[Archived] John Williams

[Stuart]

Be careful and aware of what you post, Tris may well come back to bite you on the rear.

Corrected it for you!

[Lancs Rover]

He's gone. Grow up.

[Exiled in Toronto]

I suppose we can now erase the 'Mr Blackburn Rovers' tag given to him by some on here

[Mattyblue]

I suppose we can now erase the 'Mr Blackburn Rovers' tag given to him by some on here

Whoa, said tag belongs to only one man!

[braddock]

were you not the one, who cried and cried and then cried some more about, in the spiked drink kean thread, that it was perfectly fine to change your opinion.?

Changing your opinion based on keeping an agenda (that word again) is different to changing your opinion based on what you see and the changes taking place around you which are evident to all.

Everybody could see that with the way the club was being run at the time, Williams did a fantastic job. Almost perfect.

[Wilky]

wow, didn't see this coming..

good luck JW and all the best... another Rovers legend!!

[greco]

Changing your opinion based on keeping an agenda (that word again) is different to changing your opinion based on what you see and the changes taking place around you which are evident to all.

Everybody could see that with the way the club was being run at the time, Williams did a fantastic job. Almost perfect.

ahh yes, the famous agenda word again. When everything else fails, we´ll just go desperate, take the easy way out and label it as agenda driven.

You advocated and did so rather intensly, that we are entitled to change our views. Following that, surely you should be coming to jims rescue, rather then attacking him.

Or do like topman. Say jim isnt nuanced and seconds later, act like the allmighty judge of internet credibility. Saying you can change your mind, but not on that scale.

smells like hypocrisy.

[braddock]

ahh yes, the famous agenda word again. When everything else fails, we´ll just go desperate, take the easy way out and label it as agenda driven.

You advocated and did so rather intensly, that we are entitled to change our views. Following that, surely you should be coming to jims rescue, rather then attacking him.

Or do like topman. Say jim isnt nuanced and seconds later, act like the allmighty judge of internet credibility. Saying you can change your mind, but not on that scale.

smells like hypocrisy.

Jim's opinions haven't changed though.

There is something wrong with the club!

We are getting screwed over by those in charge!

It was better in the old days!

etc etc.

[greco]

Jim's opinions haven't changed though.

There is something wrong with the club!

We are getting screwed over by those in charge!

It was better in the old days!

etc etc.

in case you havent noticed, ill help you in the right direction.

POST 82 and the very first sentence.

[braddock]

in case you havent noticed, ill help you in the right direction.

POST 82 and the very first sentence.

Convenient of him using an "excuse" Venky's fans had only recently used themselves (as some of those against the board are claiming). It's easy to come out with those things when you are caught out. He grabbed at the first thing he could think of because he was held in a corner, embarrassed and rightly so, trying to save face. He went from John Williams was awful to he was a saint, all in the space of one takeover. Bizarre. Somehow, I don't believe it.

[greco]

Convenient of him using an "excuse" Venky's fans had only recently used themselves (as some of those against the board are claiming). It's easy to come out with those things when you are caught out. He grabbed at the first thing he could think of because he was held in a corner, embarrassed and rightly so, trying to save face. He went from John Williams was awful to he was a saint, all in the space of one takeover. Bizarre. Somehow, I don't believe it.

ahh i see, you chose the topman-method. Laying out guidelines, on when, how and why you can change opinion and still stay credible.

funny you should use the word convenient, cause thats definetly the word i would use, to describe your "accusations".

[Miker]

Was Jim actually against the new owners from the start though?

[JAL]

Jim's opinion is not nuanced. That post was an outright character assassination. Now he thinks he can sit on his soapbox and condemn Venky's for letting that same man go? Just like JAL attacking the owners for selling Phil Jones, the best player in the world, the same guy he dismissed after three youth games. The same guy he bracketed with Hoilett & Olsson as no-hopers.

They've both lost any credibility they ever had, and are clearly on here to twist anything and everything against the new owners.

The game of football changes from minute to minute, half to half, game to game, what you need to understand that you seem to be struggling with Topman is that with this opinions can and do change.

What you dont seem to understand or have failed to read is the positive progressive comments made by myself about Hoilett, Jones and Olsson over the course from 2009.

[cruz]

I used to know kids at school who's 'team' changed depending on who was top of the Cannon League

[Amo]

Or do like topman. Say jim isnt nuanced and seconds later, act like the allmighty judge of internet credibility. Saying you can change your mind, but not on that scale.

smells like hypocrisy.

You're hilarious. What are you even doing here?

Jim slagged off Williams (and then some!), but now he's happy to attack Venky's for letting him go. We're not talking about changing your favourite cereal here. Had Jim kept quiet, there wouldn't have been a problem, and no need for Tris to expose HIS absolute hypocrisy and foolishness. So yeah, my original quote stands (and you couldn't even cite that correctly).

[greco]

You're hilarious. What are you even doing here?

Jim slagged off Williams (and then some!), but now he's happy to attack Venky's for letting him go. We're not talking about changing your favourite cereal here. Had Jim kept quiet, there wouldn't have been a problem, and no need for Tris to expose HIS absolute hypocrisy and foolishness. So yeah, my original quote stands (and you couldn't even cite that correctly).

either we have the luxury of changing our minds or we dont. No if´s or but´s. not that hard to grasp really.

[artemorethanlabore]

either we have the luxury of changing our minds or we dont. No if´s or but´s. not that hard to grasp really.

Sure you can change your opinion, how would anyone stop you? But don't complain if people question your motivations for doing so. And if they sense that it's in service of making a point outside the matter of the case, well, they may just call you a hypocrite. Which would be right. Truly not hard.

[rebelmswar]

Well Citys organization and public relations skills are about to drastically improve.

Good luck that man, and I can not wait for his memoirs to be published.

[jim mk2]

Sure you can change your opinion, how would anyone stop you? But don't complain if people question your motivations for doing so. And if they sense that it's in service of making a point outside the matter of the case, well, they may just call you a hypocrite. Which would be right. Truly not hard.

A few years ago information came to light that turned out to be correct that did not cast the former chairman in a good light - from a legal point of view it would be wrong to give details and it is best to leave it at that. It should be recognised however that Rovers as a club is weaker and poorer without him as chairman, and he should not have been forced out of his job by the new owners. There is nothing "hypocritical" in viewing people in a different light in view of changing circumstances and events. Truly not hard to understand. "Gross hypocrisy" is digging up old posts from years ago and then describing someone as "WUM". Now that would be right.

[mhead]

Just renewed my season Ticket - continuous run since 1970 - very sad that "Sir" John Williams will not be forking out for his first.

Players,Directors,Staff can come and go BUT the fans go on and on. Only Laurence Cotton and family and Jack Walker have stood out as the selfless benefactors. And so this very small group of true Blackburnians will remain a very small group.

[yeti-dog]

Never heard of events, changing one's mind and U-turns ? Your hero David Cameron has made a career out it.

You must be a sad individual to store that sort of stuff.

And only a "WUM" would then post it - apologies for highlighting your own gross hypocrisy.

Moving on, someone posted earlier that Williams has probably been hired with a view soon to a much bigger role at City and I think that's probably correct. I doubt he'll be making the tea at Eastlands for very long - or be a lapdog for Brian Marwood.

Sometimes Jim humility demands that you simply bend over and take it up the a**e. Tris has you done up like a kipper.

Your mind undoubtedly demands u-turns and changes of minds because opinions gush out of you like diarrhoea.If you're happy to spray crap around don't be surpised if sometimes the s**t sticks.Tris reminding you of your 'inconsistencies' certainly doesn't make him the hypocrite.

Perhaps you need to take a couple of immodium and toddle off with your tail between your legs old boy...

[Dan]

This rubs salt into the wounds. How stupid were Venky's to get rid of John? It's clear to see that everyone else in football could see what a fantastic job he has done. I'm sure the Venky's brothers are Dingles.

[yeti-dog]

A few years ago information came to light that turned out to be correct that did not cast the former chairman in a good light - from a legal point of view it would be wrong to give details and it is best to leave it at that. It should be recognised however that Rovers as a club is weaker and poorer without him as chairman, and he should not have been forced out of his job by the new owners. There is nothing "hypocritical" in viewing people in a different light in view of changing circumstances and events. Truly not hard to understand. "Gross hypocrisy" is digging up old posts from years ago and then describing someone as "WUM". Now that would be right.

Sometimes you just have to take it like a man Jim...

[Gav]

A few years ago information came to light that turned out to be correct that did not cast the former chairman in a good light - from a legal point of view it would be wrong to give details and it is best to leave it at that. It should be recognised however that Rovers as a club is weaker and poorer without him as chairman, and he should not have been forced out of his job by the new owners. There is nothing "hypocritical" in viewing people in a different light in view of changing circumstances and events. Truly not hard to understand. "Gross hypocrisy" is digging up old posts from years ago and then describing someone as "WUM". Now that would be right.

Give it up old bean, you've been caught out, take it on the chin, we don't want any nodgob esq back peddling please

[Miker]

Character assassination at its best?