Accrington Web - FOA Bagpuss

Page 2 of 3

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Accrington Web (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/index.php)

- Accrington Stanley (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f93/)

- - FOA Bagpuss (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f93/foa-bagpuss-47227.html)

Roy	05-05-2009 20:35

Re: FOA Bagpuss

Quote:

Originally Posted by southernred (Post 711054)

Sir
And no, IMHO the club don't surpress anything!!!

Apart from maybe, the link to this messageboard?!?!???

Roy	05-05-2009 21:14

Re: FOA Bagpuss

Well I've now had enough of Accrington Stanley taking advantage of everyone, and especially not listening to its own fans... I'm shocked at what I'm reading these days, especially from the clubs own representatives. Should accyweb continue to have an ASFC section? An asfc section that costs us money to run? Why the hell did I even bother to make the site into a red theme, specially for them? It is obvious the club has a problem with this forum, maybe they are afraid of the truth? Maybe they are afraid of being called incompetent at running a club? Well, I have no problem in continuing the accrington stanley section of this website, but I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. If they can't even be bothered to link to us or listen to the fans, why should I pay for the bandwidth for their publicity? I've never had anything said to me about any problems, now people are saying things have been libelous.

Perhaps I should just calm down?

Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? I don't know, but from what I've just read.... **** em!

Oggy	05-05-2009 21:14

Re: FOA Bagpuss

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy (Post 711055)

Apart from maybe, the link to this messageboard?!?!???

Nice one. :)

I've never met Bagpuss, and we've certainly had our disagreements on this messageboard, but this sort of attack is certainly going to backfire.

I have met you SR, and know your heart and energy are in the right place. But, if you'd been following the messageboard over the last few years, you'd have realised there is a deafening silence from those contributors "in the know" about matters sensitive to the club, including its treatment of fans.
The potential to be "negative" is enormous, but little used.

I think the older wave of fans, who have helped build the club, many of whom have told me, "the club don't want to know anymore", will be looking on your comments with a wry smile. The ones who are doing it now, well good on them, and lets hope they don't feel the same in a few years time.

I hope you and Bagpuss have your pint.

lancsdave

05-05-2009 21:24

Re: FOA Bagpuss

If the information as to why the link was removed is available by pm, why can't it be made public. Maybe it would stop people getting getting annoyed, and maybe the problem could be rectified ?

shakermaker

05-05-2009 21:24

Re: FOA Bagpuss

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oggy (Post 711061)

I hope you and Bagpuss have your pint.

I hope it has two straws. :)

Redash

05-05-2009 21:26

Re: FOA Bagpuss

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy (Post 711060)

I, for one, would like this messageboard to continue, and I love the red theme. http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/i...cons/icon7.gif
This board may not have a link from the fishy site anymore, but it is still a Stanley messageboard and very important to us.
Thanks.

Wynonie Harris

05-05-2009 21:32

Re: FOA Bagpuss

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redash (Post 711065)

Seconded! I was annoyed when the link to the messageboard was removed from t'fishy site, but I've changed my way of thinking...this is an independent messageboard for independent-minded fans!

Chimer

05-05-2009 21:41

Re: FOA Bagpuss

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy (Post 711060)

Should accyweb continue to have an ASFC section?

Yes please :). We need the forum. I wish there was less unthinking destructive criticism, but there is plenty that is constructive and healthy and the club do occasionally respond positively in a roundabout way (e.g. perhaps averting the potential OSC end-of season party fiasco). It also provides the opportunity to let off steam which some messageboarders do seem to need! I do wish the club hadn't cut the link, which sent a very strange message. I suppose thinking back I've seen plenty of posts which might be considered to be slander of individuals by individuals, but nothing for which (in my humble non-legal opinion) the club could conceivably be held responsible. I have no doubt the link was cut simply because the messageboard annoyed the powers-that-be - odd as they don't usually come across as desperately sensitive flowers.

But reverting to Roy's question - yes yes yes!

Wynonie Harris

05-05-2009 21:45

Re: FOA Bagpuss

Still think Baggy should go for that pint with SR, though!

cashman

05-05-2009 22:23

Re: FOA Bagpuss

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy (Post 711060)

yeh think it through Roy, if ya removed it, ya would probably suit those ******* right down to the ground. fer my money its a good section fer folk to praise, let off steam about what they see aint right.at least the guy who i think ya got the hump wi, as the balls to come on here, don't know him but i give him credit fer that.:)

Willie Miller

05-05-2009 22:23

Re: FOA Bagpuss

"Folk" have used the forum for their own personal agenda, the forum ain't at fault; the fans who rush home to air their greivances towards the club on here are the ones at fault....

The club is contactable for all that crap IMHO. Anyone can chat to Eric or Rob or Mick Schultz or Coley.

Its easy for this to be used as a soap box. I have read "fans" slagging every member of the club staff on here. So why shouldn't the club remove the link? We have such a great club yet on here, you would think the world is ending.

The content of the threads on here used to be top drawer. Now Jimbo hardly posts, Lowiey the same. Unfortunately, only the negative stuff is discussed on here because , in the main, the positive posters have left the building

Willie Miller

05-05-2009 22:25

Re: FOA Bagpuss

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 711083)

as the balls to come on here, don't know him but i give him credit fer that.:)

It takes no balls to post on here though, & that I think is the problem!

Bagpuss

05-05-2009 22:45

Re: FOA Bagpuss

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willie Miller (Post 711087)

It takes no balls to post on here though, & that I think is the problem!

It takes no balls to be a sheep wearing red tinted specs, SR got involved when it was Give Us The Old Gree who should have answered the question.

Fcuk it I can't be arsed anymore baa baa:)

Kiwi John

06-05-2009 03:12

Re: FOA Bagpuss

Please keep the Accy Stan section Roy .. its the thing that makes me feel part of the Accy Stan 'family'.

cashman

06-05-2009 07:45

Re: FOA Bagpuss

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 711083)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willie Miller (Post 711084)

well willie miller, my post was in a response to the guy who OWNS the site,asking if the stanley section should remain, that was my answer n reason to keep it, also i forgot to add that folk who follow stanley n live abroad or a fair distance keep in touch through it so thats another reason. as fer soap boxes, you got on yours with yer bias, but never answered his question yes or no, therefore i can only assume the question was too difficult fer ya.:rolleyes: and as fer southern red saying nothing is suppressed by the club, i say that is bull or even untrue, most fans cannot understand why the club refuses to talk to Mr Khan:confused: if thats not suppression i don't know what is.:(

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:47.

Page 2 of 3

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page