Jump to content

Joe Royle Stand and the OEC


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 839
  • Created
  • Last Reply
48 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

Hopefully they've got enough money to fill in the pot holes in on the north stand car park.

 

Thats the real travesty in all of this.

 

Oooo you.

 

And buy a cordless strimmer from B&Q... that’s even more serious for me... 

 

scruffy twats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

The key line in this for me is

 

"The Trust cannot vouch fir what is said in the club letter" 

The trust has announced its partnership with the “FLG”. Of course it won’t vouch for the club’s statement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tGWB said:

 

Certainly not correspondence the standard you expect of a ‘Slaughter & May’ correspondence Singe

Quite. I know Adam Morallee worked his way up to a partner at Mischon de Reya. And I'd never underestimate what is took to do that. Nor taking Microsoft and BMW with him, and business worth 600k in the first year.

But we've yet to see the skills that took him there so far IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, New Fan said:

The trust has announced its partnership with the “FLG”. Of course it won’t vouch for the club’s statement. 

 

They have a director on the board of OAFC what they are saying is that 1 director can't say with any certainty that the 2 others are telling the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

The key line in this for me is

 

"The Trust cannot vouch for what is said in the club letter" 

 

Fair point

I assume from that they have seen no evidence to substantiate any parties claims, and if there are lawyers on either side, its a sensible approach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

They have a director on the board of OAFC what they are saying is that 1 director can't say with any certainty that the 2 others are telling the truth.

Simply that we haven’t seen the documentation which the contents of the letter draw from. 

 

There no suggestion that the club is not telling the truth at all. We welcome that the club is seemingly trying to delve deep to understand the history of the how the OEC came to be and the club’s legal rights and position in all this. That is expressed in the letter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

They have a director on the board of OAFC what they are saying is that 1 director can't say with any certainty that the 2 others are telling the truth.

Of course the club is lying is the default position with some ppl. Do honest ppl ask for £100k when £1 rent is due?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Andy b said:

Simply that we haven’t seen the documentation which the contents of the letter draw from. 

 

There no suggestion that the club is not telling the truth at all. We welcome that the club is seemingly trying to delve deep to understand the history of the how the OEC came to be and the club’s legal rights and position in all this. That is expressed in the letter. 

Sensible position - it sounds as if the "audit trail" of documentation may have been misplaced somewhere along the way. It makes sense to unravel everything and then see where things stand. Pity it's taken so long but sounds as though some discipline is finally being put in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

I liked the line "as a matter of principal, we don't condone the club for trying protect it's commercial position"

yes I read it as "condemn" too - but mistakes happen 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, New Fan said:

Of course the club is lying is the default position with some ppl. Do honest ppl ask for £100k when £1 rent is due?

 

Do sound businessmen pay £100k rent when they’re sure their lease requires only £1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, wiseowl said:

yes I read it as "condemn" too - but mistakes happen 

Well spotted.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, we understand the club’s desire to protect its commercial interest and don’t have an issue with it taking steps to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, maddog said:

 

Do sound businessmen pay £100k rent when they’re sure their lease requires only £1?

Hence they stopped paying when they realised they’re dealing with less than honest parties. The FLG then publicised that the club doesn’t pay rent. Hence this clarification is importance to put the FLG’s public statements over the past couple of months into perspective. 

 

Are you you going to suggest we accept the conman was too clever and the victim of the con was gullible so they must now sit down and be nice to the conmen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, New Fan said:

Hence they stopped paying when they realised they’re dealing with less than honest parties. The FLG then publicised that the club doesn’t pay rent. Hence this clarification is importance to put the FLG’s public statements over the past couple of months into perspective. 

 

Are you you going to suggest we accept the conman was too clever and the victim of the con was gullible so they must now sit down and be nice to the conmen?

 

The fuck are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

I love these new accounts that are so pro AL. Especially the ones that are random normal names with numbers thrown in. Just like the account on Twitter that just so happened to have a copy of the letter sent to Paul Whitehead. 

Like this one: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, New Fan said:

Hence they stopped paying when they realised they’re dealing with less than honest parties. The FLG then publicised that the club doesn’t pay rent. Hence this clarification is importance to put the FLG’s public statements over the past couple of months into perspective. 

 

Are you you going to suggest we accept the conman was too clever and the victim of the con was gullible so they must now sit down and be nice to the conmen?

‘We’ as in you and your brother

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

I love these new accounts that are so pro AL. Especially the ones that are random normal names with numbers thrown in. Just like the account on Twitter that just so happened to have a copy of the letter sent to Paul Whitehead. 

Excellent observation, well done. No comment on the attempts to swindle the club out of £100k per year then? 

 

Shall we we move on? Has the Trust seen the accounts? Yes. But no comments required. 

 

Abdallah out. Happy?

 

Problem is, you don’t have anyone waiting in the wings to “save” the club. The FLG don’t have the competence to run a horse successfully (weren’t a few of them part of the same failing club?), let alone take over a football club.

 

maybe you should look into the issues raised and serious concerns about trying to defraud the club a little more than the twitter handles of information sources. 

 

I am am glad this important letter has been leaked. FLG has been playing a one sided game on twitter, now they have to respond to the points raised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...