Doug King (2 Viewers)

[MalcSB]

I would be interested to hear why you think he has "dodged a bullet"

The first action Frasers did once they owned CBS was to cancel the SISU licence. Being only a licence Frasers can (theoretically) cancel the current agreement any time.

DKs 5 year promotion target is to fit in with the licence term. It will be interesting to see what Frasers do

It makes me laugh a bit when I see how successful Frasers seem to have made the arena. A far cry from Wasps record and would have been a major help to the club if King had managed to acquire it.

 

---

[Evo1883]

It was sarcasm.

It is ludicrous that people are still trying their hardest to cry about Robins going.

People were even annoyed that King got rid of Boddy because he and Robins were close. The same Boddy people had slagged off for ruining clubs for years.

There were people singing King's name, literally not so long ago.

If you want ludicrous, have a look at who was saying Rhys Carr was "gormless" because he wasn't Mark Robins.

People will probably still be talking about Robins here in 60 years time , you probably should get used to it mate

 

[Sky Blue Goblin]

It makes me laugh a bit when I see how successful Frasers seem to have made the arena. A far cry from Wasps record and would have been a major help to the club if King had managed to acquire it.

To be fair I’m yet to see it turn any sort of profit. First year accounts show a £4 million pound loss. We’ll see if it turns around in January with the new accounts but don’t think the arena has ever done well.

 

[SBT]

I've just asked if I can post it

I hope it's agreed

Be funny

I guess these documents don’t exist after all then

 

[Nick]

People will probably still be talking about Robins here in 60 years time , you probably should get used to it mate

Probably the same people crying their eyes out over Gavin and Stacey.

 

[Bernie Rhodes Nose]

Probably the same people crying their eyes out over Gavin and Stacey.

Stags in West Ham kits? Don't think so.

 

[Saddlebrains]

I guess these documents don’t exist after all then

They do, but doesn't want them on a public forum of random people. Which is understandable. You don't have to believe it you know, that's one of the good things in life

 

[oldfiver]

They do, but doesn't want them on a public forum of random people. Which is understandable. You don't have to believe it you know, that's one of the good things in life

Perhaps if you told us what these documents consist of - other enquiries could be made?

 

[djr8369]

Is it really a shock to hear King is hard nosed and doesn’t know anything about football? Who cares?

 

[SBT]

They do, but doesn't want them on a public forum of random people. Which is understandable. You don't have to believe it you know, that's one of the good things in life

Given that someone has directly disputed your version of events, which seem to rely on documents that you’ve claimed to have available but have failed to deliver, I think people can make up their own minds, yes.

 

[chiefdave]

Given that someone has directly disputed your version of events, which seem to rely on documents that you’ve claimed to have available but have failed to deliver, I think people can make up their own minds, yes.

Does this work both ways? Does the person who disputed Saddles version of events have to provide proof of who did pay the bill?

 

[SBT]

Does this work both ways? Does the person who disputed Saddles version of events have to provide proof of who did pay the bill?

No. But if they claimed not only to have documents that backed up their claims, but that they also might be able to produce said documents, then it looks a bit silly if they then fail to come up with the goods.

 

[clint van damme]

No. But if they claimed not only to have documents that backed up their claims, but that they also might be able to produce said documents, then it looks a bit silly if they then fail to come up with the goods.

Not really.
Just leaves the waters muddied.
I've got DMs from respected posters on here that would have backed up arguments I've had in the past but if they don't want stuff made public then there's not much you can do.
If people choose not to believe you then so be it.

I think Saddlebrains has enough credit in the bank for what he says to be taken seriously, though that can also be said for Oldfiver

 

[oldfiver]

Does this work both ways? Does the person who disputed Saddles version of events have to provide proof of who did pay the bill?

I haven't said who did pay the bill - I have simply said RO did not.
Saddle has more than once he would provide copies to prove this wrong but hasn't.
So be it

Personally this is a dead discussion and there are more important current matters to consider.