Ah so you mention tugging but when someone turns it back on you, you assume that it refers to self pleasure. It was you that suggested it referred to onanism when in fact it could merely have been referring to you tugging forelock!
Your constant reference to apologist to anyone that shows any support for the club is persistent sly dig insult.

So back to my original comment give it a rest and stop trolling, it's very dull.

In my view anyone who defends the indefensible (David Hughes) is an apologist.

What's insulting about that?

Unflattering maybe but if the cap fits.

But in your option that is anyone who shows any support for the club, so yes it could be seen as an insult and uncalled for. You don't like DH fine that's your choice and opinion, just because someone continues to show support for the blokes who go out on the park does not mean they are defending anyone, it merely shows they are fans of London broncos rl. Showing yr displeasure at the way the club has and is managed by walking away is one approach and your chosen one, to some of us that's self defeating as in my opinion you become part of the problem. I fail to see how anyone can criticise crowd numbers when they don't a trend themselves.

The only person I've criticised for crowd numbers is David Hughes.

He's the reason one man & his dog turn up.

Although by playing on a park pitch he is at least catering to the canine fraternity.

Seriously, I have no idea what an onanist is, but it is is worse than being called an apologist ?

Yes.

I don't deny anyone the right to disagree with me. However, CN made a statement and I asked him to support it with evidence. Not an unreasonable request in my view.
I'm still waiting for a response, by the way.

I'm asked to justify so much I can't keep up with the workload.

Please refresh my memory.

Although it's funny why the apologists never have to justify backing David Hughes.

Question for you cowgirl, as in your opinion anyone who still shows support for the club in any way is an apologist, which team are you going to switch to when skolars appoint someone you don't approve of?

Plum, I wouldn't worry about it, he called himself it on an assumption that is what someone else meant, putting words in other folks mouths again.

You can support the club & not be an apologist but you can't support David Hughes & not be one.

You're definitely in the latter camp.



Are you an apologist for him now as well?

On what evidence do you Base that? Because I am a realist in that had he not decided to continue funding the club non of us would be having any discussion because the club would have folded?

Please explain how I or any other of the alleged apologists support DH

Let me see.

Remember that post where you said David Hughes was understandably fed up with the club?

A club that he had run into the ground in the first place.

You're sympathetic to him & always will be so long as he puts a team out on some pitch within the M25.

Hell, I bet you would even have regularly trekked to Gillingham with only minor grumbles.

So a statement that i understood why the owner of a club threw his toys out of the pram after watching his players roll over and take a record defeat on TV in a semi final is being an apologist how? Am pretty sure the majority of folk on here can see why he did it as well.
Not sympathetic at all but again will state it, without his money we don't exist, proven by the results of when he stopped paying the bills. The fact he had a change of heart as no other backer came forward is why we put a squad out that next season and still exist now.

That's not sympathetic or apologetic it's realistic and the hard fact. I never said I agreed with what he did or supported his decisions but could see why.

I have the utmost admiration for the fans that travel from places like medway etc, folk like daft daft, and for what it's worth chances are no I provably would not have travelled to Gillingham had the club gone there, not through lack of willingness to follow the team but pure logistics.
But yes I will support London broncos for as long as I can, irrelevant of who is paying the bills.

So you agree he threw his toys out of the pram then?

That makes you less of an apologist than Plum then.

There's hope for you yet.

Call, it what you will, I never suggested anything else. Yes he lost patience and stopped financing the club, was it understandable under the circumstances in my view yes. Would it have been good for another investor/financier to step in yes, don't think you will find anyone who would disagree with that, but no one did, and Mr Hughes had a change of heart.
Don't think you will find anyone on here or at any game who is happy with the situation and the position the club is in or where we have ended up calling home this year they are probably happy that we still have a club though.
I find it interesting that there are now different levels of apologism

Is that a word or do you need to apologise for using words that don't exist?

Lol its my made up word and nope am not apologising, as you probably know what I mean

Insulting comment in breach of the AUP. ......warrants nothing more than a tap on the
Shoulder from minty, but now she's banished the #1 protagonist it seems anything goes on here.....this thread was supposed to be about the new shirt sponsor but as ever, it's descended into a sagging match.....

I read that as reference to tugging forelock as per previous thread and I see no sign of foul or abusive words, and it was fact it was persistent and targeted.
I agree it was about new shirt sponsor but I do believe you have brought up other issues

I researched the company, its services, history and directorships and then posted my stance on the deal. You and cowgirl stood beside each other at the urinals as is the case in nearly every thread on here now.
As for your take on what was meant by tugging and cowgirl knowing about it........I suspect that even you are not that gullible nor that naive and are just doing what you do so well......prolonging a side issue to distract away from to main one.....in this case a sponsorship with a brokerage firm with little or no historical success in brokerage.
I would be stunned if we're getting anything up front for this. I accept that we can and must take whatever we can get, but I suspect this "deal" was done between mates......a little digging around on linked in and other social media does show a few "connections" that point to my being right, but I'll keep it at suspicions at this stage.

To be honest mate if the sponsorship deal is with a brokerage firm that has no historical success in brokerage, so what? They are sponsoring the club, to what extent I don't really care, if they want to put money our way then does it matter how good at brokerage they are.
So what if it is a deal done between mates, it's still a deal, does not make it unethical.
So wondering what your point is exactly.

As for the other issue, read the thread, CN was first to mention tugging, and first to jump to conclusion that it referred to something different than he meant.
Reality is tho 75% of blokes admit to it 25% just lie about it, obviously talking about the forelock

My question referred to this statement made by you:
"I was going by this place where tugging the forelock to Hughes is seemingly de riguer"
I would be grateful if you would please reciprocate my courtesy by pointing me to a statement that justifies your comment. Thank you.

No names, no pack drill.

Besides if you think apologists don't run riot on this forum then no amount of evidence will convince you to the contrary.

And there we have the biggest cop out of all time. Inspector Clouseau is a more reliable source of evidence

Unlike some dobbing people in isn't my style.

If you're that bothered about evidence of where the sympathies of Broncos fans lie maybe you should set up a poll?

David Hughes yay or nay should do the trick.

PS

Saved you the trouble.