Various statements

[Adrian]

Why should the club release it?

If those that believe it to be real can prove it then they should do so. They're the ones trying to use it against the club. It's odd that it took so long for them to present to to Hopkin in the first place.

The whole thing is utterly childish. Some clearly have a pathetic vendetta against Thompson and seem to have no idea of them potential damage that they are causing by going on with this rubbish.
If I was Glyn Hopkin I'd be seriously questioning why I'd want to part with my hard-earned to end up having to deal with this stuff that isn't even playground level.

It's interesting that those that are trying to force Thompson out then complain about the club being like North Korea - they don't seem to be too aware of how their own actions can be perceived.

Really? Why should they release it? To clear up the mess it has caused? Your right, it has caused damage, so surely it would make sense to put a stop to it by showing the fans that it is fake and that would be the final word on that right? Show people the email is a dud and that the people who have created the email are silly? Apprently it is a clumsy fake so everyone would be able to see it for what it is? All I’m suggesting is that they put a stop to this by shutting people up with the proof?

If they were to release it then the usual suspects would just claim that they've created their own fake e-mail.

[Adrian]

Not copied to any other club? So can it be presumed that Maidstone were sent a separate email?
Those concerned with the Club statement have stated that both Fylde and Maidstone were sent an email.

Was it also copied to Tony Payne?

In mikes last interview with Dave Bennett it's mentioned that emails were sent to Fylde and Maidstone with the wording suggesting that they were separate emails.

[ThatRoundThing]

Not copied to any other club? So can it be presumed that Maidstone were sent a separate email?
Those concerned with the Club statement have stated that both Fylde and Maidstone were sent an email.

Was it also copied to Tony Payne?

In mikes last interview with Dave Bennett it's mentioned that emails were sent to Fylde and Maidstone with the wording suggesting that they were separate emails.

The wording doesn't exactly suggest anything about how they were sent, I did check the statement before asking the question. This is the problem about interpretation and who/what to believe.

[Alan]

It was copied to Tony Payne. I think from memory, it was addressed to 2 people at fylde. It certainly was not addressed to 20 clubs.

I would assume that Maidstone were sent a separate email, as I’d expect as part of preparation for any away game.

[ThatRoundThing]

Not that it matters to me how it was sent Alan it was the point that some people will read statements and come to a conclusion or assumptions where others will read the same words of a statement and assume or come to a completely opposite conclusion.
A few on here wear rose coloured glasses and when it comes to club matters, I also accept that a few knock the club whatever they do.
Hence the answer I received from Adrian which was totally inconclusive.

[Adrian]

Not that it matters to me how it was sent Alan it was the point that some people will read statements and come to a conclusion or assumptions where others will read the same words of a statement and assume or come to a completely opposite conclusion.
A few on here wear rose coloured glasses and when it comes to club matters, I also accept that a few knock the club whatever they do.
Hence the answer I received from Adrian which was totally inconclusive.

Below is a direct quote from the latest piece on DiggerDagger:

Dave repeated what he told me previously, that an email was sent to AFC Fylde, which was the away trip following Eastleigh, where there was trouble involving our away support, which was copied to Tony Payne, our safety officer, and also one to Maidstone United who we were playing the following midweek.

Reading back, I think that's fairly clear that it was two e-mails, hence the use of the words "and also one".
Nothing rose tinted there.

[ARNU]

Could have been the same one sent to multiple recipients. It would still be described in the past tense as another one.

[ThatRoundThing]

Could have been the same one sent to multiple recipients. It would still be described in the past tense as another one.

Exactly Arnu, as I said it is how people interpret the English language. Or how it was described in the first instance. Adrian has convinced himself that he is right and will stay with that decision and ignore any other perspective view.

[Adrian]

Could have been the same one sent to multiple recipients. It would still be described in the past tense as another one.

Exactly Arnu, as I said it is how people interpret the English language. Or how it was described in the first instance. Adrian has convinced himself that he is right and will stay with that decision and ignore any other perspective view.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong.
If it was one e-mail sent to multiple recipients it would not be described as "another one" or "also one". It would have said that an e-mail was sent to Fyle and Maidstone, not one was sent to Fyle and one was sent to Maidstone - there is clearly a separation between the two e-mails in what has been quoted.

I have indeed convinced myself that I am right, because I've read what has been written and not tried to apply some interpretation to it in order to claim something that hasn't happened has.
You also seem to be ignoring another perspective.

[Mike the Dagger]

To clarify, I have been told that one email was sent to AFC Fylde, and a separate email was sent to Maidstone.