Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:02 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

It's a fair kop your honour!!!
I was speaking generally, we've had to put up with his poorly disguised trolling for quite a while.

So when Alf asks questions/states facts it's trolling yet when Inflatable Ego does the same, just with a pro-Wakey spin on it, it isn't trolling?

Or when you make a thread with a poll that is one of the most obvious attempts at trolling there is?

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:16 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

It's a fair kop your honour!!!
I was speaking generally, we've had to put up with his poorly disguised trolling for quite a while.

Dont be daft!

An apology will be accepted.

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:56 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

So when Alf asks questions/states facts it's trolling yet when Inflatable Ego does the same, just with a pro-Wakey spin on it, it isn't trolling?

Or when you make a thread with a poll that is one of the most obvious attempts at trolling there is?

What facts?

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:43 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

What facts?

Now you really are beginning to let yourself down.



It might be time for someone to lock this.

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:52 pm  

Wish we had someone lock the stadium debate. We've had it for three years and it's the same old, boring arguments over and over again.

Good for Wakey, they're finally bringing their stadium into the 20th century and next year they may be building one that's going to bring it into the 21st century.

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:09 pm  

bigalf wrote:

Now you really are beginning to let yourself down.



It might be time for someone to lock this.

Perhaps if you hadn't started this stupid thread in the first place, in a feeble attempt to throw a bone to your dwindling band of bitter followers, you wouldn't now have to call for it to be locked?

As I said - it's all rather pathetic.

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:37 pm  

Fully wrote:

Wish we had someone lock the stadium debate. We've had it for three years and it's the same old, boring arguments over and over again.

Good for Wakey, they're finally bringing their stadium into the 20th century and next year they may be building one that's going to bring it into the 21st century.

Indeed, just like the hyper-modern Wheldon Road!

ATEOTD - if the club are prepared to spend 500k on improvements that won't even be relevant in 2 years, all that says to me is that the Newmarket scheme must be nailed on.

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:46 am  

"ATEOTD - if the club are prepared to spend 500k on improvements that won't even be relevant in 2 years, all that says to me is that the Newmarket scheme must be nailed on."

Strange that. To me it says the total opposite. If WTW are so confident that NM will be passed you will be building next year won't you ? After all its fully-funded by Yorkcourt - you get the green light in January and off you go. I can't remember Salford or Saints spending half a million in ground inprovements recently. Its your plan B and get out of jail card now that Oakwell is off the radar - but will the RFL accept it ?

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:23 am  

bren2k wrote:

It's important because it's what we said we would do in our franchise application; to some people, delivering on your promises is still a quality worth aspiring to.

If thats the truth , then pay your debts to all the small businesses you screwed last year sonny

Re: O/T Wakey's New Roof/s : Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:57 am  

Tigerade wrote:

"ATEOTD - if the club are prepared to spend 500k on improvements that won't even be relevant in 2 years, all that says to me is that the Newmarket scheme must be nailed on."

Strange that. To me it says the total opposite. If WTW are so confident that NM will be passed you will be building next year won't you ? After all its fully-funded by Yorkcourt - you get the green light in January and off you go. I can't remember Salford or Saints spending half a million in ground inprovements recently. Its your plan B and get out of jail card now that Oakwell is off the radar - but will the RFL accept it ?

Factually incorrect I'm afraid and no matter how many times you or bigalf say it, doesn't make it true.

Once again then, for the hard of thinking:

The improvements to BV were in our SL application because our new owner is prepared to admit that whilst NM looks positive, it will take time; the improvements to BV were designed to appease the RFL in the short to medium term and the 500k is considered to be an acceptable opportunity cost for 3 years in SL and all the revenue that brings with it.

As for the idiot above - it may seem unjust, but the company that Mr Glover owns does not owe anything to any small business; despite that, he chose to honour a significant number of the debts that were incurred by the previous organisation.