Tisdale must go ...

[PeteUSA]

Re: Tisdale must go

So the 75k was a typo... it should have been 750k. I fully expect to hear that that was also a typo... it should have been 250k (which is usually the made up figure that is bandied about). I cannot be bothered to go find all the other posts in all the other threads where Pete has made this claim and it has been disproven - but I do find it funny that the number has suddenly tripled and Pete's only response is to desperately try to deflect attention away from his fictitious figures. One can only admire his pure and forthright commitment to trolling, in all threads, in all posts, on all topics. (clap) (rofl)

Excuse me a moment Terry. Didnt you try, and fail to get elected to the trust board? Wasnt the fact that TT&P's salaries/payments one of the main reasons we needed new blood as opposed to the apparently inefectual BoS members we're stuck with! Take your time responding. Its 2.15 and I'm off to bed.

 

[Jason H]

Re: Tisdale must go

Pete, the Shadow Home Secretary is on the phone, asking for some help with her figures.

 

[Terryhall]

Re: Tisdale must go

Excuse me a moment Terry. Didnt you try, and fail to get elected to the trust board? Wasnt the fact that TT&P's salaries/payments one of the main reasons we needed new blood as opposed to the apparently inefectual BoS members we're stuck with! Take your time responding. Its 2.15 and I'm off to bed.

Yes, I did. And I am still of the view that we need to have the right form of governance for the club to run properly as a business - and that is what I campaigned on, not on how much anyone got paid. I also note that this post neatly proves my point - ignores the question, deflects attention to an unrelated topic, coupled with an obvious flounce - you should offer trolling courses, you've honed it to an art form.

 

[IndoMike]

Re: Tisdale must go

Yes, I did. And I am still of the view that we need to have the right form of governance for the club to run properly as a business - and that is what I campaigned on, not on how much anyone got paid. I also note that this post neatly proves my point - ignores the question, deflects attention to an unrelated topic, coupled with an obvious flounce - you should offer trolling courses, you've honed it to an art form.

It's all very Trumpish.

 

[malcolms]

Re: Tisdale must go

Yes, I did. And I am still of the view that we need to have the right form of governance for the club to run properly as a business - and that is what I campaigned on, not on how much anyone got paid. I also note that this post neatly proves my point - ignores the question, deflects attention to an unrelated topic, coupled with an obvious flounce - you should offer trolling courses, you've honed it to an art form.

In fairness to Pete, I'm not sure it was a "flounce" It probably is way past his bed time in Arizona....

Also, has any remuneration figure ever been proved or disproved? To paraphrase the story of the Scarlet Pimpernel..we seek it here, we seek it there, we seek the figure everywhere.

 

[ramone]

Re: Tisdale must go

Excuse me a moment Terry. Didnt you try, and fail to get elected to the trust board? Wasnt the fact that TT&P's salaries/payments one of the main reasons we needed new blood as opposed to the apparently inefectual BoS members we're stuck with! Take your time responding. Its 2.15 and I'm off to bed.

"I believe you're derailing the thread? "

 

[Terryhall]

Re: Tisdale must go

In fairness to Pete, I'm not sure it was a "flounce" It probably is way past his bed time in Arizona....

Also, has any remuneration figure ever been proved or disproved? To paraphrase the story of the Scarlet Pimpernel..we seek it here, we seek it there, we seek the figure everywhere.

All we have to go on are figures stated in the public domain by persons who would have known them at the time - and even those come up some way short of Pete's usual 250k, never mind the current 750k. It annoys me as there are valid reasons to question the governance model at the club, and this kind of trolling is a distraction with no basis in fact which makes it very easy for those who wish to do so to tar all dissenting voices with the same brush.

In the absence of a proven figure (and to be clear, I don't think we need or deserve to have these figures made public as I have posted before), I don't see the point in pulling numbers out of thin air and then presenting them as fact.

 

[malcolms]

Re: Tisdale must go

All we have to go on are figures stated in the public domain by persons who would have known them at the time - and even those come up some way short of Pete's usual 250k, never mind the current 750k. It annoys me as there are valid reasons to question the governance model at the club, and this kind of trolling is a distraction with no basis in fact which makes it very easy for those who wish to do so to tar all dissenting voices with the same brush.

In the absence of a proven figure (and to be clear, I don't think we need or deserve to have these figures made public as I have posted before), I don't see the point in pulling numbers out of thin air and then presenting them as fact.

I was under the impression that 250k was around the mark accepted as likely..125k for PT with the balance split a myriad of different ways between the other two?

If the figures are not contentious or unreasonable, what's the problem with the owners of the club (trust members) knowing what they are? Whilst the figures remain unconfirmed there will always be unnecessary speculation...

 

[Antony Moxey]

Re: Tisdale must go

Whilst the figures remain unconfirmed there will always be unnecessary speculation...

So? What difference will 'unnecessary speculation' make to the club or its performance both on and off the field?

 

[Terryhall]

Re: Tisdale must go

I was under the impression that 250k was around the mark accepted as likely..125k for PT with the balance split a myriad of different ways between the other two?

If the figures are not contentious or unreasonable, what's the problem with the owners of the club (trust members) knowing what they are? Whilst the figures remain unconfirmed there will always be unnecessary speculation...

I take no issue with the Trust Board, as democratically elected representatives of the Trust members, knowing what wages senior club employees are paid.

However I don't see any justification for that being made publicly known - other than "I want to know", nobody has yet presented a compelling argument for that.