kildaremackem
Striker
eh? they always do that..if thhe leader is foreign..It’s not in their agenda to attack a potential right wing leader
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
eh? they always do that..if thhe leader is foreign..It’s not in their agenda to attack a potential right wing leader
Has he clarified that the parachute payments were taken out of the operation to pay Short early
eh? this group paid short in installments? and didnt use PPThe way the deal has been structured then a number of groups could have done exactly the same . Perhaps other consortia would have wanted to pay Short in instalments rather than use PP
did we take an £1mm loan out? or did madrox? iere is the loan stewrats to worry about-its not the clubs loan..Never ever seen that clearly described like that.
Also, since when did we take 11m loan out !
If he makes 37 million after spending as little as he has then its sly as fuck like. They are being made out to be heroes, and I am not sure why
If the own the club then surely the club's money is their money.
Come now Sheepy, I didn't say that for starters. George Caulkin has talent and integrity, a rose amongst the thorns in North East sports journalismThe entire nation’s sports journalists are garbage? That isn’t true at all. There’s a good one involved in that article on us
yes. and he has always been clear on that. this article is massively inaccurate though-it doesnt mention juan owns 20 per cent of the club.This is why Donald wants investment into the club. He has enough dollar to buy the club, but he can’t fund it himself without spending his own fortune overnight.
Just a shame a particular poster ( who I now have on ignore) hadn't done the same.Well reading that I’m glad I had an early night
Not quite , they own the shares , as directors they have a legal duty to act in the company’s interest at all times.
Any transactions will be scrutinised by the auditors and no doubt the HMRC.
It was a deal between two parties. If Don got it cheap, well done sand cheers Ellis. We could have been sold for £1, it doesn’t matter. I hope he makes a fortune from us. It’s not sly at all.If he makes 37 million after spending as little as he has then its sly as fuck like. They are being made out to be heroes, and I am not sure why
Indeed.yes. and he has always been clear on that. this article is massively inaccurate though-it doesnt mention juan owns 20 per cent of the club.
Just a shame a particular poster ( who I now have on ignore) hadn't done the same.
well some of it was..And this is the crux, just think what that £35 million could have done if invested in the playing staff?
eh?
Thats why I said if, the very definition of the word if doesn't make at true, thats why I said it.
np you see that is the case...the para money was ringfenced..but they found another way to pay the ring fenced thing..so gave short the para money..and covered the ring fenced thing themselves intead..It is just disappointing that it's taken the Daily Mail to tease out the truth from them.
He originally said the parachute payments were a guarantee and not the source of the payments to Short which obviously was not the case.
and by going on podcasts and doing interviews they have shiwn they are open to being challneged..Plenty people said similar when Short was in charge; I even agreed with them in the early days of his tenure. But if these questions aren’t asked by people who can in the early stages and they aren’t properly held to account then history could repeat itself. We shouldn’t treat owners like messiahs or see them as ‘the club’. They’re temporary custodians with business interests. They should be commended for good work they do, challenged on bad work they do and always held to account.
And...The way the deal has been structured then a number of groups could have done exactly the same . Perhaps other consortia would have wanted to pay Short in instalments rather than use PP