|
sonic youth
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: Friday, June 29, 2007, 22:44:55 » |
|
fans, devotees, 'lovechildren' = shareholders. total bullshit and you know it. what other 'business' has shareholders who are so passionate about the 'company' or 'group'? sports is incomparable to business in most respects, regardless of what sky might tell you. im just playing devils advocate, just trying to spark a response. then fuck off here then. i'm more than happy to respond to people's concerns and discuss them if they're genuine but not if someone's just on the wind up because they're fucking bored. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
STFCere
 Offline
Posts: 717
|
|
« Reply #61 on: Friday, June 29, 2007, 22:53:46 » |
|
'shareholder' is a term for anyone that has an interest in something.
ie, I could be a shareholder in my local park.
you make it sound like you're some sort of club spokesman, im just interested in debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ing on Sabin: "He's the new Thierry Henry"
Gazza on life in China: "I'm enjoying every day. I've tried everything: duck's head, chicken's head, chicken's feet and bats and hopefully, if I keep that up, I'll be flying."
'The first 90 minutes are the most important.' - Bobby Robson
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36334
|
|
« Reply #62 on: Friday, June 29, 2007, 22:56:14 » |
|
'shareholder' is a term for anyone that has an interest in something.
ie, I could be a shareholder in my local park.
you make it sound like you're some sort of club spokesman, im just interested in debate. I think you're confusing stakeholder with shareholder. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sonic youth
|
|
« Reply #63 on: Friday, June 29, 2007, 22:57:09 » |
|
the oxford english dictionary defines a shareholder as 'an owner of shares in a company'...so your point is redundant.
you're not interested in debate, you admitted it yourself. furthermroe, you seem more interested in debating the semantics of a single term than discussing the issues i responded to in your original post.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frigby Daser
Offline
Posts: 4173
|
|
« Reply #64 on: Friday, June 29, 2007, 23:27:41 » |
|
I reckon the statement is that blase that they've got something in the bag with regards to money coming in. I won't go so far as to say investment, because any money coming into a club like ours will have conditions we wouldn't see as ideal - and i doubt it'll fund tranfers and general development - more it'll keep us ticking over until the next deadline. But I'm fairly confident, going on their tone, that they've got something. Its that simple statement, its almost as if they all pissed off to the pub leaving the work experience kid to sort the statement out.
I expect some minimal, undisclosed 'investment' from a Diamandis-connected nobody, with a property connection perhaps, proclaiming he's the saviour and how we have Premiership potential inside 3 weeks.
I fear a Chippenham move inside 3 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frigby Daser
Offline
Posts: 4173
|
|
« Reply #65 on: Friday, June 29, 2007, 23:28:59 » |
|
'shareholder' is a term for anyone that has an interest in something.
ie, I could be a shareholder in my local park.
you make it sound like you're some sort of club spokesman, im just interested in debate. You're just wrong. Sorry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hansgruber
Offline
Posts: 1606
|
|
« Reply #66 on: Saturday, June 30, 2007, 00:34:11 » |
|
Let me guess, you got two A stars in English?
I did. And I still think the board are cunts. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
flammableBen
|
|
« Reply #67 on: Saturday, June 30, 2007, 00:38:50 » |
|
Just got back from work and that's one fucking ace statement. The board never fail to disappoint.
It seems a bit clear that they are just setting themselves for a I told you so. I'm guessing re-jigging debts from other related companies, or maybe (less likely) Sir Seton finding some more property to re-mortgage.
None of which fills me with a lot of hope for the mid-short term future of the football club.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hansgruber
Offline
Posts: 1606
|
|
« Reply #68 on: Saturday, June 30, 2007, 00:41:36 » |
|
What a load of old toss, eh? I've just got in after a night on the spangle - got all the way to the Rose Bowl, only to find out the game was off - had a chat with Michael Lumb, got pissed, and hoped for some good news when I got home.
Instead I got that shitty statement.
And apparently because we all think it's shit we're all stupid.
STFCere - what are your qualifications then?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36334
|
|
« Reply #69 on: Saturday, June 30, 2007, 02:00:25 » |
|
The statement didn't make me angry really. Bit of a nothing statement - wait until next week. I'll see what happens then and then probably get angry.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
newmarket red
, ; . ' ?
Offline
Posts: 1772
Thrives on negativity.
|
|
« Reply #70 on: Saturday, June 30, 2007, 08:31:03 » |
|
The statement didn't make me angry really. Bit of a nothing statement - wait until next week. I'll see what happens then and then probably get angry. Thats what my first thought was si |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Samdy Gray
Dirty sneaky traitor weasel
Offline
Posts: 27180
|
|
« Reply #71 on: Saturday, June 30, 2007, 08:33:50 » |
|
Seems I missed this little gem yesterday. Pure brilliance.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dell boy
|
|
« Reply #72 on: Saturday, June 30, 2007, 08:47:41 » |
|
I don't know what a lot of you really expected to hear from the board on the Friday statement.
The majority of fans on here are Trust/Consortium supporters, you have all clearly shown how pissed off you are, but the bottom line is simple, The Consortium have lost the war.
Whatever get out of jail option the current board have taken will almost certainly not be the best option for the long-term future of this club it will just keep us afloat for another season, it will be the only option left to the current board of directors and advisers to obtain the highest return on their money from relocation and development of a new ground.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36334
|
|
« Reply #73 on: Saturday, June 30, 2007, 08:53:54 » |
|
I don't know what a lot of you really expected to hear from the board on the Friday statement.
The majority of fans on here are Trust/Consortium supporters, you have all clearly shown how pissed off you are, but the bottom line is simple, The Consortium have lost the war.
Whatever get out of jail option the current board have taken will almost certainly not be the best option for the long-term future of this club it will just keep us afloat for another season, it will be the only option left to the current board of directors and advisers to obtain the highest return on their money from relocation and development of a new ground. Well done for your assertions. Your medal is in the post. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #74 on: Saturday, June 30, 2007, 08:54:00 » |
|
Whatever get out of jail option the current board have taken will almost certainly not be the best option for the long-term future of this club it will just keep us afloat for another season, it will be the only option left to the current board of directors and advisers to obtain the highest return on their money from relocation and development of a new ground. Assuming they have managed to sort anything out (and that's still a very big assumption) I think you're probably right about much of that dell other than two key points: 1) It's more likely to keep us afloat till Christmas at best - short-term bridging loan that temporarily keeps the wolf from the door but makes the ongoing situation worse 2) The chances of the current board being able to secure a deal with SBC for redevelopment are somewhat akin to me being chosen as a model for Vidal Sassoon. They're hanging on for something they've already torpedoed any realistic chance of happening some years ago. So even if they have managed to secure some sort of short-term bridging loan, this will have a while to run yet. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
