Official statement on G & G from FC United

i know, a discussion about the g&g campaign and fc on a thread entitled 'Official statement on G & G from FC United' in the 'love united, hate glazer' forum. who'd a thunk it, eh?

Originally Posted by Jack Duckworth

that's not what i am saying at all. my position is that i think if the same amount of effort had gone into coordinating proper protests as it did into setting up fc, we would have been far more effective in getting our message across. i think the protest route was the way to go. my comment about supporting another club was in response to redloner saying it was up to the individual what they did on a saturday. imo, though, going to watch altrincham or fc does exactly the same thing in terms of protesting against glazer - nothing.

As does boycotting alone, then. As redloner says, what does it matter what you do with your Saturday afternoons if you're boycotting? Going to watch FC, going to watch another team, watching the premiership in the pub or going to B&Q with the missus - surely they're all as ineffective as each other in getting rid of Glazer? That's the point of boycotting - you're withholding your custom, and it really doesn't matter where you go during that time. I still think it's contradictory and unfair to say that we should have stayed and protested, but then we should have supported someone else instead of FC.

In any case, we've been through all this a million times since 2005, you're entitled to your opinion and with the greatest of respect I can't be arsed debating pointless things about what should have happened 5 years ago. The important thing is what's happening now.

Originally Posted by Zorg

As does boycotting alone, then. As redloner says, what does it matter what you do with your Saturday afternoons if you're boycotting? Going to watch FC, going to watch another team, watching the premiership in the pub or going to B&Q with the missus - surely they're all as ineffective as each other in getting rid of Glazer? That's the point of boycotting - you're withholding your custom, and it really doesn't matter where you go during that time. I still think it's contradictory and unfair to say that we should have stayed and protested, but then we should have supported someone else instead of FC.

you're missing the point. i'm not saying anybody should've supported anyone else. as i said before, that was in response to red loner.

the only thing i am saying is that as well as boycotting, a concerted protest group led by those who set up fc, would have been far more effective in getting rid of the glazers than setting up fc has been. imo.

Originally Posted by Jack Duckworth

you're missing the point. i'm not saying anybody should've supported anyone else. as i said before, that was in response to red loner.

the only thing i am saying is that as well as boycotting, a concerted protest group led by those who set up fc, would have been far more effective in getting rid of the glazers than setting up fc has been. imo.

Nice one, Captain Hindsight.

Originally Posted by forzagarza

Nice one, Captain Hindsight.

except i said in 2005 as well, but thanks for sharing.

Originally Posted by Jack Duckworth

except i said in 2005 as well, but thanks for sharing.

Prove it.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

you want me to go back through your recent post history and post some quotes?

tbh, i'd rather not.

Feel free, if you're sad enough. And don't forget I can easily post some of my own in reply.

Originally Posted by Jack Duckworth

can i just add something that hopefully shows that i'm not a, jcl, oot, bitter abfc...

when fc were originally set up, i actually supported the idea, became a founder member and went to the first game at leigh. however, this was because i understood that fc were to be a protest club that would disband as soon as glazer was ousted. once it became clear to me that this wasn't going to be the case, i wasn't interested as i personally didn't see the point in it.

as you were...

I've asked this of several people and never got a response - can you explain to me what a 'protest club' is? Not being arsey, I just want to understand your view.

Originally Posted by Jack Duckworth

.

@forwardirektion: i hope you're not trying to insinuate that i'm somehow an "enemy" of united because i don't support fc or i don't see the point of the statement they have released?

What!!! Your opinion of FC is irrellevant. The enemy i'm on about are the Glazers.
Using G&G as cheap point scoring on either side is ridiculous and will ultimately undermine the campaign was the point I'm getting at.

I go to FC and haven't been to OT since the takeover, anyones opinion of my choice really doesn't bother me. I want the Glazers out because I don't want fellow reds (granted some may not see me as one anymore) to suffer because of some capitalist pig chancers.

Petty infighting £#%&!ed up the original protests, everyone needs to focus against the Glazers until they're gone and then get back to having to disdain for one and other if they want to. Keep your eyes on the prize nowt else matters at the minute.

Originally Posted by forzagarza

Prove it.

prove i didn't, lionel hutz.

Originally Posted by Zorg

I've asked this of several people and never got a response - can you explain to me what a 'protest club' is? Not being arsey, I just want to understand your view.

i can give it a go, although i'm not sure i even know

as i said, i thought the whole idea of fc was that it was going to be a short-term vehicle for those united fans who opposed glazer, but still wanted to meet up with their mates on a saturday, have a pint and a sing song and watch a game of football. a place that we could visibly show our opposition to the glazer ownership, whilst still retaining our support for united. my understanding (and i accept that i got it wrong from the outset) is that once the glazers had gone, fc would be disbanded and we would all go back to OT and support united. once it became clear to me that fc would become a long-term project, i wasn't interested.

i'm sure that's as clear as mud, but it's about as articulate as you're gonna get from me at 2pm on a friday afternoon.

Originally Posted by Jack Duckworth

prove i didn't, lionel hutz.



i can give it a go, although i'm not sure i even know

as i said, i thought the whole idea of fc was that it was going to be a short-term vehicle for those united fans who opposed glazer, but still wanted to meet up with their mates on a saturday, have a pint and a sing song and watch a game of football. a place that we could visibly show our opposition to the glazer ownership, whilst still retaining our support for united. my understanding (and i accept that i got it wrong from the outset) is that once the glazers had gone, fc would be disbanded and we would all go back to OT and support united. once it became clear to me that fc would become a long-term project, i wasn't interested.

i'm sure that's as clear as mud, but it's about as articulate as you're gonna get from me at 2pm on a friday afternoon.

Fair enough. I might go for a lie down in a minute tbh.

this thread sums up why any protest will never get anywhere
too many conflicting opinions and arguments between reds

Originally Posted by hopkins

this thread sums up why any protest will never get anywhere
too many conflicting opinions and arguments between reds

I've finished cleaning and my outlaws have arrived for the weekend and I'm a bit more chilled now.

The thing is we do agree on the major, substantive issue. We want the Glazers out. We also pretty much agree on denying them our money as the best way to achieve that.

There's a lot of too-ing and fro-ing over what's gone before but we end up back at the same point and that is one of agreement on the fundamental principle. We want them out.

we need captain scarlet to chair a peace and reconciliation meeting.

i'm gerry adams, zorg's ian paisley.

we did not seek the moral high ground five years ago, and we should not aim to occupy it now.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

Not sure this line can be repeated many more times without more people realising that that is basically exactly what the original protesters are doing. The language is all about "We told you so" as if somehow the worst case scenarios of the bond document are actually a manifesto that proves all raft of bizarre and fantasical 2005 doom claims to have been true. It isn't.

Originally Posted by Zorg

No it isn't. Hth.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

well obviously i didn't expect you to agree. although whetehr you do or not is irrelevant

Originally Posted by Zorg

It's difficult to agree with such a vague statement. 'The language...' - whose language do you mean? Can you expand?

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

Yours will do for starters

for example, if you say you're not trying to occupy/re-occupy the moral high ground you're basically saying you were right all along

Originally Posted by Zorg

Mine? Where is this?

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

you want me to go back through your recent post history and post some quotes?

tbh, i'd rather not.

Originally Posted by Zorg

Feel free, if you're sad enough. And don't forget I can easily post some of my own in reply.

Er....hang on, you think those were my words?

It's a statement from FC United, not me, you simple-minded £#%&!.

are you really so far up your own arse that you think i would go back and look at your post history?

deary me.

listen, i'm not saying you are or anybody else is effectively standing on a hill shouting "where have you been?" to the lemmings. i'm saying that there has been a clear undertone of "we told you so" and that i've picked this up from your posts and even from posters whose views on the subject i usually fully respect.

now if you're saying you haven't meant to give this vibe off, or even that you haven't given it off at all, then that's fine. as I said, i didn't expect you to agree with me anyway.

as for my focus? the main point i've made on this thread is that the bond document is not a manifesto.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

are you really so far up your own arse that you think i would go back and look at your post history?

You asked if you should go through my post history, I replied 'if you're sad enough'. Clearly you are at least sad enough to go through the ones from this thread. I'm not sure why you would even go that far tbh, but knock yourself out if it makes you feel better.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

i'm saying that there has been a clear undertone of "we told you so" and that i've picked this up from your posts

No you haven't.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

now if you're saying you haven't meant to give this vibe off, or even that you haven't given it off at all, then that's fine. as I said, i didn't expect you to agree with me anyway.

I haven't given it off, and you're a liar for saying so. I could link you to multiple posts showing my support for this campaign right from the start and even expressly stating that the 'told you so' is wrong and unproductive, but I can't be remotely arsed, because a sad, bitter old @#%&! like you is not worth one more second of my time.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

as for my focus? the main point i've made on this thread is that the bond document is not a manifesto.

Congratulations. Let us know if you've any more amazing revelations.

I'm with Duckers on this one.

Will the fans come back once Glazer is gone? I can't see it.

Originally Posted by red @rmy

I'm with Duckers on this one.

Will the fans come back once Glazer is gone? I can't see it.

I won't go back whatever happens. Footballs a £#%&!ing circus. I've made some really good mates at FC and only go to have a laugh with them.
Football full stop is a bit £#%&!.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

Yours will do for starters

for example, if you say you're not trying to occupy/re-occupy the moral high ground you're basically saying you were right all along

I'm not getting involved in the moral argument, but they were right all along, weren't they?