Quote Originally Posted by FatherKnowsBest View Post
The argument was that his continued ownership of the club has held it back, whereas it is entirely possible that it is the opposite that is true. Its hard to blame the guy based on a hypothetical argument.




Leaders don't exist in a bubble as you well know. Everyone has advisors and influencers around them. In the end it is his decision, but that does not mean he hasn't been badly advised. Neither of these are mutually exclusive as you seem to be suggesting.

It was only yesterday TT that you were accusing me of arrogance about a light hearted comment about you 'banging-on' about King Kev, yet here you are claiming a full keep-net, (although I think you need a bit more than collecting posters who are simply pointing out the logical flaws and absurd positions of your arguments) Frankly, pot and grimy arrse spring to mind...
I think the argument about his continued ownership has two sides and most seem to be on the side of his stewardship protecting the club from the rocky waters of oblivion.As I allude to, that has always been highly unlikely.

The alternative, that he has held SUFC back, would be a minority viewpoint, although I would give it some credence.

One man's 'light hearted' or, as the pigs that were on here said, 'banter' is another man's serious comment.see 'absurd' above

Nice to see you responding with your customary grace and style though- and if anything were to remain in my memory about you it would certainly be ' a grimy arrse'