Accelerated staff payments ... possible scandal ?

Mark Pedlar wrote:

GOB wrote:

I can tell you who hasn't been banned when others have for far less, Ian!

Mark, are you here on ATD to play the antagonist and draw out Ian's embarrassing episode? Just curious as this seems to be the only topic that interest you and as a Pasoti mod with the stance that you've been taking, it seems a little odd that you would want anything to do with ATD.

Why is it odd? Have I done anything antagonistic? Between watching my eldest play and running a training session for my youngest's team I have attempted to honestly answer any question that has been posted. It seems that since about 8 o'clock the type of response from the site has been gradually more aggressive - I don't know why. I am a poster who happens to be a PASOTI mod. There are a few that seem to have a problem with that.

Regarding topics - the "should we swear" thread doesn't interest me - you shouldn't, there is no need. The Estonian striker, It's on PASOTI - the others - can't recall what they are without looking.

Odd Mark because as a friend of Ian's I'm surprised that you're here, that's all.

Aggressive? I think your imagination maybe getting the better of you although you may find this site somewhat different to what you have been used to. Perhaps it's because you're being questioned about a few things that are uncomfortable for you to answer or, you're just not used to questions being raised, I really don't know but I'm sure you'll get used to it in time.

Mark Pedlar wrote:

GOB wrote:

I can tell you who hasn't been banned when others have for far less, Ian!

Mark, are you here on ATD to play the antagonist and draw out Ian's embarrassing episode? Just curious as this seems to be the only topic that interest you and as a Pasoti mod with the stance that you've been taking, it seems a little odd that you would want anything to do with ATD.

Why is it odd? Have I done anything antagonistic? Between watching my eldest play and running a training session for my youngest's team I have attempted to honestly answer any question that has been posted. It seems that since about 8 o'clock the type of response from the site has been gradually more aggressive - I don't know why. I am a poster who happens to be a PASOTI mod. There are a few that seem to have a problem with that.

Regarding topics - the "should we swear" thread doesn't interest me - you shouldn't, there is no need. The Estonian striker, It's on PASOTI - the others - can't recall what they are without looking.

Mark, are you honestly seeing aggression? Really?

I've just trawled back prior to 8pm on this thread, all I can see is pretty much you and Gob having an amicable exchange, and Rickler asking questions.

It's almost as if you are wanting to provoke something that quite simply isn't there.

mark can i come back on pasoti ? i really want to !!!

Czarcasm wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

GOB wrote:

I can tell you who hasn't been banned when others have for far less, Ian!

Mark, are you here on ATD to play the antagonist and draw out Ian's embarrassing episode? Just curious as this seems to be the only topic that interest you and as a Pasoti mod with the stance that you've been taking, it seems a little odd that you would want anything to do with ATD.

Why is it odd? Have I done anything antagonistic? Between watching my eldest play and running a training session for my youngest's team I have attempted to honestly answer any question that has been posted. It seems that since about 8 o'clock the type of response from the site has been gradually more aggressive - I don't know why. I am a poster who happens to be a PASOTI mod. There are a few that seem to have a problem with that.

Regarding topics - the "should we swear" thread doesn't interest me - you shouldn't, there is no need. The Estonian striker, It's on PASOTI - the others - can't recall what they are without looking.

Mark, are you honestly seeing aggression? Really?

I've just trawled back prior to 8pm on this thread, all I can see is pretty much is you and Gob having an amicable exchange, and Rickler asking questions.

It's almost as if you are wanting to provoke something that quite simply isn't there.

Forgive him, he's from Pasoti they're a sensitive lot that like nothing more then to turn a drama into a crises, I think tonight, he failed


I'm sure Mark would agree after tonight, we're not such a bad bunch after all and, I'm sure all those reading the thread would also say the same, there's an awful lot of them. I think there are one or two that were hoping we would carry on where Ian Newell left off, they'll be disappointed. Scum? Maybe not eh.

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

If ever there was a time he deserved a night off it was Friday. Evidently, the timing of his postings would prove he was permitted to continue with his tirade of abuse towards fellow Argo fans all day long.

We will obviously have to agree to disagree. Think you need to look back through this thread and the various threads discussing bans on PASOTI to understand exactly what would result in a ban.

Further proof hypocrisy is alive and kicking amongst the moderators over in PASOTIland.

You are correct of course, no point continuing with this. Goodnight.

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Your account differs from the one I have to hand - again - perhaps another poster can help.

Perhaps you could just get Ian's 'version' or "theory"?

After all... He would have to deny that he was a mod when I was banned for the version you cite to be correct.
We could go from there...

How would you feel if you found out you had been lied to all this time?

Depends if you believe one or the other - I have two versions - yours or Ians. From what you have admitted to about your first banning I can't see a real alternative to accepting Ian's. Anyway - to the point of being boring - why dont you take this point up with your resident ex-PASOTI mod?

Sorry for boring you.

Anyway... This has nothing to do with the 'resident ex mod' as you put it. That person made their decision back then and we have both lived with it. This has everything to do with here and now. ...and everything to do with Newell and the bullying Pasoti culture that you seem to be almost completely unaware of? Either that or you are purposely indulging in obfuscation.

But most importantly of all.... It's about who is telling the truth!!!

Newell is basically telling the world there was a mod vote taken amongst current mods of which you are one and it was agreed that I was to remain banned. Seems like nothing of the sort happened and he's just lying. The same as he is lying about the reason I am currently banned.

He is lying to the world, and he is lying to you (and about you)... ...and you don't really seem to care?

But this isn't just about me, he lies about a mulititude of things, constantly. It really is quite unbelievable sometimes. He lied yesterday on Pasoti about knowing who Emer was, but wasn't smart enough to pull it off and got caught out - yet again! I am sure all that has been wiped out from the record!

Actually... thinking about Newells version of events, and his claim that he knew who 'esmer' was all along, and that they were having a laugh about the situation via personal PM's... Well that would lead to the question as to why Newell as a mod, allowed the 'dogs to be unleashed' for several weeks, have scores of posters angry to the point of distraction, allowed pasoti to be turned into a 'barrage of bile' on numerous occasions, all while him and Esmer had a private laugh about it all?

What do you think about that behaviour?

Anyway...

Yes... Two versions about why I am currently banned... Both very easy to check (hint: look at the dates) One of us will be right and one will be wrong. One of us is telling the truth, and the other is delibrately lying!!!

'Wanna bet the farm?'

Mark, thank you for your time.

Just gandered at Tony. Not much 'football talk' there either. The front page is littered with auction threads...dull, really. Especially as they are allowed to exist but any questioning of where the money is actually going isn't. Of course that sort of censorship will affect the fundraising, Newell. People don't like parting with their cash unless they know why they are doing it, for some reason.

Might start a 'Bradford game' thread soon. Football talk is nice.

Any news on the press release timed for today?

(probably a bit premature as today still has a good few hours to run)

I was thinking the same Dougie although from what I hear the GT's do a cracking job, but like others, I hope they're not being taken advantage of. We'll just have to sit and wait.

Rickler wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Your account differs from the one I have to hand - again - perhaps another poster can help.

Perhaps you could just get Ian's 'version' or "theory"?

After all... He would have to deny that he was a mod when I was banned for the version you cite to be correct.
We could go from there...

How would you feel if you found out you had been lied to all this time?

Depends if you believe one or the other - I have two versions - yours or Ians. From what you have admitted to about your first banning I can't see a real alternative to accepting Ian's. Anyway - to the point of being boring - why dont you take this point up with your resident ex-PASOTI mod?

Sorry for boring you.

Anyway... This has nothing to do with the 'resident ex mod' as you put it. That person made their decision back then and we have both lived with it. This has everything to do with here and now. ...and everything to do with Newell and the bullying Pasoti culture that you seem to be almost completely unaware of? Either that or you are purposely indulging in obfuscation.

But most importantly of all.... It's about who is telling the truth!!!

Newell is basically telling the world there was a mod vote taken amongst current mods of which you are one and it was agreed that I was to remain banned. Seems like nothing of the sort happened and he's just lying. The same as he is lying about the reason I am currently banned.

He is lying to the world, and he is lying to you (and about you)... ...and you don't really seem to care?

But this isn't just about me, he lies about a mulititude of things, constantly. It really is quite unbelievable sometimes. He lied yesterday on Pasoti about knowing who Emer was, but wasn't smart enough to pull it off and got caught out - yet again! I am sure all that has been wiped out from the record!

Actually... thinking about Newells version of events, and his claim that he knew who 'esmer' was all along, and that they were having a laugh about the situation via personal PM's... Well that would lead to the question as to why Newell as a mod, allowed the 'dogs to be unleashed' for several weeks, have scores of posters angry to the point of distraction, allowed pasoti to be turned into a 'barrage of bile' on numerous occasions, all while him and Esmer had a private laugh about it all?

What do you think about that behaviour?

Anyway...

Yes... Two versions about why I am currently banned... Both very easy to check (hint: look at the dates) One of us will be right and one will be wrong. One of us is telling the truth, and the other is delibrately lying!!!

'Wanna bet the farm?'

Mark, thank you for your time.

Looking at the written evidence to hand - I know which version is closer to the truth. Still can't understand why you won't engage with one of the key mods at the time who now only posts on here and of course will not be PASOTI tinted as I obviously am. The asides in your above post are simply not true.

funny man wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

.....

CG compared IJN to Ian Brady - a number of us found that extremely offensive. Maybe we're a bit older as a group but we found this unacceptable. CG was given, I believe (I haven't checked), a night off. We also received a number of pms from people who also found it offensive. A bit like Chris on here his response to debate was not to justify or give proof to his examples but rather to rehearse the same arguement. In the end he reverted to abuse.
......

But he didn't! If anything, he contrasted the two and said words to the effect, "Whether you are Ian Newell or Ian Brady I would still challenge you". That is not the same as comparing the two. It really isn't. And, I'm older as a group.... well, you know what I mean. I agree, GFL's posts were increasingly angry but so were the two mods with whom he was in argument! I wouldn't care if you came on here as Mark Pedlar or Jesus's disciple Mark, I would still challenge you if I thought you were wrong (and, in case there is any confusion, I am not comparing you to St Mark).

There was substantial hysteria on pasoti. From the outside of the modding process, it appears as though GFL has been slapped across the wrists (Daz in his initial response said it would be worse). Do IJN and Daz face any such consequences?

In the interest of peace and reconciliation I shall stop now.

Funny man - I've had the opportunity to check the mod logs which show what was amended, when, and by whom and which are not able to be amended or deleted. Daz never either amended his post or posted a similar second and subsequently deleted post.

Czarcasm wrote:

Mark, are you honestly seeing aggression? Really?

I've just trawled back prior to 8pm on this thread, all I can see is pretty much you and Gob having an amicable exchange, and Rickler asking questions.

It's almost as if you are wanting to provoke something that quite simply isn't there.

Yes PP at one point decided he had had enough of the discussion and dismissed me, basically accusing me of lying. GOB repeated the message and agreed. If it was not aggressive it was certainly rude. I'm not looking to provoke anything - as I've said before I'm here in a personal capacity and to learn a bit more about those on the extremes.

Mark Pedlar wrote:

funny man wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

.....

CG compared IJN to Ian Brady - a number of us found that extremely offensive. Maybe we're a bit older as a group but we found this unacceptable. CG was given, I believe (I haven't checked), a night off. We also received a number of pms from people who also found it offensive. A bit like Chris on here his response to debate was not to justify or give proof to his examples but rather to rehearse the same arguement. In the end he reverted to abuse.
......

But he didn't! If anything, he contrasted the two and said words to the effect, "Whether you are Ian Newell or Ian Brady I would still challenge you". That is not the same as comparing the two. It really isn't. And, I'm older as a group.... well, you know what I mean. I agree, GFL's posts were increasingly angry but so were the two mods with whom he was in argument! I wouldn't care if you came on here as Mark Pedlar or Jesus's disciple Mark, I would still challenge you if I thought you were wrong (and, in case there is any confusion, I am not comparing you to St Mark).

There was substantial hysteria on pasoti. From the outside of the modding process, it appears as though GFL has been slapped across the wrists (Daz in his initial response said it would be worse). Do IJN and Daz face any such consequences?

In the interest of peace and reconciliation I shall stop now.

Funny man - I've had the opportunity to check the mod logs which show what was amended, when, and by whom and which are not able to be amended or deleted. Daz never either amended his post or posted a similar second and subsequently deleted post.

Mark - you probably missed it but Funny Man later said this:

"In which case, if he made a comment additional to the one I saw, I absolutely apologise.

It is good to have a mod respond as openly as he is able without rancour on either side. Thank you."

Nick wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

funny man wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

.....

CG compared IJN to Ian Brady - a number of us found that extremely offensive. Maybe we're a bit older as a group but we found this unacceptable. CG was given, I believe (I haven't checked), a night off. We also received a number of pms from people who also found it offensive. A bit like Chris on here his response to debate was not to justify or give proof to his examples but rather to rehearse the same arguement. In the end he reverted to abuse.
......

But he didn't! If anything, he contrasted the two and said words to the effect, "Whether you are Ian Newell or Ian Brady I would still challenge you". That is not the same as comparing the two. It really isn't. And, I'm older as a group.... well, you know what I mean. I agree, GFL's posts were increasingly angry but so were the two mods with whom he was in argument! I wouldn't care if you came on here as Mark Pedlar or Jesus's disciple Mark, I would still challenge you if I thought you were wrong (and, in case there is any confusion, I am not comparing you to St Mark).

There was substantial hysteria on pasoti. From the outside of the modding process, it appears as though GFL has been slapped across the wrists (Daz in his initial response said it would be worse). Do IJN and Daz face any such consequences?

In the interest of peace and reconciliation I shall stop now.

Funny man - I've had the opportunity to check the mod logs which show what was amended, when, and by whom and which are not able to be amended or deleted. Daz never either amended his post or posted a similar second and subsequently deleted post.

Mark - you probably missed it but Funny Man later said this:

"In which case, if he made a comment additional to the one I saw, I absolutely apologise.

It is good to have a mod respond as openly as he is able without rancour on either side. Thank you."

Thanks Nick - I had.

I've also been waiting with interest for the joint GT/Club statement over the financial assistance being given. I don't have a beef with the GT's but the big shadow over the whole new set up for me is the continued presence of The Riddler, I so hoped he'd be gone. The Darren Purse interview today is the first mention he's had in a while but I can never forget his past and his creative ability to extract money from supporters. I also know that he absolutely lied in answer to at least one of my questions at one of the open meetings which has hardly raised him in my estimation. I'm hoping a delay in any statement is the GT's applying their business acumen and fully understanding the woolly "community payback" concept and just where the money is going and having proof of same.

Charlie Wood wrote:

I've also been waiting with interest for the joint GT/Club statement over the financial assistance being given. I don't have a beef with the GT's but the big shadow over the whole new set up for me is the continued presence of The Riddler, I so hoped he'd be gone. The Darren Purse interview today is the first mention he's had in a while but I can never forget his past and his creative ability to extract money from supporters. I also know that he absolutely lied in answer to at least one of my questions at one of the open meetings which has hardly raised him in my estimation. I'm hoping a delay in any statement is the GT's applying their business acumen and fully understanding the woolly "community payback" concept and just where the money is going and having proof of same.

Spot on Charlie

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Charlie Wood wrote:

I've also been waiting with interest for the joint GT/Club statement over the financial assistance being given. I don't have a beef with the GT's but the big shadow over the whole new set up for me is the continued presence of The Riddler, I so hoped he'd be gone. The Darren Purse interview today is the first mention he's had in a while but I can never forget his past and his creative ability to extract money from supporters. I also know that he absolutely lied in answer to at least one of my questions at one of the open meetings which has hardly raised him in my estimation. I'm hoping a delay in any statement is the GT's applying their business acumen and fully understanding the woolly "community payback" concept and just where the money is going and having proof of same.

Spot on Charlie

Yup, spot on!

I've given Ridsdale some credit following the Purse comments but I see Ridsdale as the only bit of the set up that I really am not happy with.


Mark, I have perceived Ridsdale and the Pasoti leadership as joined at the hip, am I mistaken? That's a genuine question BTW, no agenda attempted.

GOB wrote:

Mark, I have perceived Ridsdale and the Pasoti leadership as joined at the hip, am I mistaken? That's a genuine question BTW, no agenda attempted.

I dont know why you should have thought that - I would have said that among the leadership there is not a clear view on him. They range from believing that he's good for the club to aview that it would be better if he went forth. I've never canvassed the view among the mods but I'd guess at a 60/40 split in favour of "no" if the question "do you want him involved" was posed.

I met him early on when PASOTI were posing questions to him - I found him a charmer but didn't like him and would hate to be doing business with him. I'd prefer he was on my side when negotiating a deal but it was difficult to believe everything he said.

Perfectly put Charlie ... so much better than my way of phrasing things.

Mark Pedlar wrote:

GOB wrote:

Mark, I have perceived Ridsdale and the Pasoti leadership as joined at the hip, am I mistaken? That's a genuine question BTW, no agenda attempted.

I dont know why you should have thought that - I would have said that among the leadership there is not a clear view on him. They range from believing that he's good for the club to aview that it would be better if he went forth. I've never canvassed the view among the mods but I'd guess at a 60/40 split in favour of "no" if the question "do you want him involved" was posed.

I met him early on when PASOTI were posing questions to him - I found him a charmer but didn't like him and would hate to be doing business with him. I'd prefer he was on my side when negotiating a deal but it was difficult to believe everything he said.

Cheers Mark.

Without going down "that path", I was under the impression that one man more-or-less structured the Pasoti policy, so I am happily surprised.

Charlie Wood wrote:

I've also been waiting with interest for the joint GT/Club statement over the financial assistance being given. I don't have a beef with the GT's but the big shadow over the whole new set up for me is the continued presence of The Riddler, I so hoped he'd be gone. The Darren Purse interview today is the first mention he's had in a while but I can never forget his past and his creative ability to extract money from supporters. I also know that he absolutely lied in answer to at least one of my questions at one of the open meetings which has hardly raised him in my estimation. I'm hoping a delay in any statement is the GT's applying their business acumen and fully understanding the woolly "community payback" concept and just where the money is going and having proof of same.

With corporate governance being explained as high on James Brent's list of priorities I would hope that Risdale (Chairman, Football Operations) is being held on a fairly tight leash and something like this is far outside his remit. It wouldn't sit well if he was deal maker in this.

As an aside the sooner that Brent's board is finalised (if it is going to be expanded) the better.

GOB wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

GOB wrote:

Mark, I have perceived Ridsdale and the Pasoti leadership as joined at the hip, am I mistaken? That's a genuine question BTW, no agenda attempted.

I dont know why you should have thought that - I would have said that among the leadership there is not a clear view on him. They range from believing that he's good for the club to aview that it would be better if he went forth. I've never canvassed the view among the mods but I'd guess at a 60/40 split in favour of "no" if the question "do you want him involved" was posed.

I met him early on when PASOTI were posing questions to him - I found him a charmer but didn't like him and would hate to be doing business with him. I'd prefer he was on my side when negotiating a deal but it was difficult to believe everything he said.

Cheers Mark.

Without going down "that path", I was under the impression that one man more-or-less structured the Pasoti policy, so I am happily surprised.

Nope PASOTI policy is voted upon. No single mod can administer a ban or any form of discipline without a mod vote. No mod can make an amendment to a post without it being logged and documented.

I really don't want to go down this path of political crap again Mark, but I do wish some of you would voice your opinions a little more often because the perception of Pasoti maybe being unfairly judged.....Again, no agenda Mark, just observation.

Nick wrote:

.......

Mark - you probably missed it but Funny Man later said this:

"In which case, if he made a comment additional to the one I saw, I absolutely apologise.

It is good to have a mod respond as openly as he is able without rancour on either side. Thank you."

Nick, I guess Mark was responding to my previous suggestion that Daz had changed the wording of his post from "You are banned" to "I will put it to the mods that you will be banned".

A bit of me still wants to hold on to what I saw .... but a possibility is that in the heat of the moment I saw what wasn't there. Another possibility is that Daz covers his tracks exceedingly well. A further possibility is that Mark is lying.

I prefer to trust people rather than not trust. (That has got me into lots of trouble in the past in all sorts of ways, ageing hippy that I am - including a couple of nasty pieces of work on pasoti .... but that's a story of private pms so that will remain private). The world would be a crazy place, I believe, if we don't trust.

So, again, I apologise unreservedly to Mark &, I guess, to Daz.

However, that doesn't deal with the issue of the behaviour of the mod who sprinkled over the top descriptions all over the place. I see he has made a partial and, perhaps, grudging retraction. How many times ..... ?

And I have just seen GOB's post as I was about to send this - and I agree with him.

Mark Pedlar wrote:

......
Nope PASOTI policy is voted upon. No single mod can administer a ban or any form of discipline without a mod vote. No mod can make an amendment to a post without it being logged and documented.

Sorry, but, for obvious reasons, I want to check. Does that mean to his own post or any?