Search results

I think the point is more that (some) people believe that SISU will not sell the club at a price that anyone would be prepared to pay. Therefore if you believe that the club needs a change of ownership to be able to progress, then sadly administration appears to be the only way forward -...

I'm in London at the moment. I have an 11.00 meeting tomorrow - very tempted to "forget" it and find my way to the court instead. Mind you, it'd probably be a huge anti-climax like most of our big games :(

I think that everyone from every viewpoint on this site seems to agree that for a successful future for the club it's vital that the club owns the stadium. On that basis, wouldn't it be odd if potential buyers of the club weren't trying to establish what sort of deal might be available for...

To be fair, he only said "one of the best" :)

There are also many valid points which shouldn't be dismissed because of other posts. Too easy and too cheap. Generally I'd agree that he does OK, that's why I was surprised by his tone yesterday.

That's odd, I was reading a thread critiquing one bloke for doing a poor job. Where was this stuff about a BBC conspiracy, it sounds fascinating? Oh, and is he really a lizard? Was David Icke right after all?

Time of the month?

To be honest, I have no idea if that's true or not. If it is true, then I'd say it's a bit shabby. I'd also say it should be viewed in context against the past financial support and the (I assume) free hours that he's put into the club over the years.

If he was being blatantly anti-SISU then no doubt those who support SISU would be the ones complaining. As someone once said - that's life, stop crying about it etc etc :)

My concern was the lack of balance -this is the BBC after all. SL was highly concerned over ACL's reasoning for their court case but seemed completely unconcerned with the many ( and some would say more significant) questions that SISU had not answered. So happy for people to disagree, no...

Like he "didn't open his wallet" when he sponsored the youth team, like he didn't open his wallet the year we couldn't get a sponsor for the first team, so he stepped in and did it. Was that the type of not opening his wallet you had in mind?

I think that if you're going to make such statements you really need to support them with some logical argument. As I stated earlier, they were both on the Board in the earlier part of SISU's ownership. As also stated earlier, they were NEDs. Can you explain to me what you would have had...

That's true, both as I recall non-exec directors. I also seem to recall that Hoffman resigned when he disagreed with SISU's change of policy. So the point you were making was?

Maybe he'll have learned from experience, maybe he won't know any better. To me the point is that JE is a fan of the club, who having made a reasonable success of his business was in a position to support the club with his money (sponsorship of the youth team and on one occasion the first...

Given the capitals and the face palm, I'm assuming you don't know what an associate director is.

Now clarified. :)

Sorry I'm getting confused here. So he didn't want ACL to "press on" with their existing action (which is for administration) but instead wanted them to start an action to liquidate the club. Is that correct?

So to follow your logic, the football club needs owners who can buy the stadium. It seems pretty clear that SISU do not fall into that category (for whatever reason - irrespective of the rights and wrongs).

I thought that ACL were trying to get the club put into administration. A "winding up order" suggests liquidation, which is something quite different.

Whether any of this is true, I have no idea, but as the poster above suggests, the way to do it would be to have a conditional contract. All pretty standard stuff and much better than buying the club and only then starting negotiations on the stadium.