Re: Ealing Dealbreakers : Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:15 pm  

Cowgirl Nostalgist wrote:

How many times do I have to explain my POV.

David Hughes is a serial failure so any monies paid to out to him endorses that failure.

Whereas a fan owned club is exactly that.

An investment in the club by the fans.

I didn't ask you to explain your POV.

I asked you at what point you decided people only qualify as a "fan" if they have an extra £1300 a year of disposable income available to put toward watching rugby?
I also asked you how much you are putting toward watching your new team?

Re: Ealing Dealbreakers : Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:39 pm  

Perry wrote:

I asked you at what point you decided people only qualify as a "fan" if they have an extra £1300 a year of disposable income available to put toward watching rugby?

If you're looking for a self appointed spokesman on who is & isn't a fan I suggest you speak to Ronniequin.

I may think anyone helping Hughes fund the club is an apologist (at least by default) but that's a different matter entirely.

I also asked you how much you are putting toward watching your new team?

Considerably more than you it would seem.

Perhaps we might need to revisit the freeloaders debate as lots of people seem happy for Hughes to foot the lion's share of the bill.

Re: Ealing Dealbreakers : Thu Nov 26, 2015 8:01 pm  

Cowgirl Nostagist wrote:

If you're looking for a self appointed spokesman on who is & isn't a fan I suggest you speak to Ronniequin.

I couldn't give a monkeys what Ronniequin thinks, I'm asking YOU to back up YOUR statements. Stop hiding behind other posters.
These are your statements on page 20 of this thread:

Cowgirl Nostagist wrote:

In response to Perry I don't have the money to buy out Hughes personally but a fan owned collective could do at least as good as that serial failure.
The fact is "fans" like you aren't interested in that option.
So you're apologists by default

Cowgirl Nostagist wrote:

In reply to Perry Gutters costed this & as I recall he reckoned circa 1,500 quid a season would pay for a team equivalent to what we have now.
No Super League of course but then of course that's a given as is.

YOU are the one who said "fans" like me are apologists because we aren't interested in a fan owned collective, before glibly quipping that I'd need £1500 a year of dsposable income to fund such a thing.

What if people haven't got £1500 a year? People are apologists because they haven't got money?

Given that you seem to think £1500 is the minimum buy-in price to be considered a real fan I asked how much you were putting toward your new team, you said:

Cowgirl Nostagist wrote:

Considerably more than you it would seem.

How can you state this? You've no idea what I've commited to for next season, and we don't know what you're putting in beacuse like all politicians/hypocrites you've avoided the question three times.

Answer the question. How much are you paying? Let us all see if you meet your own funding criteria.

Re: Ealing Dealbreakers : Thu Nov 26, 2015 8:20 pm  

I'm not obliged to disclose that information.

& certainly not at the request of a dishonest debater like you.

You're quite happy to ride Hughes coattails no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

Re: Ealing Dealbreakers : Thu Nov 26, 2015 8:26 pm  

Cowgirl Nostalgist wrote:

I'm not obliged to disclose that information.

You hypocrite.

Cowgirl Nostalgist wrote:

& certainly not at the request of a dishonest debater like you.

Says the man who won't answer questions or back up his own statements.

Cowgirl Nostalgist wrote:

You're quite happy to ride Hughes coattails no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

So if I'm freeloading off Hughes how am I also helping him fund the club? The net financial benefit can only be in one direction.

Re: Ealing Dealbreakers : Thu Nov 26, 2015 8:30 pm  

I'm prepared to answer the question.

I'm just not prepared to answer you as you manifestly have no interest in a fan owned club.

Or do you deny it?

Re: Ealing Dealbreakers : Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:27 pm  

Cowgirl Nostalgist wrote:

I'm prepared to answer the question.
I'm just not prepared to answer you as you manifestly have no interest in a fan owned club.
Or do you deny it?

Is not having the money the same in your eyes as not having the interest?

Re: Ealing Dealbreakers : Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:30 pm  

That's a different issue.

Are you opposed to a fan owned club in principle?

[brian2]

Re: Ealing Dealbreakers : Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:48 am  

A fans owned club would be ideal, and a great idea, but at the moment its light years away as we hvent got any fans! £1500 a year is not the way forward, even if some could afford it? What DH could do is buy into a ground, even Ealing if its possible for 30 or so years (i think that was something discussed at the Hive). He could then walk away (name the ground after him or have a suite named after him, make him Life President - something Gutterfax/Molly/Jim etc suggested)and not put any more money in and the fans could form a company to run the Club from a base. The club could grow from the bottom-up, whether in the Championship or a lower tier, i would'nt care and i would support and be prepared to put up some money. we could then put into action a proper marketing plan, and i for one would be happy to listen to Gutterfax/Molly/Jim ideas and offer him the job if we could do a deal. That is the only way forward in my view, but whether DH would be willing to go down this route is open to question?

There are lots of examples of this working, although all the examples i am aware of are with clubs with much larger fan bases? Portsmouth, where i currently live, is one of the best and most recent example, but the key is they own their ground, as do Wimbledon and FC Manchester (i think).

So as ever a ground, a base, roots is the key - without this we will be permanent nomads and in permanant decline, though not sure how much more we can decline.....................

Re: Ealing Dealbreakers : Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:01 am  

Perry, why are you letting this clown get under your skin ? You are better than that. He proved hundreds of posts ago he has nothing to offer in the way of meaningful discussion.