clint van damme
Well-Known Member
More drivel.
Please oh please lets all forget about this. Its not going to happen, the fan base is now finished to finance it.
Lost in the sea of arguements but it seems to me that what's apparent is that we are already ran in the same manner as fan ownership now. Except with people whose priority is another company?
For those who could attend the meeting, Is this the case?
I can understand why the trust would have people from SD and PST there and it makes good sense. From the bits I saw on periscope they were good and the pompey guy in particular seemed very good indeed . My question is about the trust saying the protest group is separate but if actions speak louder than words it seems like the trust and the protest are bound up together? Answers welcome!
Well we are not as sisu had to find funds last January. Also there is the small matter of affording a far more expensive lease coming around the corner.
Lol
As you already know the terms of the lease then can you please enlighten all of us on SBT ?
Is this figure a fact, or another "Estimated fact" Grenduffy?.... And I've answered your question... Have the decency to answer mine!Around £750k a year I was told
What was the meeting about? What is the mantra of doing it the JH way? And no it's not an all out boycott. The two positions are aligned. The trust pretty much chaired the meeting. The majority of talking was done by PST and SD. DJ only really got involved when questions came from the floor, even then the vast majority of questions were directed at PST and SD, DJ gave mainly opinion as the face of a supporters protest group trying to encourage change at CCFC. Did he absolutely need to be there? No. Did he contribute to the meeting? Absolutely, especially in moving the debate on which helped everyone there on the night. Given the way he rattled TF on CWR I don't think its a bad idea giving DJ a platform, he's already proven he can get answers people don't want to give. So I don't see the issue with him being there last night.
Now moving forward the guy from PST was clear that the trust needs to be distanced from protest groups if they're going to be serious about fan ownership. I don't think that point was missed and I don't know but I suspect that you probably won't see representatives of protest groups on the panel of trust meetings going forward. I would certainly hope that's the case and if it isn't any criticism moving forward would be deserved.
That was the point of last night though. Talk to the people who have done it and learn from it to find a way forward somehow. I'm sure everyone there last night learned something whether on the panel or the floor.
Is this figure a fact, or another "Estimated fact" Grenduffy?.... And I've answered your question... Have the decency to answer mine!
Just caught Free Radios news bulletin. It only mentioned boycotting not that fans met to discuss a possible takeover. It basically said "fans were told last night that they will have no choice other then to boycott games if they want to takeover the club at a fans forum meeting last night"
This is pretty much what Nick has been saying. The meeting discussed many things but the soundbite that's been picked up is to boycott (regardless of whether it came from the floor or panel)
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Around £750k a year I was told
Around £750k a year I was told
Any summary of yesterday? Too much drivel and arguing on here to read through what was said...
Well we are not as sisu had to find funds last January. Also there is the small matter of affording a far more expensive lease coming around the corner.
What defines "favourable terms"? To me that's just rhetoric.the trust has approached wasps and I'm fairly sure it was hinted at that they would give the trust favourable terms. I don't know if anyone can confirm that?
I said in another post that the trust needs to be a little bit more transparent with some of the stuff they're looking into but I can understand why they wouldn't want to share this bit of information if true.
What defines "favourable terms"? To me that's just rhetoric.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
the trust has approached wasps and I'm fairly sure it was hinted at that they would give the trust favourable terms. I don't know if anyone can confirm that?
I said in another post that the trust needs to be a little bit more transparent with some of the stuff they're looking into but I can understand why they wouldn't want to share this bit of information if true.
So just to be clear you know the outcome of negotiations that were never actually completed and didn't break down because of the price? I'm calling bullshit.
And I'm still waiting for "The Promised" answers to my questions!Why do you keep dolling out the same turgid one liners?
Why the same tired insults?
In answer to the question as I say it's what I have heard and already stated it. I got slaughtered when I said it until another poster said a source told them the same - it went rather silent then.
Not nice calling Tisza a bullshitter is it?
So your source is Tisza. Who's Tisza? Why would Tisza be privy to such information? I stand by my original point.
And I'm still waiting for "The Promised" answers to my questions!
Coventry City will die if we stay at the Ricoh - Fisher
No we both heard it from the same source it seems doesn't it?
Oh. A source close to the club. Must be true then.
What was the meeting about? What is the mantra of doing it the JH way? And no it's not an all out boycott. The two positions are aligned. The trust pretty much chaired the meeting. The majority of talking was done by PST and SD. DJ only really got involved when questions came from the floor, even then the vast majority of questions were directed at PST and SD, DJ gave mainly opinion as the face of a supporters protest group trying to encourage change at CCFC. Did he absolutely need to be there? No. Did he contribute to the meeting? Absolutely, especially in moving the debate on which helped everyone there on the night. Given the way he rattled TF on CWR I don't think its a bad idea giving DJ a platform, he's already proven he can get answers people don't want to give. So I don't see the issue with him being there last night.
Now moving forward the guy from PST was clear that the trust needs to be distanced from protest groups if they're going to be serious about fan ownership. I don't think that point was missed and I don't know but I suspect that you probably won't see representatives of protest groups on the panel of trust meetings going forward. I would certainly hope that's the case and if it isn't any criticism moving forward would be deserved.
That was the point of last night though. Talk to the people who have done it and learn from it to find a way forward somehow. I'm sure everyone there last night learned something whether on the panel or the floor.
The trust have been working on this for two years we are told. I would expect after two years for them to have something to show for it. That's not unreasonable when they start talking about people putting money into escrow accounts and committing to buying shares is it?
This is the point isn't it. They need to be completely separate yet you have David Johnson up on stage at a Trust event about fan ownership. You have the Trust posting things about JHW protests on their website and you even had Moz getting the two mixed up. They very clearly aren't separate and they need to be.
Before the fans takeover they average 12.232 in L1 despite being bottom and getting relegated. Simple fact is they are a better supported side than us, in a much smaller city. If you then look that they required a large council loan and several individuals to put in large amounts it shows you what we are up against. And that was buying out of admin, unless we're saying push the club into admin we would need a lot more finance.
Pomepy's business plan for the first couple of years post fans takeover had 7 figure losses budgeted. They've since had to dilute their ownership as additional funds have been required.
That was the thing that struck me. A lot of what was being said by the Supporters Direct / Pompey representatives could have been straight out of Fishers mouth. Said in a less antagonistic way but still the same thing which will have the same end result. I wasn't really clear on how fan ownership would really change the way the club is run. Yes you'd have people who cared about the club involved which is obviously a good thing but if you have £1m to spend now or £1m to spend with fan ownership you're getting the same end result.
There was a vague notion that you'd get more sponsorship and more people turning up with fan ownership but IMO that's a long way from guaranteed.
Two said it at once. If you think he's a liar fair enough - it suits your agenda - hey ho
Look back at my post #384. I can't give you a answer till everything is done and dusted. What I think has nothing to do with you, and is irrelevant, until I deem to make my opinions thrown open for debate.With respect I asked you if you thought Ray ranson should have been loaning money to rival clubs when chairman.
I asked did you agree yes or no?
I don't want misdirected nonsense, I don't want talks about investigations I want a one word answer - did you agree with that approach from ranson
If you won't answer don't respond back if that's ok with you?
Agree but you must admit. If everything else is status quo. It would be better to have people making the decisions who you know are making them with the clubs interest at heart. Not what us best for a different business which is more important to them.
So who's your source then? What are the details of this £750K a season rent deal? Why would they share it with you? Two said it at once quitsies no returns. Seriously, how old are you?
Favourable as opposed to what? Quite easy to make hints about unlikely scenarios isn't it
It's his website of "Estimated transer fee facts" and "Other business figures" mate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?