Jump to content

Topic: T00nClips (Shameless self plug)


Tooj
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I did wonder if there was history behind it, did seem quite an angry outburst.

I questioned the claim that SD gets all advertising for free at SJP based on it not making sense from a tax perspective, the fact that SD shareholders bear 40% of the cost and that the evidence from the accounts is not conclusive. At no point did i say either wasy was a fact as this was a discussion from principles and what made sense from a business perspective. It was a good chat, mainly between myself and YNH which benefitted the whole forum by clarifying what was known and what was not.

 

Not only was it a moronic outburst, it doesnt even reflect on what was said in the discussion. The under value comment may be based on me trying to differentiate commercially between a sign on a roof and naming a stadium. The real commercial reference is of course the per metre charge for Shepherd Offshore and Cameron Hall Development signs that used to be everywhere.

 

All this because i wanted to help 2J with a youtube upload. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did wonder if there was history behind it, did seem quite an angry outburst.

I questioned the claim that SD gets all advertising for free at SJP based on it not making sense from a tax perspective, the fact that SD shareholders bear 40% of the cost and that the evidence from the accounts is not conclusive. At no point did i say either wasy was a fact as this was a discussion from principles and what made sense from a business perspective. It was a good chat, mainly between myself and YNH which benefitted the whole forum by clarifying what was known and what was not.

 

Not only was it a moronic outburst, it doesnt even reflect on what was said in the discussion. The under value comment may be based on me trying to differentiate commercially between a sign on a roof and naming a stadium. The real commercial reference is of course the per metre charge for Shepherd Offshore and Cameron Hall Development signs that used to be everywhere.

 

All this because i wanted to help 2J with a youtube upload. :lol:

 

 

I hope a lesson has been learnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did wonder if there was history behind it, did seem quite an angry outburst.

I questioned the claim that SD gets all advertising for free at SJP based on it not making sense from a tax perspective, the fact that SD shareholders bear 40% of the cost and that the evidence from the accounts is not conclusive. At no point did i say either wasy was a fact as this was a discussion from principles and what made sense from a business perspective. It was a good chat, mainly between myself and YNH which benefitted the whole forum by clarifying what was known and what was not.

 

Not only was it a moronic outburst, it doesnt even reflect on what was said in the discussion. The under value comment may be based on me trying to differentiate commercially between a sign on a roof and naming a stadium. The real commercial reference is of course the per metre charge for Shepherd Offshore and Cameron Hall Development signs that used to be everywhere.

 

All this because i wanted to help 2J with a youtube upload. :lol:

 

To be honest I don't know why I feel the need to squabble with chez whom I once thought was a decent poster; now all I can read is an Ashley apologist who may be knowledgeable on many things financial but like CT, albeit an alleged thinking man's version, continues to post as an expert on many things he knows nowt about.

 

Maybe it's the result of the influx of mong the board has suffered over the last 12 month, most likely it's just me, regardless I know the solution to seeing red every time I read his posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did wonder if there was history behind it, did seem quite an angry outburst.

I questioned the claim that SD gets all advertising for free at SJP based on it not making sense from a tax perspective, the fact that SD shareholders bear 40% of the cost and that the evidence from the accounts is not conclusive. At no point did i say either wasy was a fact as this was a discussion from principles and what made sense from a business perspective. It was a good chat, mainly between myself and YNH which benefitted the whole forum by clarifying what was known and what was not.

 

Not only was it a moronic outburst, it doesnt even reflect on what was said in the discussion. The under value comment may be based on me trying to differentiate commercially between a sign on a roof and naming a stadium. The real commercial reference is of course the per metre charge for Shepherd Offshore and Cameron Hall Development signs that used to be everywhere.

 

All this because i wanted to help 2J with a youtube upload. :lol:

 

To be honest I don't know why I feel the need to squabble with chez whom I once thought was a decent poster; now all I can read is an Ashley apologist who may be knowledgeable on many things financial but like CT, albeit an alleged thinking man's version, continues to post as an expert on many things he knows nowt about.

 

Maybe it's the result of the influx of mong the board has suffered over the last 12 month, most likely it's just me, regardless I know the solution to seeing red every time I read his posts.

 

:lol:

 

Chez-the 'thinking man's' CT What a fucking label, that has got to stick! It's too unjust for it not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did wonder if there was history behind it, did seem quite an angry outburst.

I questioned the claim that SD gets all advertising for free at SJP based on it not making sense from a tax perspective, the fact that SD shareholders bear 40% of the cost and that the evidence from the accounts is not conclusive. At no point did i say either wasy was a fact as this was a discussion from principles and what made sense from a business perspective. It was a good chat, mainly between myself and YNH which benefitted the whole forum by clarifying what was known and what was not.

 

Not only was it a moronic outburst, it doesnt even reflect on what was said in the discussion. The under value comment may be based on me trying to differentiate commercially between a sign on a roof and naming a stadium. The real commercial reference is of course the per metre charge for Shepherd Offshore and Cameron Hall Development signs that used to be everywhere.

 

All this because i wanted to help 2J with a youtube upload. :lol:

 

To be honest I don't know why I feel the need to squabble with chez whom I once thought was a decent poster; now all I can read is an Ashley apologist who may be knowledgeable on many things financial but like CT, albeit an alleged thinking man's version, continues to post as an expert on many things he knows nowt about.

Maybe it's the result of the influx of mong the board has suffered over the last 12 month, most likely it's just me, regardless I know the solution to seeing red every time I read his posts.

Give me examples of this please. I asked Gloomy the same and he wasnt able to provide it.

 

If you do see red maybe its because you're a bit emotionally retarded and cant fathom the existence of opinions that dont align perfectly with your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Chez, despite his faith that we'd keep Carroll and that we'd spend the money we got, he's only looking at things from a business perspective...and has said he can't see the sense in the more recent dealings which most expected but that he didn't.

 

Terms like "Ashley apologist" are a bit OTT when Ashley is just a bloke trying to run the club to the best of his ability. He's not an evil bastard making decisions based on how it'll hurt the fans most. He's just inept and inexperienced in the world of football and can't see the untapped potential of the area which he could afford to unleash.

 

Polarising the discussion into team positive and team negative, whereby all is rosy on one side and everything is dastardly on the other doesn't give a realistic view from either side. As always it's somewhere in the middle, and Chez gets this balance right more than most.

 

EDIT: Ashley apologist does apply to CT of course, who supports every decision no matter whether he agrees with it or not, usually deciding he agrees with it after stating he disagrees.

Edited by Happy Face
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Chez, despite his faith that we'd keep Carroll and that we'd spend the money we got, he's only looking at things from a business perspective...and has said he can't see the sense in the more recent dealings which most expected but that he didn't.

 

Terms like "Ashley apologist" are a bit OTT when Ashley is just a bloke trying to run the club to the best of his ability. He's not an evil bastard making decisions based on how it'll hurt the fans most. He's just inept and inexperienced in the world of football and can't see the untapped potential of the area which he could afford to unleash.

 

Polarising the discussion into team positive and team negative, whereby all is rosy on one side and everything is dastardly on the other doesn't give a realistic view from either side. As always it's somewhere in the middle, and Chez gets this balance right more than most.

 

EDIT: Ashley apologist does apply to CT of course, who supports every decision no matter whether he agrees with it or not, usually deciding he agrees with it after stating he disagrees.

 

Nicely summarised imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me examples of this please. I asked Gloomy the same and he wasnt able to provide it.

 

If you do see red maybe its because you're a bit emotionally retarded and cant fathom the existence of opinions that dont align perfectly with your own.

 

See I almost bothered but you and the rest of the Ashley apologists are not worth the bandwidth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Chez, despite his faith that we'd keep Carroll and that we'd spend the money we got, he's only looking at things from a business perspective...and has said he can't see the sense in the more recent dealings which most expected but that he didn't.

 

Terms like "Ashley apologist" are a bit OTT when Ashley is just a bloke trying to run the club to the best of his ability. He's not an evil bastard making decisions based on how it'll hurt the fans most. He's just inept and inexperienced in the world of football and can't see the untapped potential of the area which he could afford to unleash.

 

Polarising the discussion into team positive and team negative, whereby all is rosy on one side and everything is dastardly on the other doesn't give a realistic view from either side. As always it's somewhere in the middle, and Chez gets this balance right more than most.

 

EDIT: Ashley apologist does apply to CT of course, who supports every decision no matter whether he agrees with it or not, usually deciding he agrees with it after stating he disagrees.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Chez, despite his faith that we'd keep Carroll and that we'd spend the money we got, he's only looking at things from a business perspective...and has said he can't see the sense in the more recent dealings which most expected but that he didn't.

 

Terms like "Ashley apologist" are a bit OTT when Ashley is just a bloke trying to run the club to the best of his ability. He's not an evil bastard making decisions based on how it'll hurt the fans most. He's just inept and inexperienced in the world of football and can't see the untapped potential of the area which he could afford to unleash.

 

Polarising the discussion into team positive and team negative, whereby all is rosy on one side and everything is dastardly on the other doesn't give a realistic view from either side. As always it's somewhere in the middle, and Chez gets this balance right more than most.

 

EDIT: Ashley apologist does apply to CT of course, who supports every decision no matter whether he agrees with it or not, usually deciding he agrees with it after stating he disagrees.

:lol:

 

Well Chez is the alleged thinking man's CT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks mate. My prediction on net spend (10m) was also the median response on the poll on this forum, so the majority felt the same.

 

Just as an addendum, CT was on NO yesterday drawing a comparison betweeen the new SD signs on the East Stand and when sponsorship first went on the shirts :lol: The official term is apologymentalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Chez, despite his faith that we'd keep Carroll and that we'd spend the money we got, he's only looking at things from a business perspective...and has said he can't see the sense in the more recent dealings which most expected but that he didn't.

 

Terms like "Ashley apologist" are a bit OTT when Ashley is just a bloke trying to run the club to the best of his ability. He's not an evil bastard making decisions based on how it'll hurt the fans most. He's just inept and inexperienced in the world of football and can't see the untapped potential of the area which he could afford to unleash.

 

Polarising the discussion into team positive and team negative, whereby all is rosy on one side and everything is dastardly on the other doesn't give a realistic view from either side. As always it's somewhere in the middle, and Chez gets this balance right more than most.

 

EDIT: Ashley apologist does apply to CT of course, who supports every decision no matter whether he agrees with it or not, usually deciding he agrees with it after stating he disagrees.

:lol:

 

Well Chez is the alleged thinking man's CT.

Oxymoron tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me examples of this please. I asked Gloomy the same and he wasnt able to provide it.

 

If you do see red maybe its because you're a bit emotionally retarded and cant fathom the existence of opinions that dont align perfectly with your own.

 

See I almost bothered but you and the rest of the Ashley apologists are not worth the bandwidth.

 

Because you cant give examples, which just makes what you are saying even more hollow. If this is just gentle wumming then fair enough but if you seriously have a problem with something i have posted, quote it and say what the problem is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks mate. My prediction on net spend (10m) was also the median response on the poll on this forum, so the majority felt the same.

 

Just as an addendum, CT was on NO yesterday drawing a comparison betweeen the new SD signs on the East Stand and when sponsorship first went on the shirts :lol: The official term is apologymentalist.

 

Was there even any fuss when the brown ale star first went on the shirts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread was meant to be about youtube videos! Totally gone off topic.

 

Lock it up asap.

 

It is and btw TooJ's edits are brilliant and it's a shame they are removed by youtube for whatever reasons.

 

Wasn't being entirely serious like <_< Best bet is to put the videos somewhere like Dailymotion of metacafe where they're less likely to be taken down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.