The K's In Point

Return to front page

Newest article: Re: A phoenix club by PaddyYesterday 20:51Yesterday at 20:51:34view thread

Oldest article: Lane for the K's by Football Web Pages9/2/2023 16:17Thu Feb 9 16:17:36 2023view thread

MenuSearch

Next thread: Well done to the Twitter Webmaster! by OptimisticK14/5 20:45Tue May 14 20:45:55 2024view thread

Censorship

By Generic_K14/5 20:57Tue May 14 20:57:18 2024

Views: 938

As promised, the tyrannical new Chairman has followed through on his threat to suppress dissenters.

Thank the lord we still have this forum for free, uncensored opinion on the club we all love.

reply to this article | return to the front page

11 people like this 11 people   

Re: Censorship

By Suom Ynona14/5 23:06Tue May 14 23:06:14 2024In response to Censorship Top of thread

Views: 647

He's well and truly declared war on the fans now. No doubt he feels empowered thanks to Jim Page and the other acolytes stroking his ego.

No sign of Steve Dormer being mentioned on the club website as a director. Probably saw this clown for what he is.

reply to this article | return to the front page

5 people like this 5 people   

Re: Censorship

By Count Scarlioni15/5 08:49Wed May 15 08:49:18 2024In response to Re: Censorship Top of thread

Views: 586

Certain fans “declared war” on the chairman a lot time ago.

reply to this article | return to the front page

3 people like this 3 people   1 person dislikes this 1 person

Re: Censorship

By Suom Ynona15/5 09:31Wed May 15 09:31:52 2024In response to Re: Censorship Top of thread

Views: 547

Once it became abundantly clear that he was clueless and a big cause of all the issues at the club, the fans turned. Shall we ask Mo Faal, Hayden Bird, and Andre McCollin about their thoughts? Who was responsible for Dynan getting the job and staying well beyond his welcome when it was clear to all that he was out of his depth? Who was on a board that consistently lied about the spending of our blood money? Who refuses to engage with supporters because he doesn't like hearing home truths? Who refused significant investment from a collective of well-qualified fans to further himself and to the detriment of the club? Getting the picture at all?!

reply to this article | return to the front page

5 people like this 5 people   

Re: Censorship

By Count Scarlioni15/5 09:53Wed May 15 09:53:04 2024In response to Re: Censorship Top of thread

Views: 529

I am afraid that there remains a distinction between abuse and constructive criticism.

Whatever has happened in the past does not now excuse abusive or threatening behaviour. I am sure we are agreed on that.

Whether or not behaviour is abusive or threatening is another matter but I can easily understand why the directors wish to draw a line under this and move forward more positively.

I think the directors of the club have made some of the decisions to which you refer validly and in what they considered the best interests of Kingstonian.

One example is the use of the AFC blood money to support the playing budget. Quite clearly this was an entirely valid use of the funds and was agreed with AFC who signed off on the use of those funds. Yet it is consistently insinuated that there was a misuse of the funds. Just one example.

You refer to the views of past managers but maybe it would be more pertinent to refer to the views of the present manager Scott Harris and of the eight players who recently signed for the club. One assumes that they have a somewhat more positive view of recent developments than many who post here.

reply to this article | return to the front page

4 people like this 4 people   4 people dislike this 4 people

Re: Censorship

By jon tolley15/5 16:47Wed May 15 16:47:32 2024In response to Re: Censorship Top of thread

Views: 549



One example is the use of the AFC blood money to support the playing budget. Quite clearly this was an entirely valid use of the funds and was agreed with AFC who signed off on the use of those funds. Yet it is consistently insinuated that there was a misuse of the funds. Just one example.


that's mad that one of the most contested decisions has been proclaimed to be "quite clear". we were lied to about this. now it may be that it's valid use of funds - I think it's a very wrong and irresponsible use of funds - but if it is a valid use, why did the board intentionally mislead fans on how this was being spent?

I ask this honestly, because all I can think is you don't understand the detail of this issue.

reply to this article | return to the front page

10 people like this 10 people   

Re: Censorship

By Count Scarlioni15/5 23:07Wed May 15 23:07:22 2024In response to Re: Censorship Top of thread

Views: 481

Oh this is rich.

Well there we have it! I don’t understand - according to you!
You just cannot accept there’s a different view to yours.

You are right. The directors at the time were wrong. I am wrong.

I don’t understand - because I don’t agree with you! Don’t you see I understand it very well and it is possible I can from a different view from yours?

Can’t you see that the use of the funds was legitimate and the board employed them for reasons they considered in the best interests of the club? AFC Wimbledon signed off on the expenditure.

Maybe the results of the expenditure was not to your tastes but sadly that does not mean the use was “wrong or irresponsible”.

As for what the directors said and did not say you have no right at Al to the information about what they decided and did not decide. You are a fan of a football club and the directors are not at all obliged to share the reasons and nature of the decisions they take with you or any other fan.

I am afraid that is the commercial reality and it is also increasingly obvious that the new board of directors are not really concerned about what you - or I - think about it.

reply to this article | return to the front page

4 people like this 4 people   11 people dislike this 11 people

Re: Censorship

By jon tolley16/5 09:23Thu May 16 09:23:44 2024In response to Re: Censorship Top of thread

Views: 375

you’ve misunderstood the substantive point

why would the club mislead fans over how funds were being used? Why would the now chairman say it was the wrong use of funds, if, as you suggest, it was *clearly* right?

post script: at the time of a lot of this, my business was putting in thousands of pounds to help the club continue. I paid in good faith, and didn’t for a second think we’d be using the money kept aside for for ground share / build.. to pay for the playing budget

Edited by jon tolley at 09:26:58 on 16th May 2024

reply to this article | return to the front page

13 people like this 13 people   

Re: Censorship

By PlayupKs16/5 08:57Thu May 16 08:57:46 2024In response to Re: Censorship Top of thread

Views: 386

Why are you just addressing the use of funds and not the fact they lied about the use of funds for multiple years… yes that does suggest you don’t understand the problem.

Again, as a side point from the above, I’ll point to the fact the current chairman and board member at the time said in his opinion it was a misuse of funds… so do you disagree with him as well?

reply to this article | return to the front page

4 people like this 4 people   

Re: Censorship

By irishk16/5 08:57Thu May 16 08:57:15 2024In response to Re: Censorship Top of thread

Views: 372

I am afraid that there remains a distinction between abuse and constructive criticism.

Whatever has happened in the past does not now excuse abusive or threatening behaviour. I am sure we are agreed on that.

Whether or not behaviour is abusive or threatening is another matter but I can easily understand why the directors wish to draw a line under this and move forward more positively.

I think the directors of the club have made some of the decisions to which you refer validly and in what they considered the best interests of Kingstonian.

One example is the use of the AFC blood money to support the playing budget. Quite clearly this was an entirely valid use of the funds and was agreed with AFC who signed off on the use of those funds. Yet it is consistently insinuated that there was a misuse of the funds. Just one example.

You refer to the views of past managers but maybe it would be more pertinent to refer to the views of the present manager Scott Harris and of the eight players who recently signed for the club. One assumes that they have a somewhat more positive view of recent developments than many who post here.


The post above really puts forward the case for fan ownership.

Edited by irishk at 09:02:03 on 16th May 2024

reply to this article | return to the front page

3 people like this 3 people   1 person dislikes this 1 person

Re: Censorship

By Damo16/5 07:43Thu May 16 07:43:09 2024In response to Re: Censorship Top of thread

Views: 392

So, tell us why you think the spending of over 1/3 of the AFC Wimbledon money was well spent? All you’ve done is disagree with Jon and think the board did a great job of spending money that was supposed to be for our future.

And tell us more on why a group of people running the football club should be unaccountable to its fan base? That doesn’t sound good business sense at all.

“It is also increasingly obvious that the new board of directors are not really concerned about what you - or I - think about it”
And there lays the problem.

reply to this article | return to the front page

3 people like this 3 people   1 person dislikes this 1 person

Re: Censorship

By Filipo16/5 09:20Thu May 16 09:20:19 2024In response to Re: Censorship Top of thread

Views: 357

Count doesn’t seem to know what side of the fence he sits on.

He’s not been around the club for over 10 years but seems to have these in depth opinions on how things are and doesn’t address some of the main points around how the club is being run. Just ‘they are the owners so they can do what they want’ kind of attitude.

All very pro capitalist yet this is step 4 of non league where the club don’t have money and need fans onside/onboard.

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person   

Re: Censorship

By PlayupKs15/5 13:54Wed May 15 13:54:03 2024In response to Re: Censorship Top of thread

Views: 525

One example is the use of the AFC blood money to support the playing budget. Quite clearly this was an entirely valid use of the funds and was agreed with AFC who signed off on the use of those funds. Yet it is consistently insinuated that there was a misuse of the funds. Just one example.

This is quite a take… thinking it’s a misuse of funds is a valid opinion many hold (including apparently the current chairmen who said as much fyi), but it is the boards decision and a valid use of funds as has now been revealed.

What’s not insinuated and fact, is the board outright lied about the use of these funds for multiple years. That is misuse of positioning and the main factor, of which there others, as to why the club/fan relationship is so strained.

If is was an entirely valid use as well, why lie about it? We may never know because one side refuses to discuss it…

reply to this article | return to the front page

6 people like this 6 people   

Previous thread: Support the Ks and win amazing prizes! by OptimisticK13/5 19:33Mon May 13 19:33:42 2024view thread