• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Takeover in trouble

Status
Not open for further replies.
Botchie said:
Give it a rest man. You can't just twist things so it suits you. I wonder which fans group you're involved with and what your agenda is. At least that's what you've implied since yesterday.
Click to expand...

I'm completely independent, I have nothing to do with the club, any takeover group, or any other interested party. There are people here who can vouch for that, but I don't want to go down that route. GOM really did say almost exactly that, FWIW. I'll dig out the post.

Grumpy Old Man said:
You need to understand that the Collective Meeting is not an adversarial forum. If it turned into that it wouldn't last very long - the club would bin it. It's a forum where supporters groups can raise questions, hear the answers, and, on areas like the matchday experience , collaborate to an extent (eg the redecoration of the Roker End). The supporters ask the questions and the club give their answers. Individual supporters can express their own opinion on those answers when the minutes are published. If we are confrontational, we won't get anything at all.
Click to expand...

I agree completely, which is why I am saying that your interpretation of something in that context is difficult to set too much stall by, as I doubt hard questions were asked or answered. Then we have a board full of people who defer to you on financial matters (rightly, I'm sure you're a good accountant based on previous posts).

My point is that you are - whether you admit this or not - more inclined to be kinder in your interpretation of their answers than someone else. You could argue catch 22, but if you were outside of that meeting, reading the notes, then I suspect your take would be more sceptical. Is that fair?
 
Last edited:

KittenMittens said:
Ask legitimate questions (grounded in financial facts that we know) about something that should concern fans if it is true?

You're a flat earther mate.

Incredible. GOM has said himself that he is inclined to be a but softer in his interpretation because he sees a longer term value in that. Fine, but if you can't ask questions about our financial health without people accusing you of being illogical, we are fucked.

Everything I have said (and there are others who've said this before and after) is grounded in financial FACTS. The interpretation will always be more or less lenient depending on the interpreter, but there is plenty of reason to question their evasiveness.
Click to expand...
Oh right, so your assumption that he was tonguing their arseholes to allow him in was a legitimate question. You learn something new every day on here.
 
Confucius said:
The flat earthers are now throwing mud at decent posters, to see if that sticks.
Click to expand...

Unreal mate. @Grumpy Old Man put the work in on here over the years to help explain how the financial side of football works to folk who are clueless about it (like me), the RAWA brought him in to help us also more understand (all voluntarily), and he ends up getting shit for it!
 
Chop Sauce said:
We’re on the scrap heap man. Pull your head out of you arse. Reconnected with fuck all. Proud of underachieving? Last season was a failure.
Click to expand...
Correction.

We would have been on the scrap heap as we were very close to going under. The new owners reconnected with the fans and there was a feel good factor around the club albeit with a lot of hard work to do.

I would have loved us to get promoted but i'd much rather have a club to support whatever division it's in. Does that mean i don't want success? No it doesn't, it means that i realise that there's lots of hard work that needs to be done to get us back where we want to be.

The season before last was a failure as there's no way a premier league squad should achieve back to back relegations.

I suggest that you actually pull your head out of your arse as you so eloquently put it.
 
KittenMittens said:
I'm completely independent, I have nothing to do with the club, any takeover group, or any other interested party. There are people here who can vouch for that, but I don't want to go down that route. GOM really did say almost exactly that, FWIW. I'll dig out the post.



I agree completely, which is why I am saying that your interpretation of something in that context is difficult to set too much stall by, as I doubt hard questions were asked or answered. Then we have a board full of people who defer to you on financial matters (rightly, I'm sure you're a good accountant based on previous posts).

My point is that you are - whether you admit this or not - more inclined to be kinder in your interpretation of their answers than someone else. You could argue catch 22, but if you were outside of that meeting, reading the notes, then I suspect your take would be more sceptical. Is that fair?
Click to expand...

They were simply asked for full (or as full as they could provide) and coherent details. In my opinion, they did. Whether you like what they did or not isn't my problem.
 
Ghandi Floss said:
Unreal mate. @Grumpy Old Man put the work in on here over the years to help explain how the financial side of football works to folk who are clueless about it (like me), the RAWA brought him in to help us also more understand (all voluntarily), and he ends up getting shit for it!
Click to expand...

Is he getting shit for it? I'm asking whether his interpretation is kinder than someone looking at it dispassionately. Not saying has paid by the club, or that he's wrong per se, but that we have different opinions.

Some of you need to stop being so emotionally weird about anyone questioning GOM, Donald or anyone else. Ask questions. Get answers. Don't be naive.
 
KittenMittens said:
Is he getting shit for it? I'm asking whether his interpretation is kinder than someone looking at it dispassionately. Not saying has paid by the club, or that he's wrong per se, but that we have different opinions.

Some of you need to stop being so emotionally weird about anyone questioning GOM, Donald or anyone else. Ask questions. Get answers. Don't be naive.
Click to expand...
You said he was "tongueing their arse" Is that not shit?

Mebbe i'm just getting to old
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
They were simply asked for full (or as full as they could provide) and coherent details. In my opinion, they did. Whether you like what they did or not isn't my problem.
Click to expand...

Agreed it isn't, but as we aren't privy to the meeting minutes (which seems odd) it's very difficult to just be optimistic that they've all of a sudden become detail orientated in their answers and the club is getting it's £9.6m back asap.
 
KittenMittens said:
Agreed it isn't, but as we aren't privy to the meeting minutes (which seems odd) it's very difficult to just be optimistic that they've all of a sudden become detail orientated in their answers and the club is getting it's £9.6m back asap.
Click to expand...

You will be privy to the minutes when they're released later today.
 
“One can praise the fact that the management of the team itself remains stable and Jack Ross has the opportunity to evaluate and learn from his mistakes, however on the financial and recruitment side things appear to be vague and lacking direction” writes Tom Fowdy. Just over a year ago, Wearside was in euphoria as Stewart Donald and Charlie...

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Dilligaf60 said:
If said poster has the temerity to provide an opposite view, or a view that doesn’t align with theirs, he or she will ultimately be labelled as an arse licker, a sheep, a clapping seal or just plain weird. That’s how things work these days. If they don’t have proof or evidence then they’ll use innuendo, vague hints or just outright made up nonsense to support their cause. There’s nothing wrong with healthy scepticism but it’s best fact based. We are right to question things when we have concerns, but also accept we may not like the answers as it may not be what we want to hear. Eventually the truth will come out, until then a modicum of restraint and patience would be welcome. But in these times of I want it now that, I fear isn’t going to happen.
Click to expand...

Good post mate. There are some who have become very good at casting doubts on the integrity of anyone who doesn't share their view.
Sad days on here at the minute.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
You will be privy to the minutes when they're released later today.
Click to expand...

Well there we go then. Thanks for the update.

Lots of people being precious about throwaway lines here. GOM chose to go to that meeting, he could have said no. I'm glad he did because I respect his acumen, but I do fundamentally disagree with some of his interpretation of the facts prior to the meeting. That makes me interested to see what has made him positive now based on their answers.

What should be more apparent to everyone is that it would be much easier if we had the relevant facts about this loan and what happened. The fact that Donald has deliberately set Madrox up in a way that would obstruct us ever knowing should tell it's own tale.
 
Last edited:
chunksafc said:
Nor to mine, I would suggest this is quite new territory for Football Clubs, so I can understand the need for checking.

Imagine if the minutes / what was divulged wasn't checked and it was released admitting we had either a shit load of spare cash or not a pot to piss in - other clubs / creditors etc would soon pick up on it and react accordingly
Click to expand...

It's not so much that. Charlie's not that stupid. It's more that there are a number of groups involved. The checking is more a case of agreeing whether what was taken down by the minute-taker accurately reflects what was said. It's sort of pre-empting the usual committee thing of agreeing the minutes at the start of the next meeeting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top