Bud the Baker Posted September 16, 2016 Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 1 minute ago, Stuart Dickson said: Proof of what? As far as I can see no-one challenged the 2014 ONS report. Why would they? However I can see subsequent, what looks like more serious reports, which shows Finland, Estonia, Switzerland and the Netherlands all out performing Scotland when it comes to Maths and Science. I couldn't find a subsequent report that measured the number of people each country has with City and Guilds qualifications. Proof of your original allegation - well have you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 16, 2016 Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 Just now, Bud the Baker said: Proof of your original allegation - well have you? What allegation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted September 16, 2016 Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Stuart Dickson said: What allegation? That the change to the bonus system during the 2001/02 season was forced upon the squad by our ex-Chairman. ************************** If it wasn't how it was reported at the time then it would have been easy for a disgruntled player to have let the truth slip out then. I find the reported version which even SD accepts was how it was presented at the time easier to accept than SD being the spiritual descendant of Woodward & Bernstein exposing dark deeds in murky places. Edited September 16, 2016 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 16, 2016 Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said: That the change to the bonus system during the 2001/02 season was forced upon the squad by our ex-Chairman. ************************** If it wasn't how it was reported at the time then it would have been easy for a disgruntled player to have let the truth slip out then. I find the reported version which even SD accepts was how it was presented at the time easier to accept than SD being the spiritual descendant of Woodward & Bernstein exposing dark deeds in murky places. I've already dealt with this. I stated that there is no proof, only hearsay. But the fact that the story was in the press tends to back up the version I heard rather than the reported one that the players asked for it, and voted unanimously for it as was claimed. You'd need to be really gullible to believe that version of the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted September 16, 2016 Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said: I've already dealt with this. I stated that there is no proof, only hearsay. But the fact that the story was in the press tends to back up the version I heard rather than the reported one that the players asked for it, and voted unanimously for it as was claimed. You'd need to be really gullible to believe that version of the story. You had more comebacks in this thread than Status Quo! You admit you've no proof and my opinion is you'd have to be more gullible to believe that with the dressing room split and an unwelcome contract forced upon them - your words, not mine - that none of the disgruntled players were prepared to tell the truth at the time. I find it easier to believe it's just part of your anti-SG agenda that you thought you could slip in unchallenged. Edited September 16, 2016 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 16, 2016 Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 55 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said: You had more comebacks in this thread than Status Quo! You admit you've no proof and my opinion is you'd have to be more gullible to believe that with the dressing room split and an unwelcome contract forced upon them - your words, not mine - that none of the disgruntled players were prepared to tell the truth at the time. I find it easier to believe it's just part of your anti-SG agenda that you thought you could slip in unchallenged. Oh dear. I think I've been wound up, by you. Lets face it you really can't be serious with these posts. As I've said if all of the players had asked for it, and got what they wanted it wouldn't have been a story. As it was, you and I both agree there was indeed a news article - the source of which was *most likely* a "disgruntled player". The fact you are unwilling to accept that shows you are either gullible, or just enjoying winding up a daft lad who'll keep you entertained on a boring Friday night. Stewart Gilmour has gone. I've got no reason to continue an "anti-SG agenda". History shows him for what he was, particularly when he successfully conned a large gullible part of the St Mirren support into backing him in his desire to treat "Rangers" as a special case on the grounds that if "Rangers" weren't in the top flight St Mirren would have to lay off the official website webmaster and a ticket lady. It doesn't really matter what went on before that moment. For me that is what Gilmour will be remembered for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted September 16, 2016 Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said: Oh dear. I think I've been wound up, by you. Lets face it you really can't be serious with these posts. As I've said if all of the players had asked for it, and got what they wanted it wouldn't have been a story. As it was, you and I both agree there was indeed a news article - the source of which was *most likely* a "disgruntled player". The fact you are unwilling to accept that shows you are either gullible, or just enjoying winding up a daft lad who'll keep you entertained on a boring Friday night. Stewart Gilmour has gone. I've got no reason to continue an "anti-SG agenda". History shows him for what he was, particularly when he successfully conned a large gullible part of the St Mirren support into backing him in his desire to treat "Rangers" as a special case on the grounds that if "Rangers" weren't in the top flight St Mirren would have to lay off the official website webmaster and a ticket lady. It doesn't really matter what went on before that moment. For me that is what Gilmour will be remembered for. You say you've no need to continue your anti SG agenda now he's gone and yet you continue to do so even to the extent of extending your criticism with an irrelevant dig (to this conversation anyway) at his behaviour during the 2012 close season. Back to the matter in hand, your suggestion that a disgruntled player went to the press with a story that he & all the other players had proposed a change to the bonus system when in fact they hadn't - is self contradicting, Wouldn't it have made more sense for the disgruntled player to have gone to the press saying he was disgruntled with the changes being forced on him? I suggest you go back and have another go at making up a coherent story because this one is the least convincing yet. It's much easier to be consistent when you're telling the truth! Edited September 16, 2016 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 16, 2016 Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said: You say you've no need to continue your anti SG agenda now he's gone and yet you continue to do so even to the extent of extending your criticism with an irrelevant dig (to this conversation anyway) at his behaviour during the 2012 close season. Back to the matter in hand, your suggestion that a disgruntled player went to the press with a story that he & all the other players had proposed a change to the bonus system when in fact they hadn't - is self contradicting, Wouldn't it have made more sense for the disgruntled player to have gone to the press saying he was disgruntled with the changes being forced on him? I suggest you go back and have another go at making up a coherent story because this one is the least convincing yet. It's much easier to be consistent when you're telling the truth! Its interesting that you would accept, unquestionably, the word of a man who claimed that the club would be in administration within 3 months if Rangers weren't kept in the top two tiers of Scottish Football particularly when the version you believe makes no sense at all. Think about it logically. I know that's tough for you but just try. Why the hell would there have been a need for a vote if the players had asked for this new bonus scheme to be implemented? Why would a journalist or his editor print a story that basically said "St Mirren players get what they want"? Why would any player be disgruntled at having got what he wanted? You'd need to be utterly gullible to believe your version of events - a version by the way which you appear to have no proof to corroborate either. Now I'm done for the night. I'm off to bed where I'll no doubt ponder the futility of attempting to debate anything with someone so clearly at the wind up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted September 17, 2016 Report Share Posted September 17, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, Stuart Dickson said: Its interesting that you would accept, unquestionably, the word of a man who claimed that the club would be in administration within 3 months if Rangers weren't kept in the top two tiers of Scottish Football particularly when the version you believe makes no sense at all. Think about it logically. I know that's tough for you but just try. Why the hell would there have been a need for a vote if the players had asked for this new bonus scheme to be implemented? Why would a journalist or his editor print a story that basically said "St Mirren players get what they want"? Why would any player be disgruntled at having got what he wanted? You'd need to be utterly gullible to believe your version of events - a version by the way which you appear to have no proof to corroborate either. Now I'm done for the night. I'm off to bed where I'll no doubt ponder the futility of attempting to debate anything with someone so clearly at the wind up. Not for the first time in the thread I have to advise you to read more carefully, I didn't say I agreed with what SG said in 2012, I said it was irrelevant to events in 2001/02. Keep on trying to confuse the issue - it doesn't fool anyone. I'm under no illusion that I know the whole truth regarding bonusgate but your ravings take incoherence and inconsistency to a new level. You're the one who said the source of the story was "most likely a disgruntled player" I merely asked why a disgruntled player would allow a story to go to the press saying he was happy with the deal when he wasn't pointing out that this version of events is self-contradicting. It's also inconsistent with what you said earlier in the thread about the story originally coming from an interview with SG. 15 hours ago, Stuart Dickson said: My last word on this. Tell me - if the change in terms and conditions was universally accepted by the players as Gilmour claimed in the press, what the f**k was it doing in the press in the first place? Do they normally report on the terms of bonuses at football clubs? And if there was no split why was a senior footballer on live TV a few months later criticising the board for a number of policies that they had imposed on some of the players within the club? That version was recorded in the press and went uncontested until you began your agenda driven, self-important in-the-know posting a decade or so after the event. I'd say the onus is on you to show that your version is true. I find it easier to assume that the version printed back in the day is the truth or pretty close to it rather than your ever changing and convoluted series of fantasies - the latest version as far as I can tell is that SG imposes change to contract against the players wishes Player(s) contact press with this story SG claims idea originated with players SG's version is printed verbatim with no dissent from either journalists or players. throw in the votes and dressing room splits and your version(s) got more twists than a corkscrew. ************************ Any normal person would be embarrassed by the number of errors they'd made in this thread but as we all know you're special - just not in a good way. Edited September 17, 2016 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 17, 2016 Report Share Posted September 17, 2016 That version was recorded in the press and went uncontested until you began your agenda driven, self-important in-the-know posting a decade or so after the event. I'd say the onus is on you to show that your version is true. I find it easier to assume that the version printed back in the day is the truth or pretty close to it rather than your ever changing and convoluted series of fantasies - the latest version as far as I can tell is that SG imposes change to contract against the players wishes Player(s) contact press with this story SG claims idea originated with players SG's version is printed verbatim with no dissent from either journalists or players. throw in the votes and dressing room splits and your version(s) got more twists than a corkscrew. ************************ Any normal person would be embarrassed by the number of errors they'd made in this thread but as we all know you're special - just not in a good way. I posted about "bonusgate" in 2002 when I first learned about it. It's not a new story. And the reason I mentioned the events of 2012 is because it is absolutely relevant as it shows how willing Gilmour was to lie to manipulate using many of the "tricks" he used on the squad back in 2002. I'm utterly consistent btw, it's your inability to read that is your issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted September 17, 2016 Report Share Posted September 17, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Stuart Dickson said: I posted about "bonusgate" in 2002 when I first learned about it. It's not a new story. And the reason I mentioned the events of 2012 is because it is absolutely relevant as it shows how willing Gilmour was to lie to manipulate using many of the "tricks" he used on the squad back in 2002. I'm utterly consistent btw, it's your inability to read that is your issue. Getting a bit tetchy Stu! Why did no-one pick up your version of the story back in 2002, why did the journalists and players involved with the story go along with SG's lies (your words) surely they'd have been easy to challenge - because your version of events is unbelievable. In situations like these I don't take anyone's words without question but as I've said before I believe the reported version of events from 2002 because they're simpler and whilst the demise of Rangers in the summer of 2012 wasn't SG's finest hour as club Chairman he had responsibilities and although the worst case scenario didn't come to pass I don't agree with you that he lied (he certainly wasn't the only Cpl. Jones at the time), to me this is just another case of the scattergun approach you take when losing an argument. You're utterly consistent in one respect only - the bile you show to anyone who offends you which in the case of SG is clearly ongoing despite your denials. Can we agree to disagree? Edited September 17, 2016 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 17, 2016 Report Share Posted September 17, 2016 Getting a bit tetchy Stu! Why did no-one pick up your version of the story back in 2002, why did the journalists and players involved with the story go along with SG's lies (your words) surely they'd have been easy to challenge - because your version of events is unbelievable. In situations like these I don't take anyone's words without question but as I've said before I believe the reported version of events from 2002 because they're simpler and whilst the demise of Rangers in the summer of 2012 wasn't SG's finest hour as club Chairman he had responsibilities and although the worst case scenario didn't come to pass I don't agree with you that he lied (he certainly wasn't the only Cpl. Jones at the time), to me this is just another case of the scattergun approach you take when losing an argument. You're utterly consistent in one respect only - the bile you show to anyone who offends you which in the case of SG is clearly ongoing despite your denials. Can we agree to disagree? Of course we can. I think you're gullible and you don't. That's fine with me. I don't know what you mean about the story not being picked up. I posted it on the official forum, others commented and the story fizzled out. There were plenty other things going on at the time like the attempt to push Hendrie out the door, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.