Takeover Thread - July 1st statement, Staveley letter to Tracey Crouch (and response) in OP

[Bishops Finger]

1 minute ago, gdm said:

The problem is they begged people to leave them to their positive thread and when we actually left them too it they jump in here and argue the same points they weren’t happy about in the positive thread. There hasn’t been a post in the positive thread for 3 days. 

But the whole point of creating the positive thread was because this thread was getting totally negative. This tread isn't isn't just for negative posts. It's for any. Why do people keep telling manorpark to post in his own thread. He can still post positive stuff here

[gdm]

3 minutes ago, morpeth mag said:

I may get struck down by lightening today. Or I may not. Two outcomes but I bet the chance of me being alive Friday is better than 50/50.

 
wow. Did you really use than ads an argument 

 

things we know will dictate your conclusion there such as facts that like weather reports and how statically likely and unlikely people are to be hit with lightening. 
 

you have no such facts or knowledge to base your opinion of arbitration on. 

[gdm]

5 minutes ago, manorpark said:

 

This is a recording, this is a recording.

 

Why do you do that?

Nothing but a troll who only posts in two threads 

[Chris_R]

4 minutes ago, morpeth mag said:

I may get struck down by lightening today. Or I may not. Two outcomes but I bet the chance of me being alive Friday is better than 50/50.

 

I know you're not quoting me, but I did address the 50/50 thing.

 

Mathematically you can - indeed MUST - say something is 50/50 when you need to do an estimate on something where you have no information to base a decision with 2 possible outcomes. That is the case with the takeover. We're not laywers, we haven't seen either side's evidence, we haven't been involved or talked to anyone related to this. The scraps we have do not lead us with any conviction to side with either possible outcome, and to suggest otherwise is delusion. We also do not have any previous similar legal cases on which to look at and see what a similar case might yield this time. Therefore 50/50 is the right stance to take.

 

Being struck by lightning is a ridiculous analogy to this because literally none of the above applies. We have an absolutely massive amount of evidence of how likely anyone is to be struck by lightning between now and Friday based on the accumulated experiences of billions of people over billions of years, so we can form a very accurate statistical likelihood of it happening.

 

In short, stop talking shit.

[Awaymag]

12 minutes ago, gdm said:

The problem is they begged people to leave them to their positive thread and when we actually left them too it they jump in here and argue the same points they weren’t happy about in the positive thread. There hasn’t been a post in the positive thread for 3 days. 

I'll go back to the positive board if you, FB, Joelinton stay on this board and not come on the positive board - deal?

[gdm]

Just now, Awaymag said:

I'll go back to the positive board if you, FB, Joelinton stay on this board and not come on the positive board - deal?

Suits me. What if I want to post something positive tho?

[gdm]

1 minute ago, Chris_R said:

 

Being struck by lightning is a ridiculous analogy to this because literally none of the above applies. We have an absolutely massive amount of evidence of how likely anyone is to be struck by lightning between now and Friday based on the accumulated experiences of billions of people over billions of years, so we can form a very accurate statistical likelihood of it happening.

Said it far better then I tried to. Imagine thinking that was a good analogy

[Manxst]

49 minutes ago, gdm said:

If they weren’t confident they’d try come up an agreement surely? Something that mutually beneficial 

If they WERE confident they’d have also come up with a decision to just say no last year. But yet again, they seem to be trying to drag things out at any opportunity. Just like last year. 

[Fantail Breeze]

1 minute ago, TheHoob said:

Edwards knew and knows fuck all man, the bloke is just a relentless fucking joy-leech. We've done this a million times but trying to say that Edwards was/is better informed than someone Caulkin is laughable. 

 

Caulkin was sold down the river last summer by Staveley and looked a bit silly by the end of it.

 

Edwards did know about the collapse last summer, that’s not disputable.  His general journalism is complete bollocks, but he got that right. 

 

My point (repeated again because you’ve clearly not listened), is that Edwards and Jacobs have PL sources and have maintained a fairly negative opinion throughout. If those people become positive, it’s highly likely to be good news.

 

Listening to them is therefore more worthwhile than someone like Kennedy, who has relentlessly listened to the same people who have been positive throughout.

[gdm]

Just now, Manxst said:

If they WERE confident they’d have also come up with a decision to just say no last year. But yet again, they seem to be trying to drag things out at any opportunity. Just like last year. 

Fair point but just adds to my point that we don’t really know it’s just theories at the end of day 

[SweMag]

7 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Not sure I’ve ever said that. What I have said is they have much better sources than most people. In addition to the fact they were the two reporters who highlighted the issues with the takeover last summer, before anyone else knew.

 

I’ve also said as they are both more on the negative side (in terms of thinking it’ll go through), if they were to change that opinion it’d certainly be worth listening to as they must’ve heard something substantial to change it.

 

If you’re incredibly wrong about my take on that, I suppose you’ve got no hope of understanding what I’d like to see happen.

 

PS - mental health issues aren’t something to make light of. It makes you look a bit of an idiot.

Yes that’s exactly what you said.

 

You also said Luke Edwards has been the most accurate journo regarding the Saudi deal from day one and that he was ”sold down the river” by the Mike Ashley camp regarding Mauriss...

[Dokko]

Got excited when I saw 5 new pages in just over an hour. Ffs. 

[Fantail Breeze]

Just now, SweMag said:

Yes that’s exactly what you said.

 

You also said Luke Edwards has been the most accurate journo regarding the Saudi deal from day one and that he was ”sold down the river” by the Mike Ashley camp regarding Mauriss...

 

I said Edwards and Jacobs have been more accurate than the likes of Caulkin and Kennedy - which is true. For the above reasons.

[TRon]

1 hour ago, Chris_R said:

 

I guess that in reality, there's only one possible outcome. Like when a coin is tossed into the air, its landing position is not known yet. But it is already either 100% heads or 100% tails, because everything is already in motion. But we still say the outcome is 50/50 because we have no idea how it will land, we are unable to tell.

 

Same applies here. There's nothing we can do to influence the outcome, the wheels are already in motion. The outcome really is pre-determined in that respect but we don't (despite whatever you might say) know what it will be. It's therefore entirely reasonable to simplify that to 50/50 because as fans we're only concerned with 2 possible outcomes - Takeover or No Takeover. Yes there are other niche things that might come out of it - compensation to Ashley with no takeover etc, but we really don't care as fans. It's Yes or No that we care about to the takeover happening. 2 outcomes we care about.

 

And from a scientific perspective, when you have 2 things which you have NO basis on which to decide which one is more likely (Hint: That's now), you have to assume their chances are equal - you have no information on which to base a judgement on. Which is EXACTLY how we are now; you (and I, and everyone else) has NO information on how likely each side is to prevail. We're not lawyers. We've seen none of the evidence. We're not involved AT ALL.

 

You can claim you think it's 99/1 in favour of the takeover or whatever other waffle drifts around your head, but you're outright lying to yourself, you are living a lie. Which is fine, carry on. Your life, live the lie if you want. I really don't care what you do. But please understand that it angers people when you come in here, look us in the eye and lie to us too. It's tiring, insulting to people's intelligence and not welcome.

 

So back to the original point, yes scientifically it must be dealt with as 50/50 as far as outside observers with no information are concerned, when there are only 2 outcomes we care about with no proof of which is more likely. That's how maths works.

 

You typed out a full page to define what 50/50 means? 

 

I mean that's impressive, but this is a case about the sale of a football club, it will come down to who has the best legal case, or whether the judge is subconsciously biased one way or the other. It's not really 50/50 at all. 

[gdm]

4 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

You typed out a full page to define what 50/50 means? 

 

I mean that's impressive, but this is a case about the sale of a football club, it will come down to who has the best legal case, or whether the judge is subconsciously biased one way or the other. It's not really 50/50 at all. 

think he means to us it’s 50/50 as we have none of that info. As in we can’t really say it it’ll happen one way or the other 

 

sorry if I’ve got that wrong 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by gdm

[TheHoob]

9 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Caulkin was sold down the river last summer by Staveley and looked a bit silly by the end of it.

 

Edwards did know about the collapse last summer, that’s not disputable.  His general journalism is complete bollocks, but he got that right. 

 

My point (repeated again because you’ve clearly not listened), is that Edwards and Jacobs have PL sources and have maintained a fairly negative opinion throughout. If those people become positive, it’s highly likely to be good news.

 

Listening to them is therefore more worthwhile than someone like Kennedy, who has relentlessly listened to the same people who have been positive throughout.

 

I'd deleted my post before you posted because I couldn't be arsed to get into this whole thing again. I have listened but we clearly have very different opinions on these journos and what the turn of events last year means for their credibility and their sources.

[Chris_R]

6 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

You typed out a full page to define what 50/50 means? 

 

I mean that's impressive, but this is a case about the sale of a football club, it will come down to who has the best legal case, or whether the judge is subconsciously biased one way or the other. It's not really 50/50 at all. 

 

Of course. I clearly said that really there's only one possible outcome, we just don't know what it is, so we as observers must wrongly assume it's 50/50 because we're operating from a position of total ignorance, until that ignorance is cleared up and we are given any good reason to say otherwise. But that's clearly not yet.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Chris_R

[TRon]

1 minute ago, Chris_R said:

 

Of course. I clearly said that really there's only one possible outcome, we just don't know what it is, so we as ignorant observers must wrongly assume it's 50/50 until we are given any good reason to say otherwise. And that's not yet.

 

Fair enough. But it's pretty clear that most posters are leaning one way or the other regardless. I'm sort of 60-40 positive based on hearsay, but of course would not be surprised at all if we get screwed again. That's often how things work when a smaller party goes up against a national establishment. 

[SweMag]

15 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

I said Edwards and Jacobs have been more accurate than the likes of Caulkin and Kennedy - which is true. For the above reasons.

No you didn’t. You said the exact things I posted. Check your posts.

 

Funny thing about Luke Edwards:

 

 

[Chris_R]

1 minute ago, TRon said:

 

Fair enough. But it's pretty clear that most posters are leaning one way or the other regardless. I'm sort of 60-40 positive based on hearsay, but of course would not be surprised at all if we get screwed again. That's often how things work when a smaller party goes up against a national establishment. 

 

Yeah fine, if you think you've heard enough to lean one way or the other and can coherently state your case whilst listening to others, that's great. We all want to hear that. 50/50 is the starting point based on complete ignorance, but we've all read enough to be not entirely ignorant. My views move around a bit as new bits drip out, but they're just drips of information so I'll never lean too heavily one way or the other because the overwhelming majority of stuff is staying behind closed doors. And even if I read and heard it all, I'm not a judge. And even if I was a judge, I'm not the judge deciding on this. Ultimately, I know that my opinion - whilst I have one and am happy to discuss it - means virtually nothing.

 

It's the "IT'S DEFINITELY HAPPENING JUST WAIT THE PL CAN'T STOP THIS" crowd, who have absolutely nothing to back up their ramblings and won't even listen to the other side or acknowledge they exist, who are just utterly exhausting. And so very vocal.

[Scoot]

3 minutes ago, SweMag said:

No you didn’t. You said the exact things I posted. Check your posts.

 

Funny thing about Luke Edwards:

 

 

 Yet the great thickos of the forum STILL post tweets from Luke Edwards and Ben Jacobs. Class.

[Awaymag]

25 minutes ago, gdm said:

Suits me. What if I want to post something positive tho?

 

We both know that is unlikely!

 

Last post from me in this thread as per agreement!

[54]

When I last looked in here, things where seeming somewhat positive, a few people had (admittedly dubious) ITK's, and De Marco's tweet? How has it derailed to the standard bullshit? Are people not allowing others to be optimistic again?

[Scoot]

1 minute ago, 54 said:

When I last looked in here, things where seeming somewhat positive, a few people had (admittedly dubious) ITK's, and De Marco's tweet? How has it derailed to the standard bullshit? Are people not allowing others to be optimistic again?

That's correct.

 

Some people love to piss all over positive things in life. They get a kick out of it. Very odd people to live your life in that way.

[gdm]

8 minutes ago, Awaymag said:

 

We both know that is unlikely!

 

Last post from me in this thread as per agreement!

Posted a positive tweet not that long ago