MAKING FUN OF LEEDS

Can't wait to tease them about selling out and changing their kit and then going on to be one of the world's biggest club teams and European Champions, laughing stock of Europe they were.

Can't wait to tease them about selling out and changing their kit and then going on to be one of the world's biggest club teams and European Champions, laughing stock of Europe they were.

I think only 22 clubs have ever held the title of European Champions Gwyn and Leeds Utd are not one of them.


Your right about the kit, badge and nickname mind and they haven't done so badly since. Can't remember the last time I heard "Peacocks" being chanted at one of their games.

Can't wait to tease them about selling out and changing their kit and then going on to be one of the world's biggest club teams and European Champions, laughing stock of Europe they were.

Have not Leeds gone into administration since changing their colour?

I bet they would never change their colour now in this day and age, there would be outrage by there fans if they tried this now

Can't wait to tease them about selling out and changing their kit and then going on to be one of the world's biggest club teams and European Champions, laughing stock of Europe they were.

1) they have never been European Champions in the sense of winning the European Cup. I think they did win the predecessor to the UEFA club way back when CCFC used to get to the quarter and semi-final stages of the more prestigious European Cup Winners Cup.

2) One of the world`s biggest club teams? Really? Have you switched allegiances again and become a Peter Ridsdale acolyte because that sounds just like the kind of crap he would come out with? By what possible criteria could they have been described as one of the world`s biggest club teams (not even their own fans would claim that)?

3)They certainly became a laughing stock in the UK when their huge borrowings caused them to go bust. Not sure if they were a laughing stock in Europe because , by then , they had become totally insignificant on the European stage.

They may have won the European Fairs cup ? not 100% sure on this

Let it rest Gwyn you say you want peace between City fans but keep bringing this all up.

Can't wait to tease them about selling out and changing their kit and then going on to be one of the world's biggest club teams and European Champions, laughing stock of Europe they were.

1) they have never been European Champions in the sense of winning the European Cup. I think they did win the predecessor to the UEFA club way back when CCFC used to get to the quarter and semi-final stages of the more prestigious European Cup Winners Cup.

2) One of the world`s biggest club teams? Really? Have you switched allegiances again and become a Peter Ridsdale acolyte because that sounds just like the kind of crap he would come out with? By what possible criteria could they have been described as one of the world`s biggest club teams (not even their own fans would claim that)?

3)They certainly became a laughing stock in the UK when their huge borrowings caused them to go bust. Not sure if they were a laughing stock in Europe because , by then , they had become totally insignificant on the European stage.

Spot on Since 62 more drivel from Gwyn again.

Can't wait to tease them about selling out and changing their kit and then going on to be one of the world's biggest club teams and European Champions, laughing stock of Europe they were.

1) they have never been European Champions in the sense of winning the European Cup. I think they did win the predecessor to the UEFA club way back when CCFC used to get to the quarter and semi-final stages of the more prestigious European Cup Winners Cup.

I think you would have to be in denial to not give Leeds credit for their European success's A European cup final, plus three Uefa cup finals with two success's, they are far from one of my favourite teams, but during my early teens they were as big around these parts as Man United and still have a huge fan base in South Wales and when you consider they were at the top during the golden era for British football on the world stage, to say they weren't one of the World's best club teams is really doing them justice, they were at the time a massive team and had players known and respected worldwide.
My point is Leeds will be remembered for their success rather than the change of shirt colour or their later financial problems and that's a fact, and it comes from me who despises them in the same category as Swansea, nothing but a bunch of bigoted self centered oiks, so no love lost from this house, but they have been there and done it, and that's why we sing "your not famous anymore" perhaps you couldn't hear that from your posh seats

2) One of the world`s biggest club teams? Really? Have you switched allegiances again and become a Peter Ridsdale acolyte because that sounds just like the kind of crap he would come out with? By what possible criteria could they have been described as one of the world`s biggest club teams (not even their own fans would claim that)?

3)They certainly became a laughing stock in the UK when their huge borrowings caused them to go bust. Not sure if they were a laughing stock in Europe because , by then , they had become totally insignificant on the European stage.

Spoke to a Burnley fan earlier in the week, who told me that early in the 20th century, Burnley also changed colours from green to claret and blue, intentionally the same as Aston Villa. Their fortunes also picked up following the change of colour.

However, obviously we are talking a long time ago - don't know how long ago it is for Leeds.

Personally, I will still be disappointed in a way if Cardiff win promotion in red, and I know you'll criticise me for that Gwyn, but let's face it, if it does happen, it seems unlikely that the club would then turn back to a blue kit, which I know even yourself would prefer.

Oh dear

Spoke to a Burnley fan earlier in the week, who told me that early in the 20th century, Burnley also changed colours from green to claret and blue, intentionally the same as Aston Villa. Their fortunes also picked up following the change of colour.

However, obviously we are talking a long time ago - don't know how long ago it is for Leeds.

Personally, I will still be disappointed in a way if Cardiff win promotion in red, and I know you'll criticise me for that Gwyn, but let's face it, if it does happen, it seems unlikely that the club would then turn back to a blue kit, which I know even yourself would prefer.

Your quite right, the new Chinese owners (when they take over from VT) would never change us back to blue, if anything we will go away from the bluebirds and further towards to Cardiff City Dragons

Can't wait to tease them about selling out and changing their kit and then going on to be one of the world's biggest club teams and European Champions, laughing stock of Europe they were.

I know while we are all getting along ,let's bring the rebrand back into it. Grow up ffs

[url]Oh dear[/url]

I take it then that you are looking forward to Cardiff staying red for the foreseeable future, perhaps the next 100 years?

You enjoy the continued ridiculous situation where we are cheering for the Bluebirds, despite the team playing in red? "Dragons, Dragons" does not really have the same ring to it, and besides, I have yet to meet a single person who will readily refer to us as the dragons, as if that is our nickname.

I doubt whether Burnley, when they played in green, had a nickname synonymous with their colour. They are now known as the Clarets - do you think it likely they would change their colour again now?

I take it you're also happy about the fact that a clear explanation for the need or benefits of the change of colour has never been supplied.

I know it's going over old ground, but I think the point about our nickname being directly linked to the colour we formerly played in is significant. There are many teams with nicknames (Bristol Rovers, the pirates, etc, etc, etc) which bear no relation to the colours for whom a change of colour would be far less significant.

Can't wait to tease them about selling out and changing their kit and then going on to be one of the world's biggest club teams and European Champions, laughing stock of Europe they were.

I know while we are all getting along ,let's bring the rebrand back into it. Grow up ffs

Well said, got no axe to grind with Gwyn but he is turning out to be hypocrite.

Can't wait to tease them about selling out and changing their kit and then going on to be one of the world's biggest club teams and European Champions, laughing stock of Europe they were.

I know while we are all getting along ,let's bring the rebrand back into it. Grow up ffs

Well said, got no axe to grind with Gwyn but he is turning out to be hypocrite.

Hypocrite or realist, people saying we the laughing stock and we sold out and lost our identity, so i quote what happened at Leeds and ask the question who made fun of them then or now for changing their kit, if we get half as much success as they did at their peak, then the rebrand will be a distant memory, just as it is at Leeds, if making that comparison makes me an hypocrite, then so be it.

I thought a hypocrite was someone who changes their mind frequently as in two faced, I think most will agree my view as been consistent all the way from the start, the club and our future means far more to me than any colour shirt.

Spoke to a Burnley fan earlier in the week, who told me that early in the 20th century, Burnley also changed colours from green to claret and blue, intentionally the same as Aston Villa. Their fortunes also picked up following the change of colour.

However, obviously we are talking a long time ago - don't know how long ago it is for Leeds.

Personally, I will still be disappointed in a way if Cardiff win promotion in red, and I know you'll criticise me for that Gwyn, but let's face it, if it does happen, it seems unlikely that the club would then turn back to a blue kit, which I know even yourself would prefer.

I like football but not Burnley. Burnley can fcuk off.

They may have won the European Fairs cup ? not 100% sure on this

youre right

All you have done gwyn is restart the row that had gone away.

Can't wait to tease them about selling out and changing their kit and then going on to be one of the world's biggest club teams and European Champions, laughing stock of Europe they were.

I know while we are all getting along ,let's bring the rebrand back into it. Grow up ffs

Well said, got no axe to grind with Gwyn but he is turning out to be hypocrite.

Hypocrite or realist, people saying we the laughing stock and we sold out and lost our identity, so i quote what happened at Leeds and ask the question who made fun of them then or now for changing their kit, if we get half as much success as they did at their peak, then the rebrand will be a distant memory, just as it is at Leeds, if making that comparison makes me an hypocrite, then so be it.

I thought a hypocrite was someone who changes their mind frequently as in two faced, I think most will agree my view as been consistent all the way from the start, the club and our future means far more to me than any colour shirt.

Hypocrite, a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

Have you or have you not asked people to get behind the team, unite and 'get on with it'?

Did you or did you not accuse Mike Morris off being negative for posting an observation that Ali had dropped 'Bluebirds' from
the team introduction?

On one hand you want people to unite, red or blue, and just get behind the team
and you also want people to stop being negative about the re-brand

But it doesn't seem to go both ways as you and a few others like to have a sly dig or post rubbish like the above.

That to me is hypocritical, maybe I am wrong.

Now we are either trying to put our differences aside and becoming united for Cardiff City or we or not?

What do you think you are gaining by making posts like this, other than winding people up when we are trying to
build bridges?

Lets focus on the Football rather than carry this on as it is pointless.

Gwyn have you ever heard of the phrase let sleeping dogs lie?

All you have done gwyn is restart the row that had gone away.

Gone away, have you been away then
You need to tell a few others it's gone away, coz there's a good few who don't feel the same.

We got the Trust asking the club on behalf of their member if they can have a peaceful protes, wonder what gaurantees they would have provided.

Can't wait to tease them about selling out and changing their kit and then going on to be one of the world's biggest club teams and European Champions, laughing stock of Europe they were.

Your getting boring now Gwyn change the record please Cheers

Can't wait to tease them about selling out and changing their kit and then going on to be one of the world's biggest club teams and European Champions, laughing stock of Europe they were.

So you say you want peace and for fans with different opinions to get on, yet come on here and post this, which jst inflames the situation again.

Acting like an Internet troll.

Grow up.

All you have done gwyn is restart the row that had gone away.

Gone away, have you been away then
You need to tell a few others it's gone away, coz there's a good few who don't feel the same.

We got the Trust asking the club on behalf of their member if they can have a peaceful protes, wonder what gaurantees they would have provided.

You really are desperate to spread misinformation about the Trust aren`t you Gwyn?

Firstly you join in CCFCTRUE`s nonsense headline with your own post about the Trust not having a mandate to hold a protest at the club when it hasn`t even asked for one.

Now , despite your post on this in another thread showing your claim to be a nonsense , you have another unfounded go against the Trust here with the same claim that the Trust has asked if it can have a protest.

I don`t know why you have such a vendetta against the Trust. Not believing in its aims , as many do and are entitled to do , is one thing. But just making up lies and deliberately misinterpreting documents is entirely another.You are not an unintelligent man so you must be doing it on purpose to follow some agenda.

It is getting so that you try and turn every unrelated topic into a chance to have an unfounded go.

All you have done gwyn is restart the row that had gone away.

Gone away, have you been away then
You need to tell a few others it's gone away, coz there's a good few who don't feel the same.

We got the Trust asking the club on behalf of their member if they can have a peaceful protes, wonder what gaurantees they would have provided.

You really are desperate to spread misinformation about the Trust aren`t you Gwyn?

Which part is misinformation? i thought the trust had asked the question on behalf of their members, is that incorrect?

Firstly you join in CCFCTRUE`s nonsense headline with your own post about the Trust not having a mandate to hold a protest at the club when it hasn`t even asked for one.

I didn't say it had a mandate, just that it asked about holding one?

Now , despite your post on this in another thread showing your claim to be a nonsense , you have another unfounded go against the Trust here with the same claim that the Trust has asked if it can have a protest.

I don`t know why you have such a vendetta against the Trust. Not believing in its aims , as many do and are entitled to do , is one thing. But just making up lies and deliberately misinterpreting documents is entirely another.You are not an unintelligent man so you must be doing it on purpose to follow some agenda.

No vendetta, but surely as a fan, if we have a group saying they represent the fans, then surely that really isn't the case, they represent a tiny percentage, but have said themselves they will only help their members rather than the fan base as a whole.

It is getting so that you try and turn every unrelated topic into a chance to have an unfounded go.

Not at all, just wish the Trust dealt with things that meant more to your average fan, and dealt with things that affected us more.

All you have done gwyn is restart the row that had gone away.

Gone away, have you been away then
You need to tell a few others it's gone away, coz there's a good few who don't feel the same.

We got the Trust asking the club on behalf of their member if they can have a peaceful protes, wonder what gaurantees they would have provided.

You really are desperate to spread misinformation about the Trust aren`t you Gwyn?

Which part is misinformation? i thought the trust had asked the question on behalf of their members, is that incorrect?

Firstly you join in CCFCTRUE`s nonsense headline with your own post about the Trust not having a mandate to hold a protest at the club when it hasn`t even asked for one.

I didn't say it had a mandate, just that it asked about holding one?

Now , despite your post on this in another thread showing your claim to be a nonsense , you have another unfounded go against the Trust here with the same claim that the Trust has asked if it can have a protest.

I don`t know why you have such a vendetta against the Trust. Not believing in its aims , as many do and are entitled to do , is one thing. But just making up lies and deliberately misinterpreting documents is entirely another.You are not an unintelligent man so you must be doing it on purpose to follow some agenda.

No vendetta, but surely as a fan, if we have a group saying they represent the fans, then surely that really isn't the case, they represent a tiny percentage, but have said themselves they will only help their members rather than the fan base as a whole.

It is getting so that you try and turn every unrelated topic into a chance to have an unfounded go.

Not at all, just wish the Trust dealt with things that meant more to your average fan, and dealt with things that affected us more.

The post made by CCFCTRUE had the headline "Trust wants peaceful demonstration in side our club" then reproduced a report on the meeting between the Trust and CCFC officials which said no such thing.

You replied to that post saying the following (I have copied exactly what you said exactly as you typed it)

"Talk about after the admiral`s ball , at the end of the day only around 20% of the Trust members voted against the rebrand , so how does that give the Trust a mandate to protest against it,surely eighty per cent of the membership not wanting to vote against the rebrand shows how they feel , so why should the Trust management go against their members wishes?is it because some of the officers feel that strongly against it,and why suddenly are fans who weren`t members of the trust,suddenly so interested in joining it when prior to the rebrand they had no interest in it

And what would a protest achieve now rather than cause problems when things seem to be calming down,let`s all get behind the team and let`s try and play our part in supporting the club ,and like it or not VT is notjust part of the club he actually owns the club,let`s have a bit of unity and instead of conflict,let`s try and achieve change thru friendship and trust "


Word for word , this is what you said.It includes the following inaccurate claims which you now deny you said

1) agreeing with CCFCTRUE that the Trust wanted a demonstration as opposed to the truth of the matter that those Trust representatives were merely passing on a question raised by an individual member

2)that the Trust management were going against the wishes of its members - again a nonsense. Show me where in the notes of the meeting it indicates any such thing.

3) what the officers of the Trust feel about the rebrtanding is irrelevant in such meetings (for the record there are a broad range of views amongst board members) . It is what the views of the majority of members that is important - it is called democracy!

4) in your 2nd paragraph you say that the matters surrounding the rebrand "seem to be calming down".Yet in THIS thread you mock someone who suggests the issue has gone away

5) you claim VT is owner of the club. He is the biggest single shareholder , but only has 39% of the shares , so he doesn`t own the club and is not even a majority shareholder.

6) You ask for "a bit of understanding" , "unity" and "friendship and trust" to achieve change. How does that reconcile with your actions that caused a Trust board member to resign through fear for her personal safety , or at the KCB meeting at the Muni Club? How is that an avoidance of conflict that you now appear to be advocating?

Out of interest , with reference to the Trust representing only a tiny percentage of fans. Do you feel the same way about the Supporters Club which has similar number of members? (Vince was saying just over a week ago that they currently have around 900 members). Do you also believe that they also have no right to a say in fan matters?

All you have done gwyn is restart the row that had gone away.

Gone away, have you been away then
You need to tell a few others it's gone away, coz there's a good few who don't feel the same.

We got the Trust asking the club on behalf of their member if they can have a peaceful protes, wonder what gaurantees they would have provided.

You really are desperate to spread misinformation about the Trust aren`t you Gwyn?

Which part is misinformation? i thought the trust had asked the question on behalf of their members, is that incorrect?

Firstly you join in CCFCTRUE`s nonsense headline with your own post about the Trust not having a mandate to hold a protest at the club when it hasn`t even asked for one.

I didn't say it had a mandate, just that it asked about holding one?

Now , despite your post on this in another thread showing your claim to be a nonsense , you have another unfounded go against the Trust here with the same claim that the Trust has asked if it can have a protest.

I don`t know why you have such a vendetta against the Trust. Not believing in its aims , as many do and are entitled to do , is one thing. But just making up lies and deliberately misinterpreting documents is entirely another.You are not an unintelligent man so you must be doing it on purpose to follow some agenda.

No vendetta, but surely as a fan, if we have a group saying they represent the fans, then surely that really isn't the case, they represent a tiny percentage, but have said themselves they will only help their members rather than the fan base as a whole.

It is getting so that you try and turn every unrelated topic into a chance to have an unfounded go.

Not at all, just wish the Trust dealt with things that meant more to your average fan, and dealt with things that affected us more.

The post made by CCFCTRUE had the headline "Trust wants peaceful demonstration in side our club" then reproduced a report on the meeting between the Trust and CCFC officials which said no such thing.

You replied to that post saying the following (I have copied exactly what you said exactly as you typed it)

"Talk about after the admiral`s ball , at the end of the day only around 20% of the Trust members voted against the rebrand , so how does that give the Trust a mandate to protest against it,surely eighty per cent of the membership not wanting to vote against the rebrand shows how they feel , so why should the Trust management go against their members wishes?is it because some of the officers feel that strongly against it,and why suddenly are fans who weren`t members of the trust,suddenly so interested in joining it when prior to the rebrand they had no interest in it

And what would a protest achieve now rather than cause problems when things seem to be calming down,let`s all get behind the team and let`s try and play our part in supporting the club ,and like it or not VT is notjust part of the club he actually owns the club,let`s have a bit of unity and instead of conflict,let`s try and achieve change thru friendship and trust "


Word for word , this is what you said.It includes the following inaccurate claims which you now deny you said

1) agreeing with CCFCTRUE that the Trust wanted a demonstration as opposed to the truth of the matter that those Trust representatives were merely passing on a question raised by an individual member

So the Trust asking if they could hold a peaceful demonstration at the stadium is simply a conduit for some of their membership, what if a member asked could he watch the match naked, or if he could run on the pitch or if he could write his name on the toilet walls, would you be duty bound to ask the club those questions, and there in as far as I'm concerned is the problem, it is democracy to the extreme, wouldn't it have been better to tell the person who asked the question, that 80% of the Trust membership did not oppose the rebrand and therefor that is the Trust's official view?

2)that the Trust management were going against the wishes of its members - again a nonsense. Show me where in the notes of the meeting it indicates any such thing.

Are you saying that the Officers of the Trust were in support of the rebrand then, or wished to protest but weren't given the support of the members to act?


3) what the officers of the Trust feel about the rebrtanding is irrelevant in such meetings (for the record there are a broad range of views amongst board members) . It is what the views of the majority of members that is important - it is called democracy!

But weren't they criticised by some of their members for expressing those views and asking questions that hadn't been agreed on prior to the meeting, bit of a catch 22 in my opinion, having to get questions agreed before topics are discussed, but hey , those are your rules.


4) in your 2nd paragraph you say that the matters surrounding the rebrand "seem to be calming down".Yet in THIS thread you mock someone who suggests the issue has gone away

Would you say the issue has gone away, in my opinion the few involved that are actively against the rebrand are getting more desperate in their actions to try and stir things up, even though they must see they have painted themselves into a corner and are fighting a lost cause, when those people stop stirring, then I and others will stop responding.


5) you claim VT is owner of the club. He is the biggest single shareholder , but only has 39% of the shares , so he doesn`t own the club and is not even a majority shareholder.

I don't claim VT is the owner of the club, I don't feel qualified enough or have enough financial knowledge to claim I know that set up, but when the Directors of the club themselves refer to him in essence as the owner of the club, who am I to question it.

6) You ask for "a bit of understanding" , "unity" and "friendship and trust" to achieve change. How does that reconcile with your actions that caused a Trust board member to resign through fear for her personal safety , or at the KCB meeting at the Muni Club? How is that an avoidance of conflict that you now appear to be advocating?


I was at both these meetings, and have asked this question many times since, please can you repeat or quote ONE THREAT THAT I MADE, and if I did make a threat, why wasn't it reported and why haven't the police or even the club taken action, especially at the first meeting where several of them were present, and if Tracy was threatened, why didn't someone defend her?

Out of interest , with reference to the Trust representing only a tiny percentage of fans. Do you feel the same way about the Supporters Club which has similar number of members? (Vince was saying just over a week ago that they currently have around 900 members). Do you also believe that they also have no right to a say in fan matters?

The supporters club will no doubt end up with close on three thousand members as they have done most seasons, people tend to join match by match especially for travel reasons, And my family are among that group,and of course they have a right to say in fan matters as does the Trust and all individual fans, we all have a right to a say, luckily the club are now giving the broader fan base a chance to have input and that should ensure a much more balanced outlook which should appease some fans, but due to the nature of the beats, even if your are totally on your own in your view, then everyone else having a different view is still not going to please you.

All you have done gwyn is restart the row that had gone away.

Gone away, have you been away then
You need to tell a few others it's gone away, coz there's a good few who don't feel the same.

We got the Trust asking the club on behalf of their member if they can have a peaceful protes, wonder what gaurantees they would have provided.

You really are desperate to spread misinformation about the Trust aren`t you Gwyn?

Which part is misinformation? i thought the trust had asked the question on behalf of their members, is that incorrect?

Firstly you join in CCFCTRUE`s nonsense headline with your own post about the Trust not having a mandate to hold a protest at the club when it hasn`t even asked for one.

I didn't say it had a mandate, just that it asked about holding one?


READ YOUR POST AGAIN.YOU CLEARLY SAID , AND CONTINUE TO SUGGEST , THAT THE TRUST ASKED IF IT COULD HOLD A PROTEST. ALL IT DID WAS PASS ON A QUESTION RAISED BY AN INDIVIDUAL TRUST MEMBER IF THE CLUB WOULD ALLOW A PROTEST AT THE GROUND (NOT A TRUST ONE).
Now , despite your post on this in another thread showing your claim to be a nonsense , you have another unfounded go against the Trust here with the same claim that the Trust has asked if it can have a protest.

I don`t know why you have such a vendetta against the Trust. Not believing in its aims , as many do and are entitled to do , is one thing. But just making up lies and deliberately misinterpreting documents is entirely another.You are not an unintelligent man so you must be doing it on purpose to follow some agenda.

No vendetta, but surely as a fan, if we have a group saying they represent the fans, then surely that really isn't the case, they represent a tiny percentage, but have said themselves they will only help their members rather than the fan base as a whole.

BUT YOU DO MAKE UP THINGS JUST TO HAVE A GO AT THE TRUST RATHER THAN RELY ON ANY REASONED DEBATE.QUITE HAPPY TO DEBATE ISSUES , BUT NOT IF CLAIMS ARE BASED ON UNTRUTHS AND MISINFORMATION OR LOWER THEMSELVES TO SHOUTING DOWN OTHERS` VIEWS AND AGGRESSION.

It is getting so that you try and turn every unrelated topic into a chance to have an unfounded go.

Not at all, just wish the Trust dealt with things that meant more to your average fan, and dealt with things that affected us more.

LIKE WHAT GWYN? GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES. AND WHO DO YOU DEFINE AS AN "AVERAGE" FAN ? AND WHO IS "US" WHEN YOU CONTINUE TO CLAIM THAT YOU ONLY REPRESENT YOURSELF? IF YOU WANT SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED THROUGH THE TRUST ASK A MEMBER TO RAISE THEM.BETTER STILL , JOIN UP AND ASK THEM YOURSELF.


The post made by CCFCTRUE had the headline "Trust wants peaceful demonstration in side our club" then reproduced a report on the meeting between the Trust and CCFC officials which said no such thing.

You replied to that post saying the following (I have copied exactly what you said exactly as you typed it)

"Talk about after the admiral`s ball , at the end of the day only around 20% of the Trust members voted against the rebrand , so how does that give the Trust a mandate to protest against it,surely eighty per cent of the membership not wanting to vote against the rebrand shows how they feel , so why should the Trust management go against their members wishes?is it because some of the officers feel that strongly against it,and why suddenly are fans who weren`t members of the trust,suddenly so interested in joining it when prior to the rebrand they had no interest in it

And what would a protest achieve now rather than cause problems when things seem to be calming down,let`s all get behind the team and let`s try and play our part in supporting the club ,and like it or not VT is notjust part of the club he actually owns the club,let`s have a bit of unity and instead of conflict,let`s try and achieve change thru friendship and trust "


Word for word , this is what you said.It includes the following inaccurate claims which you now deny you said

1) agreeing with CCFCTRUE that the Trust wanted a demonstration as opposed to the truth of the matter that those Trust representatives were merely passing on a question raised by an individual member

So the Trust asking if they could hold a peaceful demonstration at the stadium is simply a conduit for some of their membership, what if a member asked could he watch the match naked, or if he could run on the pitch or if he could write his name on the toilet walls, would you be duty bound to ask the club those questions, and there in as far as I'm concerned is the problem, it is democracy to the extreme, wouldn't it have been better to tell the person who asked the question, that 80% of the Trust membership did not oppose the rebrand and therefor that is the Trust's official view?

2)that the Trust management were going against the wishes of its members - again a nonsense. Show me where in the notes of the meeting it indicates any such thing.

Are you saying that the Officers of the Trust were in support of the rebrand then, or wished to protest but weren't given the support of the members to act?


NEITHER. AGAIN YOU ARE MAKING FALSE ASSUMPTIONS .EACH BOARD MEMBER HAS HIS OWN PERSONAL VIEWS ON THE REBRANDING .MINE IS THAT I DON`T LIKE IT OR THE WAYS IN WHICH IT WAS ENFORCED.OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS. IF A LARGE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS ASKED FOR A PROTEST , THE THE TRUST BOARD WOULD HAVE GONE ALONG WITH THEIR WISHES.ITS NOT A CASE OF THE BOARD TELLING ITS MEMBERS WHAT TO DO , IT IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND.THIS IS THE DEMOCRACY THING THAT YOU SEEM SO INCAPABLE OR UNWILLING OF UNDERSTANDING.
THE TRUST IS NOT RUN ON THE BASIS OF WHO SHOUTS LOUDEST OR WHO IS THE BIGGEST , IT GIVES ALL MEMBERS EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR PERSONAL VIEWS WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISALS OR RETRIBUTION.

3) what the officers of the Trust feel about the rebrtanding is irrelevant in such meetings (for the record there are a broad range of views amongst board members) . It is what the views of the majority of members that is important - it is called democracy!

But weren't they criticised by some of their members for expressing those views and asking questions that hadn't been agreed on prior to the meeting, bit of a catch 22 in my opinion, having to get questions agreed before topics are discussed, but hey , those are your rules.


WE DON`T HAVE TO GET QUESTIONS AGREED BEFORE ASKING THEM - THOSE AREN`T OUR RULES AT ALL
AS FOR CRITICISM , OF COURSE THERE IS. WHATEVER IS DONE , SOME MEMBERS WILL LIKE IT AND SOME WON`T.AN EXAMPLE IS THAT A HANDFUL RESIGNED FROM THE TRUST BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT WE WEREN`T BEING TOUGH ENOUGH ABOUT THE REBRANDING , BUT ANOTHER HANDFUL LEFT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT WE WERE BEING TOO TOUGH.
SIMILARLY , A NUMBER OF MEMBERS JOINED WHEN ANNIS WAS PARTICULARLY CRITICAL OF THE TRUST LAST YEAR ON THE BASIS (THEY TOLD US) THAT IF ANNIS WAS AGAINST SOMETHING THEN IT MUST BE WORTH JOINING (THEIR WORDS NOT MINE).SIMILARLY , WE HAD A NUMBER A NEW MEMBERS FOLLOWING YOUR APPEARANCE AT THE KCB MEETING IN DISGUST AT THE BEHAVIOUR SHOWN AT THAT MEETING.

4) in your 2nd paragraph you say that the matters surrounding the rebrand "seem to be calming down".Yet in THIS thread you mock someone who suggests the issue has gone away

Would you say the issue has gone away, in my opinion the few involved that are actively against the rebrand are getting more desperate in their actions to try and stir things up, even though they must see they have painted themselves into a corner and are fighting a lost cause, when those people stop stirring, then I and others will stop responding.

BUT HOW DO YOU SAY THINGS ARE CALMING DOWN THEN CONTRADICT THIS BY TALKING ABOUT "DESPERATE" ACTIONS TO TRY AND STIR THINGS UP BY SOME PEOPLE.


5) you claim VT is owner of the club. He is the biggest single shareholder , but only has 39% of the shares , so he doesn`t own the club and is not even a majority shareholder.

I don't claim VT is the owner of the club, I don't feel qualified enough or have enough financial knowledge to claim I know that set up, but when the Directors of the club themselves refer to him in essence as the owner of the club, who am I to question it.

YOU SPECIFICALLY DID SAY VT WAS OWNER OF THE CLUB - READ YOUR POST AGAIN. I AM NOT AWARE THAT ANY OF THE CLUB`S EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HAVE DESCRIBED HIM AS THE OWNER EITHER.

6) You ask for "a bit of understanding" , "unity" and "friendship and trust" to achieve change. How does that reconcile with your actions that caused a Trust board member to resign through fear for her personal safety , or at the KCB meeting at the Muni Club? How is that an avoidance of conflict that you now appear to be advocating?


I was at both these meetings, and have asked this question many times since, please can you repeat or quote ONE THREAT THAT I MADE, and if I did make a threat, why wasn't it reported and why haven't the police or even the club taken action, especially at the first meeting where several of them were present, and if Tracy was threatened, why didn't someone defend her?

BUT DO YOU AGREE THAT TRACEY WAS EXTREMELY INTIMIDATED BY YOU , OR DO YOU DENY THIS? COULD I SUGGEST THAT PEOPLE WOULDN`T OFFICIALLY MAKE COMPLAINTS DUE TO BEING MORE THAN A LITTLE SCARED OF A VERY BIG EX-INTERNATIONAL JUDO PLAYER AND WHAT HE MIGHT DO IF THEY REPORTED HIS BEHAVIOUR.

AND AGAIN I ASK HOW YOU CAN RECONCILE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE RECENTLY WITH HAVING "A BIT OF UNDERSTANDING" , "UNITY" OR "FRIENDSHIP AND TRUST".EVEN ACCEPTING YOUR DENIAL OF MAKING SPCIFIC THREATS , CAN YOU AT LEAST SEE HOW YOUR APPROACH TO QUASHING THE VIEWS OF ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH YOU OVER THE REBRANDING DOESN`T TIE IN WITH YOUR REQUEST FOR OTHERS TO EXHIBIT THE GOOD VALUES YOU NOW REFER TO. ONE RULE FOR YOU AND ANOTHER FOR OTHERS?

Out of interest , with reference to the Trust representing only a tiny percentage of fans. Do you feel the same way about the Supporters Club which has similar number of members? (Vince was saying just over a week ago that they currently have around 900 members). Do you also believe that they also have no right to a say in fan matters?

The supporters club will no doubt end up with close on three thousand members as they have done most seasons, people tend to join match by match especially for travel reasons, And my family are among that group,and of course they have a right to say in fan matters as does the Trust and all individual fans, we all have a right to a say, luckily the club are now giving the broader fan base a chance to have input and that should ensure a much more balanced outlook which should appease some fans, but due to the nature of the beats, even if your are totally on your own in your view, then everyone else having a different view is still not going to please you.

I AGREE WITH YOU WITH THE LIKELY NUMBERS AND I HOPE THEY ARE REACHED SOON AS CCSC IS AN EXTREMELY GOOD TRAVEL GROUP FOR CCFC FANS AND LONG MAY IT CONTINUE.BUT AT WHAT POINT OR LEVEL OF MEMBERSHIP DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD START TO HAVE A SAY? NOW, WHEN THEY GET TO SAY 1,500 OR ONLY WHEN THEY GET TO 3,000?

I ALSO THINK THE PROPOSED FANS FORUM IS A GOOD IDEA (EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BANNED ANY DISCUSSION OF TWO KEY ISSUES SURROUNDING THE REBRANDING) AS AT LEAST THERE IS SOME OPPORTUNITY FOR A RANGE OF FANS TO DISCUSS OTHER MATTERS (PROVIDED THE SELECTION OF THE 20 OR SO MEMBERS IS FAIR ). FAR FROM PERFECT , BUT A SMALL STEP FORWARD (AND ALSO HELPS THE CLUB IN ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER LEAGUE RULES FOR FANS` CONSULTATION).

READ YOUR POST AGAIN.YOU CLEARLY SAID , AND CONTINUE TO SUGGEST , THAT THE TRUST ASKED IF IT COULD HOLD A PROTEST. ALL IT DID WAS PASS ON A QUESTION RAISED BY AN INDIVIDUAL TRUST MEMBER IF THE CLUB WOULD ALLOW A PROTEST AT THE GROUND (NOT A TRUST ONE).
Now , despite your post on this in another thread showing your claim to be a nonsense , you have another unfounded go against the Trust here with the same claim that the Trust has asked if it can have a protest.


So you are saying they didn't ask if a protest could be held at the ground, they just wanted to know if some of their members would be allowed to do so?


I don`t know why you have such a vendetta against the Trust. Not believing in its aims , as many do and are entitled to do , is one thing. But just making up lies and deliberately misinterpreting documents is entirely another.You are not an unintelligent man so you must be doing it on purpose to follow some agenda.

No vendetta, but surely as a fan, if we have a group saying they represent the fans, then surely that really isn't the case, they represent a tiny percentage, but have said themselves they will only help their members rather than the fan base as a whole.

BUT YOU DO MAKE UP THINGS JUST TO HAVE A GO AT THE TRUST RATHER THAN RELY ON ANY REASONED DEBATE.QUITE HAPPY TO DEBATE ISSUES , BUT NOT IF CLAIMS ARE BASED ON UNTRUTHS AND MISINFORMATION OR LOWER THEMSELVES TO SHOUTING DOWN OTHERS` VIEWS AND AGGRESSION.

I have never been aggressive or used violence in any meeting, as for raising voices, perhaps that's a Valley's thing because from an early age and in many meetings when passions are aroused I have heard many raised voices.


It is getting so that you try and turn every unrelated topic into a chance to have an unfounded go.[/quote]

Not at all, just wish the Trust dealt with things that meant more to your average fan, and dealt with things that affected us more.
[/quote]

LIKE WHAT GWYN? GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES. AND WHO DO YOU DEFINE AS AN "AVERAGE" FAN ? AND WHO IS "US" WHEN YOU CONTINUE TO CLAIM THAT YOU ONLY REPRESENT YOURSELF? IF YOU WANT SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED THROUGH THE TRUST ASK A MEMBER TO RAISE THEM.BETTER STILL , JOIN UP AND ASK THEM YOURSELF.


There is bound to be an average fan, but who he is I don't know, but with so many types among us ranging from prawn sarney corporate hooray Henrys down to hooligans, but they are all classed as fans and most of us I would assume are somewhere in the middle, but surely all should be represented, even the fan who has got into trouble.
What was the quote shortly after Mikey Dye's tragic death, the Trust couldn't make a statement until they had received the official police report, and why was that? just in case Mike had a history, or may have had previous convictions, what about those train lads, innocent until proven guilty, not if your a Cardiff fan, what about any support for the injustice that happened in Chelsea, distancing yourself from any problems don't offer a solution or gain support/
Personally I think the Trust are out of touch with the vast majority of Cardiff fans and the lack of membership and interest may back that up.
Personally I hope the Trsut continue having meetings with the club, but only as a part of as mu ch of a broad cross section of fans as is practical and possible. whether it be through random selection off the data base, belonging to any group such as the 1927 club, Maesteg supporters club, travel club, Bluebirds downunder, exiles, whatever, the bigger the cross section the more chance of a balanced view.


The post made by CCFCTRUE had the headline "Trust wants peaceful demonstration in side our club" then reproduced a report on the meeting between the Trust and CCFC officials which said no such thing.

You replied to that post saying the following (I have copied exactly what you said exactly as you typed it)

"Talk about after the admiral`s ball , at the end of the day only around 20% of the Trust members voted against the rebrand , so how does that give the Trust a mandate to protest against it,surely eighty per cent of the membership not wanting to vote against the rebrand shows how they feel , so why should the Trust management go against their members wishes?is it because some of the officers feel that strongly against it,and why suddenly are fans who weren`t members of the trust,suddenly so interested in joining it when prior to the rebrand they had no interest in it

And what would a protest achieve now rather than cause problems when things seem to be calming down,let`s all get behind the team and let`s try and play our part in supporting the club ,and like it or not VT is notjust part of the club he actually owns the club,let`s have a bit of unity and instead of conflict,let`s try and achieve change thru friendship and trust "


Word for word , this is what you said.It includes the following inaccurate claims which you now deny you said

1) agreeing with CCFCTRUE that the Trust wanted a demonstration as opposed to the truth of the matter that those Trust representatives were merely passing on a question raised by an individual member

So the Trust asking if they could hold a peaceful demonstration at the stadium is simply a conduit for some of their membership, what if a member asked could he watch the match naked, or if he could run on the pitch or if he could write his name on the toilet walls, would you be duty bound to ask the club those questions, and there in as far as I'm concerned is the problem, it is democracy to the extreme, wouldn't it have been better to tell the person who asked the question, that 80% of the Trust membership did not oppose the rebrand and therefor that is the Trust's official view?

2)that the Trust management were going against the wishes of its members - again a nonsense. Show me where in the notes of the meeting it indicates any such thing.

Are you saying that the Officers of the Trust were in support of the rebrand then, or wished to protest but weren't given the support of the members to act?


NEITHER. AGAIN YOU ARE MAKING FALSE ASSUMPTIONS .EACH BOARD MEMBER HAS HIS OWN PERSONAL VIEWS ON THE REBRANDING .MINE IS THAT I DON`T LIKE IT OR THE WAYS IN WHICH IT WAS ENFORCED.OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS. IF A LARGE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS ASKED FOR A PROTEST , THE THE TRUST BOARD WOULD HAVE GONE ALONG WITH THEIR WISHES.ITS NOT A CASE OF THE BOARD TELLING ITS MEMBERS WHAT TO DO , IT IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND.THIS IS THE DEMOCRACY THING THAT YOU SEEM SO INCAPABLE OR UNWILLING OF UNDERSTANDING.
THE TRUST IS NOT RUN ON THE BASIS OF WHO SHOUTS LOUDEST OR WHO IS THE BIGGEST , IT GIVES ALL MEMBERS EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR PERSONAL VIEWS WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISALS OR RETRIBUTION.

3) what the officers of the Trust feel about the rebrtanding is irrelevant in such meetings (for the record there are a broad range of views amongst board members) . It is what the views of the majority of members that is important - it is called democracy!

But weren't they criticised by some of their members for expressing those views and asking questions that hadn't been agreed on prior to the meeting, bit of a catch 22 in my opinion, having to get questions agreed before topics are discussed, but hey , those are your rules.


WE DON`T HAVE TO GET QUESTIONS AGREED BEFORE ASKING THEM - THOSE AREN`T OUR RULES AT ALL
AS FOR CRITICISM , OF COURSE THERE IS. WHATEVER IS DONE , SOME MEMBERS WILL LIKE IT AND SOME WON`T.AN EXAMPLE IS THAT A HANDFUL RESIGNED FROM THE TRUST BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT WE WEREN`T BEING TOUGH ENOUGH ABOUT THE REBRANDING , BUT ANOTHER HANDFUL LEFT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT WE WERE BEING TOO TOUGH.
SIMILARLY , A NUMBER OF MEMBERS JOINED WHEN ANNIS WAS PARTICULARLY CRITICAL OF THE TRUST LAST YEAR ON THE BASIS (THEY TOLD US) THAT IF ANNIS WAS AGAINST SOMETHING THEN IT MUST BE WORTH JOINING (THEIR WORDS NOT MINE).SIMILARLY , WE HAD A NUMBER A NEW MEMBERS FOLLOWING YOUR APPEARANCE AT THE KCB MEETING IN DISGUST AT THE BEHAVIOUR SHOWN AT THAT MEETING.

But didn't you take a lot of stick off Trust members saying that the questions asked and the views of Trust members present should have not been asked as Officers there to represent their members if the members hadn't had input beforhand, isn't that what happened?


4) in your 2nd paragraph you say that the matters surrounding the rebrand "seem to be calming down".Yet in THIS thread you mock someone who suggests the issue has gone away


Would you say the issue has gone away, in my opinion the few involved that are actively against the rebrand are getting more desperate in their actions to try and stir things up, even though they must see they have painted themselves into a corner and are fighting a lost cause, when those people stop stirring, then I and others will stop responding.

BUT HOW DO YOU SAY THINGS ARE CALMING DOWN THEN CONTRADICT THIS BY TALKING ABOUT "DESPERATE" ACTIONS TO TRY AND STIR THINGS UP BY SOME PEOPLE.


5) you claim VT is owner of the club. He is the biggest single shareholder , but only has 39% of the shares , so he doesn`t own the club and is not even a majority shareholder.

I don't claim VT is the owner of the club, I don't feel qualified enough or have enough financial knowledge to claim I know that set up, but when the Directors of the club themselves refer to him in essence as the owner of the club, who am I to question it.

YOU SPECIFICALLY DID SAY VT WAS OWNER OF THE CLUB - READ YOUR POST AGAIN. I AM NOT AWARE THAT ANY OF THE CLUB`S EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HAVE DESCRIBED HIM AS THE OWNER EITHER.

He has been referred to as that by Directors and the CEO, also every press report, but hey what's wrong with being pedantic.

6) You ask for "a bit of understanding" , "unity" and "friendship and trust" to achieve change. How does that reconcile with your actions that caused a Trust board member to resign through fear for her personal safety , or at the KCB meeting at the Muni Club? How is that an avoidance of conflict that you now appear to be advocating?


I was at both these meetings, and have asked this question many times since, please can you repeat or quote ONE THREAT THAT I MADE, and if I did make a threat, why wasn't it reported and why haven't the police or even the club taken action, especially at the first meeting where several of them were present, and if Tracy was threatened, why didn't someone defend her?

BUT DO YOU AGREE THAT TRACEY WAS EXTREMELY INTIMIDATED BY YOU , OR DO YOU DENY THIS? COULD I SUGGEST THAT PEOPLE WOULDN`T OFFICIALLY MAKE COMPLAINTS DUE TO BEING MORE THAN A LITTLE SCARED OF A VERY BIG EX-INTERNATIONAL JUDO PLAYER AND WHAT HE MIGHT DO IF THEY REPORTED HIS BEHAVIOUR.

Again I ask, please state on threat that I made in either meeting, and you can complain anonymously about anything, if there was a case to answer the Police would have to take statements from witness's present, I can't help being huge I can't help being a former Judo player, and some did report my behavior to the police and the club officials, but when asked to supply facts and evidence, there was none!! what a suprise, urban legend, I heard from a mate and I was told, blah blah, let's have some facts and truth, name one threat, go on, go on, go on.

AND AGAIN I ASK HOW YOU CAN RECONCILE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE RECENTLY WITH HAVING "A BIT OF UNDERSTANDING" , "UNITY" OR "FRIENDSHIP AND TRUST".EVEN ACCEPTING YOUR DENIAL OF MAKING SPCIFIC THREATS , CAN YOU AT LEAST SEE HOW YOUR APPROACH TO QUASHING THE VIEWS OF ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH YOU OVER THE REBRANDING DOESN`T TIE IN WITH YOUR REQUEST FOR OTHERS TO EXHIBIT THE GOOD VALUES YOU NOW REFER TO. ONE RULE FOR YOU AND ANOTHER FOR OTHERS?

Out of interest , with reference to the Trust representing only a tiny percentage of fans. Do you feel the same way about the Supporters Club which has similar number of members? (Vince was saying just over a week ago that they currently have around 900 members). Do you also believe that they also have no right to a say in fan matters?[/quote]

The supporters club will no doubt end up with close on three thousand members as they have done most seasons, people tend to join match by match especially for travel reasons, And my family are among that group,and of course they have a right to say in fan matters as does the Trust and all individual fans, we all have a right to a say, luckily the club are now giving the broader fan base a chance to have input and that should ensure a much more balanced outlook which should appease some fans, but due to the nature of the beats, even if your are totally on your own in your view, then everyone else having a different view is still not going to please you.[/quote]


I AGREE WITH YOU WITH THE LIKELY NUMBERS AND I HOPE THEY ARE REACHED SOON AS CCSC IS AN EXTREMELY GOOD TRAVEL GROUP FOR CCFC FANS AND LONG MAY IT CONTINUE.BUT AT WHAT POINT OR LEVEL OF MEMBERSHIP DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD START TO HAVE A SAY? NOW, WHEN THEY GET TO SAY 1,500 OR ONLY WHEN THEY GET TO 3,000?

I think the Supporters club offer far more than simply a travel group, they have representation at National FSf level, they organise end of season presentation, Xmas party etc.etc. and have long stood the test of time, they will also stand up and support their fans even if they have stepped out of line rather than just wash their hands of "that type of fan"


I ALSO THINK THE PROPOSED FANS FORUM IS A GOOD IDEA (EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BANNED ANY DISCUSSION OF TWO KEY ISSUES SURROUNDING THE REBRANDING) AS AT LEAST THERE IS SOME OPPORTUNITY FOR A RANGE OF FANS TO DISCUSS OTHER MATTERS (PROVIDED THE SELECTION OF THE 20 OR SO MEMBERS IS FAIR ). FAR FROM PERFECT , BUT A SMALL STEP FORWARD (AND ALSO HELPS THE CLUB IN ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER LEAGUE RULES FOR FANS` CONSULTATION).[/quote]

Are you suggesting that twenty random fans picked from the data base would be unfair, or that the club would hand pick people accordingly, whoever attends such meetings will not have the same views or support of every fan, that is just the nature of the beast.