Free Nathan Tella!

[CardyTheClaret]

How utterly fking dense have you got to be to believe (you don't even believe it, you're just saying it for rhetorical effect), rather, to suggest that any post longer than the length of, say, a tweet could only have been made by a computer? Like, is that post length such an affront to your intelligence that you struggle to believe it was made by a human being? Of course, like I've already said, you don't even believe what you post.

Split it up into paragraphs and cut the waffle. I guarantee that nobody read your post.

[Darnhill Claret]

Let's just imagine there is a 50/50 split on this.

Would opinion be different if the other club was just 9 or 10 miles away down the M65?

Asking for a friend.

[Spiral]

Split it up into paragraphs and cut the waffle. I guarantee that nobody read your post.

If that's all it takes for you to read it then just imagine there's a paragraph break. There's no waffle, everything I wrote was in service of the argument I was building.

Though truth be told, it's more likely this is just a case of you seeing the name 'Spiral' above a post, seeing a wall of text, being a bit lazy, assuming that you are going to disagree anyway or find me disagreeable, and looking for some way to criticise me because you struggle to state exactly why it is that you think I'm wrong.

[CoolClaret]

Load of waffle

Christ almighty man.

Naive - (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom or judgement.

I think it’s fair to say she has shown all three points of criteria here at best or even worse deliberately been a provocateur?

The naive part is thinking doing things like this is ‘just a bit of simple fun’ - it’s gone down like a led balloon and has us looking like a laughingstock in all but the eyes of a portion of our fans.

Spare me the relativism, please… forgive me that I don’t have a ‘naivety meter’ to accurately measure or can wildly speculate on any post any interpret it in the sort of ways you alluded to.

Of course tapping up happens - the naive part is being in the position that she’s in and giving an inch that could possibly be spun in a negative light - which journos and social media outlets most certainly love to do.

You can’t possibly believe that doing this does anything to advanced any attempt of signing a player - surely?

All it can do is open up a can of worms - again, it’d be one thing for a random fan to do this, be extremely lame mind but it’s another thing for the Chairman’s daughter to.

So,
Pros: gets a few clicks
Cons: shines the club in a negative light

Great job

Also the notion of ‘well they’re just trying to move the club forward therefore all is brilliant’ is pure b******s.

We have every right and should call things out when we deem that they’re done in a distasteful manner.

Not going to just happy clap and go along with it because it’s ‘my team’ or whatever

[Spiral]

Let's just imagine there is a 50/50 split on this.

Would opinion be different if the other club was just 9 or 10 miles away down the M65?

Asking for a friend.

I think within the ecosystem of football in all its glory there's a general acceptance that clubs are allowed a few below belt punches every now and again on their fiercest rivals because that's just football (though never crossing that line over into contract tampering, because you can get sanctioned for that). I'm not sure exactly what it is we achieve from bantering with a club at the other side of the country that none of us care about. It just looks tacky.

[Bosscat]

Cheesy flavoured snack anyone

[CardyTheClaret]

If that's all it takes for you to read it then just imagine there's a paragraph break. There's no waffle, everything I wrote was in service of the argument I was building.

Though truth be told, it's more likely this is just a case of you seeing the name 'Spiral' above a post, seeing a wall of text, being a bit lazy, assuming that you are going to disagree anyway or find me disagreeable, and looking for some way to criticise me because you struggle to state exactly why it is that you think I'm wrong.

That's better, I read that. Succinct and to the point. Complete and utter ******** though.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Christ almighty man.

Naive - (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom or judgement.

I think it’s fair to say she has shown all three points of criteria here at best or even worse deliberately been a provocateur?

The naive part is thinking doing things like this is ‘just a bit of simple fun’ - it’s gone down like a led balloon and has us looking like a laughingstock in all but the eyes of a portion of our fans.

Spare me the relativism, please… forgive me that I don’t have a ‘naivety meter’ to accurately measure or can wildly speculate on any post any interpret it in the sort of ways you alluded to.

Of course tapping up happens - the naive part is being in the position that she’s in and giving an inch that could possibly be spun in a negative light - which journos and social media outlets most certainly love to do.

You can’t possibly believe that doing this does anything to advanced any attempt of signing a player - surely?

All it can do is open up a can of worms - again, it’d be one thing for a random fan to do this, be extremely lame mind but it’s another thing for the Chairman’s daughter to.

So,
Pros: gets a few clicks
Cons: shines the club in a negative light

Great job

Also the notion of ‘well they’re just trying to move the club forward therefore all is brilliant’ is pure b******s.

We have every right and should call things out when we deem that they’re done in a distasteful manner.

Not going to just happy clap and go along with it because it’s ‘my team’ or whatever

I couldn’t agree more

All this takes is one of the “journos” at talk sport to bring this up tomorrow and then it’s on every paper about the chairmen’s daughter potentially trying to tap up a player.

They will say that is provocative language but that’s how papers make money and that’s how they will try spin it

[Spiral]

That's better, I read that. Succinct and to the point. Complete and utter ******** though.

For all the $hit I often get on here (and as amusing as it is to read other people's indignant screeching backlashes), I at least usually try to make points about the thread topic, certainly originally, before some inarticulate trog's screeching brings it down a few levels and we descend to *waves hand* this farce. Why are you even here? Taking pop shots off at me because you've been triggered by something? How were you triggered. Show me on the doll where you were hurt. Done a quick 2-sec search on this thread and your only contributions to it are to have a dig at me. Fair do's, no skin off my back, everything is ultimately meaningless and I couldn't care less if I'm loathed by some rando on the internet, but I do question what you're actually using this forum for at that point. Maybe take a look at your own behaviour.

[JohnMcGreal]

This is our 'David Dunn eating fried chicken out of a bucket' moment, isn't it

[NewClaret]

There’s been some absolute bllx written on this board over the years, a proportion of it by me, but the suggestion that a social media post by the chairman’s daughter would be considered tapping up is the best of the lot

Goodness me, wait and see how this pans out before losing your minds about it. There’s a good chance we all have no clue what’s going on.

Pass me the quavers, Bosscat.

[Volvoclaret]

A cheesy puff BC?

[spt_claret]

If that's all it takes for you to read it then just imagine there's a paragraph break. There's no waffle, everything I wrote was in service of the argument I was building.

Though truth be told, it's more likely this is just a case of you seeing the name 'Spiral' above a post, seeing a wall of text, being a bit lazy, assuming that you are going to disagree anyway or find me disagreeable, and looking for some way to criticise me because you struggle to state exactly why it is that you think I'm wrong.

I've had the same problem plenty of times, it's why I've taken to just repeating their own argument back to them in absurdist tones. Not just here but in general a lot of people have very short attention spans or poor reading comprehension when it comes to the internet.


I'm pretty sure I've seen Cooclaret dive in to threads before defending iffy decisions by the board. It's fun to play semantics and focus your argument on rhetoric and word choice around "oh but is it the definition of naive as per Webster's dictionary in this particular context I'm framing it in", or morally relativist "Well it goes on all the time maybe the player's in on it?" or the ever delightful "Who can say? You don't know what's happening! We don't know if we even know! Nobody knows! Wait and see!" as if the chairman's daughter posting what is arguably a tapping up/contract tampering campaign is equivalent to the Unknown Unknowns that Rumsfeld went on about over Iraq.

It's all nice sounding, university debate tactics that might win points there but doesn't change the reality that the chairman's daughter posted a crass, premature, 'marketing' video that reflects poorly on the club's ethos and ethics, would be rightly condemned by everyone here supporting it if any other club did it and we were just 3rd party observers, and creates more bad press from outside eyes than it will gain in good press from whatever questionable marketing logic you use to justify its release. Nobody will give it 'good press' beyond a handful of the Burnley faithful, it doesn't grow the club 'out of Royston Vasey' or whatever other poor little putdowns you might use to belittle people who criticise it. The idea that any publicity is good publicity is simply untrue.

The board have got a LOT right for the past 12 months, internally and for external marketing. I happen to like even most of this summer's signing videos. This is a misstep.

[CoolClaret]

I couldn’t agree more

All this takes is one of the “journos” at talk sport to bring this up tomorrow and then it’s on every paper about the chairmen’s daughter potentially trying to tap up a player.

They will say that is provocative language but that’s how papers make money and that’s how they will try spin it

Exactly - which is why you don’t give them an inch and again why (rightfully justified imo) some of our fans (me included) have pushbacked strongly against this.

[Bosscat]

There’s been some absolute bllx written on this board over the years, a proportion of it by me, but the suggestion that a social media post by the chairman’s daughter would be considered tapping up is the best of the lot

Goodness me, wait and see how this pans out before losing your minds about it. There’s a good chance we all have no clue what’s going on.

Pass me the quavers, Bosscat.

Monstermunch all thats in the cupboard I'm afraid (pickled onion flavour )

[NewClaret]

Monstermunch all thats in the cupboard I'm afraid (pickled onion flavour )

Keep them. I only like Roast Beef flavour. And I’m on a diet

[CoolClaret]

There’s been some absolute bllx written on this board over the years, a proportion of it by me, but the suggestion that a social media post by the chairman’s daughter would be considered tapping up is the best of the lot

Goodness me, wait and see how this pans out before losing your minds about it. There’s a good chance we all have no clue what’s going on.

Pass me the quavers, Bosscat.

Proper overlooked the entire context deliberately to make your point - well done.

No one is suggesting that this specific thing is ‘considered tapping up’ what we’re saying is that this is the sort of stuff that the papers etc deliberately spin and can blow something right up and exactly why it needs to be nipped in the bud.

No pushback at all = expect more of it, where’s the line?

[spt_claret]

I couldn’t agree more

All this takes is one of the “journos” at talk sport to bring this up tomorrow and then it’s on every paper about the chairmen’s daughter potentially trying to tap up a player.

They will say that is provocative language but that’s how papers make money and that’s how they will try spin it

Spot on.

I take a dim view of the press and their relationship to truth at the best of times, but here's the scenarios:

1- Tella is set to sign regardless, the press have it wrong saying he's not set to sign, this video was put out as a premature hype video. Takes quite a bit to get the press to walk back a claim once it's out there, especially one hard to prove as knowingly wrong. So when Tella signs, you risk getting twopenny 'journos' and clickbaiters stirring up "Did Burnley tamper with Nathan Tella's contract!!?!? Was this tapping up!?!" nonsense. Bad press that, even if it's untrue, is still bad press that was easily avoided.

2- Tella ISN'T set to sign, in which case the accusation of contact tampering becomes more valid-sounding from the press if he does then sign. See above about avoidable bad press.

3- Tella isn't set to sign and doesn't sign. In which case we just look like a bunch of muppets for putting out a Free Nelson Mandela video about a player we don't even sign. Not going to draw as much negative clickbait, but just makes us look a bit silly.

There's no real benefit to this video, only downsides. Baffles me all round.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

You can almost sense the release in tension of those posters who have been waiting for the slightest thing to be able to lay into the club owners!

Wouldn’t have happened on Frank Teasdale’s watch.

[CoolClaret]

*****
I've had the same problem plenty of times, it's why I've taken
It's all nice sounding, university debate tactics that might win points
*****

Really well made points;

It’s the intellectual dishonesty for me that is so utterly draining - zero attempt to actually engage honestly and attempt to properly understand a users point but instead to simply fireback with bs semantic rhetoric that’s only used to ‘point score’ rather than you know, actually debate?

Not to mention the countless logical fallacies committed (some of which you pointed out)

[Rileybobs]

You can almost sense the release in tension of those posters who have been waiting for the slightest thing to be able to lay into the club owners!

Wouldn’t have happened on Frank Teasdale’s watch.

I think you’d be one of the ‘Pacebots’ that someone referenced previously. There’s nothing wrong with being critical of the things the chairman gets wrong in the same way we can praise the things he gets right.

This cultish behaviour where anyone who gives Pace the tiniest bit of criticism is disregarded as a Pace hater is just really really odd.

[quoonbeatz]

Who can take this the most seriously?

[Cooclaret]

I've had the same problem plenty of times, it's why I've taken to just repeating their own argument back to them in absurdist tones. Not just here but in general a lot of people have very short attention spans or poor reading comprehension when it comes to the internet.


I'm pretty sure I've seen Cooclaret dive in to threads before defending iffy decisions by the board. It's fun to play semantics and focus your argument on rhetoric and word choice around "oh but is it the definition of naive as per Webster's dictionary in this particular context I'm framing it in", or morally relativist "Well it goes on all the time maybe the player's in on it?" or the ever delightful "Who can say? You don't know what's happening! We don't know if we even know! Nobody knows! Wait and see!" as if the chairman's daughter posting what is arguably a tapping up/contract tampering campaign is equivalent to the Unknown Unknowns that Rumsfeld went on about over Iraq.

It's all nice sounding, university debate tactics that might win points there but doesn't change the reality that the chairman's daughter posted a crass, premature, 'marketing' video that reflects poorly on the club's ethos and ethics, would be rightly condemned by everyone here supporting it if any other club did it and we were just 3rd party observers, and creates more bad press from outside eyes than it will gain in good press from whatever questionable marketing logic you use to justify its release. Nobody will give it 'good press' beyond a handful of the Burnley faithful, it doesn't grow the club 'out of Royston Vasey' or whatever other poor little putdowns you might use to belittle people who criticise it. The idea that any publicity is good publicity is simply untrue.

The board have got a LOT right for the past 12 months, internally and for external marketing. I happen to like even most of this summer's signing videos. This is a misstep.

What is the clubs ethos and their ethics? Are they defined anywhere to a point that we could look together at them?

If not are you applying your own personal ethos and ethics to the situation and arriving at conclusion that supports your own ethos and values? That’s an unconscious bias.

You can’t define for certain a state of naivety of a young women who you’ve never met. That’s arrogance.

The anger and frustration in your post is unwarranted and your jibe at university debate, perhaps indicates a perceived class division and another unconscious bias.

You can have an opinion on the situation, but some have gone further and attacked the individual using swear words and demeaning language. Is that acceptable in your world?

Others including yourself claim to represent the collective Burnley fan base. You don’t speak for me, you don’t speak for the collective. You speak for yourself, or perhaps others if you’re elected to speak on their collective behalf, perhaps as a spokesman of a supporters group for example.

Simply, you don’t have a clue as to the capability of the individual, you don’t have a clue as to the motivation of the individual, and you don’t have a clue about the involvement of the chairman who supported the post. Neither do I. So neither of us, or any other can attack the individual.

So we should wait and see.

In response to Royston Vasey, I feel, and have voiced publicly that I feel that there are elements of the fan base that bemoan our success because it means BFC is now attempting to be global business, to encourage younger fans in ways that are not traditional, and are challenging the ‘norms’ that we’ve all grown up with.

I also feel that for some, the chairman/owners will forever be an issue because of the manner in which the acquired the club. For the way they’ve moved on some of the corporate sides of the business, and unfortunately how they’ve managed some of the exits of staff. It is what it is. I personally think that in ten years time Alan Pace and those he brings into the club in the next year or two will be revered by the fan base as the people who firmly established BFC as a global brand and a constant Premier League club.

[Cooclaret]

Really well made points;

It’s the intellectual dishonesty for me that is so utterly draining - zero attempt to actually engage honestly and attempt to properly understand a users point but instead to simply fireback with bs semantic rhetoric that’s only used to ‘point score’ rather than you know, actually debate?

Not to mention the countless logical fallacies committed (some of which you pointed out)

Seriously? You appreciate the irony in this post?

As a side note, do you use a Googlebot or ChatGpt to write your posts?

Intellectual dishonesty

Logical fallacies

Absolutely brilliant!

[Cooclaret]

I think you’d be one of the ‘Pacebots’ that someone referenced previously. There’s nothing wrong with being critical of the things the chairman gets wrong in the same way we can praise the things he gets right.

This cultish behaviour where anyone who gives Pace the tiniest bit of criticism is disregarded as a Pace hater is just really really odd.

Totally agree, but you’d challenge the idea not the person right?

Pace has been attached personally, and the moderators have rightly been very quick to delete such posts.

Today we’ve had similar, all be it watered down attacks towards his daughter and that’s okay?

[CoolClaret]

Seriously? You appreciate the irony in this post?

As a side note, do you use a Googlebot or ChatGpt to write your posts?

Intellectual dishonesty

Logical fallacies

Absolutely brilliant!

I can’t believe you genuinely believe the relativist waffle that you actually write, where you actually make a grand total of zero points or fair rebuttals but simply engage in whataboutism without actually stating any argument.

Yeah you are intellectually dishonest and I’m bordering on whether you’re actually a serious person or just a wind up merchant - it’s almost getting to JakubClaret levels of ‘we can’t be sure about that until the cows come home’ level of nonsense.

Are you a hard solipsist by any chance?

[Cooclaret]

I can’t believe you genuinely believe the relativist waffle that you actually write, where you actually make a grand total of zero points or fair rebuttals but simply engage in whataboutism without actually stating any argument.

Yeah you are intellectually dishonest and I’m bordering on whether you’re actually a serious person or just a wind up merchant - it’s almost getting to JakubClaret levels of ‘we can’t be sure about that until the cows come home’ level of nonsense.

Are you a hard solipsist by any chance?

So ChatGpt it is then.

[Spiral]

You actually ever used ChatGPT? It can't move quick enough to say sorry when you point out something it got wrong. I don't think that's happening on this forum mate.

[CoolClaret]

So ChatGpt it is then.

Well done for proving my point

[CrosspoolClarets]

Just picked up this again to see whats happening and I assume no signing yet so that is a shame. Lots of hysterics though it seems.

Personally I’m wary of throwing words like “unprofessional”, “tacky” or “naivety” around. I’m sure I’ve done it, but know I shouldn’t.

Who decides what is the right way to go about things and what is not? Increasingly society is like the thought police, cancelling us for even thinking the wrong thing let alone saying it. There are many ways to skin a cat so to speak, we don’t need to get offended if a style isn’t to our liking. Personally, I reserve offence for those taking big Saudi contracts, breaching FFP, diving on the pitch or breaking legs. This is way short of those things.

We’re having a great summer, they have credit in the bank with us, lets see how this pans out and try not to be too condescending towards a young woman who is trying to bond with the fans and get a vibe going. I hope they know what they are doing, found it amusing, and wish them luck getting Nathan over the line. Southampton fans, I couldn’t give a hoot, this is top level football not tiddlywinks, its a ruthless business.

[Cooclaret]

I can’t believe you genuinely believe the relativist waffle that you actually write, where you actually make a grand total of zero points or fair rebuttals but simply engage in whataboutism without actually stating any argument.

Yeah you are intellectually dishonest and I’m bordering on whether you’re actually a serious person or just a wind up merchant - it’s almost getting to JakubClaret levels of ‘we can’t be sure about that until the cows come home’ level of nonsense.

Are you a hard solipsist by any chance?

You’re drawing a conclusion based on your own interpretation of an incomplete picture. To top that off making statements about an individual you have absolutely no idea of their character or intelligence.

Hence the irony, you are the very things you accuse me of.

[Cooclaret]

You actually ever used ChatGPT? It can't move quick enough to say sorry when you point out something it got wrong. I don't think that's happening on this forum mate.

Daily, but tell me how I’m wrong, mate.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

I think you’d be one of the ‘Pacebots’ that someone referenced previously. There’s nothing wrong with being critical of the things the chairman gets wrong in the same way we can praise the things he gets right.

This cultish behaviour where anyone who gives Pace the tiniest bit of criticism is disregarded as a Pace hater is just really really odd.

Some have definitely gone beyond the ‘tiniest bit of criticism’ over a video! Some folk will moan at anything I suppose.

[forzagranata]

It is indeed a ruthless business - but its also a business that requires people to get along with each other and get deals done, sometimes in very stressful and difficult circumstances. That requires a degree of trust and solid relationships.

No-one in the football business will be impressed by this amateurish attempt to apply pressure.

[NewClaret]

Night night chaps. Don’t forget to take your aspirin before bed

[CoolClaret]

You’re drawing a conclusion based on your own interpretation of an incomplete picture. To top that off making statements about an individual you have absolutely no idea of their character or intelligence.

Hence the irony, you are the very things you accuse me of.

What conclusion is that then?

That’s the point that you should make to be an honest debater, instead you just throw things out there without any actual substance behind them.

If you raised a point and attempted to engage honestly I would reply honestly.

I think if there’s any irony to be had here it’s in your posts mate - you literally raised a point about ‘making statements about an individual you have absolutely no idea of their character or intelligence’ whilst accusing me of using ChatGPT or another AI bot to formulate my posts

[Jimmymaccer]

Crumble Chedders onto cheese on toast and have a real meltdown.

Blimey VC, some people do get excited………………just cheddars will do me until a week on Friday………

Trust alls well in the Beatiful village of Worsthorne…….

[Cooclaret]

What conclusion is that then?

That’s the point that you should make to be an honest debater, instead you just throw things out there without any actual substance behind them.

If you raised a point and attempted to engage honestly I would reply honestly.

I think if there’s any irony to be had here it’s in your posts mate - you literally raised a point about ‘making statements about an individual you have absolutely no idea of their character or intelligence’ whilst accusing me of using ChatGPT or another AI bot to formulate my posts

As above;

What qualifies you to talk for a collective fan base?

What evidence do you have to make a judgment that a young women is naive with this action? (I’d counter that this was sanctioned as the Chairman reposted it.)

Disagree with the video, but don’t belittle and attack the individual.

The ChatGpt was obviously a humorous jibe, because, truthfully who uses those statements in everyday life?

[Cooclaret]

What conclusion is that then?

That’s the point that you should make to be an honest debater, instead you just throw things out there without any actual substance behind them.

If you raised a point and attempted to engage honestly I would reply honestly.

I think if there’s any irony to be had here it’s in your posts mate - you literally raised a point about ‘making statements about an individual you have absolutely no idea of their character or intelligence’ whilst accusing me of using ChatGPT or another AI bot to formulate my posts

Just a quick point; because my wife is getting angst about me not turning out the light…

You say if I raised a point, you would reply honestly. Then acknowledge I literally raised a point that you haven’t replied to.

My wife thinks we’re all very silly little boys, and need to grow up. She’s usually right about most things, so goodnight.

[spt_claret]

What is the clubs ethos and their ethics? Are they defined anywhere to a point that we could look together at them?

If not are you applying your own personal ethos and ethics to the situation and arriving at conclusion that supports your own ethos and values? That’s an unconscious bias.

You can’t define for certain a state of naivety of a young women who you’ve never met. That’s arrogance.

The anger and frustration in your post is unwarranted and your jibe at university debate, perhaps indicates a perceived class division and another unconscious bias.

You can have an opinion on the situation, but some have gone further and attacked the individual using swear words and demeaning language. Is that acceptable in your world?

Others including yourself claim to represent the collective Burnley fan base. You don’t speak for me, you don’t speak for the collective. You speak for yourself, or perhaps others if you’re elected to speak on their collective behalf, perhaps as a spokesman of a supporters group for example.

Simply, you don’t have a clue as to the capability of the individual, you don’t have a clue as to the motivation of the individual, and you don’t have a clue about the involvement of the chairman who supported the post. Neither do I. So neither of us, or any other can attack the individual.

So we should wait and see.

In response to Royston Vasey, I feel, and have voiced publicly that I feel that there are elements of the fan base that bemoan our success because it means BFC is now attempting to be global business, to encourage younger fans in ways that are not traditional, and are challenging the ‘norms’ that we’ve all grown up with.

I also feel that for some, the chairman/owners will forever be an issue because of the manner in which the acquired the club. For the way they’ve moved on some of the corporate sides of the business, and unfortunately how they’ve managed some of the exits of staff. It is what it is. I personally think that in ten years time Alan Pace and those he brings into the club in the next year or two will be revered by the fan base as the people who firmly established BFC as a global brand and a constant Premier League club.

Good grief where to begin with the rhetorical fallacies.

"You can't define the club ethos, it's not written down". So does that mean the club has no identity, or character, or ethos, and never did, never has? That we treat the buyout as a Year Zero for building the club's character?

It's not unconscious bias. It's me openly, consciously, stating that I do not believe this aligns with the moral values I have seen the club demonstrate throughout the vast majority of my prior time supporting it- a vast enough majority that I would consider it 'the club ethos'- namely fair play on and off the pitch, doing things the right way by not just yourselves but by your sporting rivals, and remembering the club's community importance, local roots, and local character- while acknowledging that not all the fans, myself included, are from the local area.

I've outlined why these actions demonstrate naivete. I'm not implying she's perpetually naive in all actions, but this behaviour is a naive act at best, or, if done with full cognizance of the implications, has unnecessarily created an avenue for bad press.

Your tone policing is extremely tiresome and you have no right to police others' emotions by saying they can't feel frustrated or angry at something. That is indicative of control issues. Furthermore, there's no class issues at all. I'm a university graduate myself- I'm about as well equipped as anyone to mention poor university debate rhetoric, I was exposed to enough of it. So you're barking up the wrong tree friend.

Re. personal abuse -Moving the goalposts, association fallacy. I'm not in favour of unnecessary personal attacks, insults, or swearing (and you're committing the first 2 towards me). Other people being abusive doesn't de-legitimise anything I've said, nor am I required to derail my argument and instead devote my time to denouncing something that has nothing to do with me. But if it satisfies you- I'll denounce it, and I'll move on now thanks.

I didnt' claim to speak for you or anyone else. Merely provided my reasoning as to why I, and others, believe this is a counterproductive video.

Videos like this provide an insight into someone's capabilities, as it demonstrates something on public record. I have outlined in both my posts why I believe, whatever the outcome, this posting of this video was counterproductive, therefore a poor decision. Once again please stop with "You dont know them personally or monitor everything they do, how could you know?!" By the very same token you have no idea who I am or what I may do or be skilled or experienced in, so by your own logic that means you ought to defer to my judgment as a matter of trust because you simply don't know. I'm not suggesting you do this, but do you see the fallacy?

You're welcome to feel like that about fans who bemoan acspects of expansion and I don't even disagree with the idea that there are such fans. But the needlessly abusive attempts to associate ALL skeptics with that sort of mentality is both insulting and reductive.

You're welcome to feel that way, just as others are welcome to feel differently, whether it be about the owners' method of purchase or indeed any other reason for reservations with their actions provided it isn't founded in bigotry. But it's again reductive and unfair to simply tar any and all criticism about actions the board takes, with 'Oh, they just hate Americans/Mormons/the buyout terms'. And what do you mean by 'permanent Premier League club'? How long constitutes permanent? 5 years? 10? Til the end of time? You see what happens when someone just asks rhetorical questions requiring you to overexplain and overexplain while making their own conclusions, bereft of argument, rather than actually making any rebuttals to points raised? Burnley FC has spent 8 of the past 14 years in the Premier League- soon to be 9 of 15- and spent 6 in a row at that level. It stands to reason it'll need to be a longer run than that to be remembered as the ones who made Burnley a 'permanent' Premier League team, and I hope they achieve it. I likewise hope they grow the brand. But there's multiple ways to grow brands, and your vitriol towards people who take issue with certain methods, or raise ethical concerns that perhaps you don't share, is entirely unprovoked. Likewise, you expect consideration and tolerance of your own views and values while refusing to extend that to the concerns of others here, which betrays a lack of internal consistency in your points.

Pace and the board have done a great, great deal to win me over to their favour after initial extreme reservations. Remarks like yours, if they're aimed at helping peoples' impression of the board, do not help, they're counterproductive to what you're aiming for.

[Spiral]

this is top level football not tiddlywinks, its a ruthless business.

The vid ain't gonna scupper the deal, cold hard money is the only thing that matters, but nobody is actually arguing that it will scupper it, just that by coming from who it came from, and by being shared by Pace himself, it makes us look unprofessional, and as a lot of others have said it's cringeworthy.

By the way, if you make the argument that beliefs and views can be discarded on the basis that there's rarely any kind of objective ground on which to base them, the same thing can be applied to ignore that very argument, which is to say, such an objection makes conversation a waste of time. Cooclaret has kinda made that point, and you loosely touched on it asking who are the arbiters, but it's a meaningless point of order, because everyone posting on this thread and this forum in general seems well aware that they are expressing their will most of the time. If you read points as though they are grand proclamations of truth, that's a testament to how well those points are made that their being an expression of will needs to be reminded. It doesn't really need to be acknowledged that people are conveying their will, that point is usually so far behind in the trail of a discourse that it gets taken for granted if it hasn't already been forgotten about.

[Chester Perry]

It is indeed a ruthless business - but its also a business that requires people to get along with each other and get deals done, sometimes in very stressful and difficult circumstances. That requires a degree of trust and solid relationships.

No-one in the football business will be impressed by this amateurish attempt to apply pressure.

It could be that the person fronting this campaign has picked up bad habits/expectations from the club she has supported for most of her life, a club that continues to operate in a way that shows little respect for others in the transfer market, and seeks to do what it wants, when it wants, while cheerfully riling everyone at the clubs of individuals they are targeting

[boatshed bill]

Is it a surprise? Intentionally unsettling their player. Not just the fans, who’ve been at it for a while, but now a club official. We’d be the exact same.

Nah, that's just crackers.

Anyhow, I'm out for the night to listen to some blues.

Not Danish Blues, just Mississippi stuff.

[spt_claret]

As above;

What qualifies you to talk for a collective fan base?


The ChatGpt was obviously a humorous jibe, because, truthfully who uses those statements in everyday life?

If I may, a counter in your own style (edited your post as I've addressed 2 identical points in another message):

What qualifies you to silence other fans or act like you in turn are the one to talk for a fanbase?

What makes you the arbiter of humour that it's an obvious good joke rather than a personal attack? "Who uses those statements" Oh my goodness, could that derision towards certain academic terms mean it:

perhaps indicates a perceived class division and another unconscious bias.

See how irritating it is when someone says "play the ball, not the man' then proceeds to not even play the man but kick the corner flag and call for the ref?

[CoolClaret]

As above;

What qualifies you to talk for a collective fan base?

What evidence do you have to make a judgment that a young women is naive with this action? (I’d counter that this was sanctioned as the Chairman reposted it.)

Disagree with the video, but don’t belittle and attack the individual.

The ChatGpt was obviously a humorous jibe, because, truthfully who uses those statements in everyday life?

Not once have I claimed to be talking for the entirety of Burnley fans - so that’s just one example of you being intellectually dishonest.

I already responded to why, in my opinion (which some fans also agree with), it’s naive at best or at worst deliberately provocative - in this instance I have a right to say if I believe the individual behind the video has been naive, no? Will you afford me that? I’ve at least come to that conclusion, with what I believe is in a logical manner, to which I’m not going to re type, see previous posts.

Not to mention that this is a message board for erm, discussion?

Would you rather no one actually formulate an opinion on anything and instead engage in relativist nonsense?

‘Well we can’t be sure why player x had a bad game so until we actually know it would be unfair to say he had a poor game, it might actually be for reasons that we don’t fully comprehend’

Get out of here

I use statements like that all the time because I enjoy debating ethics, politics and philosophy and whataboutism / strawmanning etc are often used, so, that’s on you.

[forzagranata]

It could be that the person fronting this campaign has picked up bad habits/expectations from the club she has supported for most of her life, a club that continues to operate in a way that shows little respect for others in the transfer market, and seeks to do what it wants, when it wants, while cheerfully riling everyone at the clubs of individuals they are targeting

I've missed that Chester? Wasn't aware of her previous fandom?

[Spiral]

Daily, but tell me how I’m wrong, mate.

You know how quick to apologise ChatGPT is when you type to tell it that it got something wrong, right? So if you know how apologetic it is when it's wrong, then you take a look at an internet forum, do you think people are apologising then they're wrong on an internet forum? Nah, me neither. So how can you possibly be responding to a chatbot? Of course, as I mentioned to someone else, you don't actually believe you're talking to a chatbot and everyone knows it, you're just saying that as a put down. I feel like I'm having to explain the proverbial punchline.

[spt_claret]

Is it a surprise? Intentionally unsettling their player. Not just the fans, who’ve been at it for a while, but now a club official. We’d be the exact same.

Just going to admittedly pull an ad hominem for a second in quoting RV to make a point-
I've gotten into it with RV in the past, around 12-18 months ago, about the board and a number of the board's decisions re. finances, the academy, and general manner of running the club. I was very, very skeptical of ALK at the time, he was very supportive of them and has, rather consistently, been supportive of ALK- as he, or indeed anyone, has the right to do - whether this be in the thread on the club finances/accounts, or in general. I've probably gotten a bit riled up by him at times during those debates, which isn't fair of me.

However I bring this up to make a point- he's a poster I mentally associate as very supportive of the ownership, and broadly expect to side with their decisions (Both when I do and don't side with those decisions). Here he is in this thread, criticising this video.

Kind of blows the "it's just uneducated ignorant yobbos, smallminded locals, and ALK haters criticising it" out of the water.

‘Well we can’t be sure why player x had a bad game so until we actually know it would be unfair to say he had a poor game, it might actually be for reasons that we don’t fully comprehend’

Oh see this thread has me thinking we ought to get as deconstructionalist as we can on the whole concept of football, you see it enough in even the sciences these days with the replication crisis.
How can you define 'Centre Midfielder'? At what point do they become a defensive midfielder, attacking midfielder, wide midfielder? Where is the positional boundary, if you can't prove the boundary exists, then does a centre midfielder exists? If a player plays on that boundary, what are they? Is there even such a thing as a 'good' or 'bad' player?

[CoolClaret]

Of course, as I mentioned to someone else, you don't actually believe you're talking to a chatbot and everyone knows it, you're just saying that as a put down. I feel like I'm having to explain the proverbial punchline.

Which makes it all the richer because ‘Coo’ has literally done the very thing that he accused me of! - ‘belittling and attacking the individual’

Staggering.

[CoolClaret]

Oh see this thread has me thinking we ought to get as deconstructionalist as we can on the whole concept of football, you see it enough in even the sciences these days with the replication crisis.
How can you define 'Centre Midfielder'? At what point do they become a defensive midfielder, attacking midfielder, wide midfielder? Where is the positional boundary, if you can't prove the boundary exists, then does a centre midfielder exists? If a player plays on that boundary, what are they? Is there even such a thing as a 'good' or 'bad' player?

Well as the famous quote goes, ‘one man’s trash is another man’s treasure’…

I mean, can we even assume that someone has made an assumption? How dare we?

You’re totally spot on btw, for example what even is Conor Roberts these days?… Shall we spend 3 pages every match thread defining his actual position or just for ease of argument accept that he’s a ‘right back’.

Maybe that’s where we’re all going wrong.

To quote Bruce Lee, ‘be water my friend’