Jump to content

The Guardian article


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, Ackey said:

That's an interesting coincidence isn't it...

 

Obviously not but it would suggest that since  Mr Conn is dealing directly with the protagonists on one side that he is not second guessing their position........while that does not guarantee the veracity of that position is does remove several layers of conjecture

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 minutes ago, Phoenix said:

Obviously not but it would suggest that since  Mr Conn is dealing directly with the protagonists on one side that he is not second guessing their position........while that does not guarantee the veracity of that position is does remove several layers of conjecture

You been reading a bit of Dickens recently ? 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The new US-based investors have arrived with big money and ambitious plans, but Heginbotham, a lifelong Latics fan, is more phlegmatic.

"Most benefactors usually want out in the end," he said. "We very much hope it will end well, but there is always an end. This time we have an excellent dialogue, and can advise the new owners. We'll also know what is going on. If the club is ever in trouble again, we can be more prepared to get involved to make sure it survives."

 

That hasn't aged well. Only thanks to the FLG we know as much as we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole legal thing seems to hinge around the fact that AL can't get his head around the club transferring £3.58m to Brassbank. To me it's straight forward. Blitz (Brassbnk) paid the council for the land. The council screwed up and agreed to buy the land back + compensation. The council wanted the money to go via the club for a reason the council can easily explain. I presume AL's lawyer didn't ask. Surely AL doesn't think the club had the funds to buy the land in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nzlatic said:

Why are the FLG shysters in your opinion?

They started this in September telling us they were a front for wealthy investors who had the money in place.

Heard nothing really from them till around Christmas when one of their spokes people said it was just a few more pieces of paper to complete.

Nothing since of any substance.

Because of this they have managed to pit the team owner against the ground owner and themselves. 

Caused nothing but more confusion and disruption as far as I am concerned with no end in sight and certainly no sight of any money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, whittles left foot said:

They started this in September telling us they were a front for wealthy investors who had the money in place.

Heard nothing really from them till around Christmas when one of their spokes people said it was just a few more pieces of paper to complete.

Nothing since of any substance.

Because of this they have managed to pit the team owner against the ground owner and themselves. 

Caused nothing but more confusion and disruption as far as I am concerned with no end in sight and certainly no sight of any money.

Would you buy something that is embroiled in a legal dispute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whittles left foot said:

They started this in September telling us they were a front for wealthy investors who had the money in place.

Heard nothing really from them till around Christmas when one of their spokes people said it was just a few more pieces of paper to complete.

Nothing since of any substance.

Because of this they have managed to pit the team owner against the ground owner and themselves. 

Caused nothing but more confusion and disruption as far as I am concerned with no end in sight and certainly no sight of any money.

But I've the owner had left the transaction to take place, then there would be owners who care for the club having worked as a volunteer for years, contributing to the income of the club right now and not an absent landlord. 

The owner could have bought it but /choose not to/cannot afford to. 

So instead he becomes disruptive. 

Struggling to see what the owner has bought to the club. 

What benefit does he bring? 

He's costing it 200k a month, which has to be paid back. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, singe said:

But I've the owner had left the transaction to take place, then there would be owners who care for the club having worked as a volunteer for years, contributing to the income of the club right now and not an absent landlord. 

The owner could have bought it but /choose not to/cannot afford to. 

So instead he becomes disruptive. 

Struggling to see what the owner has bought to the club. 

What benefit does he bring? 

He's costing it 200k a month, which has to be paid back. 

 

What has this got to do with the FLG?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, singe said:

Because they have provided far more information than the secretive contradictory owner. 

Oh aye that's gone well hasn't it? Still don't know who the prospective backers are, have they got any money, what are their intentions for the club, what is their timetable? Basically what's going on?

The information you seem to have gleaned is about the current ownership NOT the Flg-much good it has done you. Not changed much either has it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whittles left foot said:

They started this in September telling us they were a front for wealthy investors who had the money in place.

Heard nothing really from them till around Christmas when one of their spokes people said it was just a few more pieces of paper to complete.

Nothing since of any substance.

Because of this they have managed to pit the team owner against the ground owner and themselves. 

Caused nothing but more confusion and disruption as far as I am concerned with no end in sight and certainly no sight of any money.

Nah. AL not paying his bills has caused this. Without the FLG being involved we'd probably have less info in the open domain, but it's hard to see how they're making the situation worse. Worse for AL maybe, as they're giving SB a prospective alternative owner, but not worse for the future of the club as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, whittles left foot said:

Who gives a toss?

Well me for one. If the last 27 years of the club being owned by chancers who don't doesn't persuade you that having people who do might be worth a go then that's up to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, singe said:

But I've the owner had left the transaction to take place, then there would be owners who care for the club having worked as a volunteer for years, contributing to the income of the club right now and not an absent landlord. 

The owner could have bought it but /choose not to/cannot afford to. 

So instead he becomes disruptive. 

Struggling to see what the owner has bought to the club. 

What benefit does he bring? 

He's costing it 200k a month, which has to be paid back. 

 

Paid back how??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave_Og said:

Well me for one. If the last 27 years of the club being owned by chancers who don't doesn't persuade you that having people who do might be worth a go then that's up to you. 

Not what I meant in my reply.

I meant 'who' as in which group you think gives a toss?

From your your reply above it would appear you think the FLG do-evidenced by what may I ask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...