New Consortium Announced

Discuss all matters related to Dagenham and Redbridge
Post Reply
User avatar
Auntie Merge
Posts: 2185
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:43 pm

Alan wrote:Here we go again....

If anyone thinks they know something, post it instead of cross examining mike or giving him a list of questions to ask others. Let's not have another innuendo fest.
Why is it we are not allowed to cross examine Mike but Mike is allowed to cross examine people on here. Yet Mike fails in his analysis to cross examine the fact that in the Tamplin consortium no one was to have over all control of the club. But in this one Glynn Hopkin has 57%? This is what we need an unofficial person to question; we don't need them to be a further mouthpiece for the club's official line.
Top
Alan
Posts: 1464
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:34 pm

Mike has said what he thinks and he's already being told he's wrong and you are right and you know something he doesn't and he should go find out the thing that you know by asking somebody - if you know something that contradicts what mike says just say it Merge.

Mike isn't the BBC. He's a bloke with a daggers website that he runs in his spare time. If you dont like it, don't read it. Or start your own Daggers website, ask whatever questions you like and write the articles how you like.
Top
User avatar
Auntie Merge
Posts: 2185
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:43 pm

Alan wrote:Mike has said what he thinks and he's already being told he's wrong and you are right and you know something he doesn't and he should go find out the thing that you know by asking somebody - if you know something that contradicts what mike says just say it Merge.

Mike isn't the BBC. He's a bloke with a daggers website that he runs in his spare time. If you dont like it, don't read it. Or start your own Daggers website, ask whatever questions you like and write the articles how you like.
Are you now mikes minder? If MIke posts then he must be prepared to deal with issues himself.
Top
Alan
Posts: 1464
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:34 pm

Yeah, that's me, Mike's minder.

You're not going to post what you say you know that contradicts Mike then?
Top
User avatar
Auntie Merge
Posts: 2185
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:43 pm

Alan wrote:Yeah, that's me, Mike's minder.

You're not going to post what you say you know that contradicts Mike then?
No, I won't reveal my source. However as proven in the failed Tamplin Consortium bid, I have reliable sources of information.
Top
Alan
Posts: 1464
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:34 pm

Didn't ask for source, asked for what you know.

I an not sure your sources were that reliable re Tamplin, were they? For example the whole thing that your sources gave you that he had told the Easts they wouldn't be welcome at the club again was shown to be untrue. Your claim that he was going to sack the bar staff was based on nothing.
Top
User avatar
Auntie Merge
Posts: 2185
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:43 pm

Alan wrote:Didn't ask for source, asked for what you know.

I an not sure your sources were that reliable re Tamplin, were they? For example the whole thing that your sources gave you that he had told the Easts they wouldn't be welcome at the club again was shown to be untrue. Your claim that he was going to sack the bar staff was based on nothing.
Ah but they were then he changed his story.

You go on about innuendo and tittle tattle and all you do is stir things up between supporters and get the eye taken off the main issue.

Why is Glyn Hopkin getting 57% when no one was to be given overall control.
Top
Adrian
Posts: 1261
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:09 pm

Auntie Merge wrote:
Alan wrote:Here we go again....

If anyone thinks they know something, post it instead of cross examining mike or giving him a list of questions to ask others. Let's not have another innuendo fest.
Why is it we are not allowed to cross examine Mike but Mike is allowed to cross examine people on here. Yet Mike fails in his analysis to cross examine the fact that in the Tamplin consortium no one was to have over all control of the club. But in this one Glynn Hopkin has 57%? This is what we need an unofficial person to question; we don't need them to be a further mouthpiece for the club's official line.
If you want an unofficial person to question it, then why don't you do it through your own website rather than moan about Mike not doing it? It's his website, I'm fairly sure he can do what he wants.
From what I've read Mike has made specific mention of the 57% and that majority share was previously a cause for objection.
Top
Alan
Posts: 1464
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:34 pm

Hang on Merge, we saw the actual texts that Tanplin sent when he found out that the Easts had joined another consortium. They didn't say the Easts wouldn't be welcome at the club. You're rewriting history here.

I know you had many reservations about Tamplin, his attempts to buy other clubs, his lack of a link to this club, his business history, his behaviour towards neighbours and so on. Do you have any reservations about Glyn Hopkin?
Top
NBDag
Posts: 1229
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:22 pm

Ooooh I've missed this! I once heard from my mate's cat that Glyn Hopkin shouted at a man and that man got upset. The reason for shouting isn't known but from what I understand it was because the man didn't have enough of a tan to satisfy Hopkin.
Top
User avatar
Auntie Merge
Posts: 2185
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:43 pm

You talk about texts Alan but it demonstrates how lacking in information you and your sources are.
At the acceptance of Tamplins Consortium meeting, It was asked why the person being nominated by the members for the board would be vetted by the consortium. Tamplin said because the East's would not be welcome.

I have no reservations about Glyn Hopkin. I do think however that to get the best deal for the club and the most money and security going forward, that if Glyn Hopkin and Dave Ward went with the Easts consortium we'd have far more money than is on the table now.
Top
Alan
Posts: 1464
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:34 pm

The texts were ones Tamplin sent in which he said he wouldn't work with them and they couldn't be presidents. You are saying that he said at a meeting they wouldn't be welcome ON THE BOARD; that is not inconsistent. It shows my information is accurate.

Contrast with what you previously posted
Auntie Merge wrote:It might be hearsay and rumour, but I have been led to believe that if the Easts consortium loses, they will be told they are not welcome in the club ever again.
I wonder if this is why someone left them and backed the other side.
Top
SteveW
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 12:16 am

The Romford Dagger wrote:I'd hoped Tamplin was involved just to annoy a few on here ;)
Not much going on in Ipswich this evening?
Top
User avatar
Auntie Merge
Posts: 2185
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:43 pm

Alan wrote:The texts were ones Tamplin sent in which he said he wouldn't work with them and they couldn't be presidents. You are saying that he said at a meeting they wouldn't be welcome ON THE BOARD; that is not inconsistent. It shows my information is accurate.

Contrast with what you previously posted
Auntie Merge wrote:It might be hearsay and rumour, but I have been led to believe that if the Easts consortium loses, they will be told they are not welcome in the club ever again.
I wonder if this is why someone left them and backed the other side.
Yawn Alan. Once again you are a patsy for derailing discussions about the matter in hand.
Top
Alan
Posts: 1464
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:34 pm

A mature and reasoned response to having your previous inaccurate rumour spreading reposted.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Discuss all things Dagenham and Redbridge”