Keith Todd v Paul S

Charlie Wood wrote:

Nosey's relationship with Akos is held within the confidence of the modroom.

Thanks for that confirmation Charlie. It was pretty obvious from knechts tentative defence of Nosey, plus previous similar posts that something like that had happened.

Gotta say though, that to the common ATD foot soldier, (and I'd concur entirely with Mr Searles synopsis) regardless of who he is, it appears that Nosey has a certain kind of agenda.

Czarcasm wrote:

Charlie Wood wrote:

Nosey's relationship with Akos is held within the confidence of the modroom.

Thanks for that confirmation Charlie. It was pretty obvious from knechts tentative defence of Nosey, plus previous similar posts that something like that had happened.

Gotta say though, that to the common ATD foot soldier, (and I'd concur entirely with Mr Searles synopsis) regardless of who he is, it appears that Nosey has a certain kind of agenda.

Yeah I think so too. He's like a kid with a secret singing "I know something you don't know" and yet he doesn't appear to even like what's posted on here

If he's he for a wind-up it's only very mildly irritating Nosey, a bit like the clap a week after penicillin.

Peter Jones?

possibly

Mike Searle wrote:

Yea Man wrote:

I liked Holloway and would take him back in a heartbeat.

He got pissed off because Stapleton was going to be selling the best team in years, can't blame him for moving on.

Plus Stapleton had a shit hairstyle.

And wooden teeth

and a gay moustash

and a daughter who liked first team players

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

and a daughter who liked first team players

Abusive comment removed by mods.

she and Seip still married ?

is there any 'real' purpose to parkers drivel ?

Lord Aviva wrote:

is there any 'real' purpose to parkers drivel ?

Yes.. An overt defence of Paul Stapleton.

I don't think he makes many bones about it.

I just wish Nosey would supply a little more of the 'truthful' meat to go on those bones.

If it is the 'truth', what is there to be afraid of?

Noseyparker wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Two main points from this thread then,

'Noseys' Stapleton charm offensive hasn't worked at all.
'Nosey' doesn't like Tring very much.

Point 1 - haha
Point 2 - spot on! I dont know why, my assumption is that he was hit as a child. Perhaps the explains the wearing of a younger relatives clothes in his profile pic

I was a much loved only child dear boy

I was wearing the younger relative's hoodie for the profile pic, as it bears the slogan Honesty Openness Transparency.....' Hot' Forex.

I don't tell lies or hide my identity. I'm proud of who and what I am.

Greenjock wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Charlie Wood wrote:

Nosey's relationship with Akos is held within the confidence of the modroom.

Thanks for that confirmation Charlie. It was pretty obvious from knechts tentative defence of Nosey, plus previous similar posts that something like that had happened.

Gotta say though, that to the common ATD foot soldier, (and I'd concur entirely with Mr Searles synopsis) regardless of who he is, it appears that Nosey has a certain kind of agenda.

Yeah I think so too. He's like a kid with a secret singing "I know something you don't know" and yet he doesn't appear to even like what's posted on here

If he's he for a wind-up it's only very mildly irritating Nosey, a bit like the clap a week after penicillin.

Bit harsh Mr Greenjock. At no point have I ever mentioned that I am privy to sensitive information. If anyone wants to know anything about me then all they have to do is ask!

Czarcasm wrote:

Charlie Wood wrote:

Nosey's relationship with Akos is held within the confidence of the modroom.

Thanks for that confirmation Charlie. It was pretty obvious from knechts tentative defence of Nosey, plus previous similar posts that something like that had happened.

Gotta say though, that to the common ATD foot soldier, (and I'd concur entirely with Mr Searles synopsis) regardless of who he is, it appears that Nosey has a certain kind of agenda.

No agenda Mr Czarcasm. I simply post as I post.

What amazes me is people's cynism and general angriness on here. If this was real life and we (atd members) were in a pub and everyone spoke to each other as they speak on here there would be mass brawls breaking out on a minutely basis!!!

Haha, quite funny really

You don't speak to people like this in a pub then, fokead?

GOB wrote:

I would be quite interested to hear Damon's take on these past issues, not that it means much but it would be interesting to know.

The big thing for me that really sticks in my throat was that Stapes went ahead and purchased HP leaving the club wide open for the type of vultures that we see today, he was warned about it and that makes it unforgivable in my book.

Isn't it all ironic though considering that Stape's strongest critic of the purchase of HP was Jones, yet now Jones has become the vulture. Tis a funny old world.

Firstly the statement for the defence in the 'shouldn't have bought the Freehold' case.

Tudor stood on the balcony and stated 'we will build a stadium fit for our champions'. Almost immediately his cabinet colleagues grabbed him and made it quite clear that the City had no money for re-building the Grandstand. If the Club wanted to push on and build a new Grandstand the only way it was going to happen was by the Club raising the finance to do it. Two choices - 1. the grandstand remained with the ground in council ownership or 2. The club purchased the ground and started to look at raising the finance to rebuild it.

With hand on heart I can say that at no time during my tenure on the Board was there any talk between the Board members of personal gain from the freehold purchase. It was being done with best intentions for the Club. In hindsight I accept that those questioning the purchase in the longer term were correct. Having said that in more recent times the ONLY thing that has attracted potential buyers post administration is the face that we actually owned land that was a valuable asset.

With regard to the Sir Roy, Todd events I have been told by PS and TW that they, together with RD were totally sidelined by Todd. The story is that Todd approached Kagami with a deal that basically said - I will bring to ARgyle the former Chairman of Manchester United if you sign over the voting rights of your shares to me. Kagami is not a football fan and probably the only team he has ever heard of outside of Japan is Manchester United so did the deal. Thus for a minority shareholding Todd held over 50% over the voting rights. AT this point he turned to PS, TW and RD and said that he was in charge now, that they should sit back and leave the running of the club to him. Their input was no longer welcome. I can also confirm Dan Thomas statement. The staff were instructed to only speak to Todd and never copy any of the local directors in. Todd was in sole charge. Todd brought this club to its knees.

Did the locals do enough to fight, to speak out against Todd, to publicise what was going on? No, they didn't. Should they have resigned? Probably. But they were denied access to the books and were kept totally out of the loop. Is there a potential for Todd to be disqualified as a Director for his behaviour? I would say so but he's a big shot and the powers that be only do that to the little guys who can't afford the legal fees to fight them (bit too close to home that one!)

The Akos sale happened after I left but whilst I was on Board there were many occassions that Ollie would complain about various aspects of Akos's game. I spoke to Akos a couple of weeks ago. He is a genuine guy with a real love for this City. I am sure it wasn't his decision to leave, but I am just as sure that the Board didn't sell him without the Manager's OK.

I left the Board in August 2007. We were a top half Championship Club. We made a tiny, manageable loss (£300k) that year after a profit the year before. We had a strong balance sheet. It still cuts through me that a contributory factor to our demise may have been the decision to purchase the freehold, a decision I was part of and agreed with. I apologise to all fans if that decision has played a part in our fall. But it was a decision made in the best interests of the Club, not for individual financial gain, however short sighted we may have been.

A good post Damon. Honest & from the heart.

I'm sat here waiting for a tirade of negativity against the likes of PS, even though you have made some very interesting points that back up some things I said.

Sadly there are lots of people on here who believe lies and made up stuff against the "old" board.

Nobody is perfect and mistakes were made but decisions were not made to bring the club down. Like I said yesterday decisions were made without having the benefit of hindsight. Lots of people make ridiculous statements starting in "they should have done....". These statements ARE with the benefit of hindsight

Thanks for putting the record straight Damon, I hope some people have the good grace to admit their tirade against the likes of PS were (and still are), unjustified.

"Puts tin hat on"

GOB wrote:

You don't speak to people like this in a pub then, fokead?

He doesn't go to pubs, e ain't a fokead.

Noseyparker wrote:

I'm sat here waiting for a tirade of negativity against the likes of PS, even though you have made some very interesting points that back up some things I said.

Sadly there are lots of people on here who believe lies and made up stuff against the "old" board.

Nobody is perfect and mistakes were made but decisions were not made to bring the club down. Like I said yesterday decisions were made without having the benefit of hindsight. Lots of people make ridiculous statements starting in "they should have done....". These statements ARE with the benefit of hindsight

Thanks for putting the record straight Damon, I hope some people have the good grace to admit their tirade against the likes of PS were (and still are), unjustified.

"Puts tin hat on"

You're obviously looking for an ATD reaction. I find it bizarre that you'd try to get one here with our bijou following. Why not try the preach tactic to a far far wider audience on Pasoti?

The gameplan is obviously to strike while the iron is hot, as regards Peter Jones all-time low currently. In my book that makes you a bit of a shyster.

Your mate Stapleton was an integral part of Argyles' demise. He obviously didn't have the balls to stand up to Todd, and was just content to be trying to hang on to Todd/Gardners coat tails in case the funding/World Cup bid actually materialised.

He failed. His Argyle epitaph is set in stone. He's a cnut amongst cnuts.

I don't know the specifics of it all but I would put most of the blame down to greed and that includes Stapleton.

I'm sure he was a fan and did lots of good for the club previously but surely any good is totally negated by the shit that followed?

Stapleton had a shit hairstyle.

Davidfriio4 wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

and a daughter who liked first team players

Abusive comment removed by mods.

she and Seip still married ?

yes they are i think but i have little to no interest in seip as a human being

what was the comment lol

I'll give Damon and NP the credit for having the balls to come on here and put their case even if I may disagree with it, they show a hell of a lot more spine then the present regime.

Noseyparker wrote:

I'm sat here waiting for a tirade of negativity against the likes of PS, even though you have made some very interesting points that back up some things I said.

Sadly there are lots of people on here who believe lies and made up stuff against the "old" board.

Nobody is perfect and mistakes were made but decisions were not made to bring the club down. Like I said yesterday decisions were made without having the benefit of hindsight. Lots of people make ridiculous statements starting in "they should have done....". These statements ARE with the benefit of hindsight

Thanks for putting the record straight Damon, I hope some people have the good grace to admit their tirade against the likes of PS were (and still are), unjustified.

"Puts tin hat on"

Quite agree.I said all along that Stapes is God,don't know how anyone can disagree with that statement.

You can't Dubai posts like this.

Greenskin wrote:

Noseyparker wrote:

I'm sat here waiting for a tirade of negativity against the likes of PS, even though you have made some very interesting points that back up some things I said.

Sadly there are lots of people on here who believe lies and made up stuff against the "old" board.

Nobody is perfect and mistakes were made but decisions were not made to bring the club down. Like I said yesterday decisions were made without having the benefit of hindsight. Lots of people make ridiculous statements starting in "they should have done....". These statements ARE with the benefit of hindsight

Thanks for putting the record straight Damon, I hope some people have the good grace to admit their tirade against the likes of PS were (and still are), unjustified.

"Puts tin hat on"

Quite agree.I said all along that Stapes is God,don't know how anyone can disagree with that statement.

You can't Dubai posts like this.

He can't answer, he's in the shower

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

GOB wrote:

I would be quite interested to hear Damon's take on these past issues, not that it means much but it would be interesting to know.

The big thing for me that really sticks in my throat was that Stapes went ahead and purchased HP leaving the club wide open for the type of vultures that we see today, he was warned about it and that makes it unforgivable in my book.

Isn't it all ironic though considering that Stape's strongest critic of the purchase of HP was Jones, yet now Jones has become the vulture. Tis a funny old world.

Firstly the statement for the defence in the 'shouldn't have bought the Freehold' case.

Tudor stood on the balcony and stated 'we will build a stadium fit for our champions'. Almost immediately his cabinet colleagues grabbed him and made it quite clear that the City had no money for re-building the Grandstand. If the Club wanted to push on and build a new Grandstand the only way it was going to happen was by the Club raising the finance to do it. Two choices - 1. the grandstand remained with the ground in council ownership or 2. The club purchased the ground and started to look at raising the finance to rebuild it.

With hand on heart I can say that at no time during my tenure on the Board was there any talk between the Board members of personal gain from the freehold purchase. It was being done with best intentions for the Club. In hindsight I accept that those questioning the purchase in the longer term were correct. Having said that in more recent times the ONLY thing that has attracted potential buyers post administration is the face that we actually owned land that was a valuable asset.

With regard to the Sir Roy, Todd events I have been told by PS and TW that they, together with RD were totally sidelined by Todd. The story is that Todd approached Kagami with a deal that basically said - I will bring to ARgyle the former Chairman of Manchester United if you sign over the voting rights of your shares to me. Kagami is not a football fan and probably the only team he has ever heard of outside of Japan is Manchester United so did the deal. Thus for a minority shareholding Todd held over 50% over the voting rights. AT this point he turned to PS, TW and RD and said that he was in charge now, that they should sit back and leave the running of the club to him. Their input was no longer welcome. I can also confirm Dan Thomas statement. The staff were instructed to only speak to Todd and never copy any of the local directors in. Todd was in sole charge. Todd brought this club to its knees.

Did the locals do enough to fight, to speak out against Todd, to publicise what was going on? No, they didn't. Should they have resigned? Probably. But they were denied access to the books and were kept totally out of the loop. Is there a potential for Todd to be disqualified as a Director for his behaviour? I would say so but he's a big shot and the powers that be only do that to the little guys who can't afford the legal fees to fight them (bit too close to home that one!)

The Akos sale happened after I left but whilst I was on Board there were many occassions that Ollie would complain about various aspects of Akos's game. I spoke to Akos a couple of weeks ago. He is a genuine guy with a real love for this City. I am sure it wasn't his decision to leave, but I am just as sure that the Board didn't sell him without the Manager's OK.I left the Board in August 2007. We were a top half Championship Club. We made a tiny, manageable loss (£300k) that year after a profit the year before. We had a strong balance sheet. It still cuts through me that a contributory factor to our demise may have been the decision to purchase the freehold, a decision I was part of and agreed with. I apologise to all fans if that decision has played a part in our fall. But it was a decision made in the best interests of the Club, not for individual financial gain, however short sighted we may have been.

So presumably Sturrock was entirely responsible for the sale of Norris,Ebanks Blake and Gosling then Damon?