#1 [url]

Oct 23 07 5:52 PM

Stalin wrote:
EddieDillsworth wrote:
arnoldrimmer wrote:
But I don't understand what people mean by "agenda". I have no agenda, other than I am unhappy and have been for some time with various aspects of the club. Does that mean I am gloating about the problems or uncaring about them, wanting the club to fail? No it bloody doesn't.


Surely agenda just means that you have a personal motivation which could lead to a bias? As you say you do have an agenda in that you are unhappy with aspects of the club and therefore you are likely to be critical of these aspects. It doesn't follow that you want the club to fail.

The word "agenda" seems to suggest insidiousness and wanting the downfall of something or someone, and people tend to use the phrase to stop an argument. Accusing someone of having an agenda is akin to calling them a Nazi and I've noticed that a lot on LCFC messageboards.


I think that is being a little emotive. Just because someone has an agenda it doesn't mean that it is bad. The Daily Mail clearly has a political agenda as does the Guardian. These are from opposite extremes. In the context of LCFC those who favour, for whatever reasons, a community based club based on the principles set out by Supporters Direct have an agenda that is likely to see them anti PLC. All it means, to me, is that I just think a little more deeply about what they are saying and what motivates it.


I dont think believing in a community club means you are anti-plc - thats exactly takes this issue from a reasoned debate to a polarised opinion based dictate debate


Totally agree. To say "you are against the Trust therefore you must be Pro the PLC" is as stupid as saying that my enemies enemy is my friend. I've said that I think the PLC is not a good idea at this moment in time, but I wish that certain individuals who were on the board were still on it. It is not all black and white, there are many shades of grey.