Jump to content

Takeover / New Investment - What Rumours Have You Heard?


Recommended Posts

Just now, HarryBosch said:

 

What if Abdallah, or other future owners, involve them a lot more than Corney has? 

 

Which they might... when it suits.  Though you can be 100% sure that if it didn't suit from time to time they wouldn't.  It doesn't alter the fact that it is a conflicted position that ultimately gets in the way of communication.  The trust reps here have admitted as much already, not that they needed to as it is obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, kowenicki said:

 

Which they might... when it suits.  Though you can be 100% sure that if it didn't suit from time to time they wouldn't.  It doesn't alter the fact that it is a conflicted position that ultimately gets in the way of communication.  The trust reps here have admitted as much already, not that they needed to as it is obvious.

 

How does it get "in the way of kom-yooo-ni-kay-shun"? Surely there'd be even less chance to communicate with Corney/the club and, therefore, less to communicate to us if they didn't have a seat on the board? 

 

You make no sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At what point in this thread does someone demand more transparency from the club, Corney challenges naysayers to meet him, a meeting is scheduled, cancelled, rearranged and eventually held, little further knowledge is gained, and we start the cycle again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Crusoe said:

At what point in this thread does someone demand more transparency from the club, Corney challenges naysayers to meet him, a meeting is scheduled, cancelled, rearranged and eventually held, little further knowledge is gained, and we start the cycle again?

Are we still filming all this? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, singe said:

I  agree, but the solution is to this is more communication of what is being done. I am sure hard work is going on behind the scenes.

Do you think the club communicate enough then? What I find a little perplexing is the ones who come over as critical of the Trust (they do have some valid points) are the same ones who call out Corney and Co's critics and call them out for having an 'agenda'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

Do you think the club communicate enough then? What I find a little perplexing is the ones who come over as critical of the Trust (they do have some valid points) are the same ones who call out Corney and Co's critics and call them out for having an 'agenda'.

 

Aimed at me, so I'll reply.  No, the club don't, not nearly enough. 

 

However, do you think there is a difference between a trust being obligated to communicate with its members and a private limited company voluntarily communicating with the outside world?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Underdog.

 

It seems clear that Simon has met AL because he is a Board member and AL has been to at least one Board meeting.

It seems clear that AL is aware of the Trust.

It seems clear that the Trust has not been formally approach concerning the 'whatever it is'.  This poses a possible further delay because you might not like it.  I would like to think the Trust will want to carefully consider what is presented to them and the options they have.  Just because we need something to happen doesn't mean it should be rubber stamped whatever it is.

It follows from the above that the Trust are not in a position to fill the information void because they only know what we know.

It seems clear that the EFL have not given clearance for this 'whatever it is' to happen.  If they have not given clearance by now then something was/is not right and either they need/needed more information/explanations.  The FACT that it has not happened means that it might not.

It seems clear that we have no idea at what stage any negotiations have reached but there does seem to be a deal of goodwill between the club and AL.

I assume we have to accept the official OAFC line that the little unannounced visit by HMRC will not impact on the 'whatever it is' although as an ex HMRC Inspector I find this a little difficult to swallow.

 

On and on and on and on....................................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kowenicki said:

 

I just think the club, as it is currently set up, is simply not fit for purpose.  The website is a joke, communication is next to zero and it is quite obviously conflicted.   This is not a personal attack, it’s an observation on the club and it’s structure. 

 

FTFY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

Do you think the club communicate enough then? What I find a little perplexing is the ones who come over as critical of the Trust (they do have some valid points) are the same ones who call out Corney and Co's critics and call them out for having an 'agenda'.

No, of course not. But the club is hopefully about to be sold and hopefully has a different ambition for communicating, and I have no chance of affecting that communication.

 But nor do I expect the Trust to be the same level  as the club currently.
No idea about the other stuff you have posted.

I just care about the Trust as a member. if the Trust think my comments and suggestions are unfair then that is up to them but hopefully will be seen as a family member offering help and advice rathe than being adversarial for the reasons I've already posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Aimed at me, so I'll reply.  No, the club don't, not nearly enough. 

However, do you think there is a difference between a trust being obligated to communicate with its members and a private limited company voluntarily communicating with the outside world?  

 

You have quoted time and time again that it is your belief that the club as a private limited company does not have to communicate then you call the persons from the Trust because they cannot tell you the information for the very reason that the limited company has chosen not to tell them.

How difficult is it to understand? The Trust are frozen out-of everything!  

There is a legal obligation for a seat on the board but the decisions do not get made at a board meeting! Whose fault is that exactly? Good grief this is hard work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ChaddySmoker said:

In the absence of any updates to the contrary, I assume that he is still being omitted from the decision making process

Not that I don't believe them but you could say that we only have the words of a chosen few that that is indeed the case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not getting drawn into this except to remind people that the last time a purported takeover/investment (the Chinese Lads) came to nothing, blame with thrown at everyone from Paul Scholes' barber through to Old Mother Hubbard and Mike Keegan. It's win win for the likes of Special K, damn the Trust for not telling all we know and then blame us if for some reason it falls through 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hinting at impending doom and then backing away when challenged on it does nobody any favours.

 

If you know/aren't being told nothing then fair enough.

 

If you know something of value then supporters should be told regardless on how it would affect relationship with club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boundaryblue80 said:

 

FTFY

 

Agreed, although I think the club website is ok actually.  You see, I'm not as polarised as you where everything on one side is horrible and everything on the other side is wonderful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, leeslover said:

I'm not getting drawn into this except to remind people that the last time a purported takeover/investment (the Chinese Lads) came to nothing, blame with thrown at everyone from Paul Scholes' barber through to Old Mother Hubbard and Mike Keegan. It's win win for the likes of Special K, damn the Trust for not telling all we know and then blame us if for some reason it falls through 

I just want to clarify one point from my posts, hopefully that is not just aimed at me. 

I absolutely am not talking about telling all you know, and have not asked for that in any way shape or form. I'll be disillusioned if that is all that has been taken from my posts so hopefully it's not at my posts. 

The reason I am concerned about communications is I was part of a group trying to save an historic theatre locally. It went quiet and we thought the leaders were working hard in the background. 3 months later we found they had literally given up 3 months earlier. 

Hence why I asked m, and was grateful for the response and knowing work is carrying on behind the scenes. And why I attach importance to communication. 

I highly value what you do and the free time you all put in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, deyres42 said:

Hinting at impending doom and then backing away when challenged on it does nobody any favours.

 

If you know/aren't being told nothing then fair enough.

 

If you know something of value then supporters should be told regardless on how it would affect relationship with club.

An army of straw men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...