Two scenarios (1 Viewer)

[singers_pore]

Scenario #1
GH and the rest of the bidders are incompetent fools who had no idea about the conflict of interest arising from Sam Allardyce's directorship.

Scenario #2
GH and the rest of the bidders were intending to rectify the problem arising from Sam Allardyce's directorship in the event that the takeover bid got further down the road. In other words, there is no point in paying off Allardyce to get him off the board of the other company unless there is a real prospect that the takeover was going to happen.

What do you lot think? I find it hard to believe that Scenario #1 is the case. And the only other possible explanation I can think of is Scenario #2. That would possibly explain why GH was so keen on a confidentiality clause right from the beginning.

 

---

[operationprem]

This could only happen to us, we see a light at the end of the tunnel but its too good to be true. Nobody else will buy us we are stuck with sisu who dont want the club anymore an will sell whatever they can. Another sad day to be a city fan

 

[TommyAtkins]

"In other words, there is no point in paying off Allardyce to get him off the board of the other company unless there is a real prospect that the takeover was going to happen."

I think there are several other options but you are right: this may have been the intention.

However, there is massive interest in the media and amongst football authorities about the financial integrity of owners of clubs. Therefore, the imperative should have been to present a 100% viable, legal and credible bid from the start, to avoid this sort of unpleasantness