After being shown as a liar, Oldham responds with more.

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.

Advertisements

68 Responses to “After being shown as a liar, Oldham responds with more.”

  1. Sinon Says:

    I agree Ron, maybe Disco should come on est1892.co.uk and start a thread that we can talk on? No censorship…

  2. amused Says:

    @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.

  3. Insider Insider Says:

    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?

  4. Disco Says:

    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!

  5. bigf00t Says:

    Another mistake in Redz email unfortunately…

    i dont think Dunk claimed “exclusive” rights…

  6. Disco Says:

    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

  7. Disco Says:

    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.

  8. silentbutdeadly Says:

    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.

  9. Disco Says:

    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).

  10. Sinon Says:

    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

    https://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.

  11. Disco Says:

    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 🙂

  12. rupertinsider Says:

    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.

  13. Sinon Says:

    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.

  14. chapeau du soleil Says:

    >> 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.

  15. rupertinsider Says:

    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.

  16. Disco Says:

    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?

  17. Disco Says:

    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.

  18. seigneur Says:

    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.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: