TurkeyTrot
New Member
Jeez, MT Hancock! Is he still writing letters, must have been trolling the telegraph for 30 years or more
#SkyBlueFightingFund - Would you pledge £1K to buy the club? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter PorkyCovvy
- Start date
Jeez, MT Hancock! Is he still writing letters, must have been trolling the telegraph for 30 years or more
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Jeez, MT Hancock! Is he still writing letters, must have been trolling the telegraph for 30 years or more
have to admit, it's a downside of the internet age that I don't encounter his letters anymore.
Was particularly fun when a rogue 'MT Hancock' impersonated him for a while.
Imagine a message board full of MT Hancocks!
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
So wouldn't this be served better with a consistent message through statements encouraging talks between both parties, rather than appearing (for better or worse) to fire criticism at just one side?
Even if that criticism is valid, doesn't it risk the trust's message that all parties should talk becoming lost in the oppositional partiality that results? Doesn't it mean KCiC message gets diluted?
TurkeyTrot
New Member
Haha, that would be carnage! Didn't he live in Sewall highway? 30 years ago there was a women too who was always writing in from Curtis rd, she was my old dinner lady at school and lived next door to my mate. She wouldn't say boo to a goose but stick a pen in her hand and a cause and she was like Wonder Woman!
TurkeyTrot
New Member
The Trust has asked the specific questions because they need answering. Somehow, somewhere, we've kind of accepted that its OK for the person who has ultimate power over the future of our club is unknown and faceless like some James Bond villain. That's what we've been reduced to. The Trust has repeatedly asked for both sides to get together and thrash out a compromise. That's well documented.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately the Trust ends up with a disjointed message, and a disjointed presentation of its message.
What the disjointed nature gives is indeed a signal that both sides should talk... but only after sticking the boot in. It appears to want to be slectively objective, IMHO, have its cake and eat it.
And the switch in tone and direction dilutes the main message.
(Incidentally, I'd be saying this even if you wanted the main message as SISU OUT at all costs - it doesn't alter the fact that the message from the trust is badly disjointed)
That doesn't mean that there isn't a place for questioning (the pdf of questions for SISU for example, very good - although still waiting for the ACL equivalent one that was promised ) but the savage swings in tone make it very hard for the trust to show an identity and what it stands for.
As an aside, the danger of having a public face makes it a focus on the individual and not an insitution. I'm sure you remember the brand new dawn that was hailed when McGinnity replaced Richardson, when Robinson replaced McGinnity... forget the fact the same parties were still there, the public face meant they could get away with a lot in a nice fresh honeymoon period. We've had similar with SISU, with Ranson being replaced (OK, no honeymopon there!) but Dulieu to Fisher showed a state of grace, because the focus was onthe individual rather than the content. So personally I wouldn't be trying to unmask people as it detracts from the issues at heart, reduces it to cartoonesque status.
What the disjointed nature gives is indeed a signal that both sides should talk... but only after sticking the boot in. It appears to want to be slectively objective, IMHO, have its cake and eat it.
And the switch in tone and direction dilutes the main message.
(Incidentally, I'd be saying this even if you wanted the main message as SISU OUT at all costs - it doesn't alter the fact that the message from the trust is badly disjointed)
That doesn't mean that there isn't a place for questioning (the pdf of questions for SISU for example, very good - although still waiting for the ACL equivalent one that was promised
) but the savage swings in tone make it very hard for the trust to show an identity and what it stands for.As an aside, the danger of having a public face makes it a focus on the individual and not an insitution. I'm sure you remember the brand new dawn that was hailed when McGinnity replaced Richardson, when Robinson replaced McGinnity... forget the fact the same parties were still there, the public face meant they could get away with a lot in a nice fresh honeymoon period. We've had similar with SISU, with Ranson being replaced (OK, no honeymopon there!) but Dulieu to Fisher showed a state of grace, because the focus was onthe individual rather than the content. So personally I wouldn't be trying to unmask people as it detracts from the issues at heart, reduces it to cartoonesque status.
ccfcchris
Well-Known Member
But isn't the trust doing just what the baldy shouty people want on this site by shouting SISU out?
