Search results

Yes, I think it was a Friday night game against Southampton, just before Xmas 2000.

For some strange reason, a phrase about pots and kettles debating which one is the darker colour popped into my mind when I read this........

That's what I was trying to point out. This site has had an outbreak of "precious holier than thouness" (yes, I did make up that phrase) today. Someone reacts to criticism and it's all "ooooh, why so sensitive" Someone ties a balloon to a car and they get more stick than North Korea...

True - on the basis of a number of posts on this site over a long period, there are people who have no idea how corporate governance operates and so come out with rather silly sweeping statements. If I was on the end of such comments would I be a bit peeved? Reckon so!

Can we keep that quote ready to be accessed the next time a poster is criticised on here and goes into a rant :)

We're all speculating here, so here goes my attempt.... I don't think even SISU are thick skinned enough to expect even a substantial chunk of their money back - money that has produced no return for the company it was put into. I would guess that they would ask for more than any rational...

Speaking for myself, I gave them a chance until their behaviour showed me that they no longer deserved it. I can't speak for GH, but my guess is that his reasoning was similar and was probably reinforced by "promises" (business plans, strategies etc) given to him when he joined.

You speak to the owners if you believe they are (seems appropriate to quote Mrs T on her funeral day) "people you can do business with". It seems clear that whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, there are a number of people who do not believe that our owners fall into that category.

I think that we are at one of the most important points in our history. This summer (let's hope it doesn't drag on longer!) will decide whether this is a turning point or whether our decline will continue - I'm more than a little scared that in a couple of years we may look back on 17th in...

I remember the fuss about the lack of headed paper at the time. Always thought that as excuses went it was the biggest pile of *****

Happy to be converted - what is the basis of your cynicism?

I think I only saw it once - although as far as the printed word is concerned, our local journal doesn't always go in for the more detailed reporting!

I thought he had just become involved with West Ham which was why it was an issue - but I may well be mis-remembering.

Ranson very occasionally explained that he was talking about "external debt" i.e. excluding that owed to the owners. Too often though, he just used the phrase "debt free" which was simplistic and frankly a bit silly.

Pretty simple. The deal would have been done with a condition precedent i.e. SA would have resigned from the company before the deal was concluded so as to meet the relevant regulations.

This is clearly the key question and it does seem genuinely odd that it is taking so long to resolve. We understand that the share was in Ltd - if, as it appears, there are claims that it has been transferred to Holdings, there must be documentation supporting this supposed transfer that can...

Don't even suggest it. Given the hysteria on this site today, the NHS wouldn't have enough ambulances to deal with all the poor dears having seizures :)

Wow, a sensible post in amongst some of the most amusing hysterical ranting it's ever been my pleasure to read.

I think there are few if any people who believe that any poster is not allowed to hold a particular opinion. What is slightly different, is that some (many?) believe that if that opinion is to be respected it should be supported by reasoned argument. Not a pop at you, but we do seem to get...

Good point - after all lets not worry about the morality of state executions or the innocent people who would go that way when we could save a few quid for "the tax payer". We could put the money towards something useful like replacing Trident.......