City get a new CEO

[Fareham Grecian]

Everyone has time to edit their posts. I wrote it on my iPhone which gave me a smaller screen.

So what was your edit in post #90 about?

 

[Nigel E]

So the million dollar question then is did he really apply for an actually advertised position or was he dug up from an old pile of CVs more in hope than anticipation?! I'm sure Lez will know.

Maybe I'm completely misreading the press release but this bit....

"the Club and Trust have ensured that the costs involved in appointing Guy have been appropriately and adequately budgeted for".

....reads to me like we've employed - and paid - a recruitment agency to identify and 'tap-up' potential candidates (perhaps including previous applicants). And then some form of beauty contest would then have been held from a short list. Could be wrong though

 

[Hants_red]

Maybe I'm completely misreading the press release but this bit....

"the Club and Trust have ensured that the costs involved in appointing Guy have been appropriately and adequately budgeted for".

....reads to me like we've employed - and paid - a recruitment agency to identify and 'tap-up' potential candidates (perhaps including previous applicants). And then some form of beauty contest would then have been held from a short list. Could be wrong though

The key point here, is he did not edit what Pete said.

 

[Sprocket]

This is at risk of getting very hatstand, but I feel the need to point out that Lez's rewriting of history after someone has quoted it is very dodgy. Pete only commented on what Lez actually said, not what he wished he'd said. If Lez had said in the first place what he subsequently said, rather than what he actually did say, then Pete might have responded differently - or not at all.

*goes for a lie down*

Agree.

If I post that I love Argyle, when my 'mind was thinking' I love City, and someone tells me I'm a **** in a quoted reply, that's fair enough.

But if I then go back and change my post, and the quoted reply, from Argyle to City, then they look like a **** for calling me a ****.

 

[Nigel E]

The key point here, is he did not edit what Pete said.

Eh?!

I'm not talking about that ridiculous 'who-said-what' discussion. I was responding to feverpitch.

 

[Hants_red]

Eh?!

I'm not talking about that ridiculous 'who-said-what' discussion. I was responding to feverpitch.

Sorry, quoted wrong post! Not going back to edit it either!

 

[Sprocket]

I'm not talking about that ridiculous 'who-said-what' discussion

Ah but you should have been Nige, the thread had quite clearly gone off topic.

 

[feverpitch]

Eh?!

I'm not talking about that ridiculous 'who-said-what' discussion. I was responding to feverpitch.

Thanks Nigel, I hadn't read that. So many possibilities...

 

[GrecianLez]

So what was your edit in post #90 about?

I wrote originally

His CV was on record. Why is it that when the club employ somebody people assume the worse or claim job for the boys like last time, he went through the interview and procedures this time so your guess is wrong I'm afraid Pete.

Using the iphone I thought I cut this whole section out and re write it but then didnt.. hum ha

 

[feverpitch]

I wrote originally

His CV was on record. Why is it that when the club employ somebody people assume the worse or claim job for the boys like last time, he went through the interview and procedures this time so your guess is wrong I'm afraid Pete.

Using the iphone I thought I cut this whole section out and re write it but then didnt.. hum ha

I think you've answered your own question.