-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Can we have a vote
- Thread starter SurreyGreen
- Start date
Yes ... of course... I don't recall seeing any alternative on the table.
Peter Ridsdale or nothing... worried that 30% voted for nothing!
Peter Ridsdale or nothing... worried that 30% voted for nothing!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kevin_Dacombe":3pqtrodt said:
Not strictly true Kevin.
Brent was, from the outset, a "reluctant" bidder.
Buttivant couldn't come up with the required spondulicks.
The Irish, on the other hand, did.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I can confirm that Peter Ridsdale did see the result of this poll (or at least was told of it). He did comment that he was surprised at how well he had done. 
I can't vote because I don't actually believe he is to be the Argyle owner, I want to know a whole heap more about the fingers in the wider pie, presently that stinks to high heaven. If it looks, smells, tastes, feels and sounds like a puppet regime, it probably is.
As a football man and a capable operator for the football club, he's won me over. I can't help retching at being force fed this 'ownership' poo, it's wrong and maaaaany more questions need answering before I can support this puppet regime.
As a football man and a capable operator for the football club, he's won me over. I can't help retching at being force fed this 'ownership' poo, it's wrong and maaaaany more questions need answering before I can support this puppet regime.
X Isle":1htz0v1n said:
I was pretty sure you must know it all judging by your last few hundred posts. Would not like to be in the dock if you were on a jury.
Marlin":2332v6j3 said:
If you are in the dock then you'd be guilty, simples, next case
. In all seriousness yesterdays developments through me a bit. My snout told me the development suggestions and that they had no intention of even pretending to have an interest in football, I had no more clue as to the identity of the proposed owners as anyone else. What happened sort of reinforces that information but then raises more questions. The PB's (I still don't trust the Irish spin) on the face of it haven't even pretended to give a poo about football. Or have they?, they can buy it back off their puppet in 12 months if they want to.........but why would they if they're not interested in football?. It doesn't clear up the ownership angle as it was intended to do, it just throws in a whole load more curveballs and questions about the REAL owners of Argyle.
As for the vote, what are we voting for?, what is Ridsdale puppet or owner?, are we voting in support/otherwise of him as a chairman?, or are we voting in support/otherwise of the stinky set-up we're being force fed?.
I'm spoiling my paper as whilst I think he'll do a good job, I don't swallow the bullsh1t that he owns us.
the question was Ridsdale yes or no. i voted no. i wasn't voting for the dissolutioon of the club (FFS!) i was voting my distrust/forebodings etc etc
look at his history.
what if the vote had been two years ago? all those who think that Ridsdale should be in charge of our club in 2011 vote 'yes'. wouldn't have got 7% then would you!
this isn't a general election btw!! where you vote but have to live with the majority decision. 30% don't have to buy STs next year, don't have to go, don't have to buy shirts etc etc. those who don't like it might withdraw
just an observation
look at his history.
what if the vote had been two years ago? all those who think that Ridsdale should be in charge of our club in 2011 vote 'yes'. wouldn't have got 7% then would you!
this isn't a general election btw!! where you vote but have to live with the majority decision. 30% don't have to buy STs next year, don't have to go, don't have to buy shirts etc etc. those who don't like it might withdraw
just an observation
pogleswoody":16gpwkr5 said:
Yeah but don't you know the rules here, your not allowed to disagree with the majority, even if the majority are blinded by their hope, you have to tow the line and support whoever is in charge, the majority on here would support the old board coming back even if they wouldn't admit it and why? because they hope it wouldn't happen again, just like they hope Ridsdale won't do the same to us, as he has at other clubs.
Pontypoolgreen":2dib85ma said:
Knew you would
He came in and did the job that someone else should have been doing, it's that simple, he is thou, not here for us or the club he is here for himself, that's the point I'm trying to make and we don't need another one of those in charge we need someone that will do it for the club.
Pontypoolgreen":1yuxv6kl said:sharkbait":1yuxv6kl said:Pontypoolgreen":1yuxv6kl said:
Knew you would
He came in and did the job that someone else should have been doing, it's that simple, he is thou, not here for us or the club he is here for himself, that's the point I'm trying to make and we don't need another one of those in charge we need someone that will do it for the club.
If he saves us and gets himself a few bob along the way so be it.
Who on here would give up there job and go a run PAFC for no wages??
Not me, I have to put put a loaf of bread on the table as does Ridsdale.
Now I know you don't believe that he came here to work for nothing without a hidden agenda.