OT (mainly) IF!

[MadAmster]

Are you Adlestrop in disguise!

Dumbest question yet

I believe the gentleman in question's name ends in a colour that I abhor, especially the garibaldi hue and resent any and all things suggesting even the slightest of connections between myself and it.

[ramAnag]

I have to confess I would have been so shocked if you had answered "no" to the first question that I may have ended up supporting Forest when I came out of the coma. Put simply the punishment has to fit the crime - and voiding the referendum result because of some dogdy funding manipulation does not match the alleged crime. Interestingly you haven't named May as a party to be arraigned as she only changed camp after the event and so became the target of your outrage - simply for carrying out the result despite not being personally committed to it beforehand.

As for #2, i have seen the sugar footage, and that may have pointed to one instance, but I don't think its enough evidence to annul all the results. Aussie were far superior to us and they would not have needed to resort to such tactics to win. In RSA they were 1-1 looking at going down 1-2 and so much greater need to cheat. I don't think they are institutionalised cheats and so suggest they would only resort to it if they feared defeat.

Objectively speaking...surely if there are going to be electoral rules they have to be adhered to. Obviously if the result had been overwhelming - either way - you’d have a point, but it wasn’t so, imo, you haven’t.
May wasn’t part of the Leave Campaign so probably wouldn’t have been aware of anything dodgy until recently.
I agree about the Ashes, they were overwhelmingly superior but...if the tone was set by ball tampering then maybe that’s different. Surprised that Smith has admitted to being fully aware of what has been happening against SA so maybe there’s more to come. Looked to me as if the dressing room knew all about ‘sugarpocketgate’.

[Romanis]

1. No. I answered, because the referendum should be ignored, but not the overturning as it would set a bad precedent. Overturning results of votes. People must take responsibility for their vote. However a referendum is not binding,only a Parliamentary vote. So simply have another parliamentary vote.

2. No. As much as many would want it to be true, there's little or no evidence of tampering during the Ashes. England were ****e and deserved to lose.

3. Chairmen/owner matter little in the grand scheme of things. You buy and you sell, the club remains. Anyway whatever personal faults a person may have, simply remove that person. If the Forest manager committed a crime, then jail him but of course he has to be replaced. If Marinakis has to quit then he quits, whoever comes in cannot be judged for his sins.

4. Sorry I made a mistake. I misread as saying should Rowett go. Instead of stay. So the correct answer is yes. He must stay. He needs about 2.5 years. If he fails after this then he can be replaced. For the moment he must stay.

[Romanis]

Dumbest question yet

I believe the gentleman in question's name ends in a colour that I abhor, especially the garibaldi hue and resent any and all things suggesting even the slightest of connections between myself and it.

Calling someone adlestropred is a grave insult.
Nobody but nobody can be that stupid. Not even DDD is as stupid as him, although he's not that far away.
And the word gentleman and adlestropred has no connection whatsoever.

Just clarifying some mistakes.

[ramAnag]

1. No. I answered, because the referendum should be ignored, but not the overturning as it would set a bad precedent. Overturning results of votes. People must take responsibility for their vote. However a referendum is not binding,only a Parliamentary vote. So simply have another parliamentary vote.

2. No. As much as many would want it to be true, there's little or no evidence of tampering during the Ashes. England were ****e and deserved to lose.

3. Chairmen/owner matter little in the grand scheme of things. You buy and you sell, the club remains. Anyway whatever personal faults a person may have, simply remove that person. If the Forest manager committed a crime, then jail him but of course he has to be replaced. If Marinakis has to quit then he quits, whoever comes in cannot be judged for his sins.

4. Sorry I made a mistake. I misread as saying should Rowett go. Instead of stay. So the correct answer is yes. He must stay. He needs about 2.5 years. If he fails after this then he can be replaced. For the moment he must stay.

So you think the Referendum should be ignored but IF the election rules were abused that’s okay?
But the question was...IF it’s proved they cheated, not...as things currently stand.
So it’s okay for illegally acquired money to be used in the purchase of a football club and that club to be passed to the family that has benefitted from that money IF that is the case? Shades of Owen Oyston perhaps.
Glad we agree on number four...eventually.

[Romanis]

So you think the Referendum should be ignored but IF the election rules were abused that’s okay?
But the question was...IF it’s proved they cheated, not...as things currently stand.
So it’s okay for illegally acquired money to be used in the purchase of a football club and that club to be passed to the family that has benefitted from that money IF that is the case? Shades of Owen Oyston perhaps.
Glad we agree on number four...eventually.

The referendum was flawed. It had no legal bearing. However the result stands. Let it be a lesson for voters. To use their ****ing brains before casting a vote.

You mean to tell me with all the tv cameras etc, England couldn't find any evidence of cheating then? The fact is we were ****e and deserved to lose.

You're going down a path that leads to nowhere. How can you prove that all of the money was illegally gained or specifically monies used to purchase the club were illegal? Heck by that yardstick Roman and Dubai sheikhs will have cases to answer.
If the fault is found with the owner, then make him sell. But if he sells to his son or daughter, can you now use guilt by association as a criminal yardstick? The whole League system is filled with loopholes. Look at FFP ffs. The League's rules are financially motivated.
Until we adopt some puritanical yardstick, it's always gonna be as you were.

[AdiSalisbury]

...still four days to go till we meet the hotbed of Brexit land at PP, so...
1. IF...the Brexit campaign is proved to have cheated and Shahmir Shanni’s allegations are found to be well founded with Gove and Johnson being complicit in such ‘cheating’ and financial irregularity, should the Electoral Comission overthrow the Referendum result?
2. IF...the Aussies are found to have cheated via organised ball tampering during the recent Ashes series, should the result be overthrown, the captain, vice captain, coach and perpetrators be sacked and the ‘little urn’ returned (only symbolically I know) to us?
3. IF...the Forest owner is found to be guilty of anything to do with drug trafficking etc...should he and his family be banned from playing any further role in English football?
4. IF...DCFC continue their decline of the last ten weeks or so and slide into Play Off obscurity for the fourth year running...should Gary Rowett remain as manager?

1. I've not followed the bickering and don't know what this cheating is, so I'm going for "no", because my vote was valid.
2. No, we'd have lost anyway through being so ****. Mike Atherton did it all those years ago, don't remember us having to reverse all those defeats we had!
3. Don't care about Forest.
4. Yes, otherwise, we go back to scratch, again.

[Andy_Faber]

...still four days to go till we meet the hotbed of Brexit land at PP, so...
1. IF...the Brexit campaign is proved to have cheated and Shahmir Shanni’s allegations are found to be well founded with Gove and Johnson being complicit in such ‘cheating’ and financial irregularity, should the Electoral Comission overthrow the Referendum result?
2. IF...the Aussies are found to have cheated via organised ball tampering during the recent Ashes series, should the result be overthrown, the captain, vice captain, coach and perpetrators be sacked and the ‘little urn’ returned (only symbolically I know) to us?
3. IF...the Forest owner is found to be guilty of anything to do with drug trafficking etc...should he and his family be banned from playing any further role in English football?
4. IF...DCFC continue their decline of the last ten weeks or so and slide into Play Off obscurity for the fourth year running...should Gary Rowett remain as manager?

1. No lol I refer back to my earlier mantra 'there are no clean hands'
2. Aussies should be stripped of victory but England shouldn't be awarded them, it should be declared no result (and by extension yes, the Ashes should be 'returned' - just reading that, it sounds so much of a bygone age I started to turn sepia). Perps should be banned for a period of time, I always thought Smith looked shifty
3. No, I think a few more years of unrest at Forest has to be good for the game (my twisted perspective of it anyway!)
4. No

[garibaldi]

1. IF...the Brexit campaign is proved to have cheated and Shahmir Shanni’s allegations are found to be well founded with Gove and Johnson being complicit in such ‘cheating’ and financial irregularity, should the Electoral Comission overthrow the Referendum result? Yes they should
2. IF...the Aussies are found to have cheated via organised ball tampering during the recent Ashes series, should the result be overthrown, the captain, vice captain, coach and perpetrators be sacked and the ‘little urn’ returned (only symbolically I know) to us? Yes they should
3. IF...the Forest owner is found to be guilty of anything to do with drug trafficking etc...should he and his family be banned from playing any further role in English football? Yes they should
4. IF...DCFC continue their decline of the last ten weeks or so and slide into Play Off obscurity for the fourth year running...should Gary Rowett remain as manager? Yes he should


More important things to worry about though IMO. The entire world is run ti keep those already in control, in control. Large companies and multinationals do everything in their power to give ever increasing dividends to share holders and to hell with treating people well. What people? Staf for a start. HR departments are now run on a shoestring budget to save costs. When new staff for whatever dept are needed they advertise the job. They get 100s of applications. They start with the first in and read through applications until they get the required amount of applicants deemed worthy of an interview. Say they want to interview 5 people. They will usually get those in the first 20 applications received. The rest don't get read. The senders in the main don't even get an auto reply never mind a proper acknowledgement. Those who were read but not invited also get no feedback. Totally unacceptable IMO. Employ more HR staff and treat applicants with respect. My thoughts on the banks and the entire financial sector were made clearly enough in previous threads so I'll not hit them again...... just yet. Journalists publishing Fake News should be held to account as should the Newspapers, magazines, Radio and TV Stations and websites that publish the utter crap written. You might call it censorship. I call it stopping these eejits from purposely telling LIES!

Interesting that you moan about the establishment keeping their power, yet pine for an unelected establishment called the EU and believe in overturning a democratic decision which was predominantly voted for by the working class.

[Manofpride]

Objectively speaking...surely if there are going to be electoral rules they have to be adhered to. Obviously if the result had been overwhelming - either way - you’d have a point, but it wasn’t so, imo, you haven’t.

But does a result have to be overwhelming?