Forget marches the ONLY meaningful protest is this one

Lazio fans boycotted a recent game due to their dislike of their president Claudio Lotito. Owners these days only care about the pounds in their pockets and like it or not the only way to do that is by boycotting. Honestly the sight of the first ever empty ground during a Premier League while being televised would create far more publicity than any kind of march.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26509338

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Already discussed this days ago using the very same story. Keep up

You must have been protesting for the last decade then cos no c**t seen you in Ninian Park or the CCS

Already discussed this days ago using the very same story. Keep up

Yes I know but because its been discussed before does it mean that we can't continue to discuss the protential of a boycott..?

Already discussed this days ago using the very same story. Keep up

Yes I know but because its been discussed before does it mean that we can't continue to discuss the protential of a boycott..?

Hows the Malaysian Prime Minister? You found out who he is yet?

Already discussed this days ago using the very same story. Keep up

Yes I know but because its been discussed before does it mean that we can't continue to discuss the protential of a boycott..?

Hows the Malaysian Prime Minister? You found out who he is yet?

Apologised at the time but unfortunately I went on information clearly stated by a former Mod on this forum. As I dont attend games anymore then this forum is one of the best information streams about the club just on this occasion that information turned out to be incorrect.

Already discussed this days ago using the very same story. Keep up

Yes I know but because its been discussed before does it mean that we can't continue to discuss the protential of a boycott..?

Hows the Malaysian Prime Minister? You found out who he is yet?

Apologised at the time but unfortunately I went on information clearly stated by a former Mod on this forum. As I dont attend games anymore then this forum is one of the best information streams about the club just on this occasion that information turned out to be incorrect.

Yet you thought you would start a witchunt without the full facts.

Same as you did on paul marshallsea, and he won his case for wrongful dismissal yesterday.

You are a vile human being.

Already discussed this days ago using the very same story. Keep up

Yes I know but because its been discussed before does it mean that we can't continue to discuss the protential of a boycott..?

Hows the Malaysian Prime Minister? You found out who he is yet?

Apologised at the time but unfortunately I went on information clearly stated by a former Mod on this forum. As I dont attend games anymore then this forum is one of the best information streams about the club just on this occasion that information turned out to be incorrect.

Yet you thought you would start a witchunt without the full facts.

Same as you did on paul marshallsea, and he won his case for wrongful dismissal yesterday.

You are a vile human being.

Wrongful dismissal and fraud are two completely different issues Polo. Unfortunately the organisations which he created fraud against would rather keep it under wraps when there is clear evidence supporting this.

The ONLY vile human being is the one who threatened a female work colleague of yours and your own employer then had pay for private 24 hour security around her because of his actions. Yet you want to defend this man!!

Already discussed this days ago using the very same story. Keep up

Yes I know but because its been discussed before does it mean that we can't continue to discuss the protential of a boycott..?

Hows the Malaysian Prime Minister? You found out who he is yet?

Apologised at the time but unfortunately I went on information clearly stated by a former Mod on this forum. As I dont attend games anymore then this forum is one of the best information streams about the club just on this occasion that information turned out to be incorrect.

Yet you thought you would start a witchunt without the full facts.

Same as you did on paul marshallsea, and he won his case for wrongful dismissal yesterday.

You are a vile human being.

Wrongful dismissal and fraud are two completely different issues Polo. Unfortunately the organisations which he created fraud against would rather keep it under wraps when there is clear evidence supporting this.

The ONLY vile human being is the one who threatened a female work colleague of yours and your own employer then had pay for private 24 hour security around her because of his actions. Yet you want to defend this man!!

If there was such evidence to these accusations he would be convicted surely not?

All conjecture and hear say, mainly from yourself.

I would pay top dollar to see Paul Marshallsea catch up with you in a dark alley.

Already discussed this days ago using the very same story. Keep up

Yes I know but because its been discussed before does it mean that we can't continue to discuss the protential of a boycott..?

Hows the Malaysian Prime Minister? You found out who he is yet?

Apologised at the time but unfortunately I went on information clearly stated by a former Mod on this forum. As I dont attend games anymore then this forum is one of the best information streams about the club just on this occasion that information turned out to be incorrect.

Yet you thought you would start a witchunt without the full facts.

Same as you did on paul marshallsea, and he won his case for wrongful dismissal yesterday.

You are a vile human being.

Wrongful dismissal and fraud are two completely different issues Polo. Unfortunately the organisations which he created fraud against would rather keep it under wraps when there is clear evidence supporting this.

The ONLY vile human being is the one who threatened a female work colleague of yours and your own employer then had pay for private 24 hour security around her because of his actions. Yet you want to defend this man!!

If there was such evidence to these accusations he would be convicted surely not?

All conjecture and hear say, mainly from yourself.

I would pay top dollar to see Paul Marshallsea catch up with you in a dark alley.

Polo you know the kind of organisations we are talking about and they dont want the publicity even your own work colleagues agree who were involved at the time would agree with me on this. The evidence is clear and it was produced by many and I was just the one who helped put it all together and present it to the Charities commission.

I even asked Paul himself to put in a defence to help balance out the report to the Charities Commission but he refused too.

I wonder how many others would create a position within a charity with a wage of over £20k and after receiving CV and interviewing candidates who were very experienced and had the relavent qualifications end up employing their wife..?

Unfortunately a small number of local Charities are riddled with dodgyness and people who know about the issues they had with Penarth Peir charity would also understand where Im coming from where the person in charge of the finances there took the money and fled to Australia!!!!

The two people that I know who you are reffering to are barking f*cking mad, just like you.

marshy done tremendous work getting the engine house of the ground, keeping kids out of trouble and should be given an MBE for his services.

The two people that I know who you are reffering to are barking f*cking mad, just like you.

marshy done tremendous work getting the engine house of the ground, keeping kids out of trouble and should be given an MBE for his services.

So if he didn't do anything wrong then why didn't he not turn up on many occasions for his dismissal..? and for what I hear the raising legal costs for a local chairty was the main reason behind the fact that 'settlement' rather than him actually winning the case.

The two people that I know who you are reffering to are barking f*cking mad, just like you.

marshy done tremendous work getting the engine house of the ground, keeping kids out of trouble and should be given an MBE for his services.

So if he didn't do anything wrong then why didn't he not turn up on many occasions for his dismissal..? and for what I hear the raising legal costs for a local chairty was the main reason behind the fact that 'settlement' rather than him actually winning the case.

Erm, because he was sick, maybe thats why didnt turn up. And before you say he was in Australia that was a well earned break and to help with his mental breakdown.

It doesnt matter what youve heard the fact remains he won the case.

The two people that I know who you are reffering to are barking f*cking mad, just like you.

marshy done tremendous work getting the engine house of the ground, keeping kids out of trouble and should be given an MBE for his services.

So if he didn't do anything wrong then why didn't he not turn up on many occasions for his dismissal..? and for what I hear the raising legal costs for a local chairty was the main reason behind the fact that 'settlement' rather than him actually winning the case.

Erm, because he was sick, maybe thats why didnt turn up. And before you say he was in Australia that was a well earned break and to help with his mental breakdown.

It doesnt matter what youve heard the fact remains he won the case.

Sick on each of the different occasions yet he was ok to travel to Australia and touch an almost dead baby shark!!! FFS!!!

No he DID NOT win the case because there was a settlement between both parties due to high legal costs suffered by the charity.

The two people that I know who you are reffering to are barking f*cking mad, just like you.

marshy done tremendous work getting the engine house of the ground, keeping kids out of trouble and should be given an MBE for his services.

So if he didn't do anything wrong then why didn't he not turn up on many occasions for his dismissal..? and for what I hear the raising legal costs for a local chairty was the main reason behind the fact that 'settlement' rather than him actually winning the case.

Erm, because he was sick, maybe thats why didnt turn up. And before you say he was in Australia that was a well earned break and to help with his mental breakdown.

It doesnt matter what youve heard the fact remains he won the case.

Sick on each of the different occasions yet he was ok to travel to Australia and touch an almost dead baby shark!!! FFS!!!

No he DID NOT win the case because there was a settlement between both parties due to high legal costs suffered by the charity.

Which technically means he won

The two people that I know who you are reffering to are barking f*cking mad, just like you.

marshy done tremendous work getting the engine house of the ground, keeping kids out of trouble and should be given an MBE for his services.

So if he didn't do anything wrong then why didn't he not turn up on many occasions for his dismissal..? and for what I hear the raising legal costs for a local chairty was the main reason behind the fact that 'settlement' rather than him actually winning the case.

Erm, because he was sick, maybe thats why didnt turn up. And before you say he was in Australia that was a well earned break and to help with his mental breakdown.

It doesnt matter what youve heard the fact remains he won the case.

Sick on each of the different occasions yet he was ok to travel to Australia and touch an almost dead baby shark!!! FFS!!!

No he DID NOT win the case because there was a settlement between both parties due to high legal costs suffered by the charity.

Which technically means he won

No its means that a local is running out of funds for such a case against someone who had legal aid so to cut their losses they come to an agreement with the other party. Would you rather see the said charties go bankrupt because of this..?

Nonsense

Trust me, the money my employer has got, peanuts compared to what the case would cost and thats just one of the trustees.

This case was more than personal, so if they had all the evidence you claim they would have taken it all the way.

Theyve cut their losses because they were not confident of victory.

Next thing youll be telling me when a manage is dismissed and the press release says "mutual agreement" that the manager wasnt sacked.

Nonsense

Trust me, the money my employer has got, peanuts compared to what the case would cost and thats just one of the trustees.

This case was more than personal, so if they had all the evidence you claim they would have taken it all the way.

Theyve cut their losses because they were not confident of victory.

Next thing youll be telling me when a manage is dismissed and the press release says "mutual agreement" that the manager wasnt sacked.

Are you really saying that trustees are personally liable for matter such as this because if so then you really need to look-up the role of a Trustee within a Chairty!!! Next thing you'd be saying is that Ridsdale is personally liable for what he done with CCFC!!!

And also may I add that 'no' legal advisor worth his salt would ever tell their client that they are 100% confident of winning in such cases

Nonsense

Trust me, the money my employer has got, peanuts compared to what the case would cost and thats just one of the trustees.

This case was more than personal, so if they had all the evidence you claim they would have taken it all the way.

Theyve cut their losses because they were not confident of victory.

Next thing youll be telling me when a manage is dismissed and the press release says "mutual agreement" that the manager wasnt sacked.

Are you really saying that trustees are personally liable for matter such as this because if so then you really need to look-up the role of a Trustee within a Chairty!!! Next thing you'd be saying is that Ridsdale is personally liable for what he done with CCFC!!!

And also may I add that 'no' legal advisor worth his salt would ever tell their client that they are 100% confident of winning in such cases

No they are not personally liable but they have enough money to support the prosecution should they wish and given how personal it was you think they would have just settled out of court because of costs, when they had such damning evidence that you claim.

I mean you have such overwhelming evidence......yet you cannot guarantee victory

You should be working on the Oscar Prestorius case.

Nonsense

Trust me, the money my employer has got, peanuts compared to what the case would cost and thats just one of the trustees.

This case was more than personal, so if they had all the evidence you claim they would have taken it all the way.

Theyve cut their losses because they were not confident of victory.

Next thing youll be telling me when a manage is dismissed and the press release says "mutual agreement" that the manager wasnt sacked.

Are you really saying that trustees are personally liable for matter such as this because if so then you really need to look-up the role of a Trustee within a Chairty!!! Next thing you'd be saying is that Ridsdale is personally liable for what he done with CCFC!!!

And also may I add that 'no' legal advisor worth his salt would ever tell their client that they are 100% confident of winning in such cases

No they are not personally liable but they have enough money to support the prosecution should they wish and given how personal it was you think they would have just settled out of court because of costs, when they had such damning evidence that you claim.

I mean you have such overwhelming evidence......yet you cannot guarantee victory

You should be working on the Oscar Prestorius case.

A Trustee is there to look after the runnings of a charity not to personally fund a chairty. Do you see School Governors personally funding school meals these days then..?

The evidence I collected had NOTHING to do with the employment tribunal to was to do with the chairities missing monies which is a completely different thing all together just involving the same person.

Nonsense

Trust me, the money my employer has got, peanuts compared to what the case would cost and thats just one of the trustees.

This case was more than personal, so if they had all the evidence you claim they would have taken it all the way.

Theyve cut their losses because they were not confident of victory.

Next thing youll be telling me when a manage is dismissed and the press release says "mutual agreement" that the manager wasnt sacked.

Are you really saying that trustees are personally liable for matter such as this because if so then you really need to look-up the role of a Trustee within a Chairty!!! Next thing you'd be saying is that Ridsdale is personally liable for what he done with CCFC!!!

And also may I add that 'no' legal advisor worth his salt would ever tell their client that they are 100% confident of winning in such cases

No they are not personally liable but they have enough money to support the prosecution should they wish and given how personal it was you think they would have just settled out of court because of costs, when they had such damning evidence that you claim.

I mean you have such overwhelming evidence......yet you cannot guarantee victory

You should be working on the Oscar Prestorius case.

A Trustee is there to look after the runnings of a charity not to personally fund a chairty. Do you see School Governors personally funding school meals these days then..?

The evidence I collected had NOTHING to do with the employment tribunal to was to do with the chairities missing monies which is a completely different thing all together just involving the same person.

My bad, benefactors I meant.

NOthing to do with it? hahahahaha

The reason he was dismissed is because he was suspected of fraud the two were linked and you know it.

Already discussed this days ago using the very same story. Keep up

Yes I know but because its been discussed before does it mean that we can't continue to discuss the protential of a boycott..?

Hows the Malaysian Prime Minister? You found out who he is yet?

Apologised at the time but unfortunately I went on information clearly stated by a former Mod on this forum. As I dont attend games anymore then this forum is one of the best information streams about the club just on this occasion that information turned out to be incorrect.

you dont attend games anymore.....but you want to boycott

Already discussed this days ago using the very same story. Keep up

Yes I know but because its been discussed before does it mean that we can't continue to discuss the protential of a boycott..?

Hows the Malaysian Prime Minister? You found out who he is yet?

Apologised at the time but unfortunately I went on information clearly stated by a former Mod on this forum. As I dont attend games anymore then this forum is one of the best information streams about the club just on this occasion that information turned out to be incorrect.

you dont attend games anymore.....but you want to boycott

To not attend them anymore would have meant he had to go in the first place which he never

No the reason he was dismissed was because he was on the sick yet willing to visit Australia and touch a clearly half dead baby shark. Once he arrived back he was asked to have a meeting regarding this yet failed to show on over 4 different occasions and the last one they even asked him to offer a time and a date of which he declined.

That was THE only reason for this employment tribunal and NOTHING else because any fruadant activity would have had to go way above the Trustees of which it did and they are called the Charity Commission.

You have clearly not a complete understanding of this yet are prepared to defend an individual who had funding from a VERY high up charitible organisation be transferred into his own PERSONAL account FFS!!!

Are you talking about the shark wrangler,glad he won his case.

Are you talking about the shark wrangler,glad he won his case.

but he didnt

Are you talking about the shark wrangler,glad he won his case.

but he didnt

didn't wrangle a shark or win for unfair dismissal?

Are you talking about the shark wrangler,glad he won his case.

me too. hes a man of the people.
Brownie tried to war a hate campaign on him and failed miserably.

No the reason he was dismissed was because he was on the sick yet willing to visit Australia and touch a clearly half dead baby shark. Once he arrived back he was asked to have a meeting regarding this yet failed to show on over 4 different occasions and the last one they even asked him to offer a time and a date of which he declined.

That was THE only reason for this employment tribunal and NOTHING else because any fruadant activity would have had to go way above the Trustees of which it did and they are called the Charity Commission.

You have clearly not a complete understanding of this yet are prepared to defend an individual who had funding from a VERY high up charitible organisation be transferred into his own PERSONAL account FFS!!!

Oh dear.

Why was he on the sick? because of stress caused by the benefactors claiming dodgy dealings.

They thought they seen their chance to get him out of the door when he was pictured in Oz. And failed miserably.

You and I both know it was more to do with his alleged dodgy dealings than being on holiday when sick ffs.

Are you talking about the shark wrangler,glad he won his case.

me too. hes a man of the people.
Brownie tried to war a hate campaign on him and failed miserably.

i know who I'd want to be watching my back in a sticky situation that's for sure.