If there were investors in the past who approached the Club and were turned away by Ted he is hardly going to tell everyboby is he. In any event whether there were investors in the past or not is irrelevant, we are where we are and we'll just have to hope there is someone going to take this club on and keep it alive.

Lets look forward not backwards.

[Well my thoughts are that you would be quite happy if all this was now forgotten and swept under the carpet to save any more embarassment to uncle
Ted, well I would agree with that up to the point that it would also save the good name of the club further embarassment as for Ted he will reap what he has sown]

Not really - and there's plenty of time to reflect on matters. I've said before that I think Ted did many things that he thought were good for the club, but much of it was lost because of the way he did it - and perhaps there lies the issue with other people being unwilling to work with him.

A company goes bang because it's expenditure is greater than it's income - end of. How we got there is a tale told in many different fashions, and I have no issue with the true story being out there - I do however object to some kind of marshall law which says that anyone who is deemed to have had dealings with Ted must be guilty by association. I can not think of one person on here, or in WiSCA, that has a single thing to feel guilty about - they have given of their best and have put their energy into an ultimately futile cause, but we move on and that same energy will hopefully be expended on supporting the new regime - because they are looking after our club. I hope many more people will become involved in that process as well going forward - and, success or failure, I hope that they will be viewed for what they have tried to do.

You suggested that because no investors had come forward now that Ted is out of the picture, there was no truth in what the poster had claimed (ie that investors wanted in but wouldn't invest becuase Ted was involved).

I simply pointed out that at the time the other guy is suggesting Ferres, France, Parkin or whoever else was apparently interested our club was a hell of a lot more attractive than it is now so the fact they aren't here now is kind of irrelevent.

you asked for names and dates, this i supplied, your the "factsmonkey" i asked you for the facts to disprove it and as yet i am still waiting. Dont try and discredit my post without the facts you sorely covert yourself to back them up.
As for Teds Rectum, i apologise if you are offended, however i judge (thats probably the wrong word) people on their actions and you charged in on your high horse in his defence as did another who TBH i though had gone AWOL.

Ah, you edited it before I replied......

Who gave any poster any credibility?
What did I say to give the impression I was impressed?

I as much idea of what is actually happening/what happened as 99% of the people on here, including most probably you - we only know what we are allowed to know. I don't know if investors were interested in investing or not, but you seemed to be suggesting that becuase they hadn't come forward since the club was up for grabs and Ted had gone that they hadn't actually been interested and the poster had made it up.

Now the poster may well have made it up, I don't know. But your argument (if i was interpriting it right) doesnt make it so in my opinion.

I'm not offended, it's you who makes yourself look silly with talk of high horses and teds ar*e.

What you are unable to grasp is that neither I nor TRB have defended Ted Richardson. Why would I, I don't have shares in him, I just don't know the full facts yet. What irks you I fear is some of us won't join thee lynch mob no matter how much you or others shout and abuse.
In classic mob paranoia style your only reaction is to accuse the doubters of being heretics against the knew belief, burn the witches that kind of thing.

I won't be told what to think for now thanks, I'd rather wait and see. If I'm not part of the gang so what, if I think the accusations on here against anyone are unfair or unfounded I'll say so. It's a free forum, it works both ways.

absolute claptrap!!
i dont care who thinks what, this issue came about because YOU wouldnt accept what i was saying without me having to qualify everything i said with some kind of fact, which for your amusement i did, you chose not to give me the same consideration.
In my opinion it is you who is intollerant of others views, as you attempt to derail anything anyone says that you do not agree with your childish primary school call to "prove it".

So just to clarify.

Someone could be right,someone could be wrong.
Everyone could be right in some way or everyone could be wrong in another.
QED.

I have respect for comments that both posters write.

If you really cant agree ,why not just agree to disagree.
Alternatively meet up before the Salford game and have a fight to the death(may do the attendance figures for that match a world of good)

But for God sake give it a rest!!!!!!!!!!!

Too true!

Beat me too it.

I fundamentally disagree with the suggestion that we should 'forget the past'; rather, we should examine it, study it, understand it, learn from it and above all, make sure it never happens again.

Forgetting the past is a very dangerous habit; if you do, history will inevitably repeat itself.

Pre-match entertainment of the highest order!

Who gives a Sh*t now. Lets just get back to playing the game.

I totaly agree agree, you should learn from it and use it to move forward, the other side of it is you have to move on and away from it other wise you end up going around in cirlcles.