[PopTart]

Re: Richard vile wright : Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:00 pm  

binks wrote:

Please dont bundle Most Cas fans in with the people who feel the need to post tripe everyday on here!

Same the other way blinks. We all have them.
There was no need for the "all cas fans are stupid" and the comments that came from it. It only made things worse. I was irritated at first with the comments but with RW not Cas or their fans.

The comments from RW were ill advised and not because it affects the stadium but because it starts a war like this.
There is no need and neither side will give in as every point made is just countered with a completely different issue the other way.
Lets just get on with the two stadiums.

Re: Richard vile wright : Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:46 pm  

PopTart wrote:

Same the other way blinks. We all have them.
There was no need for the "all cas fans are stupid" and the comments that came from it. It only made things worse. I was irritated at first with the comments but with RW not Cas or their fans.

The comments from RW were ill advised and not because it affects the stadium but because it starts a war like this.
There is no need and neither side will give in as every point made is just countered with a completely different issue the other way.
Lets just get on with the two stadiums.

^^ As PopStart said

Re: Richard wright : Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:07 pm  

It's good to see a bit of balance being introduced into the conversation; some mothers do indeed 'ave em, on both sides of t'common.

Re: Richard vile wright : Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:13 pm  

smoking monkey wrote:

As I think has already been said, we would be mightily p'd off if AG similarly intervened in our stadium plans...well I would at least. However in the final analysis I doubt RWs actions will have major impact - although there is a first time for everything.

The thing is though, RW hasn't done anything. He cannot and has no right to object; ergo, it's not an objection. It's a statement of fact provided in a response to someone asking questions about Cas's stadium, whether they'd share it and the feasibility study.

It's a pointless argument and Wakey fans are only upset because it brings into light something which had been pushed under a myriad of other issues.

Re: Richard vile wright : Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:52 pm  

Fully wrote:

The thing is though, RW hasn't done anything. He cannot and has no right to object; ergo, it's not an objection. It's a statement of fact provided in a response to someone asking questions about Cas's stadium, whether they'd share it and the feasibility study.

It's a pointless argument and Wakey fans are only upset because it brings into light something which had been pushed under a myriad of other issues.

The reasons for WTW fans disgruntlement at RW involving himself in the PI have been repeated to you over and over again on threads here, on our own board and on the VT; despite that, you keep trotting out the same deluded nonsense at every opportunity.

I know that you know that what RW did was wrong; he may not have broken any law and he may only have repeated what was already in the public domain but as has already been said, he did so in a willful attempt to scupper the chances of NM ever happening; that shows a total lack of class and demonstrates contempt for the game of RL and the people of the district. His actions have shown him to be a desperate man and as I've already said, I expect that both RW and CT will pay a heavy cost for his moment of vindictive satisfaction.

Re: Richard wright : Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:58 pm  

That's funny - I haven't posted on the Wakey board. You must be confused, Bren. And how can it be nonsense when it's 100% correct?

And no I don't think he did anything wrong. With regard to that, I would like to see your evidence for your acutely libelous comments without a shred of evidence to support your comments about his motives. Nonsense indeed.

Re: Richard wright : Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:08 pm  

Fully wrote:

With regard to that, I would like to see your evidence for your acutely libelous comments without a shred of evidence to support your comments about his motives.

Acutely libelous! Love it.

I'd be more than happy to hear from RW's brief - put them in touch.

Re: Richard wright : Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:10 pm  

What's your defence?

"He made a factual statement about his own ground and a council-proposed feasibility study....."

Here's a novel idea: quit trying to convince people on here it was 'wrong' etc and things may become a better place once again?

Re: Richard wright : Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:24 pm  

I've just emailed RW and advised him not to reply to anymore letters addressed to him at Castigers.

That should do it!

Re: Richard wright : Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:53 pm  

Lets face it if RW had organised the buffet for the PI then the reaction would have been the same."He is clearly lacing the volovants with anti wakey drugs!"