FPP

Status
Not open for further replies.


Guinness Guzzler said:
From what I remember of it (a bit hazy admittedly) they suggested it was definitely meant to be a full takeover initially and they thought FPP were still interested. They did say that they didn't have any direct correspondence with anyone at FPP, but they certainly gave the impression that they were still at the table, and didn't seem to go along with the idea that they were only investing in Donald! If I was to read between the lines (so this is just personal opinion) I was getting the impression that they thought Donald was asking for too much money and that they hoped the statement might make him reconsider, but that wasn't explicitly said
Click to expand...

Did they define "full takeover" at the meeting?

It seems that a lot of folks on here don't understand what a "full takeover" is. (And I was one of them before last week when I started my little investigation looking into the complaints against SD).

When Campbell was interviewed for the Echo, he said that his would have been a "full takeover" but with SD still a shareholder. It turns out that a "full takeover" actually only means 51% of the shares or more. That's not how I would have defined it personally, and certainly not what most folks on here mean when they use those words.

So when folks are talking about FPP having been thinking about a "full takeover" but SD saying that FPP never wanted to take control of the club, it is actually possible for both statements to be true, even though to many on here it may sound like a contradiction in terms.
 
fyl2u said:
Did they define "full takeover" at the meeting?

It seems that a lot of folks on here don't understand what a "full takeover" is. (And I was one of them before last week when I started my little investigation looking into the complaints against SD).

When Campbell was interviewed for the Echo, he said that his would have been a "full takeover" but with SD still a shareholder. It turns out that a "full takeover" actually only means 51% of the shares or more. That's not how I would have defined it personally, and certainly not what most folks on here mean when they use those words.

So when folks are talking about FPP having been thinking about a "full takeover" but SD saying that FPP never wanted to take control of the club, it is actually possible for both statements to be true, even though to many on here it may sound like a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...
Yes. More lies from donald however way you want to spin it
 
BucketBiff said:
I m convinced that this 10 million is the initial instalment of the takeover. The rest will be dependent on what division we are in. Donald’s having one last punt at making some money before selling.
Click to expand...
I'm going with this, if we don't go up this season, they've bought it for 10 million. If we're promoted, they go back to the agreed price. Either way they get the club.
 
Safc88 said:
Yes. More lies from donald however way you want to spin it
Click to expand...

Where's the lies exactly?

Nobody's managed to show me a single lie he's told yet. I have a 16-page thread on the PF board that I started last week where every single piece of "evidence" about his "lies" has turned out to be bullshit twisted by the #DonaldOut mob to make the owners look bad.
 
BigPeter said:
We were owned by a Texan doesn't make us experts in being a Cowboy now does it?
Click to expand...
I don't claim to be an expert. I simply stated something that has been widely reported. If you obsessed with others posts as much as you do with mine, you would see that the Everton fan said exactly the same thing.
 
fyl2u said:
Did they define "full takeover" at the meeting?

It seems that a lot of folks on here don't understand what a "full takeover" is. (And I was one of them before last week when I started my little investigation looking into the complaints against SD).

When Campbell was interviewed for the Echo, he said that his would have been a "full takeover" but with SD still a shareholder. It turns out that a "full takeover" actually only means 51% of the shares or more. That's not how I would have defined it personally, and certainly not what most folks on here mean when they use those words.

So when folks are talking about FPP having been thinking about a "full takeover" but SD saying that FPP never wanted to take control of the club, it is actually possible for both statements to be true, even though to many on here it may sound like a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...

No. I agree with you on that; I mentioned to one of the RAWA lads after the event that, although they keep saying he's always been looking to sell, I thought previously it was always a case of him being happy to sell varying percentages but wanting to remain at the club, whereas now he seems to be wanting to actually get out completely. That's one of the troubles with Donald though, we always have to read between the lines instead of him actually just being clear and concise. I think we all suspect that in an ideal world FPP wanted to keep the existing management team there (when they had Methven and Davison, now there's hardly a "team" as such), it would be easier than having to recruit people to run it so if he proved himself it would be a win win. That doesn't mean they wouldn't do it the other way, take over, let Donald leave and bring in their own people though
 
fyl2u said:
Where's the lies exactly?

Nobody's managed to show me a single lie he's told yet. I have a 16-page thread on the PF board that I started last week where every single piece of "evidence" about his "lies" has turned out to be bullshit twisted by the #DonaldOut mob to make the owners look bad.
Click to expand...

He told a lie in his very first press conference as Sunderland owner. There is clear video evidence of him saying ‘we’ve given Ellis £40m’. They had not given Ellis Short £40m.
 
The Sheepfolds End said:
He told a lie in his very first press conference as Sunderland owner. There is clear video evidence of him saying ‘we’ve given Ellis £40m’. They had not given Ellis Short £40m.
Click to expand...

No he didn't. Firstly you've misquoted him, and secondly £40m is how much they agreed to pay Short.
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
No. I agree with you on that; I mentioned to one of the RAWA lads after the event that, although they keep saying he's always been looking to sell, I thought previously it was always a case of him being happy to sell varying percentages but wanting to remain at the club, whereas now he seems to be wanting to actually get out completely. That's one of the troubles with Donald though, we always have to read between the lines instead of him actually just being clear and concise. I think we all suspect that in an ideal world FPP wanted to keep the existing management team there (when they had Methven and Davison, now there's hardly a "team" as such), it would be easier than having to recruit people to run it so if he proved himself it would be a win win. That doesn't mean they wouldn't do it the other way, take over, let Donald leave and bring in their own people though
Click to expand...

It seems to me that he does give us all the information but a lot of folks will tend to misread him, misquote him, misrepresent him and outright lie about what he said.

If he were to say "today is probably going to be sunny for most of the day but there's a possibility it might rain later" and then it does rain for a bit, there would be people on here saying "the lying bastard said it was going to be sunny!"
 
PhilSAFC said:
He never knew anything
Click to expand...
Do you think he was making stuff up ? i would like to think he was just given duff information ,got excited and once he posted couldnt find a way to back down.........it was the certainty and surface layer of varacity to his" the deal is done we can all relax"sic that sucked me in.
 
fyl2u said:
Where's the lies exactly?

Nobody's managed to show me a single lie he's told yet. I have a 16-page thread on the PF board that I started last week where every single piece of "evidence" about his "lies" has turned out to be bullshit twisted by the #DonaldOut mob to make the owners look bad.
Click to expand...

There are plenty mate, I'm surprised you havent come to this realisation in your "investigation" although I imagine you would admit to looking at things with a specific standpoint. Just because someone cant be bothered to take the time it would take to list with evidence something that you would dismiss, doesnt mean it's not there.

For example, when donald said we have given ellis 40 million for the club or that him and methven said the parachute payments were meant as security and nothing more for the money they owed, what do you interpret these to be?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top