Grendel
Well-Known Member
Name one other council that has taken that stance
That's SISUs point of view accepted. Now consider that you are the landlord...you'd probably wave said tenant goodbye & seek ANY reliable alternative(s) that will go some way to providing the desired/agreed income. Rather THAT than be held to ransom, or lose face.
Name one other council that has taken that stance
Ah the infamous 'name one' challenge from Grenduffy. Let me try it on you:
Name one council that's had to deal with a club, the directors of whom shake hands on a Heads Of Terms agreement; only then to renage like charlatans
Name one council with a part share of a stadium that that has been faced by a rent strike from its tenants?
Ah the infamous 'name one' challenge from Grenduffy. Let me try it on you:
Name one council that's had to deal with a club, the directors of whom shake hands on a Heads Of Terms agreement; only then to renage like charlatans
Tactic #2, changing the subject again because you've got no answers..
Thanks...my sentiment exactly
Can't answer the question so more childish insults
Answer this question. If the final solution is sisu get there way - notional rent and all revenues - or the club get liquidated what would be you preference.
I didn't enjoy that game last time you played it with me.
You asked me to name one scout who became a successful manager.
I did them you told me to name another.
I felt us was game at some point I was going to lose!
Can't answer the question so more childish insults
Answer this question. If the final solution is sisu get there way - notional rent and all revenues - or the club get liquidated what would be you preference.
You cannot answer the question posed back either though can you? The point we're making is that other situations, however similar, have little bearing on this situation.
Been away for a whole I take it, it has come out now that the rent offer wax actually around 150k a year.
Anyone get the feeling SISU actually don't want to sign a deal till they know where they will be next season.
So you were at the meeting?
No scout has ever made a successful manager - what ate you on about?
I've never seen you flounder so much Grenduffy. And that's saying something.
You even talk in terms of 'this board' as if the latest cast of characters is better than the others. It may be, but are you making distinction between the Waggott and Fisher partnership, or Fisher only, or Onje, Brody or Ranson? But I tell you why it's irrelevant. Obviously a Heads of Terms was agreed by the present board with ACL. But they went back to 'Mother Bee' and boy did those naughty boys take a bollocking. And they back-tracked like a French infantryman.
Conclusion? It's Joy who's pulling the strings. And all the other names I list above had Auntie Joy standing on their shoulder pulling the strings. And if she can't be bothered to be at the table, in person, now - with the stakes as high as this - then that's a damning indictment of the position you're failing to defend
No scout has ever made a successful manager - what ate you on about?
No hedge guns has even successfully run an English football club at this level. What are you on about?
So you have evidence that the agreement was agreed with ACL. Now that is sensational. Please provide evidence.
Originally Posted by Grendel:
No scouts go straight into the job - name one.
Dongonzalos
Frank Gregan
dongonzalos 10:00 PM 02-08-2012
Originally Posted by Grendel:
Any way Don was he an unqualified success and where is he now
Dongonzalos
Back to back promotions.
Edit Reply
ACL have stated it was yesterday. Do you have proof they're lying? If so, paste it right here.
And forget semantics, address the point
Manchester United are technically owned by a Hedge Fund.
Manchester United are technically owned by a Hedge Fund.
It was £400,000 a year?
No they were offered 150k
This is a statement from someone in the meeting.
All three directors said that is a figure we can work with.
They went through it step by step
They all reached an agreement it was on they all shock hands
SISU changed their minds.
No one knows the club say one thing ACL say another. So you believe ACL I don't. Wow massive scoop there MMM.
Er a difference from being a success?
No they're not. It's controlled by a Delaware-based organisation you know nothing about. To claim its a hedge fund is without any basis whatsoever
The majority of the cash used by Glazer to purchase Manchester United came in the form of loans, much of which were secured against the club's assets, incurring interest payments of over £60 million per annum. The remainder came in the form of PIK loans (payment in kind loans), which were later sold to hedge funds. Manchester United was not liable for the PIKs, which were held by Red Football Joint Venture Ltd and were secured on that company's shares in Red Football Ltd (and thus the club). The interest on the PIKs rolled up at 14.25% per annum. Despite this, the Glazers did not pay down any of the PIK loans in the first five years they owned the club. In January 2010, the club carried out a successful £500 million bond issue, and by March 2010, the PIKs stood at around £207 million.[1] The PIKs were eventually paid off in November 2010 by unspecified means.
...I said tecnically. A large proportion of debt is secured by a hedge fund
Fisher this morning said £400,000 and he confirmed that this was acceptable.
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?