Jump to content

Takeover / New Investment - What Rumours Have You Heard?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
32 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

There always has to be a conspiracy theory with some here doesn’t there. It’s never that the players themselves were just shit. Always some other issue or influence that caused it, usually from ‘de management’.  

What you say is true but if AL has been dressing players down and interfering again then he's a stupid man and clearly hasn't learnt his lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2018 at 10:57 PM, Nohairdontcare said:

The only thing going slowly slowly at the club is AL’s ability to learn from his mistakes. 

I raised a few points at the Trust meeting back in the summer about Lemsagam and my concerns*. One of those was him storming the changing rooms to have a go at players. Simon Brooke told me Lemsagam had promised Bunn and the whole of the playing staff that it wouldn't be happening again and he knows to keep out of it. Saturday was the 3rd time he's done it already this season(and we actually had won one of the games he did it at). 

 

The guy is a joker...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lee Sinnott said:

I raised a few points at the Trust meeting back in the summer about Lemsagam and my concerns*. One of those was him storming the changing rooms to have a go at players. Simon Brooke told me Lemsagam had promised Bunn and the whole of the playing staff that it wouldn't be happening again and he knows to keep out of it. Saturday was the 3rd time he's done it already this season(and we actually had won one of the games he did it at). 

 

The guy is a joker...

What game was it when we won? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lee Sinnott said:

Nixon reports in The Sun that Lemsagam stormed into changing rooms after the Exeter game and had a big row with Bunn...

It's a strange one for sure, does that mean the players weren't behind Bunn so they downed tools at Carlisle or were they happy for Bunn to lose his job to prove a point to AL, either way some of them can't be comfortable looking themselves in the mirror after Boxing days embarrassment compared to yesterdays rejuvenated performance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

It's a strange one for sure, does that mean the players weren't behind Bunn so they downed tools at Carlisle or were they happy for Bunn to lose his job to prove a point to AL, either way some of them can't be comfortable looking themselves in the mirror after Boxing days embarrassment compared to yesterdays rejuvenated performance. 

The latter I'd say, if it stops him from doing it again then it was probably worth doing, albeit not much consolation for those who travelled to Carlisle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

It's a strange one for sure, does that mean the players weren't behind Bunn so they downed tools at Carlisle or were they happy for Bunn to lose his job to prove a point to AL, either way some of them can't be comfortable looking themselves in the mirror after Boxing days embarrassment compared to yesterdays rejuvenated performance. 

Maybe Bunn did a Mourinho and did selective bollockings i.e. not the ones he brought in and so split the dressing room...….just an alternative point of view.

The more I read on here about the last few days, the less I care about Bunn leaving.

I was ambivalent about his appointment and at no point during the season to date did I ever think he was a good choice. Barry has a lot to answer for!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mikejh45 said:

Maybe Bunn did a Mourinho and did selective bollockings i.e. not the ones he brought in and so split the dressing room...….just an alternative point of view.

The more I read on here about the last few days, the less I care about Bunn leaving.

I was ambivalent about his appointment and at no point during the season to date did I ever think he was a good choice. Barry has a lot to answer for!!! 

100% agree with you with regards to Bunn not being the man and his recruitment, my disenchantment comes from the way we appear to be going about our business as a club, in the long run clubs will be even less reluctant to loan us their starlets if they become aware that our chairman is trying to micro manage the team and interferes with whats going on. Is it coincidence that Surridge was missing yesterday or do Bournemouth feel he'd be better out of an environment our club seems to pride itself on creating? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mikejh45 said:

Maybe Bunn did a Mourinho and did selective bollockings i.e. not the ones he brought in and so split the dressing room...….just an alternative point of view.

The more I read on here about the last few days, the less I care about Bunn leaving.

I was ambivalent about his appointment and at no point during the season to date did I ever think he was a good choice. Barry has a lot to answer for!!! 

I think the thing I disliked about Bunn's management was his lack of knowledge about the opposition. I appreciate we don't have the necessary staff to scout as much as some might like. But I felt Bunn didn't even do as much as he could.

 

Sometimes Wellens was the same, and it is difficult to get the balance right and use resources as effectively as possible, but I felt Bunn didn't do that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lee Sinnott said:

Nixon reports in The Sun that Lemsagam stormed into changing rooms after the Exeter game and had a big row with Bunn...

Like yourself I don't agree with the owner seeing the need to have to visit the dressing room to get it off his chest and maybe best for all concerned if he calls a meeting with everyone on the payroll to remind them why they're employed and how it affects the day to day existence of the club if they don't deliver the goods.

There's no room for passengers especially at this moment in time and if everyone's singing from the same hymn book i'm certain we'll be in with a decent shout

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Interesting article here about the sorry state of affairs up the road at W@nky Wanderers.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jan/09/bolton-ken-anderson-efl-ownership-forest-green-christian-doidge

 

The following passage especially pricked my interest;

 

"The EFL’s new policy for owners and directors is intended to enable sanctions against individuals who are not barred by the narrow “fit and proper person test” due to a criminal conviction, involvement in two football club insolvencies, or a director disqualification. The policy states that “direct action” can be taken more broadly, for: “A very serious single act or persistent serious acts … where the individual’s conduct is clearly damaging to the standing and reputation of the wider profession and the game of football.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

Interesting article here about the sorry state of affairs up the road at W@nky Wanderers.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jan/09/bolton-ken-anderson-efl-ownership-forest-green-christian-doidge

 

The following passage especially pricked my interest;

 

"The EFL’s new policy for owners and directors is intended to enable sanctions against individuals who are not barred by the narrow “fit and proper person test” due to a criminal conviction, involvement in two football club insolvencies, or a director disqualification. The policy states that “direct action” can be taken more broadly, for: “A very serious single act or persistent serious acts … where the individual’s conduct is clearly damaging to the standing and reputation of the wider profession and the game of football.”

That will help Blackpool too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lookersstandandy said:

Interesting article here about the sorry state of affairs up the road at W@nky Wanderers.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jan/09/bolton-ken-anderson-efl-ownership-forest-green-christian-doidge

 

The following passage especially pricked my interest;

 

"The EFL’s new policy for owners and directors is intended to enable sanctions against individuals who are not barred by the narrow “fit and proper person test” due to a criminal conviction, involvement in two football club insolvencies, or a director disqualification. The policy states that “direct action” can be taken more broadly, for: “A very serious single act or persistent serious acts … where the individual’s conduct is clearly damaging to the standing and reputation of the wider profession and the game of football.”

 

“Direct action” as in?  

 

If it involves the EFL taking control of a club and helping with finance I am very much against this.  That should NOT be allowed.  (At the end of the day it’s a private limited company and so I don’t see how they could hopefully).

 

A club lives or dies by it’s actions. The EFL shouldn’t be bailing clubs out or propping them up in any way.  That is an unfair intervention in a legitimate competition. It would be riddled with possible legal implications. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

“Direct action” as in?  

 

If it involves the EFL taking control of a club and helping with finance I am very much against this.  That should NOT be allowed.  (At the end of the day it’s a private limited company and so I don’t see how they could hopefully).

 

A club lives or dies by it’s actions. The EFL shouldn’t be bailing clubs out or propping them up in any way.  That is an unfair intervention in a legitimate competition. It would be riddled with possible legal implications. 

 

I dunno.... it would be interesting to find more detail on it from the EFL.... is it something the trust are aware of? I assume it would be some form of financial control to ensure employees & creditors are paid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

I dunno.... it would be interesting to find more detail on it from the EFL.... is it something the trust are aware of? I assume it would be some form of financial control to ensure employees & creditors are paid?

 

With no money? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

With no money? 

 

Eh? Take Bolton as the example..... they have income  (Premier League solidarity payments / TV money / gate receipts) that Anderson is controlling, such as paying himself £575k, whereas he’s alleged not to have paid his players or met his financial/contractual obligations to Doidge/FGR. If proven, the EFL step in and ensure the income/money is prioritised towards creditors before anymore commitments/agreements can be made. I guess it’s a form of administration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...