Joey Linton

"Constructive" is just polite political speech for "we didn't punch each other." Or learn anything new.

May hear from her again thru George Caulkin when he’s back from holiday. He seems to be the journalist she trusts. Perhaps he could ask her some questions too.

Yep. If you won't answer the questions asked, there's no way we can wave the deal through. And to be honest that's right to protect the club. I'm not sure protecting the club is anywhere on their agenda TBH. What did Mike Ashley answer to these questions? They could've answered the questions and put the ball back in the Premier League's court, but chose not to.

Yep. If you won't answer the questions asked, there's no way we can wave the deal through. And to be honest that's right to protect the club.

Chance to ask this yesterday surely?

We are a member led organisation and it costs £2 to join - of course members that actually contribute to NUST deserve to get the update first for crying out loud. Updates will be put on website later for everyone else - and Chron already covering it. It was a piece of constructive criticism Greg, complete with an alternative suggestion. You don't need to be "crying out loud" about it. Unless that's not allowed either. It wasn't really constructive at all - it came across as self centred, there is a thurst for knowledge from a lot of people that don't support the Trust to know everything and demand ridiculous things and just rant anonymously on the internet. We always tell members important info first and then follow up more widely afterwards. - that is only right- the contriubue to the Trust, the support it, they are why we exist. I told you what I thought was wrong and why, then offered what I believe was a reasonable alternative. That's constructive criticism. Clearly what you won't have is any form of criticism at all, constructive or not. Not sure that asking that you let potential members know what Staveley had to say is a "demand for ridiculous things" either. If the chronicle were carrying it within minutes you'd have been just as well letting people know yourselves and trying to attract members that way. And we did - after we emailed members it was put on the website. You've sniped and sniped and sniped and so got the answer you deserve. Just read back so some of this thread - if anyone wants to discuss the pros and cons of the Trust then I am happy to do so when I can if it's in a sensible and constructive manner. Just like yesterday when you were sniping again - because you wanted information - you refused to understand or comprehend the explanation given, the same here with you not being able to comprehend or understand why members that support and contribute to the trust should get information and updates from the trust first with it following more widely shortly after that. I called it a "strange decision" because that's what i thought it was - I'm entitled to that opinion on here, just as you're entitled to disagree - this isn't the "NUST members forum" after all. You've totally overreacted to my initial point and the spirit in which it was intended to be made. I was more than happy to discuss it and, as I've already explained, actually tried to offering an alternative in that very same post. You continue to ignore that, having made your mind up, even when I've again attempted to reiterate it. Again, you've sniped since your first reply "for crying out loud" ffs. Wrong for wanting (or "demanding" to use your more sniping tone) information on something that you want people to sign up to being represented by, when it hadn't initially been made obvious or apparent that it would be made available anywhere else, aye?

We are a member led organisation and it costs £2 to join - of course members that actually contribute to NUST deserve to get the update first for crying out loud. Updates will be put on website later for everyone else - and Chron already covering it. It was a piece of constructive criticism Greg, complete with an alternative suggestion. You don't need to be "crying out loud" about it. Unless that's not allowed either. It wasn't really constructive at all - it came across as self centred, there is a thurst for knowledge from a lot of people that don't support the Trust to know everything and demand ridiculous things and just rant anonymously on the internet. We always tell members important info first and then follow up more widely afterwards. - that is only right- the contriubue to the Trust, the support it, they are why we exist. I told you what I thought was wrong and why, then offered what I believe was a reasonable alternative. That's constructive criticism. Clearly what you won't have is any form of criticism at all, constructive or not. Not sure that asking that you let potential members know what Staveley had to say is a "demand for ridiculous things" either. If the chronicle were carrying it within minutes you'd have been just as well letting people know yourselves and trying to attract members that way.

Yeah tremendous just think it needs some more traction in media now ie sky, bbc, talkshite etc. Staggered none of our ex-players have shared it on twitter. Gillespie has. I should have added, that I've seen. The likes of Shearer, Rob Lee, Tino, Nobby etc Wouldn't expect Shearer to given he works with / for the premier league

Yeah tremendous just think it needs some more traction in media now ie sky, bbc, talkshite etc. Staggered none of our ex-players have shared it on twitter. Gillespie has.

We are a member led organisation and it costs £2 to join - of course members that actually contribute to NUST deserve to get the update first for crying out loud. Updates will be put on website later for everyone else - and Chron already covering it. It was a piece of constructive criticism Greg, complete with an alternative suggestion. You don't need to be "crying out loud" about it. Unless that's not allowed either.

I’ll give you the £1 to join if that’s the problem. I was happy to outline the reasons yesterday on this very thread why I've not rejoined the trust. Idiot. Feel free to. No one is going to charge you for doing so. Though server donations always welcome. Eh? I did!

I’ll give you the £1 to join if that’s the problem. I was happy to outline the reasons yesterday on this very thread why I've not rejoined the trust. Idiot.

Another strange decision. You can only have access to the discussion with Staveley if you sign up as a member. Just tell people what's been said and let them decide if it's something they then want to be involved with.

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time. Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment. Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers. This couldn't be further from the truth. What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately? Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected]. Question dodged I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable. If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position. You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now. Don’t know how you deal so civilly with people determined to be c***s. He's pretty much refused to answer my questions, not sure how that's "dealing" with anything. As for calling me that if I did it to Greg I assume I'd get a ban. No doubt you'll be OK though. It's been explained - but NUST only represents its members. You aren't a member. How many members do you have now? What is your point though? My point is wondering what the numbers are. Back when I was a member about ten years ago they became a joke of an organisation who managed to alienate and lose half of their members in around 12 months. The farce of that bid to buy the club etc. There's obviously been a massive recruitment drive ( off the back of Rafa going if everyone is honest) and I wondered what the numbers are now. Problem with people like Greg is he doesn't seem interested in people who gave up on the trust. He's said himself if you aren't aember he isn't interested. That's the wrong way of treating people who have been members previously. The new board has built the Trust up from a few hundred members just over a year and a half ago to well over 8,000. We've effectively had to start from scratch. I'm more than open to discussing and debating the pros and cons of the trust and to take constructive criticism with anyone - but not with anonymous people on the internet that are only negative, attack us and what we do and are seemingly unwilling to understand or respect what we do at all. That's a commendable effort I was more than interested in what you were doing again last year until I read the piece by one of the board in the Chronicle talking about owning the club one day still being the longer term aim. Massive mistake that. The whole thing was terribly handled last time and cost the group big time,set you back years. And while it wasn't you, being called a cunt by someone for massively disagreeing with what the Trust does or doesn't do makes it very difficult to respect what they do like you ask.

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time. Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment. Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers. This couldn't be further from the truth. What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately? Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected]. Question dodged I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable. If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position. You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now. Don’t know how you deal so civilly with people determined to be c***s. He's pretty much refused to answer my questions, not sure how that's "dealing" with anything. As for calling me that if I did it to Greg I assume I'd get a ban. No doubt you'll be OK though. It's been explained - but NUST only represents its members. You aren't a member. How many members do you have now? What is your point though? My point is wondering what the numbers are. Back when I was a member about ten years ago they became a joke of an organisation who managed to alienate and lose half of their members in around 12 months. The farce of that bid to buy the club etc. There's obviously been a massive recruitment drive ( off the back of Rafa going if everyone is honest) and I wondered what the numbers are now. Problem with people like Greg is he doesn't seem interested in people who gave up on the trust. He's said himself if you aren't aember he isn't interested. That's the wrong way of treating people who have been members previously.

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time. Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment. Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers. This couldn't be further from the truth. What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately? Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected]. Question dodged I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable. If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position. You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now. Don’t know how you deal so civilly with people determined to be c***s. He's pretty much refused to answer my questions, not sure how that's "dealing" with anything. As for calling me that if I did it to Greg I assume I'd get a ban. No doubt you'll be OK though. It's been explained - but NUST only represents its members. You aren't a member. How many members do you have now?

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time. Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment. Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers. This couldn't be further from the truth. What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately? Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected]. Question dodged I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable. If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position. You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now. Don’t know how you deal so civilly with people determined to be c***s. He's pretty much refused to answer my questions, not sure how that's "dealing" with anything. As for calling me that if I did it to Greg I assume I'd get a ban. No doubt you'll be OK though.

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time. Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment. Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers. This couldn't be further from the truth. What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately? Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected]. Question dodged I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable. If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position. You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now.

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time. Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment. Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers. This couldn't be further from the truth. What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately? Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected]. Question dodged I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable.

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time. Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment. Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers. This couldn't be further from the truth. What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately?

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time. Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment. Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers. Well, their lawyers, who helped draft the letter, advised them that releasing the initial letter might have negatively impacted on the process. You’re not suggesting they go against their legal advice, are you? "The Premier League is unable to comment on a confidential process, but it is reassuring to receive this acknowledgment of receipt of the arguments we presented to the Premier League, which included making them aware that 97% of our members are in favour of this prospective takeover being approved." Reassuring to receive this acknowledgment of receipt of the arguments we presented to the Premier League, really? Yeah we got your letter, and that's basically it. Pretty much a delivered receipt without a read receipt of you were sending an email.

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time. Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment. Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

I dunno, checking out his sources would do for a start. Facts can change, new evidence can come to light, what is true one day might not be true the next. That would be fair enough, but we were four months in and he's never waivered.

I dunno, checking out his sources would do for a start.