Pre Match in the Legends

[dagrumpymunki]

he couldn't legally, cos of the NDA

I suppose not

[Batch]

Fair enough. And to be fair if the man had been a bit more pro-active in getting his side of the story out a bit earlier, he probably wouldn't have got even that.

I think the biggest gripe was his expedited withdrawal of funds at a crucial time of the season. I think he'd still have got stick for it.

[pauld]

Fair enough. And to be fair if the man had been a bit more pro-active in getting his side of the story out a bit earlier, he probably wouldn't have got even that.

And if he'd been a bit more pro-active in managing his investment/staff he put in place to do so, he maybe wouldn't have had to threaten to put the club into admin/liquidation and dump us in the mess we're in now. And perhaps wouldn't have lost his investment.

[Flashheart]

I'm not that fussed about knowing who the money men are. I can understand why other people are, it's just not a big thing for me.

If it could just be confirmed somehow the money exists and the conditions under which it is invested into us won't screw us over then I'd be placated. Not sure it would be possible to 'prove' there'll be no risk to us whether the source is identified or not mind.

[fittons_coaching_badge]

I'm not that fussed about knowing who the money men are. I can understand why other people are, it's just not a big thing for me.

If it could just be confirmed somehow the money exists and the conditions under which it is invested into us won't screw us over then I'd be placated. Not sure it would be possible to 'prove' there'll be no risk to us whether the source is identified or not mind.

I suppose the FA would have wanted certain guarantees regarding future funding.

[london_red]

And if he'd been a bit more pro-active in managing his investment/staff he put in place to do so, he maybe wouldn't have had to threaten to put the club into admin/liquidation and dump us in the mess we're in now. And perhaps wouldn't have lost his investment.

He never wanted to be proactive with regards to STFC though - or it seems so from what he's said. As soon as he was forced to do so he tried to look for someone to buy it off him. The fact that no one was willing to until the 11th hour can't completely be his fault.

[Batch]

If it could just be confirmed somehow the money exists and the conditions under which it is invested into us won't screw us over then I'd be placated.

I can see where you are coming from. But how would you be able to know the money exists and we won't be screwed over if the backers aren't identified?

[Flashheart]

I can see where you are coming from. But how would you be able to know the money exists and we won't be screwed over if the backers aren't identified?

Don't really know.

But then identifying a rich investor is no guarantee they'll be willing to spend. Or something.

[london_red]

I can see where you are coming from. But how would you be able to know the money exists and we won't be screwed over if the backers aren't identified?

Schrodingers consortium?

[Batch]

Schrodingers consortium?

[pauld]

He never wanted to be proactive with regards to STFC though - or it seems so from what he's said. As soon as he was forced to do so he tried to look for someone to buy it off him. The fact that no one was willing to until the 11th hour can't completely be his fault.

Like most things in life, it's not completely any of the individual participants' fault, they all share some of the blame - Di Canio, Wray, Fitton, Black. But the fact that others are at fault too doesn't absolve Black. Or any of the others. But if we are to believe what we are told it was Black who was willing to put the club into liquidation because it suited him to get out quick when it all got a bit on top because of, ultimately, his failure to manage his investment propelry. I find that a little difficult to contemplate.

[london_red]

Like most things in life, it's not completely any of the individual participants' fault, they all share some of the blame - Di Canio, Wray, Fitton, Black. But the fact that others are at fault too doesn't absolve Black. Or any of the others. But if we are to believe what we are told it was Black who was willing to put the club into liquidation because it suited him to get out quick when it all got a bit on top because of, ultimately, his failure to manage his investment propelry. I find that a little difficult to contemplate.

And I totally see where you're coming from. The whole saga seems very out of character for a guy who's had as much success in business as he has.

I would tend to give him the benefit of the doubt a bit more as I don't think it was a snap decision - he did his best to flog the club but had that hard out date set and once it approached had to be more aggressive in making the sale.

[thepeoplesgame]

I was standing next to Steve Murrall last night whilst he was talking to a couple of the sponsors (well, some geezers in suits anyway), and couldn't help overhearing. They were talking about the search for a manager and Murrall was telling them the problem is that whoever they choose they won't please the whole of the fanbase, there's always going to be someone pissed off, fair comment I thought.

It's called running a football club. Paolo Di Canio's appointment sure as hell didn't please everyone but it worked, this next appointment is just as important.

[ron dodgers]

mates and business don't work as bertie said; £10 mill down the pan and nobody to get you home when you're hammered - pure speculation on my part of course.

[iffy]

It's called running a football club. Paolo Di Canio's appointment sure as hell didn't please everyone but it worked, this next appointment is just as important.

the thing that will unite the fan base is winning. pick someone who will give us the best chance of winning.