PatReilly wrote:

I've edited previous posts for the following

Affshore wrote:

PatReilly wrote:

Nobody is happy, but as I've asked elsewhere, what do YOU suggest the fans do? Simple enough question, but nobody appears to have an answer.

As sad as it is I think the support should talk with their feet, only thing that will make him leave is lack of money then he'll have no option to leave. 
 

In 2012, the warning of non renewals of season tickets worked with many Scottish club chairmen/owners, including our own. 

So it's possible that a collective notification that a number of fans will be committed to not buying for season 2017-18 unless answers are provided and assurances given would be effective. 

But the problems are getting enough supporters who will back such a move, and wording such information to the club in a non inflammatory manner. Plus the effect on the team on the park, which, no matter what happens, will have to be rebuilt again next season.

 

Correct it did work, if we dont get up thsi season alot wont renew 

Canadian Arab wrote:

Trap_6 wrote:

To be clear, the meeting wasn't cancelled because of the content or tone of the questions. They had been sent and acknowledged by the club some weeks before.
It was cancelled when the committee emailed a couple of questions seeking clarity on the exact nature of the meeting.
That was a bridge too far it seems.

Aye, I get what you're saying mate.
I read the questions and I thought several of them were aggressive and confrontational and accusatory. I get the impression many folk who looked at them thought the same. Nobody is saying the questions shouldn't be asked. But if so many folk read them and thought that about them, chances are the club did the same. They agreed to a meeting but I'd put money on it they were expecting a fight. So when they received your second letter regarding the format of the meeting, it was easy for them to say "You know what? No thanks. More bother than it's worth."
If the questions had been worded in a far more conciliatory tone, the club would have been more comfortable about the original meeting and would likely have been far more receptive to your follow-up letter.
You might think all of this is just semantics, but perceptions matter - as proved by the fact that you've not been able to get answers to your questions.
Now if questions are sent in that are worded in a way that couldn't be objected to, and are sent by someone that the club feels they can communicate with, and you still hit a brick wall - then I'd agree you've got just cause to be very concerned, and kick up a stink.

 
Being totally honest even if the questions were written in the nicest way possible I'm sure Thompson and his advisors would still have pulled out anyway.

blackandtangerine wrote:

Canadian Arab wrote:

Trap_6 wrote:

To be clear, the meeting wasn't cancelled because of the content or tone of the questions. They had been sent and acknowledged by the club some weeks before.
It was cancelled when the committee emailed a couple of questions seeking clarity on the exact nature of the meeting.
That was a bridge too far it seems.

Aye, I get what you're saying mate.
I read the questions and I thought several of them were aggressive and confrontational and accusatory. I get the impression many folk who looked at them thought the same. Nobody is saying the questions shouldn't be asked. But if so many folk read them and thought that about them, chances are the club did the same. They agreed to a meeting but I'd put money on it they were expecting a fight. So when they received your second letter regarding the format of the meeting, it was easy for them to say "You know what? No thanks. More bother than it's worth."
If the questions had been worded in a far more conciliatory tone, the club would have been more comfortable about the original meeting and would likely have been far more receptive to your follow-up letter.
You might think all of this is just semantics, but perceptions matter - as proved by the fact that you've not been able to get answers to your questions.
Now if questions are sent in that are worded in a way that couldn't be objected to, and are sent by someone that the club feels they can communicate with, and you still hit a brick wall - then I'd agree you've got just cause to be very concerned, and kick up a stink.

 
Being totally honest even if the questions were written in the nicest way possible I'm sure Thompson and his advisors would still have pulled out anyway.

 
If that happens though, the floating supporter will likely side with the fed. If reasonable questions are put in a polite manner and the board fob them off, it won't come me across well.
It's a win win for the fed, either he answers the questions as there is no animosity, or the level of dissatisfied supporters increase which would put added pressure on Thompson. A galvanised support is more likely to achieve either resolution or removal of ST

Foo Kin Twat wrote:

ahem - (clears throat) and puts on best American Commentator's dramatic accent........

"And the Macho Man in tag team with ex Houston Arab, pin the Fed to the canvas as to how the unaffiliated "Head in the Sand DUSC" membership feels.  Will the penny drop with the Fed?  Will they swallow their collective pride, lower their testosterone levels, have a ceasefire on the constant personal attacks and wallowing in self pity on social media after every setback and revisit this in a calm and measured way without mentioning the sale of players 2 years ago, when we have replaced these players 10x over and we are still shite??????????"

One - ah

Two - ah

Three ah

Four - ah

My post was just a suggestion - no more, no less.  If the FED do try a softer approach and ST/the board doesn't respond then it will be very clear what the situation is.

​I think the board are blanking the fans, some may disagree, but if a more controlled approach is made for answers and they still dingy the questions then even the biggest of ST sympathisers will have to admit that the board are not making any effort to bridge the gap between themselves and the fans.

Macho Man wrote:

Foo Kin Twat wrote:

ahem - (clears throat) and puts on best American Commentator's dramatic accent........

"And the Macho Man in tag team with ex Houston Arab, pin the Fed to the canvas as to how the unaffiliated "Head in the Sand DUSC" membership feels.  Will the penny drop with the Fed?  Will they swallow their collective pride, lower their testosterone levels, have a ceasefire on the constant personal attacks and wallowing in self pity on social media after every setback and revisit this in a calm and measured way without mentioning the sale of players 2 years ago, when we have replaced these players 10x over and we are still shite??????????"

One - ah

Two - ah

Three ah

Four - ah

My post was just a suggestion - no more, no less.  If the FED do try a softer approach and ST/the board doesn't respond then it will be very clear what the situation is.

​I think the board are blanking the fans, some may disagree, but if a more controlled approach is made for answers and they still dingy the questions then even the biggest of ST sympathisers will have to admit that the board are not making any effort to bridge the gap between themselves and the fans.

And I think you are 100% correct, but I have always been shot down when I suggest the bull in a china shop approach was not; and is still not working.  And as their own mystery investor(s) are not coming to the party to buy United, do they not stop and think for just a minute that they could be putting off other parties that could be interested???   I believe the Fed cannot even keep their own Website up-to-date, so I'd suggest that they are not doing themselves any good, credibility wise.  I might have a flippant user name, but it does not mean to say that I don't know what I am talking about re circumstances like this.  
 

HeggyHandshake wrote:

Which part of 'The Club were happy with the questions' are people not getting???

For the Record The Fed's mystery inverstor, first I have heard of him btw, isn't handing ST £3 million for the club because The Feds website hasn't been updated.

We have met Thompson and Co dozens of times, there has been no abuse and it's always been a softly, softly approach without any confrontation. He 100% knows that. They are trying to cut off the Fed as they know they will ask difficult questions. It's as simple as that. Since they cancelled with us they have went on to meet DUBC and the group of lassies who started up last year. Also met ArabTrust in December and if you read what they put out from the meeting then you will understand why he's happy to have them by his side.

HH, I don't know the ins and outs of what has happened between the FED and the club, I don't.  I was just basing my comment on what I read on here and other forums.

​It was a while back that I read the original posts on here and to be honest I didn't remember the comment about the club being happy with the original questions.  I was just hoping to suggest a way forward and wasn't having a dig at anyone, but if that approach has been tried and it failed then I can see where you're coming from..

HeggyHandshake wrote:

No probs MM. They were happy with the questions, they cancelled after being asked if follow up questions would be allowed??

Also it wasn't just going to be him, was going to be ST, Spence, Colin Stewart, David Dorward and Laura Conway. Would have been the perfect chance for them to say what the future plans for the Club were. Alas, the drawbridge has been pulled up.

I also said from the very start that they would find a way to pull out of meeting us. Quite happy to meet the Trust, DUBC and the United Ladies of Tannadice though.

Is that not a good enough opportunity to do a bit of acceptable cross dressing and sneak into the United Ladies of Tannadice meeting? 

As good a suggestion as I've heard in a while to be honest.

HH, fair enough. Although I don't recall folk saying the Fed had their own mystery investor.

The merger story I was informed of came from a Dundee FC source, ex journalist right enough, but no fan of Spencey.

HeggyHandshake wrote:

Post #87 Pat.

Aye, I'd seen that, but didn't take it that anyone believed a Fed member had millions to invest in a football club: surely you didn't?

Either way, my worry is what happens if we get to the stage of forcing ST out. Or even lowering his unknown price to leave. Who comes in, for most club owners/potential club owners are complete arseholes?

Affshore suggested a boycott of Tannadice, as far as I mind. What would be the result, or more correctly, what is the desired result?

Foo Kin Twat wrote:

ahem - (clears throat) and puts on best American Commentator's dramatic accent........

"And the Macho Man in tag team with ex Houston Arab, pin the Fed to the canvas as to how the unaffiliated "Head in the Sand DUSC" membership feels.  Will the penny drop with the Fed?  Will they swallow their collective pride, lower their testosterone levels, have a ceasefire on the constant personal attacks and wallowing in self pity on social media after every setback and revisit this in a calm and measured way without mentioning the sale of players 2 years ago, when we have replaced these players 10x over and we are still shite??????????"

One - ah

Two - ah

Three ah

Four - ah

You need to get out more.
 

Affshore wrote:

blackandtangerine wrote:

Foo Kin Twat wrote:

ahem - (clears throat) and puts on best American Commentator's dramatic accent........

"And the Macho Man in tag team with ex Houston Arab, pin the Fed to the canvas as to how the unaffiliated "Head in the Sand DUSC" membership feels.  Will the penny drop with the Fed?  Will they swallow their collective pride, lower their testosterone levels, have a ceasefire on the constant personal attacks and wallowing in self pity on social media after every setback and revisit this in a calm and measured way without mentioning the sale of players 2 years ago, when we have replaced these players 10x over and we are still shite??????????"

One - ah

Two - ah

Three ah

Four - ah

You need to get out more.
 

 Hes best locked away 

 
Yer posts are Trumpish Affshore.