Wanderers in £2.5m funding hole but "players will be paid" insists co-owner Ken Anderson

Norpig wrote:looks like i missed a lot last night! For what it's worth i don't agree with Sluffy and his conspiracy theories but this is a forum and people have to be able to express their views without it kicking off and getting personal

I know we all love BWFC and its an emotive subject but people need to take a step back down and cool off

Sluffy wrote:I've clearly explained what happened, why it happened and the consequential result of it happening and nobody as yet been close to shoot it down -

bwfc1874 wrote:Birch was charged with finding a buyer for the club, seems that's what he was trying to do to me. The Holdsworth deal seemed dead in the water at that point if you remember. 

Fact of the matter is there are plausible alternatives to your version of events.

Which basically says Birch wanted the ST to buy the club from Davies when no one else wanted it but dumped them as soon as somebody else did with a better offer!  In that case the ST was played by Birch for the benefit of Davies.  Can anyone deny that?

bwfc1874 wrote:You asked for a credible alternative to Birch manipulating the ST in Davies's favour. Birch was there to find a buyer for the club, so just about every action he could have taken at the time could be perceived to be for the benefit of the the club (and as such Davies). 

Whether or not Birch did this in an attempt to increase the price of rival bids or for a contingency after losing faith in any of the other consortiums actually putting a bid on the table, we can only speculate to as neither of us are Trevor Birch.

You asked for a credible alternative to your version of events, I've given you one. As I've said throughout I've no idea what's true or not, just highlighting alternatives.

By the way, I agree about a reasoned debate, we're all allowed to have an opinion. But notice I'm not the one throwing insults and having digs on this thread, it's you.

Boggersbelief wrote:Notice how74 is now being threatened with a ban because he dared to disagree with the self important Sluffy and his lapdog Johnny. How cringey

Boggersbelief wrote:Yes, I'm laughing at the two of you. Goons

karlypants wrote:Dear god! It's still continuing!

Anymore and my favourite 2 people are having a day off as I'm sick of reading this shite!

Breadman wrote:74's getting quite a lot of unwarranted stick over this in my view.

And Sluffy's doing himself no favours by linking 74's request for clarification on the reasons for being called a cunt to the exchange they (Sluffy & 74) had over the ST.

You can see why people believe that Sluffy's got an agenda when he pulls tenuous stunts like that to try and back up his position.

I'm no fan of the ST as you all know but Sluffy's rant about the timing of the Legends game to curry favour with the electorate was frankly embarrassing.

And this is all a bit petty and childish if you ask me......

bwfc1874 wrote:You asked for a credible alternative to Birch manipulating the ST in Davies's favour. Birch was there to find a buyer for the club, so just about every action he could have taken at the time could be perceived to be for the benefit of the club (and as such Davies).

Breadman wrote:74's getting quite a lot of unwarranted stick over this in my view.

And Sluffy's doing himself no favours by linking 74's request for clarification on the reasons for being called a cunt to the exchange they (Sluffy & 74) had over the ST.

You can see why people believe that Sluffy's got an agenda when he pulls tenuous stunts like that to try and back up his position.

I'm no fan of the ST as you all know but Sluffy's rant about the timing of the Legends game to curry favour with the electorate was frankly embarrassing.

And this is all a bit petty and childish if you ask me......

Sluffy wrote:Your just a wum with an agenda mate - that's obvious to all.

You pm-ed personal abuse to someone else - that's a fact.

I could have banned you for that alone, full stop - but I didn't.

So how the fuck could I be making out 'justification for banning you' - I didn't ban you!

As for your nonsensically never ending argument for arguments sake - clearly brought up again to deflect your abusive pm sending -

bwfc1874 wrote:You asked for a credible alternative to Birch manipulating the ST in Davies's favour. Birch was there to find a buyer for the club, so just about every action he could have taken at the time could be perceived to be for the benefit of the club (and as such Davies).

What utter drivel.

If I go to a garage and ask them to sell MY car - I'm not doing it for the 'benefit' of my car!