Surely there has got to be a joke in there somewhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by potatopotato
Printable View
Surely there has got to be a joke in there somewhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by potatopotato
I would have been vocal about the appointment of Williamson, that?s for sure.
I?m not against Hughes as I was Williamson, I think he can do a job.
T Bone or Fillet Steak?
Chips.
As in if he’s not careful he’ll have had his.
Williamson wasnt a crazy appointment and it was by no means obvious he would fail so i do not agree that the trust were incompetant by not speaking out against his appointment.
But if you had been voted on the board and said you didnt like Williamson but were outvoted (either within the trust board itself or overruled by the 90% owners piataks) what would you do then? Resign because you did not get the manager you wanted even though its not really up to just you?
Anyway the whole point of this thread is basically: Mullen be critical of the trust if you want but at least be realistic. Critic absolutely everything they do if not realistic. Saying they shouldve predicted Williamson would fail and then use power they dont actually have to stop his appointment is not realistic. My advice: let the fact you lost go and stop listening to northernsoul
I recall sitting behind you and your wife at the first Halston meeting and you were over-the-moon in welcoming the Piateks.Quote:
Originally Posted by mullen103
So does that mean mullen is also a hypocrite (i looked up the spelling for you all)? And then if hypocrite mullen is having a go at the trust for being hypocrites despite himself being a hypocrites does that mean hes a double hypocrite?
Now thats what I call a hypocriteQuote:
Originally Posted by potatopotato
Potato. You’re clearly in WUM territory now, enough.