Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Jim White & Simon Jordan talking about CAFC on Talksport this Tuesday
Comments
-
Knowing where the closest location of Makros is how you pass the EFL owners test. Now we know why Elliott and the rest of them haven't passed yet
5 -
Nah he's just taken Farnell's word for it.
0 -
Dodger and others been stitched up a bit there and don’t come across well.
0 -
White has probably taken that from Farnell's tweets to Andrew Barclay after the court case last weekDoctorCharlton said:Jim White said Andrew Barclay not interested in investing the club, or something along those lines?
wtf?
As Airman said though, it sounds like Barclay has gone into those meetings with PE and CF not knowing what exactly he's buying and compared it to buying a car where he doesnt know what car it is or hasnt been given the reg no so he can even do any checks
So the answer is what exactly can Barclay do that he hasnt done?0 -
Be curious if we hear anything from the outspoken Barclay on twitter today or whether he's decided to keep quiet after the comms with Farnell on there1
-
Jim White is just parroting Farnell. His views on Barclay carry no weight whatsoever.30
-
I'm amazed that so many people here actually expected TS to reveal anything earth shattering.
A lot of hot air (including from that other Henry Irving)0 -
Perhaps Talkshite couldn't use what Smiffyboy and Dodger gave them for legal reasons.7
-
Painful listening about nothing. Lack of homework on JW’s part, SJ covering old ground and not making the point that of course, everyone should be interested in PE’s net worth or that of the ‘consortium’ behind him to satisfy the investments needed to run a football club and the station has obviously selected a few points raised by the fans interviewed to make them sound like plonkers, when they are not, they are clearly passionate about the club and were there to prove it. Talksport’s edit taking the Makro’s reference into account and probably out of context of a more serious point being made is/was just not helpful.
On the plus side, the fans speaking did nothing to rock tomorrow’s focus on our hugely important game, which is what I feared, based on what has been referenced on here for 24-48 hours.1 -
This is what I reckon, but then TalkSport shouldn't have done anying as what come out was bollocksdickplumb said:Perhaps Talkshite couldn't use what Smiffyboy and Dodger gave them for legal reasons.2 -
Sponsored links:
-
I think like Henry called out, there's been a big cut from TalkShite there.killerandflash said:I'm amazed that so many people here actually expected TS to reveal anything earth shattering.
A lot of hot air (including from that other Henry Irving)
I don't think Dodger & Co would big it up like that if they thought they were going to just get that snippet in.1 -
Exactly, Dodger may have incriminating evidence but at the moment he really needs some help with what to do with it.i_b_b_o_r_g said:To be fair to those involved, there was probably shed loads edited out, to make the studio discussion as short as possible to cram in more ads
Shouting at Farnell & Elliot & talking to Talksport outside the ground, where they can edit what they want is obviously not a winning strategy.
A pity, but the fans that could possibly best help appear to get criticism from him, which possibly makes things difficult.4 -
I think with respect to the people believing that they were going to be allowed to make what they see as sensational revelations on talkSPORT, they are just being naive about the appetite of media organisations for taking legal risks. There wasn't a cart in hell's chance talkSPORT were going to allow them to say anything remotely controversial.13
-
Ok then @smiffyboy aka the famous one seeing as they didn’t expose what you wanted them to expose I think you’d best tell us what it is.
Or could it be more rubbish coming from your mate Lee Amiss?
Time to put up or shut up.19 -
For those not on twitter
Peter Varney: "We haven't been asked [by talkSPORT] for any comment yet people are speculating about Andrew's involvement. Wouldn't you want to do that to balance the piece?"
PV: "We signed an NDA [non-disclosure agreement] but haven't had a single document. So what did we sign an NDA for? What is the purpose of the NDA?"
PV: "The EFL decision is key because if they are not approved then they are not the people we'll be dealing with. If they are approved we will be dealing with them. It's not our fault the process has taken so long.
PV: "It is not of our making, because the EFL don't want to make a call before the end of the season."
4 -
Those 4 Tweets says all that need to be said as far as I'm concerned. Farnell, Elliot, Burke are no different to Southall, small time trying to play with the big boys. Typical Cheshire, the Essex of the NorthForeverAddickted said:14 -
That’s what I thought, but in that case he shouldn’t have said they don’t know where Makros is, when quite possibly they do?dickplumb said:Perhaps Talkshite couldn't use what Smiffyboy and Dodger gave them for legal reasons.
1 -
Perhaps, but could they have at least mentioned it, without detail?dickplumb said:Perhaps Talkshite couldn't use what Smiffyboy and Dodger gave them for legal reasons.0 -
Perhaps @smiffyboy could make copies of the documents he has available for CAST to review as to their authenticity and the best way to deal with that knowledge without walking into a legal minefield.
To be fair, the CAST Board do have significant experience in not only deciphering documents but have the clout and contacts to release certain details should they believe it helps the situation.25 -
Sponsored links:
-
Airman, I appreciate you probably cannot confirm or deny, but do you think there is any substance with regards to smiffyboy's statement the other day? i.e. third party ownership.Airman Brown said:I think with respect to the people believing that they were going to be allowed to make what they see as sensational revelations on talkSPORT, they are just being naive about the appetite of media organisations for taking legal risks. There wasn't a cart in hell's chance talkSPORT were going to allow them to say anything remotely controversial.
0 -
dickplumb said:Perhaps Talkshite couldn't use what Smiffyboy and Dodger gave them for legal reasons.
If they gave them anything it was obviously unsubstantiated. Most likely still, side notes and hearsay from Southall who is just so desperate to get another payoff.2 -
I thought that it was proved in court that Elliott didnt own the club???0
-
I accept that Mr Dodger and Mr Smiffyboy are, life most Addicks, truly passionate about the club and they are to be complimented on their efforts. Sadly, though, all today has achieved is to give many people the impression that they have been somewhat naive to put their trust in Jim White, someone who has constantly displayed a complete lack of understanding of what really has been going on at the club.7
-
I was gonna say, bizarre bit of journalism if they’re just presenting one persons story about some one else, without getting a comment from the subject of the story.0
-
I think that after they had taken all the swearing out that is all that was left.25
-
So we have Renny & Stimpy
George & Mildred,Dastardly & Mutley,Bill & Ben,Starsky & Hutch & another show to add Dodger & Smiffey...n still seems like know one has a fuckin clue...0 -
Trusting Jim White and Talksport is like trusting Dan Wotton and The Sun.
Personally if I had major evidence about wrong doings I’d go to CAST or VoTV and see what happened from there.9 -
.
1 -
Surely if its legal wrong doings, the EFL and Police would be better suited so evidence isn't jeopardised.ValleyGary said:Trusting Jim White and Talksport is like trusting Dan Wotton and The Sun.
Personally if I had major evidence about wrong doings I’d go to CAST or VoTV and see what happened from there.0
