And me, plus Uncle Tom Cobley and all - I think he reversed the charges though
PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online.
Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.
A Disgruntled Fan and Peter Ridsdale.
- Thread starter JK
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2005
- Messages
- 2,164
GW, PR and TH must be a little confused.
GW never stops talking, so we want him to shut up. TH never talks, so we wanted him to say something and when he did we didn't think he said enough. PR never talks, so we wanted him to say something and when he intends to do so, we write off what he is saying before he has even said it.
If they don't say anything, then we want them to say something. If they say something, we don't want them to say anything. If they say a little, we want them to say a lot, if they say a lot, we want them to say a little. Perhaps we only want them to say what we want to hear and if they don't say it then we don't want to hear it.
GW never stops talking, so we want him to shut up. TH never talks, so we wanted him to say something and when he did we didn't think he said enough. PR never talks, so we wanted him to say something and when he intends to do so, we write off what he is saying before he has even said it.
If they don't say anything, then we want them to say something. If they say something, we don't want them to say anything. If they say a little, we want them to say a lot, if they say a lot, we want them to say a little. Perhaps we only want them to say what we want to hear and if they don't say it then we don't want to hear it.
They remind me of the guy in Iraq who denied that they were losing the war you know the spokesman who described the Americans as infidels!!!
I.e they are in denial that there is something majorly wrong at the moment.
I.e they are in denial that there is something majorly wrong at the moment.
Bint
0
- Joined
- May 18, 2011
- Messages
- 3,201
Bet it wasn't a stood as when he rang Shaky!
GW, PR and TH must be a little confused.
GW never stops talking, so we want him to shut up. TH never talks, so we wanted him to say something and when he did we didn't think he said enough. PR never talks, so we wanted him to say something and when he intends to do so, we write off what he is saying before he has even said it.
If they don't say anything, then we want them to say something. If they say something, we don't want them to say anything. If they say a little, we want them to say a lot, if they say a lot, we want them to say a little. Perhaps we only want them to say what we want to hear and if they don't say it then we don't want to hear it.
Absolutely spot on - but not what i want to hear
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 876
GW, PR and TH must be a little confused.
GW never stops talking, so we want him to shut up. TH never talks, so we wanted him to say something and when he did we didn't think he said enough. PR never talks, so we wanted him to say something and when he intends to do so, we write off what he is saying before he has even said it.
If they don't say anything, then we want them to say something. If they say something, we don't want them to say anything. If they say a little, we want them to say a lot, if they say a lot, we want them to say a little. Perhaps we only want them to say what we want to hear and if they don't say it then we don't want to hear it.
:thumbsup: Great post!
GW, PR and TH must be a little confused.
GW never stops talking, so we want him to shut up. TH never talks, so we wanted him to say something and when he did we didn't think he said enough. PR never talks, so we wanted him to say something and when he intends to do so, we write off what he is saying before he has even said it.
If they don't say anything, then we want them to say something. If they say something, we don't want them to say anything. If they say a little, we want them to say a lot, if they say a lot, we want them to say a little. Perhaps we only want them to say what we want to hear and if they don't say it then we don't want to hear it.
Nothing confusing at all doesn't everyone want others to say what they want to hear, more so a sports fan?
6pence
0
Strangely i do not - it is nice to be reassured, but then I know that they know that so finally I do not know if I should believe what they say anyway.
I can not think of any part of my life where I want others to say what I want to hear tbh
Then again I am not quite normal
Strangely i do not - it is nice to be reassured, but then I know that they know that so finally I do not know if I should believe what they say anyway.
I can not think of any part of my life where I want others to say what I want to hear tbh
Then again I am not quite normal
It's human nature to want to hear good, nice, happy, complimentary, re-assuring and positive things. Everything else is bad, nasty, sad, insulting, confidence sapping and negative or, plain boring
I will not say you are not normal, I will tell what you would prefer to hear, you are an excellent fan/supporter for the club. As much as we have disagreed in the past, I would have to say this much is true.
What puzzles me is that DB is dropped due to not playing the way Westley is asking. Yet Byrom appears to be the first name on the teamsheet and has played a half of football that consisted of him touching the ball 11 times in 45 minutes. Let me repeat that.. A central midfield 'general' having 11 touches in 45 minutes! Is that playing the way that Westley has asked him? Is the gameplan for the fulcrum of our team to be completely anonymous?
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,408
GW, PR and TH must be a little confused.
GW never stops talking, so we want him to shut up. TH never talks, so we wanted him to say something and when he did we didn't think he said enough. PR never talks, so we wanted him to say something and when he intends to do so, we write off what he is saying before he has even said it.
If they don't say anything, then we want them to say something. If they say something, we don't want them to say anything. If they say a little, we want them to say a lot, if they say a lot, we want them to say a little. Perhaps we only want them to say what we want to hear and if they don't say it then we don't want to hear it.
Very good. A bit like a scene from Yes Minister! (for those old enough)
If you want him out, stop wasting your time commenting on forums. You need to start voicing your opinions towards him, not online where it is say to ignore. When are we going to stand up to this dire situation? We need them ALL gone. Wesley, Ridsdale, Dreyer, Maamria and that coach/kit man/scout/goalkeeping coach. Only then will this football club start moving in the right direction.
Many people will probably disagree, stating that we need 'stability' in order to improve. However, th fact of the matter is that since Peter Ridsdale's appoint/non-appointment at PNE, we have done nothing but sign a load of players on frees (most of them being absolute shite) and slip further and further down the table.
Hemmings needs to stop the rot, and take out the trash. I don't see how anyone can defend Ridsdale? Time after time, he has shown he is NOT to be trusted at Leeds, Barnsley, Cardiff (and some would argue Plymouth).
Look what someone wrote about him back in 2011, before he was even at PNE, it's a great read....
http://representingthemambo.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/wanker-of-the-week-peter-ridsdale/
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,408
So... it's a column in a blog, called "wanker of the week". Which eminent investigative journalist wrote this "great read"?
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 3,063
The person I would really like to hear on the radio is Trevor Hemmings. No chance of course, he only speaks about his beloved nags. Ridsdale, like Lindsay before him, is merely carrying out Hemmings' instructions, he is nothing more than an employee and has no real power (thank goodness some might say, given his financial past). So what is he going to tell us that he hasn't already said? It will be the usual cliches and avoidance of answering any really pertinent questions. Ridsdale, to his credit (which seems an inappropriate word) is a master of spin and of not really answering questions. In short, it will be a waste of airtime.
I find Hemmings' outright refusal to communicate directly with the fans quite insulting. It shows a total lack of respect and regard for the paying customer. Yes, he has lent a lot of money to the club but he should remember that without the fans, the club would have absolutely no reason to exist. He is the person who should be answering the questions, not his stooge.
I find Hemmings' outright refusal to communicate directly with the fans quite insulting. It shows a total lack of respect and regard for the paying customer. Yes, he has lent a lot of money to the club but he should remember that without the fans, the club would have absolutely no reason to exist. He is the person who should be answering the questions, not his stooge.
And his beloved Chorley FC.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2004
- Messages
- 19,689
Brilliant. Best of it is I don't want him out!
Peter Ridsdale said:
The above (particularly the part highlighted in bold) is what got my attention. Ridsdale will do what he has to do.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,408
It could mean he's decided to bravely sack Westley (jeopardising 'the project' and his own position) if we don't win one of the next away games... or it could equally mean that he'll bravely resist the calls for his sacking... or it could mean that he'll bribe some referees. It could mean lots of different things!