and naturally he defended himself - hard to defend yourself without becoming a bit more aggressive really mate.

Call a horse a horse, else your taking sides under the pretence of 'fence sitting' which isn't fair at all

I was trying to be diplomatic, however I'm not just speaking for recent posts here - more generally over the years, in both this and the old board thread as a whole really.

Once again could somebody point out the aggressive posts to me because I must have missed them.

However I have seen someone being called all sorts for posting a simple conversation where the poster admits he was probably being lied to in one way or another.

I've seen said poster being hung drawn and quartered for his confusion over who wrote a book when it actually didn't matter as he was using a quote from green that has been published several times and I've seen the same poster being called silly names for no apparent reason.

The reaction by some on here to one poster who by his own admission is representing his own opinion not that of an organisation he is a member off has been bizarre.

Again, it's been generally noticed over the years, rather than just the last day - y'know, overall, generally speaking and that. This thread and the old board one.

Think that's a bit harsh tbh, there is usually a pre concieved opinion of any BU member or representative or supporter as an antagonist and usually, again, are met with, wait for it, antagonism.

Frustration does rear up but it is disingenuous to just highlight BU as aggressive when both sides are equally guilty (who knows, perhaps Rossy is back?), but perhaps you should call on Chico for some wax on wax off lessons in fence sitting?

I appreciate that the aggression does happen from both sides, both pro and anti board, and pro and anti BU.

The whole matter causes friction for everyone really.

 

[Groucho]

Tbf to @Billyliar9 he was getting some unwarranted grief when people found out he was from the BU
His convo was civil with Esk before people started criticising

Yes, both sides can give as good as they get.