Rob Heys - Page 5

Tin Monkey · 31-10-2009, 11:39

If Rob Heys really is "a hard-working and decent man who must at this moment be bewildered by the bile, venom and sheer nastiness which is being directed at him", then he must be as deluded as the chairman (if that's what O' Neil actually is).

When you insist on lying day after day and even now persist with those same lies, I think anyone would accept that they were going to be severely criticised by those you have offended. This plea of 'Rob Heys is an innocent and didn't know what he was doing' is wearing very thin and is really annoying me!!!

As I said earlier in the thread, I don't want to see anyone lose their livelihood, but at least be honest about what people have done; stand up and be accountable. Blindly defending these people because they're 'friends' or whatever, is tantamount to the same blurring of the truths that the fans have been victims of for far too long. We all know that total transparency is the only way forward at this point and that goes right down to the roots of the problems.

To continue the gardening analogy, you don't get rid of weeds by pruning the tops... you have to kill the roots!!

maccawozzagod · 31-10-2009, 12:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tin Monkey

To continue the gardening analogy, you don't get rid of weeds by pruning the tops... you have to kill the roots!!

neither can you clean your bath water by pouring more water in. Tha's gotta pull t'plug

Doug · 31-10-2009, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon

BOY o BOY am I glad jack barret was not as negative and cynical as you doug.........

Why O Why do people insist on bringing Jack Barrett’s name in to play as a counter argument. I think that Jack Barrett will be appalled at both sides, but on balance I think he would also understand both arguments, but unlike the rest of us he wouldn’t engage himself in this mire pit.

Jack Barrett is a stalwart supporter and respected bridge builder and under appreciated bulwark of this club. His name should never have been brought into this.

I’ll skip the bull and go to the point.

I am very grateful to Mr. Khan and Mr. Marsden, we may well have lost the club but for them, However; combined they would have held around 22% of the club of which neither are a Director.

Mr. O’Neil holds an alleged 51% with the rest of the Board making up the bulk of the holding.

Net result: CONTROL.

Scream, shout, threaten, protest, withhold your money, stay away, make all the allegations people can dream up; but unless the current ownership wills or allows it any ambition for change or a supporters trust is going no where without their say so.

What I am trying to say is voice our opinion “loud and clear” and then accept the situation because I see little or no change at Accrington Stanley this or next season without us working with them.

What I think Jack Barrett would agree with is that all this “From both sides” continues to undermine confidence of the people we need most. New Blood (supporters) and Inward Investment (sponsors).

Pendle Red · 31-10-2009, 14:30

Doug Percentages are a game, 51% of nothing=nothing

shakermaker · 31-10-2009, 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

I am very grateful to Mr. Khan and Mr. Marsden, we may well have lost the club but for them

There's no 'may well' about it Doug.

Doug · 31-10-2009, 14:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

There's no 'may well' about it Doug.

It's not paid yet........

shakermaker · 31-10-2009, 14:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

It's not paid yet........

Maybe it isn't yet, but Accrington Stanley FC would've been wound up on Wednesday if it weren't for Ilyas Khan & Peter Marsden.
Even if it hasn't gone through yet, we know that it will be paid.

cashman · 31-10-2009, 15:03

What i find difficult to come to terms with, is those who "Defend,the Indefensible"

Doug · 31-10-2009, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pendle Red

Doug Percentages are a game, 51% of nothing=nothing

I was talking about the ability to exert 51% of one’s will over the club PP, is this what people are wanting to take away.

Doug · 31-10-2009, 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Maybe it isn't yet, but Accrington Stanley FC would've been wound up on Wednesday if it weren't for Ilyas Khan & Peter Marsden.
Even if it hasn't gone through yet, we know that it will be paid.

I don't disagree....

Stanleymad · 31-10-2009, 15:43

O neil on paper @ the companies house we still have to believe till otherwise that Eric has the shares albeit resigned as director! Dont sit on the fence will ya Doug.

Doug · 31-10-2009, 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stanleymad

O neil on paper @ the companies house we still have to believe till otherwise that Eric has the shares albeit resigned as director! Dont sit on the fence will ya Doug.

O’Neil or Whalley it matters not….It’s not Khan or an ST

Don’t worry I won’t fall off……yet

Stanleymad · 31-10-2009, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

O’Neil or Whalley it matters not….It’s not Khan or an ST

Don’t worry I won’t fall off……yet

Well only 2 things can happen before that can take effect .............resignation & sales of 51% before a take over can happen ??????????????

maccawozzagod · 31-10-2009, 16:13

O'Neil can be forced to step down as Chairman if the Board offer a vote of no confidence in him.

if he isn't a Director (and he isn't) then he will be forced to be either a shareholder or not and the truth will out.

simon · 31-10-2009, 17:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

This may well be my last post.............

You had me excited for a while.....