[dim view]

Mr Mercury, on 05 December 2016 - 06:54 PM, said:

I would imagine he is, at this moment in time, a very worried man. There might be one or two others as well.

He can't sign a confidentiality agreement 'cos he never worked for CFC.

[Mrhappy]

calvin plummers socks, on 05 December 2016 - 06:23 PM, said:

Chris Turner doesn't do email apparently

It seems you're correct as my e mail has been returned stating no such recipient. Although I did send him an e mail a couple of years ago that appeared to have gone through.

The club cannot afford any more negativity at this time, it would be a death sentence. Let's hope Turner has simply mislaid the PSG details.

[Heavy_Soul]

Mrhappy, on 05 December 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

It seems you're correct as my e mail has been returned stating no such recipient. Although I did send him an e mail a couple of years ago that appeared to have gone through.

The club cannot afford any more negativity at this time, it would be a death sentence. Let's hope Turner has simply mislaid the PSG details.

He certainly used to do emails as he has replied to mine in the past.

[calvin plummers socks]

Mrhappy, on 05 December 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

It seems you're correct as my e mail has been returned stating no such recipient. Although I did send him an e mail a couple of years ago that appeared to have gone through.

The club cannot afford any more negativity at this time, it would be a death sentence. Let's hope Turner has simply mislaid the PSG details.

I sent him one a couple of years ago- I had no reply and a woman (Sue)? At the club said he doesn't bother reading them

[Stockholm Spireite]

moondog, on 05 December 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

The YouTube clip of Liam Sutcliffe promoting the PSG trip appears now to have been removed

All is not lost, I believe somebody downloaded some clips from the CFC youtube pages for a rainy day...

[moondog]

Mrhappy, on 05 December 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

It seems you're correct as my e mail has been returned stating no such recipient. Although I did send him an e mail a couple of years ago that appeared to have gone through.

The club cannot afford any more negativity at this time, it would be a death sentence. Let's hope Turner has simply mislaid the PSG details.

Sounds to me like you might not have got the address right possibly placing a dot between his first and second names as is typical, the correct address is [email protected]

[Humpalumpa]

You could always try the fans liaison person: Stephen Kerry.

http://www.chesterfi...er-3309429.aspx

[Mrhappy]

Humpalumpa, on 05 December 2016 - 09:14 PM, said:

You could always try the fans liaison person: Stephen Kerry.

http://www.chesterfi...er-3309429.aspx

Thank you! Moondog was right,slight difference in the address I had. Ive resent now!

[hilly81]

moondog, on 05 December 2016 - 08:20 PM, said:

Sounds to me like you might not have got the address right possibly placing a dot between his first and second names as is typical, the correct address is [email protected]

This address works, or it certainly did in August when I had contact with CT.

[Mr Mercury]

Humpalumpa, on 05 December 2016 - 09:14 PM, said:

You could always try the fans liaison person: Stephen Kerry.

http://www.chesterfi...er-3309429.aspx

That's the lad who I've usually seen at the ticket window. No offence but he doesn't seem the type strong enough to listen to, or act on, a fans genuine concerns.

[Benno Spire]

moondog, on 05 December 2016 - 08:20 PM, said:

Sounds to me like you might not have got the address right possibly placing a dot between his first and second names as is typical, the correct address is [email protected]

Careful giving out email addresses, someone might use it to register for Saga holiday brochures or tablets

This post has been edited by Benno Spire: 05 December 2016 - 09:24 PM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Don't forget; to quote our CEO his 'door is always open' and CFC is a 'zero tolerance' club.

[Heart of a Niven]

I see posts are being deleted again.
This annoys me on two fronts:
1) If Mods are removing posts because they feel the individual might get into 'trouble', then I feel they should approach the individual first. I'm sure many like myself are happy to fight their own fights.
2) If certain Mods are removing posts in response to requests 'from above' to do so, then I feel they need to step down from the role. At the least it smacks of sycophancy. At worst it's complicity.
The Club made it perfectly clear they no longer wanted to be associated with this board. That independence goes two ways.

[Rudeboy spireite]

I did wonder where it had gone ?

[Mrhappy]

Heart of a Niven, on 06 December 2016 - 09:19 AM, said:

I see posts are being deleted again.
This annoys me on two fronts:
1) If Mods are removing posts because they feel the individual might get into 'trouble', then I feel they should approach the individual first. I'm sure many like myself are happy to fight their own fights.
2) If certain Mods are removing posts in response to requests 'from above' to do so, then I feel they need to step down from the role. At the least it smacks of sycophancy. At worst it's complicity.
The Club made it perfectly clear they no longer wanted to be associated with this board. That independence goes two ways.

Any mods care to explain why said post has vanished? An explanation would be appreciated I'm sure.

[dim view]

Heart of a Niven, on 06 December 2016 - 09:19 AM, said:

I see posts are being deleted again.
This annoys me on two fronts:
1) If Mods are removing posts because they feel the individual might get into 'trouble', then I feel they should approach the individual first. I'm sure many like myself are happy to fight their own fights.
2) If certain Mods are removing posts in response to requests 'from above' to do so, then I feel they need to step down from the role. At the least it smacks of sycophancy. At worst it's complicity.
The Club made it perfectly clear they no longer wanted to be associated with this board. That independence goes two ways.

If we agree with the principle of moderation then we have to accept that the mods are entitled to use this sanction on the odd post or thread which causes them concern, without debate.

On 2 and if you were a mod, would you enter into a lengthy conversation with a poster if someone 'from above' threatened action? I wouldn't, even if there is doubt whether that 'someone' is being unreasonable. Worst case scenario is that the original poster has another go at rephrasing his/her post armed with the knowledge that perhaps he/she could perhaps rephrase content to everybody's advantage - a compromise.

This post has been edited by dim view: 06 December 2016 - 09:50 AM

[Johnnyspireite7]

Heart of a Niven, on 06 December 2016 - 09:19 AM, said:

I see posts are being deleted again.
This annoys me on two fronts:
1) If Mods are removing posts because they feel the individual might get into 'trouble', then I feel they should approach the individual first. I'm sure many like myself are happy to fight their own fights.
2) If certain Mods are removing posts in response to requests 'from above' to do so, then I feel they need to step down from the role. At the least it smacks of sycophancy. At worst it's complicity.
The Club made it perfectly clear they no longer wanted to be associated with this board. That independence goes two ways.

It may be to prevent you from legal action as we know that a certain someone has a history of doing so regarding online postings!

[Heart of a Niven]

Worst case scenario is that the original poster has another go at rephrasing his/her post armed with the knowledge that perhaps he/she could perhaps rephrase content to everybody's advantage - a compromise.
[/quote]

Fair enough, Dim. A valid point. I'll re-word it later when I have a free minute or two.

[Heart of a Niven]

So the point that I was making - and will make again here - is that the excellent investigative work done by Bob's Board members, together with the latest revelations from acroas the road, appears to have our leaders running scared.
Rather than face up to the questions set before them, they either take flight from such questioning (AGM) or fire a defensive volley of 'the clubs in financial trouble, so stop bothering us and start worrying that you soon won't have a club to complain about!'
It's too much of a coincidence that these financial issues are raised just as other issues are being brought to a head.
How many on here (and I count myself as one) have had their heads turned away from the real issues and problems, when faced with the concept of losing the club for good. What genuine facts do we have, other than being told we're doomed and unless everyone does what the former chairman demands we're screwed'. Yes, we all know there are issues but is it truly as bad as we're being told. How much manipulation is going on?
The abridged accounts that have been the norm for the last few years tell us little to nothing and certainly don't explain where the money from player transfers, cup runs and record gate receipts has actually gone.
With the latest revelations regarding the trip-that-never-was, certain individuals have nowhere else to run and like cornered animals the only thing they can do is fight their way out.
I wait to see the next move.

[Stockholm Spireite]

There was a thread a while ago by the name of Is this board 'independent' or not? where I wrote:

Stockholm Spireite, on 25 April 2016 - 02:25 PM, said:

There's also other posts that are being removed subjectively, that are not libellous at all.

I have no problem with preserving order with libel law, but sanitising at the behest of others, or on a personal whim, shouldn't be happening.

I stand by it.