Athletics Weekly

Moorcroft still determined.....

News, reports and results from the UK and the rest of the world

Moorcroft still determined.....

Postby Minerva » Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:27 pm

Interesting article about Moorcroft and the £50m NU deal in the Independent today:

http://sport.independent.co.uk/general/ ... 356615.ece


"A former world 5,000m record holder, Moorcroft has run UK Athletics for eight years, in which time it has gone from bankruptcy to a now remarkable degree of affluence as the best-funded athletics body in the world. "


"Apart from the now-departed chief executive of the Lawn Tennis Association, John Crowther, few top administrators have taken as much stick as Moorcroft. But the former distance runner is still in there, leading from the front. "If people think I'm soft that's fine. You can be polite but firm, dignified and determined. Whatever I am as a chief executive reflects what I was as an athlete. I remember being knocked out of the Olympics in 1980 and wanting to pack it in. But I came back and broke the world record. My drive and ambition is still strong."



The article alludes to lots more planned changes in the sport. Looks like there will be plenty to keep this forum busy :D
Minerva
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:05 pm
Location: London

Postby Minerva » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:27 pm

Interesting that an article which portrays UKA as being one of the best funded athletics bodies in the world after having been bought back from bankruptcy gets no comment whatsoever, considering a lot of debate has been had on the board about what a failure UKA has been.

Is it because like 'bad news sells papers' that negative stories cause more excitement on forums?

Just curious
Minerva
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:05 pm
Location: London

Postby Oleg » Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:40 am

I didn't realise that 8 years ago UKA was bankrupt 8 years ago so this was an intersting read for me. Is this turnaround all Moorcrofts doing or something that might have happened anyway?
Oleg
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby sleady » Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:48 am

The predecessor of UKA, BAF went bankrupt. Moorcroft came in to head up BAF, only to find that he'd been dumped on an already sunken ship. He took BAF into administration, and then formed it's replacement, UKA.
sleady
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:59 pm

Postby stuart » Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:24 pm

It was declared bankrupt so it wouldnt have to pay out Modahl as she won a few million.
stuart
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:40 pm

Postby sleady » Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:55 pm

stuart wrote:It was declared bankrupt so it wouldnt have to pay out Modahl as she won a few million.


No, she lost the case for damages in a high court, and did not win on appeal either.
sleady
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:59 pm

Postby Northern Soulster » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:08 pm

Minerva wrote:Interesting that an article which portrays UKA as being one of the best funded athletics bodies in the world after having been bought back from bankruptcy gets no comment whatsoever, considering a lot of debate has been had on the board about what a failure UKA has been.

Is it because like 'bad news sells papers' that negative stories cause more excitement on forums?

Just curious


I think this actually highlights UKA's failure! The "best funded athletics body in the world" (not actually true but never let that get in the way) is managing declines in:
-performance
-confidence
-participation
-democracy
-etc.
I dread to think how poor they would have been on only the same funding as Sweden or Australia (or even Jamaica or Kenya)?

If the sole criteria for judging Moorcroft, Walker, et al is the level of funding attracted to the sport then yes, they have been a roaring success! However, there are many areas in which succes can be/should be measured. I struggle to find a single one which suggests successful management by the UKA Executive in spite of the high level of funding they have which was not necessarily all secured by them!
Northern Soulster
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:54 pm

Postby kent trunkflap » Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:48 pm

I measure sucess by the size and quality of the base of athletics, get this bit correct and the rest will surely follow.
kent trunkflap
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:37 pm

Postby james montgomery » Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:38 pm

Northern Soulster wrote:
Minerva wrote:Interesting that an article which portrays UKA as being one of the best funded athletics bodies in the world after having been bought back from bankruptcy gets no comment whatsoever, considering a lot of debate has been had on the board about what a failure UKA has been.

Is it because like 'bad news sells papers' that negative stories cause more excitement on forums?

Just curious


I think this actually highlights UKA's failure! The "best funded athletics body in the world" (not actually true but never let that get in the way) is managing declines in:
-performance
-confidence
-participation
-democracy
-etc.
I dread to think how poor they would have been on only the same funding as Sweden or Australia (or even Jamaica or Kenya)?

If the sole criteria for judging Moorcroft, Walker, et al is the level of funding attracted to the sport then yes, they have been a roaring success! However, there are many areas in which succes can be/should be measured. I struggle to find a single one which suggests successful management by the UKA Executive in spite of the high level of funding they have which was not necessarily all secured by them!



I couldn't agree more. It's absolutely ludicrous for anyone to suggest that just because UKA have managed to be given shed loads of money they have achieved something that no other exclusive "governing" body could and therefore excuses their poor management and even poorer record of achievements.

The money comes from a) public funds/lottery b) television and c) sponsorship mainly from Norwich Union who get their return from the TV coverage.

The money is not given to UKA because they are a wonderful administration and did a great job in securing it but because a) the government recognises the need to promote athletics and the value of championship medals for the nation-and thereby the government's prestige. b) because BBC television wanted exclusively to have world class international athletics in Britain and c) because NU are prepared to pay to have a considerable corporate presence on television and access to a huge potential client base with a major sport (for a lot less than it would have cost with football)

The sport "won" the money but UKA gets to spend it as they decide along with their agents Fastrack, whose primary responsibility is to ensure that their client sponsors are happy with the TV and media coverage and hospitality they are provided with at the major events and all reportage and promotional material associated with the sport throughout the year.

There is also a fundamental misconception I have seen in other posts that UKA somehow took the sport from bankruptcy to solvency. UKA was set up and funded by the government quango's and they had and have ultimate say on who was appointed.

BAF was "persuaded" into administration because of the potential liabilities of Modahl case and because the government wanted to get control of the sport to be administered as they saw fit, hence the evenentual Foster Review when things were not going as swimmingly as they expected.
james montgomery
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:06 am
Location: Edinburgh

Postby sleady » Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:57 pm

BAF were 2 million quid in debt with no tangeable income!!
sleady
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:59 pm

Postby james montgomery » Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:41 am

sleady wrote:BAF were 2 million quid in debt with no tangeable income!!


That's news to me. Where's the evidence available?
james montgomery
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:06 am
Location: Edinburgh

Postby eldrick » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:46 am

james montgomery wrote:
sleady wrote:BAF were 2 million quid in debt with no tangeable income!!


That's news to me. Where's the evidence available?


are you incapable of doing a simple search & finding out for yourself ?

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/19 ... fshead.htm
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby james montgomery » Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:09 pm

eldrick wrote:
james montgomery wrote:
sleady wrote:BAF were 2 million quid in debt with no tangeable income!!


That's news to me. Where's the evidence available?


are you incapable of doing a simple search & finding out for yourself ?


My research is a little more thorough than yours. You rely on a quote from an Irish newspaper that (not surprisingly) got it completely wrong; as you have.

For your information:

BAF was not in actual debt and was never declared bankrupt. The figure of £2m is pure speculation based on assumptions.

Moorcroft, the CEO of BAF, was advised, most likely by UK Sport/Sport England, to call in the administrators because of the POTENTIAL liabilities in the event of Modahl winning her case against them. It was also the perfect opportunity to set up a new company, UKA Ltd, for the new stakeholders, UK Sport and Sport England to takeover control of the sport.

Modahl lost her case so there was no liability.

BAF has already paid out over 60p in the pound to its creditors and if it chooses to pursue Modahl for the costs they were awarded they could easily pay back the creditiors in full.

In fact given the cost of the administrators, Moorcroft unecessarily called in, the BAF would have been in the black.

Do a little more research next time and don't rely on an Irish newspaper quote!
james montgomery
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:06 am
Location: Edinburgh

Postby sleady » Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:38 pm

They had 245 creditors who were owed a total of 1.8 million quid. They probably could have chased Modah to make up some of the money not paid to creditors, although having already sold 2 houses to cover two court cases, plus the costs of fighting the initial dopping ban in the first place I doubt she'd have had much to give them.
sleady
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:59 pm

Postby XCrunner » Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:29 pm

james montgomery wrote:
eldrick wrote:
james montgomery wrote:
sleady wrote:BAF were 2 million quid in debt with no tangeable income!!


That's news to me. Where's the evidence available?


are you incapable of doing a simple search & finding out for yourself ?
For your information:

BAF was not in actual debt and was never declared bankrupt. The figure of £2m is pure speculation based on assumptions.
You appear to have a very selective memory.

David Moorcroft was appointed the new Chief Executive of BAF on October 1 1997.

BAF called in the administrators of 14 October 1997 with a deficit of £530,000 and monthly running costs of £130,000.

The total BAF debt was estimated at £1.7m. This included potential liability for the Modahl damages claim

The origins of the funding crisis were the lose of the BBC TV fees and problems with the Sport England grant. The simmering feuds betwen the BAF, the AAA and the SoEAA did not help the situation.

The AAA had suficient funds to help the BAF and offered to pay the salaries of the coaches in th short term. The BAF sacked their coaches.

In 1991 the BAF had taken over many of the functions previously performed by the BAAB and AAA.
Last edited by XCrunner on Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
XCrunner
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:30 pm
Location: Staffs Moorlands

Postby eldrick » Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:12 pm

james montgomery wrote:
eldrick wrote:
james montgomery wrote:
sleady wrote:BAF were 2 million quid in debt with no tangeable income!!


That's news to me. Where's the evidence available?


are you incapable of doing a simple search & finding out for yourself ?


My research is a little more thorough than yours. You rely on a quote from an Irish newspaper that (not surprisingly) got it completely wrong; as you have.

For your information:

BAF was not in actual debt and was never declared bankrupt. The figure of £2m is pure speculation based on assumptions.

Moorcroft, the CEO of BAF, was advised, most likely by UK Sport/Sport England, to call in the administrators because of the POTENTIAL liabilities in the event of Modahl winning her case against them. It was also the perfect opportunity to set up a new company, UKA Ltd, for the new stakeholders, UK Sport and Sport England to takeover control of the sport.

Modahl lost her case so there was no liability.

BAF has already paid out over 60p in the pound to its creditors and if it chooses to pursue Modahl for the costs they were awarded they could easily pay back the creditiors in full.

In fact given the cost of the administrators, Moorcroft unecessarily called in, the BAF would have been in the black.

Do a little more research next time and don't rely on an Irish newspaper quote!


ehh ???

i put up a link to a respected irish newspaper which has over a 100y of history, which states a £2 million figure

where is your link ?

i'm not interested in your "research" - it is of much use to me as a used piece of toilet paper

i have no interest in your speculation

show me a link to a respected link which backs up what you have said

put up or shut up
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby james montgomery » Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:14 pm

eldrick wrote:
james montgomery wrote:
eldrick wrote:
james montgomery wrote:
sleady wrote:BAF were 2 million quid in debt with no tangeable income!!


That's news to me. Where's the evidence available?


are you incapable of doing a simple search & finding out for yourself ?


My research is a little more thorough than yours. You rely on a quote from an Irish newspaper that (not surprisingly) got it completely wrong; as you have.

For your information:

BAF was not in actual debt and was never declared bankrupt. The figure of £2m is pure speculation based on assumptions.

Moorcroft, the CEO of BAF, was advised, most likely by UK Sport/Sport England, to call in the administrators because of the POTENTIAL liabilities in the event of Modahl winning her case against them. It was also the perfect opportunity to set up a new company, UKA Ltd, for the new stakeholders, UK Sport and Sport England to takeover control of the sport.

Modahl lost her case so there was no liability.

BAF has already paid out over 60p in the pound to its creditors and if it chooses to pursue Modahl for the costs they were awarded they could easily pay back the creditiors in full.

In fact given the cost of the administrators, Moorcroft unecessarily called in, the BAF would have been in the black.

Do a little more research next time and don't rely on an Irish newspaper quote!


ehh ???

i put up a link to a respected irish newspaper which has over a 100y of history, which states a £2 million figure

where is your link ?

i'm not interested in your "research" - it is of much use to me as a used piece of toilet paper

i have no interest in your speculation

show me a link to a respected link which backs up what you have said

put up or shut up



ehh???

All you've done is show a "link" to an Irish newspaper's report on the BAF's assumed amount of assumed debt. Don't make me laugh.

What is my "link" ? I don't rely on spurious, "I read it in the paper" links chum, I rely on known facts from first hand sources, i.e., in this case, creditors, a creditors lawyer and the administrators own audit of the BAF assets.

Do your own research and try to prove me wrong because believe me you are dumbingly wrong. You probably believe everything you read in the papers!
james montgomery
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:06 am
Location: Edinburgh

Postby eldrick » Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:45 pm

james montgomery wrote:
ehh???

All you've done is show a "link" to an Irish newspaper's report on the BAF's assumed amount of assumed debt. Don't make me laugh.

What is my "link" ? I don't rely on spurious, "I read it in the paper" links chum, I rely on known facts from first hand sources, i.e., in this case, creditors, a creditors lawyer and the administrators own audit of the BAF assets.

Do your own research and try to prove me wrong because believe me you are dumbingly wrong. You probably believe everything you read in the papers!


eh ???

you expect me to believe some drivel that "i know a creditor & a creditor's lawyer " & accept whatever you say afterwards as the "truth" ???

you don't expect me to believe a respected newspaper, but some "guy on a forum" ?

don't make me laugh !

let's see now : you know "administrators own audit of the BAF assets"

let's have their rundown:

- turnover
- assets ( properties,cash on deposit, invested income ( shareholdings, bonds held ) )
- income/expenses
- balance sheet
- p & l account
- projected revenue streams at time of voluntary administration
- overdraft facility at the time to see how long the company coud have continued before forced liquidation
- list of large ( company ) creditors ( no individuals, to safeguard privacy )

i am very familiar with companies house - give me full details of the above audit & next time i go down to there, i will check the veracity of your figures

put up or shut up !
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Smoke » Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:15 pm

james, James, James...
can you not see your bias against the powers that be cloud even the good information you present? Eldrick ask a very good question, and the fact that you talked to a creditor and their lawyer only muddies the water...

Moorcroft's job is an administrative one, his primary duty is to raise money, as is most CEO's job... the performance directors will be judged by PERFORMANCE, Moorcroft will always be judged by the bottomline... his situation is one similar to Masback's...

James you may have serious issues with the on track things and the lack of coaching support, but you cannot take every achievement from the man... the bottomlin eis the federation was broke, whether that was in debt or bankruptcy is of little consequence, they were broke and now they have money, lots of it... you cannot go around making excuse for everything he does in an attempt to spin it all in a negative light...

XCrunner punched a lot of holes in your critique by the way... and from both of your details, it seems as though UKA is just coming of age as an entity, so let's see what happens in the next 10 years now... this is the time for you and yours to move in and affect the changes you so desire...
Smoke
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:32 am

Postby james montgomery » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:07 pm

eldrick wrote:
james montgomery wrote:
ehh???

All you've done is show a "link" to an Irish newspaper's report on the BAF's assumed amount of assumed debt. Don't make me laugh.

What is my "link" ? I don't rely on spurious, "I read it in the paper" links chum, I rely on known facts from first hand sources, i.e., in this case, creditors, a creditors lawyer and the administrators own audit of the BAF assets.

Do your own research and try to prove me wrong because believe me you are dumbingly wrong. You probably believe everything you read in the papers!


eh ???

you expect me to believe some drivel that "i know a creditor & a creditor's lawyer " & accept whatever you say afterwards as the "truth" ???

you don't expect me to believe a respected newspaper, but some "guy on a forum" ?

don't make me laugh !

let's see now : you know "administrators own audit of the BAF assets"

let's have their rundown:

- turnover
- assets ( properties,cash on deposit, invested income ( shareholdings, bonds held ) )
- income/expenses
- balance sheet
- p & l account
- projected revenue streams at time of voluntary administration
- overdraft facility at the time to see how long the company coud have continued before forced liquidation
- list of large ( company ) creditors ( no individuals, to safeguard privacy )

i am very familiar with companies house - give me full details of the above audit & next time i go down to there, i will check the veracity of your figures

put up or shut up !



You can rant all you like. You don't change the facts. You just make yourself look more stupid
james montgomery
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:06 am
Location: Edinburgh

Postby eldrick » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:17 pm

pathetic
eldrick
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby athletic coach » Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:47 am

My children behave better than you lot, you can't have a nice discussion without dragging it down in to an argument.

BAF went into administration - fact.
David Moorcroft took into administration - fact

Was he right, in hindsight probably not as the government had a lot of money to put into athletics and other issues were resolved in favour of BAF. However we do not have hindsight.

The real issue here is had David Moorcroft acted properly in his role as CEO of UKA.

Gaining finance - yes
Achieving success - no
Managing the business so that it develops in line with its coporate plan -no
Ensuring that the business is capable of devloping to its maximum ability - no
Managing a business that rewards talent and creates a firm foundation for the future. No

These are the simple facts than any investor in a company would look into before putting its own money in to it.

Under any normal circumstances David Moorcroft and the main board would have resigned over the last few years.
Coaching is in disarray.
We have duplication of positions and schemes within Sport England, English Athletics and UKA.
The sport is swimming in cash from the government (the £50m from NU is not actually £50m cash available to athletes and clubs).
Is the investment being spent wisely and are we employing the right people.

Based on the results and the way in which UKA work the answer must be no.



We have an Olympics coming up that will on the latest reports be a failure for us. We have to act together to get the sport back on line and if that means bringing in professional people from outside then so be it.
athletic coach
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:30 pm
Location: moved north

Postby DMulvee » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:10 pm

Excellent post. Does anyone know when Moorcroft's contract is up for renewal?
DMulvee
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:02 pm

Postby james montgomery » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:17 pm

athletic coach wrote:My children behave better than you lot, you can't have a nice discussion without dragging it down in to an argument.

BAF went into administration - fact.
David Moorcroft took into administration - fact

Was he right, in hindsight probably not as the government had a lot of money to put into athletics and other issues were resolved in favour of BAF. However we do not have hindsight.

The real issue here is had David Moorcroft acted properly in his role as CEO of UKA.

Gaining finance - yes
Achieving success - no
Managing the business so that it develops in line with its coporate plan -no
Ensuring that the business is capable of devloping to its maximum ability - no
Managing a business that rewards talent and creates a firm foundation for the future. No

These are the simple facts than any investor in a company would look into before putting its own money in to it.

Under any normal circumstances David Moorcroft and the main board would have resigned over the last few years.
Coaching is in disarray.
We have duplication of positions and schemes within Sport England, English Athletics and UKA.
The sport is swimming in cash from the government (the £50m from NU is not actually £50m cash available to athletes and clubs).
Is the investment being spent wisely and are we employing the right people.

Based on the results and the way in which UKA work the answer must be no.

We have an Olympics coming up that will on the latest reports be a failure for us. We have to act together to get the sport back on line and if that means bringing in professional people from outside then so be it.




Dear AC,

Yes it is a pity that some people decide to become personal when attacking others posts. I have never initiated this kind of response but its hard not to reply sometimes in the same vein or with a degree of sarcasm.

What you have said, regarding the serious stuff, exactly corresponds with all my previous posts on the subject since I started on this forum last October. I am glad to see that you and others (and no doubt many others who have not joined this AW forum) are also of the same opinion. The problem is UKA seem to be job protected and their stakeholders seem to be blind to their failings. Can there be any other organisation that can get away with it like this?

Do we wait until another World Championships and then another Olympic Games when they will roll out the same excuses or can we really do anything to get some semblance of success in 2012?

If this sport is going to survive and thrive we need more than to be simply told that we need to get behind UKA and New England Ltd to make it work whilst an expanding, well paid and comfortable administration sits back, directs and takes the credit.

As many agree, the time has come for new people to run the show. Real professionals who understand the sport and how it works. A team that can motivate and properly support the voluntary sector,
instilling the desire to co-operate with clear and transparent communication and understanding.

Moorcroft and co., are not about to leave their jobs despite any objective analysis of what they have failed to achieve in the past 9 years because Sport England and UK Sport don't know any better and some there would be afraid for their own jobs to admit failure

The only way (other than the fact that sport is going to look a shadow of it's former self which may finally drive the DMCS Select Committee and even the PM's office to take effective action) is for more and more of those concerned to join with ABAC as the most effective means of pressuring the government to impliment changes in the way the sports structure is financed and managed for the benefit and survival of the clubs.

Two things cannot be argued against:

UKA have failed in almost every area they were charged to improve over 9 years.

UKA's administration, costs and level of bureacracy is increasing year on year and is set to super-nova with the new England Athletics Ltd and the 9 hubs.
james montgomery
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:06 am
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Northern Soulster » Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:26 pm

DMulvee wrote:Excellent post. Does anyone know when Moorcroft's contract is up for renewal?


He isn't on a fixed term. Unless he quits or the government (or it quango) sack him, I'm afraid we're stuck with him!

Still, if he could just bring in another £100m then maybe he could lead us to 32nd in the world? After all, it appears both he and his paymasters believe it is the income not the success which is important!

Seriously, why not write to your MP? David Milliband's whole "Double Devolution" dream (on which the regional set up is based) is supposed to bring greater accountability not less (or in UKA's case, none).
Northern Soulster
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:54 pm

Postby Smoke » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:44 pm

Northern Soulster you have summarized the entire problem in one question! It seems to me certain people are far more comfortable complaining and sniping about what is wrong instead of taking the necessary steps to elicit change.

I also would like clarification on what duplication and growth of UKA there has been. Over the last 18 months there has been a restructuring and downsizing. The powers that were retired, the new guy has implemented an entirely new system. All of this looks like a new program that is working to change, and no one is trying to change for the worst. We have a 50% reduction in funded athletes, a new system of accountability, new faces in more defined position, personnel changes made in response to successes and/or failures, movement of athletes for success, a publicly stated level of expection of all parties involved, and a commitment to the success leading into London everyone is worried about. What more do you expect in your attempt to get what you want?

I fully understand the issue, I just don't get what you hate about the current process of the solution or why you choose to ignore the fact that many of the changes you ask for have been in the works for over a year now?
Smoke
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:32 am

Postby daisy » Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:14 pm

james montgomery wrote:Yes it is a pity that some people decide to become personal when attacking others posts. I have never initiated this kind of response but its hard not to reply sometimes in the same vein or with a degree of sarcasm.

James I'm sorry but I find it hard to read the above sentence and take it seriously. When i posted recently many of your replies seemed to become very personal.

On Mar 27, 2006 JM wrote: "Daisy, dear," Source

On Mar 30, 2006 JM wrote: "try engaging your intellect a little more" Source

On Mar 30, 2006 JM wrote: "Get it right, dear." Source

On Mar 30, 2006 JM wrote: "Judging by your standard of grammar and spelling it's more teachers that we need and I don't think you have a clue on what you are trying to say." Source

On Apr 05, 2006 JM wrote: "Unfortunately, I too have succumbed to that silly level [pretty daft and tart 'school playground' jibes] on some occasions but only in response to the stupid and naive personal comments ." Source


Unfortunately, many of your comments above were actually responses to what you regarded as stupid and naive comments. I didn't see any comments aimed at you personally until you started with all the above. This contradicts your own opinion quoted directly above in dark blue and quoted from this thread "I have never initiated this kind of response". The moral is don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.
daisy
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:44 am
Location: Wisconsin

Postby james montgomery » Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:18 am

The moral is don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.[/quote]

If you trail what I was responding to I think you will find that I am entirely correct. I criticise ideas not the poster ...until they start getting personal!

Your posts began to me by criticising my motives. Take a look or do you want me to quote all for you?
james montgomery
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:06 am
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Pelle3 » Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:49 pm

James, when will you report to the "authorities" and present your case? You have some good ideas, and one should spend five minutes listening to your discourse.

Question is: Are you up for the challenge?
Pelle3
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: Sverige

Postby daisy » Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:33 pm

james montgomery wrote:Your posts began to me by criticising my motives. Take a look or do you want me to quote all for you?

I questioned your motives? I thought I asked you to explain your ideas. one can't have a dialog with out the ideas on the table.

You should not assume that those that question your ideas are opposed to your ideas. Also those that are opposed to your ideas may actually change their tune if you present a solid argument. In my mind, that is valuable contribution that these, and similar, discussion forums can bring to athletics.
daisy
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:44 am
Location: Wisconsin

Next

Return to Current events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests

cron

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London