Bluedell

what are you talking about? Why are your ideas not welcome here? Have I missed something?

I think it was the Assembly, rather than the Trust, that were actually recommending McElroy as a rep on the creditors committee. I was also surprised when I saw his name being mentioned and wasn't sure that he was the ideal candidate.

Agreed but I don't think that it was the chairman's place to second guess what he was going to say or second guess the points arising from the floor either.

The issue impacted the accounts and as such it WAS the correct time for it to be discussed. The chairman should have allowed it at that point. We are not disagreeing with what was said and I am not accusing anyone of lying. Given what was subsequently explained to me in private, I believe the accounts should not have been approved as they stood but those attending the meeting were prevented from hearing an issue that did have accounting implications and that is disappointing (to me at least...probably nobody else would have cared but that's not the point). The lack of minutes is also disappointing.

The problem is that it specifically wasn't. They announced that there would be no creditors paid and then the first thing they did was to pay one.

Agreed. The RFFF didn't clarify the payment that they did make to a creditor so they could be using the cash to do it to pay other creditors for all we know.

It's been well publicised in the past. Should act as a deterrent but that's too much to hope for.

I believe that the cash used to pay them did not come from the RFFF.

You were at the AGM last year where he was denied the opportunity to speak at the relevant time. The actions of the board that day have made me question my membership and put me off attending this year's meeting (and I'm still waiting for a copy of the minutes....) Whatever the pros and cons were of the point that BH was going to make, there was still censorship and I can't blame anyone for resigning. I don't see that having a specific grievance with one trust means that someone can't support and promote the trust movement in general.

I thought that there was something wrong.... I'll delete this thread if I ever go to buy them.

Playing devil's advocate, I'm a fan of the Boston Red Socks but I wouldn't claim to know much about the game of baseball.

Too many people IMHO.

I believe that there would have been a reluctance of many (not referring to you) to contribute to the share issue as they would just see the cash as going straight to Ticketus.

How much "control" the fans would have had is surely questionable? What was he willing to give? A token seat on the board? It seems to me that there was no formal commitment about the fans having any level of control.

So they had agreed to pay the fee and the stuff about negotations still going on was lies? Was the fee deductible off the final payment? Was it to be used to pay off creditors or deductible by D&P off their final agreed fees?

What about the rest of his consortium? The implication is that they are from elsewhere in SE Asia, and not all in that area have the same standards as Singapore.

F**kin' Ticketus.

It was? Who was that?

So does this mean that Ng has the fans paying even more back to Ticketus?

Some people take any sort of criticism of the BKs a bit personally for some reason. There's been some censorship of criticism of the BKs elsewhere, but I don't think that it would do this site any favours to adopt a similar approach. I think DT was over the top to criticise the site based presumably largely on this thread and I think that his opinion on the thread is as valid as most other's. I also now know who he is and would say he's a good guy and a good bear. I do think that he was wrong in blasting the forum as a whole but as he says, it's all about opinions. Hopefully DT, we can move past this and you can start to contribute to the forum on a more regular basis.

The ref's decision may be final but it doesn't mean it's correct. I'm not so sure, but it's a subjective decision, which proves that it may not be technically correct So if a game is quick and an instant decision is needed there can't be much justification for complaint, even if the decision may be wrong?

Extract from Fifa rule 12. A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences: • holds an opponent • spits at an opponent • handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

I don't believe that the banner was taken to the ground.

Yes there is. It has to be deliberate handball and there is a question as to whether it was deliberate or not.

He denied the goal was offside on twitter last night.