Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
I’m not in the slightest bit surprised. After all, you take umbrage with everything I post, while you seem to view comedy king dml1954 as some sort of role model.
As regards having an axe to grind, you must have a shed full of them where I’m concerned. Do I know you away from this board and have done something to upset you in the past? If not, then your apparent obsession with my contributions and the upset they seem to cause you is extremely weird.
Haha. My word you have such an inflated opinion of yourself.
I take umbrage at Cyber bullying period.
You seem to have a following who jump on the bandwagon every time you post this type of thing, very often aimed at DML.
This man seems to be a Cardiff City fan who wants what is best for the club. A glass half full type of chap. I don't get it.
I take umbrage when you post on here with negativity towards the club and owner every time an opportunity arises.
I find it embarrassing when so called fans on here are posting that they are embarrassed by the owner fighting his corner in what is obviously a very fishy affair.
Don't worry, I'm not some kind of nut job on a crusade to bring you down à la yourself with VT.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
life on mars
Let me get this right the Insurance Company who City are pursuing in court have said we are in the wrong so we must believe them before the club , because Mr Tan runs it . Wow.
Incredibly folk hate the current crew and are not so vocal about Sam ( let me sue the club ) Hamman because I'm short of cash.. FFS
The club losing case after case so far probably fuels the scepticism.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
I think the reason people joke about it is because the case against the insurance company is ludicrous, the club have been poorly organised to sort out the paperwork (I’m sure other clubs are too but now we have the benefit of hindsight). Personally I don’t see any logic to the court case but no doubt tan has enough money to piss up the walls on lawyers.
I’m sure there’s plenty who will think that tan will know far better than us because he has a great business brain but I’ve seen no evidence of that to date. I wonder if he made his millions because he was wearing lucky red
As far as hating tan and the board is concerned that’s certainly not true for me, I just feel apathetic to the whole set up. In my opinion the villain in the piece is arguably Nantes and given the extraordinary case both clubs should’ve met half way on the fee rather than us being forced to pay £10m for a player who never arrived.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
life on mars
Let me get this right the Insurance Company who City are pursuing in court have said we are in the wrong so we must believe them before the club , because Mr Tan runs it . Wow.
Incredibly folk hate the current crew and are not so vocal about Sam ( let me sue the club ) Hamman because I'm short of cash.. FFS
You specialise in this sort of thing don’t you. A thread begins criticising the Tory party and you jump in saying, but what about Labour - a party that haven’t been in Government for thirteen years. Now people are rightly being critical of an owner who has turned us into a laughing stock and you’re saying what about Hammam - a man who has not had any real influence at the club for over sixteen years!
With all that is going wrong at City at the moment, to expect supporters to be turning their fire on Sam Hammam now is completely and utterly barmy. Go to page three of this thread and look at what Tuerto posted at ten past six yesterday evening. That’s why the club are being given such short shrift on this subject - what would you and the other blind faith merchants on here be saying in the identical circumstances if it was another club that had signed Emiliano Sala? You’d be slaughtering them.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
You specialise in this sort of thing don’t you. A thread begins criticising the Tory party and you jump in saying, but what about Labour - a party that haven’t been in Government for thirteen years. Now people are rightly being critical of an owner who has turned us into a laughing stock and you’re saying what about Hammam - a man who has not had any real influence at the club for over sixteen years!
With all that is going wrong at City at the moment, to expect supporters to be turning their fire on Sam Hammam now is completely and utterly barmy. Go to page three of this thread and look at what Tuerto posted at ten past six yesterday evening. That’s why the club are being given such short shrift on this subject - what would you and the other blind faith merchants on here be saying in the identical circumstances if it was another club that had signed Emiliano Sala? You’d be slaughtering them.
As I posted [last weeks ?] this is a unique situation for a football club. Tan is a 'serious' businessman, and I doubt he would pursue a vexatious action without consulting lawyers. It's not a pleasant matter for anyone remotely involved but we're talking about something that was completely beyond the expectations of the club ,it's employees and dreadfully, the family of Sala. I don't begrudge the club pursuing the insurance angle now the legal ownership of the player in football terms has been finally exhausted through the courts. This has shrouded the club for 4 years now and I doubt Tan etc. have enjoyed the adverse publicity and inaccurate reporting [viz WOL] as much as it's infuriated and angered our supporters.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MacAdder
My word you have such an inflated opinion of yourself.
This comment is kind of ironic considering it’s you who seems to believe my posts are important enough to get upset about on a very regular basis. And don’t think you’ll fool anyone with your cyber bullying nonsense. That’s a really cowardly claim, but it’s par for the course where you’re concerned.
The truth is that you take umbrage with pretty much everything I post regardless of the subject, and you’ve been supplying your outraged responses on a continual basis for years. The bad news for you is that, while you apparently care deeply about what I say, I genuinely couldn’t care less what you think. I just reckon you’re an oddball. You’d have to be to take strangers’ opinions about a football club so seriously.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
A Quiet Monkfish
Tan is a 'serious' businessman, and I doubt he would pursue a vexatious action without consulting lawyers..
On what evidence from his time at city would you base this assertion on?
Not looking to argue just genuinely interested. As much as I think it would be good to have change now I don’t dislike tan and am grateful to some extent. But the things I’d be grateful for are the opposite of what a serious businessman would do
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
This comment is kind of ironic considering it’s you who seems to believe my posts are important enough to get upset about on a very regular basis.
Irony LOL. It is you who seem to be upset, with me telling it as it is.
"Very regular basis" I don't think so, just those posts I can be arsed to reply to. There could be so many more :hehe:
You will notice that I have employed your trick here, cutting and pasting a sample of a post choosing to ignore the rest, usually the points that matter.
My reasoning tho, I refuse to stoop to name calling.
I'm off now to try and enjoy my weekend without obsessing over you.
