Questions to send to Roy and co

[Magic Man Fan]

Just admit it, you're tight @rses and easier to wind up than an an alarm clock.

[yoda]

I have a digital alarm clock :wink:

[swiftyboy]

I have a digital alarm clock :wink:

Is it a wind up digital alarm clock? :?

[Exile]

Rest assured, all those UTSers who are poor or tight, the responses will appear at some stage. Sadly, I'm out of town, and there's a stumbling block, but we WILL get round to it, promise, even if it takes a couple of weeks (looking likely). The original intent was never to deprive those of you who've asked a question of the answer, and we'll do our best to get the answers out as soon as we can.

[aaaae]

People are just used to getting stuff for free on the web, be it music or film downloads or top quality football message boards.

[Nortoncanesred]

There are some threats of legal action from Mr Whalley in the answers, I think it would be wise to check before posting them publically.

[PaulK]

There are some threats of legal action from Mr Whalley in the answers, I think it would be wise to check before posting them publically.

i have followed this thread with interest since it was started. Their are a few interesting points contained init.
Swifty posted to see if a responce had been heard from the club, and was then PMd the responce from Bangor. I would be interested to know why it took this question befour it was admited that a responce had been got from the club. How long had this answer been got befour it was admited.
Zippy said he has read the answer and sees that it answers all the questions and he hopes it will now be dropped as a topic. But then others say it shows the club for what it is. so who is write and who is wrong?
we now see that their is a threat of legal action from the club, but don't no what for. If the questions were correct and proper then so would the answers shurely. If the questions were aggresive then the answer would be aggresive? If the questions asked why bonser had bought the club illegaly then I guess the club has the right to threthen legal action. were they checked before sending. What has the press said to the questions and answers
If the answers did answer the questions and those questions were proper and it did show dodgy dealings then wouldnt Bangor be shouting it from then roof tops. he only admited gettin an answers when asked by Swifty. People dont need to copy the answers on here but they could give a jist of what it says.
Or does it really answer questions and show that everythin is proper and always has been. coz if it does then Bonser cant be used as an excuse for stayin away.

[yoda]

Not aying anthing at all but my opinion, legal threats imply you've hit a nerve.

If somebody accuses me of something I havent done I just ignore it. If I have done it, I tend to panic. Threatening customers with legal action in the face of some of the worst attendences in years isnt really a great plan.

[yoda]

I have a digital alarm clock :wink:

Is it a wind up digital alarm clock? :?

Nope. flashing number ans all! :D

[windowman]

I appreciate that it costs to keep the place gooin but holding these answerrs to some sort of ransom is a bit rich.

It's not that at all Gaz. We are just seeing if there are any legal implications for publishing the answers. When we find out, they will be posted on the main page of UTS.

Off on my hols now for 2 weeks, seeya later! Have fun at the games :wink: :mrgreen:

please take my apologies, did not realise there would be legal implications for putting it on main board but not so for those who wish to view on fouts,i feel a right knob head now,i did not know for a fiver all things illegal become exempt

[Nortoncanesred]

There are some threats of legal action from Mr Whalley in the answers, I think it would be wise to check before posting them publically.

i have followed this thread with interest since it was started. Their are a few interesting points contained init.
Swifty posted to see if a responce had been heard from the club, and was then PMd the responce from Bangor. I would be interested to know why it took this question befour it was admited that a responce had been got from the club. How long had this answer been got befour it was admited.
Zippy said he has read the answer and sees that it answers all the questions and he hopes it will now be dropped as a topic. But then others say it shows the club for what it is. so who is write and who is wrong?
we now see that their is a threat of legal action from the club, but don't no what for. If the questions were correct and proper then so would the answers shurely. If the questions were aggresive then the answer would be aggresive? If the questions asked why bonser had bought the club illegaly then I guess the club has the right to threthen legal action. were they checked before sending. What has the press said to the questions and answers
If the answers did answer the questions and those questions were proper and it did show dodgy dealings then wouldnt Bangor be shouting it from then roof tops. he only admited gettin an answers when asked by Swifty. People dont need to copy the answers on here but they could give a jist of what it says.
Or does it really answer questions and show that everythin is proper and always has been. coz if it does then Bonser cant be used as an excuse for stayin away.

Everyone has seen the questions, the answers basically claim the questions are poorly researched and that the club will not revisit the events of 1994 or the move to Fellows Park as they have answered them already. They state they will not answer anymore questions about the move and if any suggestions of anything illegal are being made they will take legal action.

They ask what the motives of the questions are and go on to go through the usual reply of Bonser saved WFC and without him there would be no club, they claim the sale was "complex" and that no bank would lend the the money for WFC for the freehold and that stays true today, it doesn't say if they approached a bank at the time though.

It also suggests that the club was never offered the Freehold and the deal was only for Mr Bonser.....

They also say the club is still for sale and the freehold could be sold by the Pension Fund but no figure is given.

It basically claims there are a small group of people trying to undermine the club and they don't want to answer anymore questions.

I'm sure the answers will be posted when the references to the person who put them are taken out and the legality of publishing them are checked as obviously the club does not welcome these questions at all, the tone is quite threatening in my opinion.

[aaaae]

RW is threatening legal action if anyone alleges anything illegal has gone on, which of course, no-one has or will. I am not even sure if a question can be classed as an allegation, as it surely proves ignorance of the facts.

[swiftyboy]

Not aying anthing at all but my opinion, legal threats imply you've hit a nerve.

If somebody accuses me of something I havent done I just ignore it. If I have done it, I tend to panic. Threatening customers with legal action in the face of some of the worst attendences in years isnt really a great plan.

Of course its hit a nerve Yoda! The club hate this stuff, and they just scare-monger to hope it makes the annoying people asking the questions go away.

They are guilty of something, thats for sure!

[Nortoncanesred]

If anyone had said that anyone at the club had done something illegal then I'm sure the club would be all over it like a rash. The truth is to my knowledge NOBODY has claimed that. Why do the club then feel the need to make these threats?

How many clubs do you know threaten legal action against its own supporters when asked some perfectly reasonable questions?

I have two very simple questions for Mr Whalley,

How much money has Mr Bonser put into WFC that he will not retrieve?

How much rent has Mr Bonsers Pension Fund been paid by WFC since he purchased the Freehold?

Just answer those Mr Whalley, no allegations, no threats just answers.

[Fray Bentos is God!]

RW is threatening legal action if anyone alleges anything illegal has gone on, which of course, no-one has or will. I am not even sure if a question can be classed as an allegation, as it surely proves ignorance of the facts.

I agree - noone has or will say that Bonser has done owt illegal. From our "biggest fan," however, it's quite immoral.

[SaddlerSteve]

I appreciate that it costs to keep the place gooin but holding these answerrs to some sort of ransom is a bit rich.

It's not that at all Gaz. We are just seeing if there are any legal implications for publishing the answers. When we find out, they will be posted on the main page of UTS.

Off on my hols now for 2 weeks, seeya later! Have fun at the games :wink: :mrgreen:

please take my apologies, did not realise there would be legal implications for putting it on main board but not so for those who wish to view on fouts,i feel a right knob head now,i did not know for a fiver all things illegal become exempt

Whilst in FOUTS it's not in the public domain and available to all and sundry.

PS. A fiver is the minimum you can contribute. There is no maximum! :mrgreen:

[FTaylor]

Have never been on UTS before today, but I overheard a conversation whilst in the queue last night. Day hear all of it but it was about someone having started court action against someone of here. Have looked at various threads and can only think it is to do with this email or letter. So waqiting until all this legal stuff is sorted before showing the answers is a wise move.

As I said I day hear the whole thing, wor really interested, but somtimes you cor help overhear.

[Nortoncanesred]

To have a court case someone would need to make an accusation of something illegal against the club or Mr Bonser, nobody has so they would have no case.

[PaulK]

Everyone has seen the questions, the answers basically claim the questions are poorly researched and that the club will not revisit the events of 1994 or the move to Fellows Park as they have answered them already. They state they will not answer anymore questions about the move and if any suggestions of anything illegal are being made they will take legal action.

They ask what the motives of the questions are and go on to go through the usual reply of Bonser saved WFC and without him there would be no club, they claim the sale was "complex" and that no bank would lend the the money for WFC for the freehold and that stays true today, it doesn't say if they approached a bank at the time though.

It also suggests that the club was never offered the Freehold and the deal was only for Mr Bonser.....

They also say the club is still for sale and the freehold could be sold by the Pension Fund but no figure is given.

It basically claims there are a small group of people trying to undermine the club and they don't want to answer anymore questions.

I'm sure the answers will be posted when the references to the person who put them are taken out and the legality of publishing them are checked as obviously the club does not welcome these questions at all, the tone is quite threatening in my opinion.

Thanks for the reply Nortoncanesred.

I can see a bit of both sides to be honest. I guess we dont know how many times over 20 years the questions have bin asked of the club in some form or other. If you were asked the same question again and agian and agian then you would get bored of answerin it. So to say they wo asnsewr it anymore is fair enough.
i dont see a problem either sayin the club is for sale but not givin a price. people who are interested which i dont think their will be any will no how much it is up for.
to then say they wont answer anymore questions on it has caused a problem for everyone else. dont know what the trust will be able to do now. as soon as they open there mouth they will lose credability with the club.
guess a protest in the ground now is all thats left.

[PaulK]

Have never been on UTS before today, but I overheard a conversation whilst in the queue last night. Day hear all of it but it was about someone having started court action against someone of here. Have looked at various threads and can only think it is to do with this email or letter. So waqiting until all this legal stuff is sorted before showing the answers is a wise move.

As I said I day hear the whole thing, wor really interested, but somtimes you cor help overhear.

i was in front of him, so i guess you were behind him. dont no him,but he wasnt on about this email. it was about BangorSaddler calling him a liar on a thread that has now gone of this site. his mate asked him why he didnt post on uts anymore and he said he had been thrown of it by the mods after he proved bangor had lied about him, and the mods has closed ranks. he said he had been to court and started legaql action against Bangor.

I would forget it FT as it can get very messy

[tinned]

Have never been on UTS before today, but I overheard a conversation whilst in the queue last night. Day hear all of it but it was about someone having started court action against someone of here. Have looked at various threads and can only think it is to do with this email or letter. So waqiting until all this legal stuff is sorted before showing the answers is a wise move.

As I said I day hear the whole thing, wor really interested, but somtimes you cor help overhear.

i was in front of him, so i guess you were behind him. dont no him,but he wasnt on about this email. it was about BangorSaddler calling him a liar on a thread that has now gone of this site. his mate asked him why he didnt post on uts anymore and he said he had been thrown of it by the mods after he proved bangor had lied about him, and the mods has closed ranks. he said he had been to court and started legaql action against Bangor.

I would forget it FT as it can get very messy

That's a really impressive trick to pull off. What did you use, mirrors? :wink:

[chestersaddler]

Have never been on UTS before today, but I overheard a conversation whilst in the queue last night. Day hear all of it but it was about someone having started court action against someone of here. Have looked at various threads and can only think it is to do with this email or letter. So waqiting until all this legal stuff is sorted before showing the answers is a wise move.

As I said I day hear the whole thing, wor really interested, but somtimes you cor help overhear.

i was in front of him, so i guess you were behind him. dont no him,but he wasnt on about this email. it was about BangorSaddler calling him a liar on a thread that has now gone of this site. his mate asked him why he didnt post on uts anymore and he said he had been thrown of it by the mods after he proved bangor had lied about him, and the mods has closed ranks. he said he had been to court and started legaql action against Bangor.

I would forget it FT as it can get very messy

Did he look like a copper and sound like he came from Craydlay? :lol:

[Joe90]

Have never been on UTS before today, but I overheard a conversation whilst in the queue last night. Day hear all of it but it was about someone having started court action against someone of here. Have looked at various threads and can only think it is to do with this email or letter. So waqiting until all this legal stuff is sorted before showing the answers is a wise move.

As I said I day hear the whole thing, wor really interested, but somtimes you cor help overhear.

i was in front of him, so i guess you were behind him. dont no him,but he wasnt on about this email. it was about BangorSaddler calling him a liar on a thread that has now gone of this site. his mate asked him why he didnt post on uts anymore and he said he had been thrown of it by the mods after he proved bangor had lied about him, and the mods has closed ranks. he said he had been to court and started legaql action against Bangor.

I would forget it FT as it can get very messy

I'm sure the site's owner will await the court papers with baited breath...I'll be gobsmacked if this person had "been to court" so quickly though. Civil actions take months. I was under the impression that to "start legal action", you had to see a solicitor, have the solicitor compile evidence from all involved parties, and then apply for a court date. For that to happen in less than a week is amazing. Must be a real hotshot solicitor and a very quiet week in West Midlands' Magistrates...

[King Crimson]

Have never been on UTS before today, but I overheard a conversation whilst in the queue last night. Day hear all of it but it was about someone having started court action against someone of here. Have looked at various threads and can only think it is to do with this email or letter. So waqiting until all this legal stuff is sorted before showing the answers is a wise move.

As I said I day hear the whole thing, wor really interested, but somtimes you cor help overhear.

i was in front of him, so i guess you were behind him. dont no him,but he wasnt on about this email. it was about BangorSaddler calling him a liar on a thread that has now gone of this site. his mate asked him why he didnt post on uts anymore and he said he had been thrown of it by the mods after he proved bangor had lied about him, and the mods has closed ranks. he said he had been to court and started legaql action against Bangor.

I would forget it FT as it can get very messy

Wow! You two guys really need to get to grips with the 'q' and 'a' being next to each other on the keyboard. That's just freaqcky!
Perhaps you should try a 'q' and 'a' session?
:D

[swiftyboy]

Have never been on UTS before today, but I overheard a conversation whilst in the queue last night. Day hear all of it but it was about someone having started court action against someone of here. Have looked at various threads and can only think it is to do with this email or letter. So waqiting until all this legal stuff is sorted before showing the answers is a wise move.

As I said I day hear the whole thing, wor really interested, but somtimes you cor help overhear.

i was in front of him, so i guess you were behind him. dont no him,but he wasnt on about this email. it was about BangorSaddler calling him a liar on a thread that has now gone of this site. his mate asked him why he didnt post on uts anymore and he said he had been thrown of it by the mods after he proved bangor had lied about him, and the mods has closed ranks. he said he had been to court and started legaql action against Bangor.

I would forget it FT as it can get very messy

Are you on about that idiot Ommer em Cradley? Or his pseudonym Secret Saddler? Or who knows how many other usernames he has. Going to court over a harmless quip on a messageboard? Do me a favour. Its all a wind up

[Pedagogue]

If you were asked the same question again and again and again then you would get bored of answering it. So to say they won't answer it any more is fair enough.

The problem is, Paul, they have NEVER answered the questions about pre-1994 - and they never will. All we ever get is "spin" that would make even Alastair Campbell blush! That, and the veiled threats of legal action, prompt many people to think that certain people have something to hide.

[Zippy]

The problem is, Paul, they have NEVER answered the questions about pre-1994 - and they never will. All we ever get is "spin" that would make even Alastair Campbell blush! That, and the veiled threats of legal action, prompt many people to think that certain people have something to hide.

Have some people got nothing better to worry about, other than questions going back 15 years ago.

:roll:

[Nortoncanesred]

When that 15 year old question is still costing you £1000 a day today, it's still a problem :roll:

[saddlerken]

The problem is, Paul, they have NEVER answered the questions about pre-1994 - and they never will. All we ever get is "spin" that would make even Alastair Campbell blush! That, and the veiled threats of legal action, prompt many people to think that certain people have something to hide.

Have some people got nothing better to worry about, other than questions going back 15 years ago.

:roll:

Dont be naive zipster!

I would quite to know thank you

It's only a character assisnation because the powers that be are not honest, and since they are not honest about something 15 years ago then how can we trust them now?

[Pedagogue]

The problem is, Paul, they have NEVER answered the questions about pre-1994 - and they never will. All we ever get is "spin" that would make even Alastair Campbell blush! That, and the veiled threats of legal action, prompt many people to think that certain people have something to hide.

Have some people got nothing better to worry about, other than questions going back 15 years ago. :roll:

Zippy - some of us are capable of looking further than the ends of our own noses. The root causes of our present problems date back to the 1986-94 period. We "papered over the cracks" with a couple of promotions at the turn of the century but, underneath, the financial problems were steadily growing (in direct proportion to a certain pension fund). Now we can see the results of the failure to address the underlying problems much earlier (or, better still, stop them occurring in the first place). I am VERY pessimistic about the club's financial future. Things can only get worse, in my opinion. Shoving your head in the sand and hoping that it will all go away is not going to help, Zippy. I know you are a genuine supporter, Zip - how do you see our way out of the growing financial crisis?

I wish that we had the Internet, 25 years ago. The glare of publicity might have prevented all of this happening. We needed to treat the cause of the problem, not just the symptoms.