GWS wrote:
baz_baz wrote:
For Goodness Sake...please dont put wind in Melveys sails.
If Melvey's right he's right.
Won't change anything. I'm sure he's still capable of being wrong some of the time. You seem to be having a fair crack at it. If you can, why not Melvey? [/quote] I'll tell you something fo nothing GWS. You thinking Melvey is right doesnt't make hime right. It just makes you wrong with him
baz_baz wrote:
It is a football club...with football related goals and objectives. The environmetally friendly aspect is to be congratulated, however it should not and must not be put out of all proportion.
[/quote] But that's where the problem lies. If you're going to talk the talk...
There's nothing in that proposal that's outside what's now regarded as "normal commercial building practice". And we're talking bottom end of the spectrum here.
The club's the one blowing it out of proportion. [/quote]
What part of "The green reference is incidental to the prroject. It is a footabll facility" Dont you understand?
baz_baz wrote:
The Visy tie-up is to sponsor the clu for 5 mil. So we by default take on some...thats right some of the credentials or selling points of the sponsor.
[/quote]Perhaps we could have given each member a cardboard box? [/quote]
Thats just a nonsensical peice of irrelevence
baz_baz wrote:
We are a Football Club.
If the sponsor was Vodafone would we be up in arms because Swan didnt pull a phone apart and explain how the flowering thing works.
[/quote]That's the point. If it was a phone company Swann wouldn't be doing anything of the sort. He'd accept the phones and the sponsorship and say thanks very much. [/quote]
Just like he is doing with Visy. Including pushing aspects of their profile
baz_baz wrote:
FFS keep things in perspective
[/quote]I think I am. [/quote]
I know your not
[/quote]Might look like a spade but it doesn't stop it being a flower shovel.[/quote] i don't agree with this statement.
(original comment replaced by mods)