Our publication of an email from Ian Cotton relating to Duncan Oldham and Koptalk seems to have upset Duncan more than anything else we’ve so far done with this blog.
Now it seems some of our readers are sending the email around to those they know who still frequent Koptalk – we saw a post earlier where someone was asking about the email they’d just received. Oldham locked the thread and said “I send mine to the old bill.” Hope so – I think they’ll find it all very interesting.
We had a very angry visitor earlier using the comment facility on the previous post to get their view across. They seemed to be using much the same arguments in their comments to defend Dunk as Dunk uses on his forum to defend himself. The person leaving the comments has a very similar IP address to Dunk’s, but used a fake email address. They even used a username that a previous person had used in our comments.
You’ll find this angry person’s comments listed with a username of “Fake Will Robbo” – we added the “Fake” bit because we didn’t want any mix-up with the previous “Will Robbo”. We removed them for a short time, but they’re all back again now.
Here’s Duncan’s response to the email. Thanks to everyone who sent it on to me.
Ian Cotton Email
#1556208 – 18/07/06 09:27 PM
This email is doing the rounds. I just thought I should reply for your benefit:—–
Dear Mr (removed)
Thank you for your email which has been passed to me for reply.
There is no agreement with Koptalk regarding transfers or press conferences. Any club comment on transfers will be published on the Official site and certainly not given to an unofficial media organisation.
For your information, Koptalk do not attend any of our press conferences, nor do they have any access to Rick Parry.
Also, we do not arrange any interviews for our players with The Sun Newspaper for obvious reasons so I have no idea what Koptalk are referring to. They certainly have not come to any arrangement with Mr Parry.
I hope this is of help.
Yours sincerely
Ian Cotton
Head of Press
Press Office—–
I would like to point out to the loon who contacted the club that:
1) Nobody from KopTalk has ever claimed to have any agreement with the club regarding transfers or press conferences. Anybody who thinks such must be pretty stupid. However, KopTalk will have a representative at every major press conference this season, rather than the odd one here and there. We have had contacts at such conferences in the past and will continue to do so, only from this season we won’t miss any out. The club would not grant access directly to any fans website as they would class this as a rival to their own. However, there are ways and means as we know.
2) We do not have any specific access to Rick Parry and have never claimed to have. This makes him sound like a toy that they wheel out or something. Again, anyone who thinks we have a swipe card or something to Parry’s office needs sectioning.
3) We have previously said that Sun journalists can access players just like any other rag. This makes it sound like the club sit their on the blower to The Sun specifically working with that paper. The club cannot stop any player doing an exclusive with the rag.
4) I’ve never said that the site has come to any arrangements with Rick Parry for anything.
—
I’ll be speaking to Ian Cotton about the bitter who emailed him and will be putting him straight with what has actually been said and what is actually taking place.
There really are some sad ***** out there
—
Funny though, I must confess
The person who contacted the club wasn’t us, and unless I’m very much mistaken would have been asking perfectly reasonable questions. Just because it calls into question Dunk’s integrity does that qualify them as a “loon”? Not really. The only loon involved in this is the Loon from the Toon – Mr Duncan Oldham.
Anyway, seeing as the person who contacted the club may not be a member of the insider or gold clubs, or may even be a former member since locked out for not finding a three-year-old email I suppose at least he can read Dunk’s response here.
Anyway, let’s look in more detail at Duncan’s panic-stricken response tonight. He says – “1) Nobody from KopTalk has ever claimed to have any agreement with the club regarding transfers or press conferences. Anybody who thinks such must be pretty stupid.” Really? Must be pretty stupid? Here’s what you said yesterday afternoon, just after 1pm – “I’m unable to reveal too much at this time but as from the 2006-07 season we will have an official representative at every first team competitive fixture. This will include all European fixtures regardless of location.We will also have every major LFC press conference covered e.g. parading of new signings etc.”
Official representative? So you didn’t mean an official koptalk representative? Oh I see. The stupid one is you really Oldham, because you still think you can lie your way out of every hole you dig for yourself. Do you remember saying it now? You also said, “Until now we have had to rely on friends in the local and national media to drop us snippets of info in return for a few pints on a Saturday night but as from next season, we will be stepping up our coverage as you will see. I have spent all morning holding talks with the suits and have come to an arrangement that will benefit the site.” So who the hell were “the suits” then? Are you talking to the products in Burton’s shop window or something? Certainly contradicts what you said tonight – “The club would not grant access directly to any fans website as they would class this as a rival to their own. However, there are ways and means as we know.”
Another one where you admit you’ve lost it and are now ready to be taken into care under the Mental Health Act – “2) We do not have any specific access to Rick Parry and have never claimed to have. This makes him sound like a toy that they wheel out or something. Again, anyone who thinks we have a swipe card or something to Parry’s office needs sectioning.”
Take a look at this then - back on July 8th we reported you saying this – “I’m meeting Rick Parry at Anfield soon. I have told him I will try and get in before the season starts. We’re actually negotiating for something. He wants something I have, I want something he can give me. As my comments are always lifted from here and posted around the web, I can’t say any more. What I can say is that it will be informal because I only put a suit on for the beak or funerals. It will be tea and biscuits although I’d prefer pie and peas. I’ll report back AFTER the meeting.”
And later on you said, “There’s no way he’s going to tell me anything. However, it’s what he can do for me that I want and I know I’ll get it (no homo!).”
Pretty much contradicts your point 2) and puts you into your nearest insitution by your very own standards.
Your next point – “3) We have previously said that Sun journalists can access players just like any other rag. This makes it sound like the club sit their on the blower to The Sun specifically working with that paper. The club cannot stop any player doing an exclusive with the rag.” You obviously missed why this response was given, as the original email hadn’t been published. The response was given by Mr Cotton after he’d been asked about your claims to have a tape of Peter Crouch giving an exclusive interview to the Sun. You continually try to slur Liverpool players with your claims they give exclusives for the Sun. It’s a lie, as it was with the “Crouch tape” – but why do it anyway unless you hate LFC and its players?
Your next point - “4) I’ve never said that the site has come to any arrangements with Rick Parry for anything.” You are repeating what you said in point 2), we’ll not repeat what we said, see above.
As for this – “I’ll be speaking to Ian Cotton about the bitter who emailed him and will be putting him straight with what has actually been said and what is actually taking place.” – well we’ve also contacted Ian Cotton. We look forward to hearing what is said, but I doubt very much there’ll be any backing for Koptalk.
And your parting shot is a little weak really – “There really are some sad ***** out there Funny though, I must confess” – You’ve a lot of former victims Oldham, are they all “sad”, or just angry at your lies, cheating and slurring? And you aren’t laughing are you? It’s not funny is it? Not any more. People have worked you out and won’t be cheated again.



























July 18, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Firm: Oldham’s Public Relations Inc.
Motto: To get out of a hole, dig deeper.
July 18, 2006 at 11:12 pm
The new company logo
http://www.cls.yale.edu/lexis2/PD/content/liar.jpg
July 18, 2006 at 11:16 pm
have you applied for newsnow for this site yet?so all the liverpool fans can see he is a bullshitter?
July 18, 2006 at 11:21 pm
If koptalk.con is news-worthy then this site is certainly news worthy to newsnow and LFC fans.
July 18, 2006 at 11:27 pm
I think the first point is not so much to argue about, the official representative refers to the matches so he isn’t really claiming to have someon at the press conferences. Other than that it is a fine dissection of his twisty wriggliness.
July 18, 2006 at 11:27 pm
This is getting very interesting now – Dunk is clearly contradicting himself, and in denying the claims seems to be digging himself deeper into the mire. Dunk’s “friendship”/association with Rick Parry has been articulated many times, most recently and obviously in the “He wants something I have…” statement you’ve quoted. If he genuinely had contact with Rick Parry then I’d be seriously impressed, but he now confesses that he doesn’t. It’s going round in circles – making claims then denying them using infantile excuses.
July 18, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Cheers insider.
July 18, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Shows him up to be the liar that he is.
Good work!!
July 18, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Here’s my views on this post, and no I’m not Dunk!
bigf00t – cheers mate, I’ve read it now.
- We’ll have to agree to disagree with what he said about press conferences. I think redz question to Ian Cotton must have been loaded.
- Rick Parry. Insider makes an interesting point about an older Dunk post. I guess it depends on how Redz phrased his question.
- Crouch. No comment. Just don’t get the point this site is making. And yes I have read all the posts on this. This is a red herring.
In general – please don’t think I’m bashing Redz post for the sake of it, but I have sincere doubts at how accurately it was phrased. Is he prepared to e-mail his letter and print it on this site?
I’m sure it’s possible to send Ian Cotton a balanced letter and I’d be more interested in that response.
- contacting Cotton : I’ll be very interested to hear what Insiderinsider finds out from him.
July 18, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Yawn!
July 18, 2006 at 11:42 pm
LOL Rupert – fair enough mate. I tried at least.
If you’re not prepared to enter a debate about this site’s posts, doesn’t that make you just as bad (in your view) as Dunk….
…. or worse – (in your view) the people who blindly follow him
July 18, 2006 at 11:47 pm
disco why don’t you ask dunk to show you his response from ian cotton? lets see where that gets you.
P.S. are you disco the gold club member?
i’m also a gold club member and know full well what dunk is all about.
i think you’ll be surprised with what i have to reveal to all the members in the next couple of weeks…if the thread stays open long enough for you all to see!
as for dunk, is there any more contradictions he can throw out to his readers and continue to be believed?
July 18, 2006 at 11:51 pm
For Gods sake Oldham give it up ! enough is enough, your a bloody joke lad. My advice to you would be this,go home find the biggest object you can lay your hands on , bend over and shove it right up your ringpiece, maybe that will jolt you back into reality. Just ask yourself this , if it was a free site you provided would you still be spouting all this shite? i dont think so do you? Look what you have turned into , look what all the lies are for , MONEY. You and that big eared rentboy prepare to be Ringpieced fatty!
July 18, 2006 at 11:55 pm
Money is the route of all evil eh.
July 18, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Duncan is a liar. fact. what is so difficult to understand?
not only does he lie he also steals from Liverpool Football Club. whether it be content from the official magazine, unlicensed commentary and match coverage on his “radio” station or unlicensed use of the fixture list, all of which are vital revenue sources for Liverpool Football Club
he has also claimed that Liverpool players “do exclusives” with The S*n newspaper which is outrageous and has been refuted by Liverpool Football Club. No Liverpool Football Club representative be they a player or anyone else connected to the club would speak to that rag after their disgraceful smears of Liverpool fans in the aftermath of Hillsborough and to suggest they would is an insult in itself.
July 19, 2006 at 12:03 am
Hope you’re PDF’ing these pages Insider Insider! As I’m sure Ian Cotton might like to see them before Dunk gets the chance to put the record ’straight!’
This whole saga has completely shown Dunk up. He has backtracked completely and now looks like a complete liar. It shows how much he exaggerates things and puts a spin on them. I can’t believe he had the nerve to even post that response, seeing as it completely contradicts everything he’s previously said.
He’s meeting Parry one minute, then doesn’t have access to him the next! Which is it? Oh yes, I know, it’s a lie!
He has authorised Press Access at every game (not just a fan in the stands!), then has said no such thing the next (only once Ian Cotton confirms it!). Now is it just me, or do the words “authorised press access” infer an agreement from the club (as the club control who has the access)?
It’s amusing the way he was talking about meeting Parry, as if he might meet him when he can be bothered, and how he doesn’t wear suits etc. Making out he’s so important that he can pick and choose when to meet Parry on his own terms! Laughable!
Keep up the good work!
July 19, 2006 at 12:08 am
Disco – read the comments regarding Rick Parry. These statements are not fabricated, they’re lifted directly from KopTalk. The contradiction is plainly evident. Dunk is clearly misleading his customers. With regard to this issue it’s indisputable that Dunk is deceiving the members of his site.
July 19, 2006 at 12:28 am
I feel I must congratulate you on a sterling piece Ringpiece MK2.
Pop into the Officers headquarters tomorrow am, I feel a promotion is in order.
P.S. Well done Insider for your latest scoop.
No surrender to fatty and his bullshit.
July 19, 2006 at 1:07 am
All one on one interviews (i.e exclusives) with Liverpool players are organised through the Press Office. As a matter of policy the Press Office do not arrange any one on one interviews with The Sun. All players are informed of this on signing for the club. Any claims to the contrary are nonsense.
July 19, 2006 at 1:12 am
Redz’s good work today was a direct result of this Blog’s strategy. We ask everyone to take matters into their own hands, as Redz did. Other’s from this blog have written and spoken to LFC folk in the last few weeks and received positive replies.
We knew LFC was on his case but we had to respect their desire to do it in their own time and in their own way. Redz got a very clear and specific letter from Ian Cotton but I believe there is more to come.
The way to puncture the Oldham con is to hold him to account for everything he says about our club – including its investors, directors, managers, players, employees and supporters. Report what he says directly to the club, to the individual players and to the reporters and publishers whose stories he steals or distorts.
His Big Lie over all these years is that if you want to be close to the club you have go through him because he has special access, privileged information, secret sources. And if you want to be part of his in-crowd you pay for it with cash or by earning him money through your visits or by buying stuff from him and supportng his family charities with doantions direct to his personal bank account.
You are also obliged to tolerate his odious personality cult – all the forums and blogs and editorials devoted to his views – not to mention his constant interventions in the football and general forums and the ranting on his radio show. And all the bitter feuding cliques he encourages and his arbirtrary gagging and despotic banning.
It is coming to an end. If you have not already taken your own direct action – now is the time. People are writing to the authorities – tax, charities, securities, regulatory bodies – let’s keep the pressure on. By his cheating he steals an advantage over other more honest LFC sites who try to play by the rules. He steals from the club – selling its exclusive media output as his own.
July 19, 2006 at 1:34 am
Hi, guys, it’s me, ‘The Real Will Robbo’.
You’ll know its me because I don’t use gay phrases like lol. Hilarious. Dunk (or his crew) at his best.
I’m going to start using a different nickname now to stop Fat Cunt from using my name. However, I’ll still be dogging fat arse Oldham as much as usual.
Anybody who wants to E-Mail me direct can contact me at willrobbo (at) gmail.com.
Thanks to all the messages of support on the various forums (you know who you all are). They’ve all been along the lines of ‘One of Dunk’s dickheads is using your username to get a cheap laugh’. Cheers, everybody!
Insider, if you could post this in the next blog entry, I’d be very grateful.
KEEP UP THE PRESSURE ON DUNK, CHAPS, SEE YOU TOMORROW TO DISSECT MORE LIES!
July 19, 2006 at 1:37 am
Oh, and to comment on this post, good to see that Dunk is cracking under pressure and responding to criticism… That’s progress!
July 19, 2006 at 4:32 am
excellent entry, the blog has been very exciting tonight, pity i missed it all.
How were the hits tonight? must have been quite crazy?
July 19, 2006 at 6:48 am
i couldn’t see how the fat man could possibly reply to that….
but guess he did, in a way that only the FAT MAN can do…
that is of course, to respond with more BULLSHIT and LIES.
great post btw.!
July 19, 2006 at 9:20 am
FUCK ME!!!!!!!!!!
114 replies to the post before this one. Couldnt get on late last nite so missed most of the fun! HAHAHAH its brilliant, surely Oldham is about to throw to towel in (beach towel)
The word of this site must be growing by the day. Keep it going Insider and Rupert!
Quality stuff.
July 19, 2006 at 9:33 am
beached whale towel?
July 19, 2006 at 9:41 am
here’s his latest amended PC lies, posted in the editor section of the site.
—————————–
From next season we will be extending our press conference coverage. Although the club don’t grant access to independent websites (because of their own website etc which is understandable), we will still be able to have someone at every PC.
We already have associates in the media (journos) working for the nationals etc that provide us with various snippets from PC’s but having extended our network over the last few years and especially this summer, we are now able to have a representative at every major PC conference from next season. This will enable us to bring you quicker updates etc.
Whichever source is used, we won’t be able to bring you video footage or anything like that. Naturally they have their own obligations to look after first but I’m confident you will see an even better coverage of such events from next season.
We’ve got loads of new fun ideas for next season. I hope you like them
———————————–
July 19, 2006 at 9:45 am
I missed most of it last nite as well. Gutted. Great stuff though. Well done to all concerned. Finally it looks like the club is paying some attention to the fat crook. I just wonder if its worth sending Dunk’s response to Cotton as an FYI, as I imagine if he does contact him, like he says, it will be with his usual bullshit sob story.
This one really has got Duncan scared. Its very un-Oldhamlike behaviour to allow people on his forums to see what’s been said on this blog but thats exactly what he has done by posting on his forums. Not that he is allowing responses of course.
I see he now has a picture of his mate Rick on the main page and is using it for a caption competition. Not sure why but could be worth keeping an eye on. This is bound to come up again on there
July 19, 2006 at 10:12 am
whats up with KT gold today is he removing qoutes?
July 19, 2006 at 10:14 am
“I have spent all morning holding talks with the suits”
Do straight jackets constitute suits?
July 19, 2006 at 10:16 am
“I’ll be speaking to Ian Cotton”
Like you spoke to Rick Parry?
I foresee a future statement from Duncan Oldham denying any direct contact with Ian Cotton.
July 19, 2006 at 10:34 am
I’ve just heard about all this. Is it true?. I’ve been banned from the forums for accusing a mod of starting a silly thread, and then I hear all this. JC
July 19, 2006 at 11:13 am
I wonder, what are the odds that Lard Arses “associates in the media (journos)” work for the Scum.
July 19, 2006 at 11:18 am
From the shite box
-Redzion- Hi Dunk did you get in contact with the club over that email will it be sorted so the bitter is put in his place.
-Dunk- i’m not worried about the rejects RedZion, but I have contacted Ian Cotton to inform him he’d been set-up, the club have little time for such stupidity. and to think these bitters are so called Reds!
Take it fatty will be posting what Cotton says. Stupid fat shitbag.
July 19, 2006 at 11:18 am
Fattys latest line
“i’m not worried about the rejects RedZion, but I have contacted Ian Cotton to inform him he’d been set-up, the club have little time for such stupidity. and to think these bitters are so called Reds!”
July 19, 2006 at 11:18 am
@Redz:
Any chance you could publish your original email to Ian Cotton to clear up any issues Disco has please?
@Disco:
You said,
“If you’re not prepared to enter a debate about this site’s posts, doesn’t that make you just as bad (in your view) as Dunk…. ”
To get into a debate about this site’s posts, presumably one would have had to read them, and you have freely admitted in the comments on the previous post that you have not. You stated,
“Rupert – if you read my posts you’d realise that all I’ve ever done is point out the flaws in some of the posts/blogs. I’ve also said that some of the posts/blogs make interesting points.”
My concern is that you have made criticisms of other people’s posts, when the answers you are trying to get are elsewhere on this blog, and you would find them if you did a bit more research. So the fact you haven’t, at least to me, implies you’re more interested in criticising the posts rather than actually getting an answer to your question.
All that said, though, it is important that this site receives some level of criticism to keep it on the straight and narrow.
For the record, I’m nothing to do with running/maintaining it.
July 19, 2006 at 11:20 am
Fattys caption comp http://www.koptalk.com/admin/images/uploads/propaganda/prop_rafa_shows_parry_mobil(1).jpg
“That fat cunt is stalking you again Rick”
Anyone wanna post that on kraptalk?
July 19, 2006 at 11:49 am
Amused – cheers for the reply, but in this instance I’m aware of all of Dunk’s posts related to redz letter to Ian Cotton (and subsequently Insiderinsider’s rebuttal).
Unfortunately, judging by Cotton’s reply I don’t think the letter reflected what Dunk actually said – it was a warped/biased view of it. I can’t obviously be sure until I see the original e-mail, but I’m not holding my breath
I also don’t get your comment about ‘answers’ elsewhere and how that affects my points? Give me an example of where you don’t think I’m aware of an issue.
In general it’s disappointing that anyone who makes valid points on any posts is just ignored/shot down. It’s hard to take people on this site seriously when everyone just religiously believes everything the editor publishes…..(a bit like what you accuse Koptalk of
), even if it’s often clearly flawed.
There are some interesting points hidden away in these blogs….
July 19, 2006 at 11:59 am
Openly discussing a S*n article on the free site now. An idiot has posted it, someone pulled him up on it and his reply was “Its just a LFC related article, pasted from tribal football. I don’t think its insulting any one” Unreal, it’s like saying if you dont pay for the paper is alright. Some of the people on there are absolute scum. The thread would of been locked on any other lfc site but no not this one
It’s the “Hamann snubbed Bolton due to accent” thread
July 19, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Anyone noticed on the image on the homepage with Rafa/Parry he has blanked out the eyes of that dude in the back. Trying to con people into thinking its him.
July 19, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Disco.
As far as I can see you just keep repeating yourself. Re Cotton the latest update makes it pretty clear. Oldham first advised there would be a rep at PC’s (the insinuation is that its someone from Koptalk) and has since backtracked. The blog has no need to make up emails from Ian Cotton. Its agenda is being acheived without resorting to the sort of tactics you are used to from kraptalk.
A lot of the points made in the blog are light hearted, but some of the more serious accusations would concern me greatly if I was a paid up (or honorary – not paying just means you are condoning how he operates) member of that site. I am sure they will also concern the relevant authorities.
If they aren’t enough to convinve you, well I guess its no big deal. The blog will convince enough people and you and a few others can have Oldham all to yourself.
July 19, 2006 at 12:05 pm
hahahahahahahaha.
thanks for the info Phil Thompson.
i didn’t notice it btw.
the intention is quite obvious…hes trying to con people into thinking that its some koptalk ‘insider’ or ‘representative’ watching the game with rick and rafa. get people to start talking and asking questions like “dunk, is that the ‘representative that you were talking about the other day?”
July 19, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Spot on Chi man. Typical Dunk tactics.
July 19, 2006 at 12:20 pm
“Oldham first advised there would be a rep at PC’s (the insinuation is that its someone from Koptalk) ”
I’m sorry, but I didn’t (and I doubt many people on Koptalk did) interpret it the way this site has chosen to. Indeed, the implication that LFC would deal directly/officially with a fan site is just ridiculous. He said they “would have it covered”, which implies to me that he knows one of the journalists who go along.
I am however interested to see how this comment pans out over the next month or two – “We’re actually negotiating for something. He wants something I have, I want something he can give me.”
July 19, 2006 at 12:24 pm
PS I thought the charity point was a good point, and was a concern. Dunk answered this.
There are one or two other things in the past which interest me, but doesn’t personally bother me. You forget he’s a business man. I’m very happy with the product he sells and I realise it isn’t perfect. Indeed, the ‘tight ship’ that Rafa seems to be running has dried up the gossip on all sites. However I enjoy posting there for footballing and non-footballing reasons.
July 19, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Jesus Disco, honestly, can you read and percieve what the words mean?
“Nobody from KopTalk has ever claimed to have any agreement with the club regarding transfers or press conferences. Anybody who thinks such must be pretty stupid. However, KopTalk will have a representative at every major press conference this season, rather than the odd one here and there. We have had contacts at such conferences in the past and will continue to do so, only from this season we won’t miss any out. ”
HOW can “KopTalk will have a representative at every major press conference” NOT be interpreted it in that way?
From the Dictionary:
Represent:
To serve as the official and authorized delegate or agent for.
To act as a spokesperson for.
Please think before you reply.
July 19, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Are you happy that, as a Liverpool fan, he buys the S*n?
Ergo, as a fan of KopTalk you accept and welcome this. If you give Dunk money then you also give some money to the S*n. Congratulations.
July 19, 2006 at 12:33 pm
P.S. Disco: Why does http://www.michaelshields.co.uk redirect to KopTalk with NO mention to the poo lad? Not one. Last week it was blank, now it tries to generate money for Dunk.
No one mention. Nice.
July 19, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Disco posts in a ‘lighthearted’ manner the same points time and time again. This isn’t a forum, so debating with you here is not really the issue. People comment on the posts made by the InsiderInsider. Would be great to debate with you and all the other ‘think it’s a good service’ KTers on fatty’s site but he’ll never let that happen.
July 19, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Apologies about the last link, it NOW, and finally mentions Michael. About time. Pity that it still goes to KopTalk, so to generate hits. Why is this?
Why doesn’t it point to, or even mention:
http://www.michaelshields.uwclub.net/updates.htm
Mind you, that wouldn’t generate money or customers for KT.
July 19, 2006 at 12:37 pm
I agree Ron, maybe Disco should come on est1892.co.uk and start a thread that we can talk on? No censorship…
July 19, 2006 at 12:52 pm
@Disco:
I made the comment about you not looking for answers from the memory of one of your conversations with rupertinsider a little while ago where he pointed out that what you were asking for was there elsewhere – I can’t remember exactly where it is but i’ll have a look for it in over the next couple of days. Off the top of my head it wasn’t something massive though.
To put things in context, I just get the feeling that there’s a large body of evidence gathering about Dunk being a rip-off merchant, and instead of addressing it head-on he is resorting to long-winded arguments about semantics. This is why I became suspicious of you when your immediate response to an official reply from LFC was “Oh well the original letter must have been loaded so the whole thing’s a stitch-up.”
You’re clearly an intelligent enough person so I’d ask you this:
If Dunk’s done nothing wrong, why are there so many people visiting this blog and enjoying seeing the story develop?
For the moment we’ll leave your concerns about whether people here question the content of InsiderInsider enough, though it’s a good topic for the future.
July 19, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Disco – Redz has sent me the text of his original query to LFC. Have you emailed LFC yet?
Subject text: Could you please help clear a matter up for me,i have been a gold club member of kopTalk for some time,now the site owner is claiming that he has an agreement with Mr Parry to have exclusive rights for information about forthcoming press conferences and transfer dealings.
Despite me asking the owner of the site he refuses to confirm this information,as a LFC fan this matter concerns me a great deal and would like some clarification from the official side of things.
He has also told us that he has came to an arrangement with Mr parry over a tape he has with peter Crouch talking to the s*n Newspaper it seems quite alarming that he could blackmail such an important member of our club for his own means.
Yours faithfully
That’s what “Redz”, a reader of this blog, took upon himself to send to LFC. I can see some mistakes in his perceptions of what Dunk has claimed, but this is the conclusion that he’s come to himself, after reading Duncan’s various rants on Koptalk in recent weeks. In fact the mistake he’s made is that Duncan claimed he’d use the Crouch tape to end Crouch’s Liverpool career. He never mentioned blackmail. The implied threat to Parry that he had something Parry would desperately like to get hold of followed on some time after the “Crouch tape” claims.
Now Disco, feel free to comment on the email above, it’s what you’ve been asking for.
Can I ask you some questions? You said “PS I thought the charity point was a good point, and was a concern. Dunk answered this.” I’m missing what you mean by this, and what Dunk’s answer was – can you explain please?
And as a Liverpool fan, how do you feel about his support of The Sun, his attacks on Parry and Crouch?
And how would you feel if you paid your next thirty quid membership fee and the next day he locked you out of the site, refusing to answer your emails or “support tickets” and not refunding your money?
July 19, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Sinon re. PCs – if you read the following sentence he refers to contacts. More to the point his original post said ‘we have them covered’. Sorry, you may disagree, but to me it’s absolutely clear what was meant.
Sinon – squatting on websites. I’ve said before that I don’t understand why he does this for sites that he’s not ‘punishing’ in some way. It’s a valid point.
Sinon – Dunk buying the s*n. No, obviously he shouldn’t and as far as I’m aware he doesn’t. Like many other sites he commented on the Carragher headline recently – presumably I should not read any of these sites also?
Est1892 – I like the site and read it from time to time. Insiderinsider asked me whether I’d be interested in giving him a Q&A on my perceived flaws, but I don’t have the time, energy or inclination!
July 19, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Another mistake in Redz email unfortunately…
i dont think Dunk claimed “exclusive” rights…
July 19, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Insiderinsider :
Shame about redz letter. We can put this to bed then, it’s more distorted than I expected. He’s let himself down by bringing Rick Parry into every sentence. Shame – I’m sure you could have written a balanced letter. It’s not difficult.
Being locked out – We’ve been over this before : I got home from worked, called Steve, and got straight back in. I left him some feedback on Koptalk insider (you must have missed that
) which basically said it’s not a good way to go about it. I’ll leave you to search the forums to find his reply
No, I’m not that impressed, but as you know – he’s searching for your ass
Crouch – I’ve been over this before. I saw Dunk’s posts and you scored some amusing points by pointing out it’s rubbish. However, while Dunk was sceptical of Crouch’s purchase, if you’ve been following him all year he actually posted an editorial admitting he was wrong to doubt the transfer.
Sun – see above
July 19, 2006 at 1:36 pm
re. Charity : you queried whether Lauren was actually getting this money and why we had to send it to Dunk’s mum. This, to me, was a valid point. He replied and I was satisfied with his answer.
You mentioned something, briefly, about it being good on your site.
July 19, 2006 at 1:58 pm
I don’t belive he replied about the money for the charity. he could do that by producing documentation.
I think he replied about the michael shields site going to koptalk, and his explanation was at least partially accepted.
July 19, 2006 at 2:31 pm
sbd – he did mate, it’s even on this site. Other members of Koptalk have had thank you letters from Lauren’s mum (they’ve e-mailed me about this). There’s no scandal here as far as i’m concerned and I think this site will start looking stupid if it continues the claim. (although I note that Rupert’s too beligerent to drop it).
July 19, 2006 at 2:32 pm
I don’t know why I bother Disco, you must just be lazy and/or naïve. If you are person I thought you are on KopTalk (DiscoStu or something) then you must have a ghost writer.
Check here for when Dunk said he buys the S*n
http://koptalkinsider.wordpress.com/2006/07/04/koptalk-admit-daily-sun-delivery/#comments
As for the contacts/representation, Dunk said both:
“…However, KopTalk will have a representative at every major press conference this season…We have had contacts at such conferences in the past and will continue to do so…”
So they have representatives. That’s cleared up then. ‘Representatives’ of KopTalk who are their ‘contacts’. Clear as mud.
If you don’t agree with us, or don’t want to at least consider that the guy could be a crook who will stop at nothing to make money, why come on here? I don’t understand.
He doesn’t need the help, he just appears to pretend to ignore this blog. You are just sounding like DJ, a trained monkey with a gimp mask on. Honestly just go back to KopTalk and forget all about us, that firewall he has built around Colditz will keep you safe.
July 19, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Sinon –
S*n : yes, I’ve read all that before. He set fire to it afterwards. How did other sites comment on this story then? Presumably they read the articles, which no Liverpool fan is supposed to do?
You’re also making out that he gets it every day which is (hopefully!) not true.
Waffle afterwards – you’re far too simplistic. It’s not a case of agreeing or disagreeing, it’s using my intelligence to determine whether something’s feasible or not and then whether it bothers me or not.
A lot of things on this site don’t pass the feasibility test. (usually due to poor logic, exaggeration etc. etc.)
A few things seem feasible but don’t bother me
A few things are true, but don’t bother me
A very small amount of things could be feasible and could bother me if determined to be true.
Insiderinsider basically has to vet his site a bit better, possibly starting with distancing himself from Rupert’s rants
July 19, 2006 at 2:47 pm
silentbutdeadly: “I think he replied about the michael shields site going to koptalk, and his explanation was at least partially accepted.”
Insider did not accept the explanation that Oldham had madew a pesonal doantion of 1,000 pounds. He said he would make enquiries. If Insider’s enquiries have not proven decisive, one way or the other, or if his informants have asked not to be quoted, then his hands are tied. But he did not accept the explanation as given by Oldham.
Nor did he accept the explanation that the family/campaign had been in touch with Oldham to offer their support and to correct anything they saw on web sites critical of Oldham. Once again you can be sure that if Insider has not responded it is because he is bound by confidences. But he did not accept that explantion either.
My understanding is that the family or campaign have not corrected anything we have said on this blog.
Meanwhile what is clear is that this blog was correct. One of the Michael Shields sites was pointed to Koptalk. We don’t know how much business Oldham did as a result of that. He never publishes that kind of information. He earns money from hits and from referrals. We don’t know if he made enough money from that activity to cover the 1,000 donation he says he made – if that donation actually materialised – or if he made more than 1,000. And if that donation was made we don’t think it is exactly right for him to claim it as personal out of his own pocket if it came wholly or in part from revenues generated by the link from the Michael Shields site.
What is uncontestable is that he said in the last two or three weeks that he does not want KT to feature the Hillsborough or Michael Shields campaign. The reason he gave, more than once, was that they represetned politics and he wanted his site to be about entertainment. He got quite heated about it and said its his site and that’s the way its going to be. In one explanation he asked his questioner words to the effect, do you know how diffiicult it is to deal with the people who run those campaigns, they’re very political.
July 19, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Jesus H Christ.
Don’t fucking bother trying to argue about the S*n, and the feelings hurt and anger behind, with stupid fucking smilies and comical exclamation marks. Dunk buys the S*n (yes, he burnt it for self promotion purposes…and then bought another one) and admits he gets it all the time.
The S*n wasn’t the only newspaper which ran the Carragher story, RAWK referred to another paper in the thread (I believe it was the Guardian, check it, I can’t be arsed) and they talked about that article as ANY Liverpool fan would. Dunk BOUGHT the S*n TWICE on the day that they ran the Carragher story – can you see the fucking irony behind that? He is advertising the fucking thing, after paying 35p or whatever twice (it ends in the bin anyway, so what if he sets fire to it?) and simpletons whoop and holler at the justice.
Call yourself a Liverpool fan, you defend his fucking actions while people still want justice.
July 19, 2006 at 3:11 pm
>> Disco—S*n : yes, I’ve read all that before. He set fire to it afterwards
Yes ,and then admitted he needed another copy!!
You keep trying to shrug off the Crouch tape claim but here is the point…..During a discussion on a very sensitive issue He LIED to try and justify/deflect the flak heading his way by making an allegation and a ridiculous threat against a Liverpool player.
he didn’t jokingly suggest something, he presented a LIE as fact and tried to use it to back up his argument.
July 19, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Whatever the accuracy of Redz interpretation of his personal dealings with Oldham, as Redz expressed them in that letter, Ian Cotton’s letter is a clear statement that
(1) Oldham does not have official representation at LFC press conferences (2) nor any arrangement with Rick Parry and (3) that no LFC player has had an interview with the S** because LFC does not approve for obvious reasons.
This is as clear contradiction of some of Oldham’s claims about representztion and his statment that Crouch had an exclusive interview with the S** and that Oldham has a copy of the tape which will destroy Crouch ’s LFC career when Oldham choses to release it.
I don’t know if Disco is an honest discussant. I’m a bit hard on him because he came unto this site claiming to be rational and well informed and acting as a kind of monitor of our facts and arguments. At first I assumed he had read the blog and then discovered that “he doesn’t have time”. I also took his word for his independence of mind even though his main aim seems to be to defend Oldham. But now I think he may be finding it a bit hard to follow all this. So perhaps this is the cause of his circular arguments and wrong references and refusal to read the parts of the blog he criticses, rather than any deliberate attempt to obfuscate and confuse.
July 19, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Sinon – calm down mate, you’ll do yourself some mischief. If you read my posts I’ve said he shouldn’t buy it. I certainly wasn’t happy that he bought it that day, but I could see why and despite your RAWK example, it’s clear that several other websites commented on the story (and therefore had read the articles).
However, now you’ve expressed your point (quite clearly!) about getting a copy, yes I agree he shouldn’t do that. Hopefully he’ll take it on board.
Rupert – I think you’ve exaggerated a little. I said that (funnily enough) I hadn’t read the entire site re. your laughable insider trading comments (still tickles me). I have however otherwise only commented when I read the original article by Dunk at the time and more often than not I’ve read the subsequent blog on here.
If you wish to dismiss all my comments based on not devouring the entire website then I can’t really take you seriously can I?
July 19, 2006 at 3:30 pm
sunhat – ?! I’ve said you caught him lying and won many points for that!
All I disagree with, from reading his other posts, is that he’s got a vendetta against Crouch.
July 19, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Disco,
Given that: a) you accept that Oldham has been shown to be a liar, at least over the ‘Crouch-gate tape’ and b) you admit in a comment on another article that you’re 90% certain that posts on Koptalk by the ‘Informer’, purporting to reveal genuine inside info, are actually submitted by Oldham himself, I’m struggling to reconcile your position as his apologist-in-chief on this blog.
Newcomers to Oldham’s Insider and gold club forums are routinely advised by old-hands and ‘honorary members’ to look to posts by the Informer and Wallet (amongst others) as examples of reliable and genuine inside information. You clearly doubt their veracity and suspect they’re made up by the site owner – but have you raised your suspicions on Koptalk’s forums? Will you do so in future?
Are you happy that fellow LFC supporters, many of them young or from overseas, are coughing up cash to gain access to so-called inside information that you suspect is fabricated? Is Koptalk such an important part of your day-to-day interweb life that you’re happy to overlook the fake posts and lies as long as you can remain part of it.
Why not ask Duncan Oldham to answer a few straight questions through his site, and following the inevitable banning it brings you, make a clean break. There are plenty of excellent LFC forums out there that would benefit from your contributions.
Sorry if this some of this sounds patronising, that’s not my intention. I simply find your position baffling.