Page 1 of 1

Woolnough

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:47 pm
by quakersfan
See from his twitter account he’s been blocked from @official_darlo. - whats he been tweeting?

Re: Woolnough

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:05 pm
by HarrytheQuaker
[IMG]//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2019112 ... 842d7a.jpg[/IMG]

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk


Re: Woolnough

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:21 pm
by AndyPark
Don't the club owe him money too?

Sure I'd seen somewhere that he loaned the club money or something..

Personally think John is a decent bloke with good intentions, be a shame to see him go completely.

Re: Woolnough

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:26 pm
by HarryCharltonsCat
Very strange. If no longer a board member, is he not allowed to posit an opinion?

Re: Woolnough

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:04 pm
by onewayup
John woolnough was basically saying in his opinion give Donawa a starting berth by dropping rivers to the bench
Don't think there's anything more to it than that. Strange to be blocked but who decides who to block and what is toxic or not to a post.

Re: Woolnough

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:09 pm
by onewayup
Whatever happened to bring this about needs to be sorted by the participants, the blocked and those who blocked.
Com,on get yourselfs together and sort it amicably. We are a friendly club ,we don't want animosity between fans and club management.

Re: Woolnough

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:26 pm
by AndyPark
It’s absolute madness they’ve blocked him over an opinion he had :lol: :lol:

Re: Woolnough

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:43 pm
by Old Git
Basically I posted the same opinion last week. Surely Mr Woolnough is entitled to have a view on who plays for the team he supports. He is no longer a director so what’s the problem?
If anything the club owes him a debt of gratitude as I believe he was responsible for bringing Donawa Bascombe and Holness to the club and they are all potential assets.

Woolnough

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:30 pm
by Darlogramps
No surprise to see Quakersfan leaping on this.

This is all a little unedifying and embarrassing from all sides. Clearly there’s little love for Woolnough from some at the club (see Holloway’s exchange with him earlier today, the quotes from Armstrong in today’s Echo piece and Craig Stoddart’s previous exchanges with him). I wonder if there’s more to it than meets the eye.

Regardless, he’s entitled to an opinion and it looks bad to be blocking him for it. I don’t believe he’s covered himself in glory either by changing his bio.

Not great on all sides and best for all just to move.

Re: Woolnough

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:02 pm
by PierremontQuaker03
I don't know John or what he did for the club, but to be blocked for having an opinion is a bit strange. My only thinking is that either he left under a cloud or its his relationship with the Bermudan players that the club don't like. At the end of the day from the limited knowledge of what I know thru just following him on twitter he seems to have looked after the Bermudan boys very well and made them feel at home away from the club.

Re: Woolnough

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:01 pm
by quakersfan
Out for a few beers tonight and apparently he let the Bermudan players stay in his house which would have saved the club a fair bit of money. He helped the club also with a loan which he obviously wants back, with a £100k windfall I can’t see the problem in paying him back.

Re: Woolnough

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:39 pm
by theoriginalfatcat
Is there a “problem in paying him back” ?

And is it a £100K ? The “windfall” ?

In fact is it even a “windfall” at all ?

So many questions .......

Re: Woolnough

Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:40 am
by onewayup
It's now getting silly season people putting 2+2 together and making 5 ,let's not add fuel to the fire by making assumptions, those involved know what it is all about,
I ask those people to get this sorted, it's hanging like a bad smell around the club. Com,on gentleman face to face sorting out your grievance.

Re: Woolnough

Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:30 am
by real_darlo_85
I know that he has had a lot to do with bringing in Holness, Bascome and Donowa and also he has 'invested' money and time into the club. For this the club should be, and I'm sure they are, grateful for. However, it is for AA to manage the playing side of things and at the moment he has been doing a fine job. These comments have unnecessarily rocked the boat and are disappointing off the back of such a high for the club, I hope these differences can be resolved and we can move on amicably.

Re: Woolnough

Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:55 pm
by quakersfan
Looking at JW tweets he always said he would promote potential players, however as an ex director the trend is not to go on social media neither Richard Cook, Martin Jesper or John Tempest post their own views about DFC and they must know what happens behind the scenes.
Best resign with grace although if Woolnough is owed money and by all accounts he is then surely the cup run which Johnson said was about £100k will surely pay him off. As a fan owned club perhaps a DFCSG update is needed to clarify issues.

Re: Woolnough

Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:49 pm
by dfc4me
DJ said on BT sport pre Walsall that the club would be debt free at the end of this financial year so I would assume this means all
personal loans will have been repaid, presumably from the cup money.