there was a point but you missed it - if you can't say the name but you know it's good news - you share as a favour to fans especially as some are worrying who it could be (wise, Jiminez) - understand this buyer has wealth well over £300 million. Also understand some will doubt but what I said about SS was shown to be true so thought that might give this some credibility and as I said reassure- certainly no motives to show off. If what I say is no use to you great -it is for those who will be reassured.
[cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]Done some digging with my contacts and won't say who I have been told it is but will give you a couple very hard clues - sorry - I won't elaborate so don't ask - if you work it out- well done. The first clue is a cryptic link - Colin, Alexander & Bruce (very difficult) and the second is the letter F (more straightforward). What I can say is, if my sources are correct the mystery person is not Jiminez, Wise or Sainsbury and has money. I am happy - think we have done well if what I have been told is right. This is not 100% but who it is thought to be by people who are usually right on these things. - my final word on this topic - no whispers.
I think I've cracked the code. We are being taken over by frosty thespians. Bruce Alexander played Mullet in A Touch of Frost whilst Colin and F obviously refers to Colin Firth an actor whose first role was "Jack Frost" in a Christmas panto.
[cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite] The first clue is a cryptic link - Colin, Alexander & Bruce (very difficult) and the second is the letter F (more straightforward).
Oooh, isn't it exciting!
I think I've narrowed it down to three.
Fredrick Forsyth, Alexander O'Neill or Barbara Windsor.
I can reveal the new owner has a connection to the letter E and knows someone called Dave. Can't say more now or the CIA will kill me but when their name is revealed I will be able to say I was right as I've given such a vague clue it could apply to most of the world's population.
[quote][cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]there was a point but you missed it - if you can't say the name but you know it's good news - you share as a favour to fans especially as some are worrying who it could be (wise, Jiminez) - understand this buyer has wealth well over £300 million. Also understand some will doubt but what I said about SS was shown to be true so thought that might give this some credibility and as I said reassure- certainly no motives to show off. If what I say is no use to you great -it is for those who will be reassured.[/quote]
About as reassuring as having Gary Glitter around to babysit. Thanks for that.
[cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]there was a point but you missed it - if you can't say the name but you know it's good news - you share as a favour to fans especially as some are worrying who it could be (wise, Jiminez) - understand this buyer has wealth well over £300 million. Also understand some will doubt but what I said about SS was shown to be true so thought that might give this some credibility and as I said reassure- certainly no motives to show off. If what I say is no use to you great -it is for those who will be reassured.
So let me get this straight. Your sources have told you the identity of the mystery investors but have insisted that you do not reveal the names. However, they also told you that if you want you can go onto a message board and give clues about the names and that if anyone works it out that is fine and that your sources won't be held responsible for leaking the names?
To demonstrate your credibility why don't you commit to donating £500 to the Demazola charity If it turns out there is absolutely no connection between your clues and the investor group?
[cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]there was a point but you missed it - if you can't say the name but you know it's good news - you share as a favour to fans especially as some are worrying who it could be (wise, Jiminez) - understand this buyer has wealth well over £300 million. Also understand some will doubt but what I said about SS was shown to be true so thought that might give this some credibility and as I said reassure- certainly no motives to show off. If what I say is no use to you great -it is for those who will be reassured.
So let me get this straight. Your sources have told you the identity of the mystery investors but have insisted that you do not reveal the names. However, they also told you that if you want you can go onto a message board and give clues about the names and that if anyone works it out that is fine and that your sources won't be held responsible for leaking the names?
To demonstrate your credibility why don't you commit to donating £500 to the Demazola charity If it turns out there is absolutely no connection between your clues and the investor group?
No, i've pestered them into telling me- didn't say anything about revealing the name - I'm puzzled why not revealed but assume it's secret for a reason so don't want to rock the boat.
Why don't you pledge £500 to the Demazola charity if there is a connection? A very deserving charity by the way but a silly comment -I'm sharing some info that we have some good news in store - I know some are grateful as have had some positive whispersw- anyway -won't bother in future -bye
Some posts strike me as a little hypocritical. In another thread about the takeover they were spouting their VERY interesting news. I can't really see their problem with Muttley.
[cite]Posted By: chablis addick[/cite]Some posts strike me as a little hypocritical. In another thread about the takeover they were spouting their VERY interesting news. I can't really see their problem with Muttley.
[cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: chablis addick[/cite]Some posts strike me as a little hypocritical. In another thread about the takeover they were spouting their VERY interesting news. I can't really see their problem with Muttley.
I think you'll find that was sarcasm.
Well, there was a distinct lack of a smiley thing so it doesn't read like that. To the truly uninitiated, it reads as something else. And, you weren't alone.
[cite]Posted By: chablis addick[/cite]I can't really see their problem with Muttley.
Maybe something to do with issuing "clues" to identify potential bidders. You either "out" them or you don't, running the risk that someone else may work it out and blab is a tad irresponsible ?
[cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Really? What was the point of that post?
"Look at me - I know something you all don't. I'm not going to tell you - but aren't I clever?"
Something like that?
[cite]Posted By: No.1 in South London[/cite]
[cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: chablis addick[/cite]I can't really see their problem with Muttley.
Maybe something to do with issuing "clues" to identify potential bidders. You either "out" them or you don't, running the risk that someone else may work it out and blab is a tad irresponsible ?
I was responding more to Off_it (and the like of) who wasn't questioning the ethics but the issue of of knowing something others don't and bragging about it based on posts in other threads. From that perspective, criticism of Muttley seemed more like sour grapes.
Comments
I think I've cracked the code. We are being taken over by frosty thespians. Bruce Alexander played Mullet in A Touch of Frost whilst Colin and F obviously refers to Colin Firth an actor whose first role was "Jack Frost" in a Christmas panto.
Oooh, isn't it exciting!
I think I've narrowed it down to three.
Fredrick Forsyth, Alexander O'Neill or Barbara Windsor.
Bugger.
That's Babs out then.
Part 34.
About as reassuring as having Gary Glitter around to babysit. Thanks for that.
I still have the negatives of him at one of Pardew's parties.
So let me get this straight. Your sources have told you the identity of the mystery investors but have insisted that you do not reveal the names. However, they also told you that if you want you can go onto a message board and give clues about the names and that if anyone works it out that is fine and that your sources won't be held responsible for leaking the names?
To demonstrate your credibility why don't you commit to donating £500 to the Demazola charity If it turns out there is absolutely no connection between your clues and the investor group?
An excellent suggestion.
Why don't you pledge £500 to the Demazola charity if there is a connection? A very deserving charity by the way but a silly comment -I'm sharing some info that we have some good news in store - I know some are grateful as have had some positive whispersw- anyway -won't bother in future -bye
If someone was pestering me to reveal a name that had to be kept secret, I'd just give them any old name to make them go away...........
Such a pity
It's like Sesame Street.
Is it Big Bird?
Hues Corporation - are they worth well over £300M ?
.......thats that sorted then, its Der Great Almighty
I think you'll find that was sarcasm.
Well, there was a distinct lack of a smiley thing so it doesn't read like that. To the truly uninitiated, it reads as something else. And, you weren't alone.
Maybe something to do with issuing "clues" to identify potential bidders. You either "out" them or you don't, running the risk that someone else may work it out and blab is a tad irresponsible ?
I was responding more to Off_it (and the like of) who wasn't questioning the ethics but the issue of of knowing something others don't and bragging about it based on posts in other threads. From that perspective, criticism of Muttley seemed more like sour grapes.
Fanny Fanackapan
The letter F
Hmmmm