|
Post by Henbury Gas on Nov 23, 2017 12:30:44 GMT
The interests of the F.C. and the owners of it aren’t inextricably linked. Ask what Brighton fans think of their former owner Bill Archer. Closer to home you’d have no problem with some of the ALQs biggest cheerleaders telling you that our previous owner put self interest ahead of what was good for the club. In fact Henbury is accusing him of it on this thread by now saying it was a bad deal from the start. Wow, you and a few others really do have it in for our current board don't you? They are not proper supporters like me and you baggy they always see the bad side of this great club
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 23, 2017 12:33:14 GMT
Wow, you and a few others really do have it in for our current board don't you? They are not proper supporters like me and you baggy they always see the bad side of this great club I really don't get it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 12:34:55 GMT
You and others are easily pleased. Our chairman is an employee, a puppet, a messenger in place to protect the owners from getting involved with anything uncomfortable. Wael had plenty to say to the media in the months after the takeover when all he had was good news but nothing since. Speaking to fans individually is not communicating with the fan base. He has shown zero leadership and zero courage since his family decided not to go forward with UWE. The lack of public communication from Wael since the collapse of the biggest and most game changing project in our history is contemptible and utterly disrespectful.. He was held on a pedestal by all but we are now seeing what he really is and in my view that is a disingenuous coward. The UWE was a bad deal from the very start, at least Wael came out and said as much. If you are happy to have a situation like Coventry where they have no home then the UWE is they way to go How do you know that - strange how Wael & Hamer looked absolutely gutted when they had to announce it. That decision was a BIG game changer for our club - and everything since then has been negative from the owners.
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Nov 23, 2017 12:34:57 GMT
Why do you think you're so important that you should know the ins and outs of the UWE deal? At the end of the day if it was a good deal we would be proceeding with it. Why would the Al Qadis walk away from a deal that's good for the club? If it's good for the club it would mean it's good for them as there's money to be made. The interests of the F.C. and the owners of it aren’t inextricably linked. Ask what Brighton fans think of their former owner Bill Archer. Closer to home you’d have no problem with some of the ALQs biggest cheerleaders telling you that our previous owner put self interest ahead of what was good for the club. In fact Henbury is accusing him of it on this thread by now saying it was a bad deal from the start. Well They took out a payday loan and gambled with the club because they were so desperate for their project to come off at all costs. Have the current owners done something even remotely as bad as that?
|
|
|
Post by philbemmygas on Nov 23, 2017 12:36:49 GMT
They are not proper supporters like me and you baggy they always see the bad side of this great club I really don't get it. Smoke and mirrors I tell ee I am all for Steve Hamer being given the opportunity to take part in the process before seeing him ripped apart by the usual suspects
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 23, 2017 12:37:58 GMT
The UWE was a bad deal from the very start, at least Wael came out and said as much. If you are happy to have a situation like Coventry where they have no home then the UWE is they way to go How do you know that - strange how Wael & Hamer looked absolutely gutted when they had to announce it. That decision was a BIG game changer for our club - and everything since then has been negative from the owners. Of course they were gutted, what did you want them to do, have a party? And what negativity? I've not seen or heard anything negative whatsoever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 12:38:38 GMT
The interests of the F.C. and the owners of it aren’t inextricably linked. Ask what Brighton fans think of their former owner Bill Archer. Closer to home you’d have no problem with some of the ALQs biggest cheerleaders telling you that our previous owner put self interest ahead of what was good for the club. In fact Henbury is accusing him of it on this thread by now saying it was a bad deal from the start. Well They took out a payday loan and gambled with the club because they were so desperate for their project to come off at all costs. Have the current owners done something even remotely as bad as that? And what have the owners managed to achieve since August 3rd apart from stitch the manager up - answers on a postage stamp.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Nov 23, 2017 12:41:02 GMT
The UWE was a bad deal from the very start, at least Wael came out and said as much. If you are happy to have a situation like Coventry where they have no home then the UWE is they way to go How do you know that - strange how Wael & Hamer looked absolutely gutted when they had to announce it. That decision was a BIG game changer for our club - and everything since then has been negative from the owners. If it was such a good deal for the club/family, why did we pull out of it ?
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Nov 23, 2017 12:43:06 GMT
The UWE was a bad deal from the very start, at least Wael came out and said as much. If you are happy to have a situation like Coventry where they have no home then the UWE is they way to go How do you know that - strange how Wael & Hamer looked absolutely gutted when they had to announce it. That decision was a BIG game changer for our club - and everything since then has been negative from the owners. If they were that gutted they would have never have negotiated to bluff in the first instance or simply walked away and stated the reasons why they have. They haven't. Secondly, if they were negotiating to bluff without a negative stream they would have put a plan b in place or at least had one in motion with architects and planners or even an initial concept to fall back on. They haven't. Thirdly, even with all the rumour swirl that is going around, they would have addressed the whole fan base with updates at least monthly to at least allay concerns and give some positive news. They haven't. I'm not anti ALQ's at all, I have my question marks about them but I still feel they could be very good for the club. But they can handle things and conduct things a whole lot better than they have.
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Nov 23, 2017 12:43:29 GMT
Well They took out a payday loan and gambled with the club because they were so desperate for their project to come off at all costs. Have the current owners done something even remotely as bad as that? And what have the owners managed to achieve since August 3rd apart from stitch the manager up - answers on a postage stamp. Comments like yours are exactly the reason why so many people are being driven from this forum. I've responded to a post trying to imply that the new board only have self interest at heart when our previous owner was doing just that and you respond with a nothing post that just board bashes.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Nov 23, 2017 12:43:51 GMT
They are not proper supporters like me and you baggy they always see the bad side of this great club I really don't get it. As I’ve alluded already supporting the Football Club and supporting the owners of it are two totally different things. I don’t get why you and others don’t get that. Wow! As supporters we should always be holding our owners to account. That was the “original” idea behind the supporters club getting places on the board and it was a concept no one had a problem with for Higgs and Co. So why is it a problem with the ALQs?
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 23, 2017 12:45:08 GMT
Well They took out a payday loan and gambled with the club because they were so desperate for their project to come off at all costs. Have the current owners done something even remotely as bad as that? And what have the owners managed to achieve since August 3rd apart from stitch the manager up - answers on a postage stamp. How have they stitched DC up?
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Nov 23, 2017 12:47:43 GMT
As I’ve alluded already supporting the Football Club and supporting the owners of it are two totally different things. I don’t get why you and others don’t get that. Wow! As supporters we should always be holding our owners to account. That was the “original” idea behind the supporters club getting places on the board and it was a concept no one had a problem with for Higgs and Co. So why is it a problem with the ALQs? And our wonderful SC directors kick up such a fuss when Higgs was taking us to the cleaners didn't they?
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Nov 23, 2017 12:48:26 GMT
How do you know that - strange how Wael & Hamer looked absolutely gutted when they had to announce it. That decision was a BIG game changer for our club - and everything since then has been negative from the owners. If it was such a good deal for the club/family, why did we pull out of it ? Ok then. If it was such a bad deal for the club / owners why did we / previous owners try to go ahead with it?
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 23, 2017 12:50:53 GMT
As I’ve alluded already supporting the Football Club and supporting the owners of it are two totally different things. I don’t get why you and others don’t get that. Wow! As supporters we should always be holding our owners to account. That was the “original” idea behind the supporters club getting places on the board and it was a concept no one had a problem with for Higgs and Co. So why is it a problem with the ALQs? So what exactly have the Board done that obviously gets you to hate them so much? Sold off part of the club? Not retained DC? Not looking to get a training ground up and running? Not looking to redevelop the Mem? Sold our Ground to developers, took the money and ran? What? Is it purely that for a few months you haven't seen them in front of a camera answering questions? What is it? Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by philbemmygas on Nov 23, 2017 12:52:55 GMT
If it was such a good deal for the club/family, why did we pull out of it ? Ok then. If it was such a bad deal for the club / owners why did we / previous owners try to go ahead with it? Possibly because they were prepared to give away much of the fund raising opportunities to save face/recoup their losses. That may or maybe the reasoning, as I am clearly not ITK I can't corroborate that statement, please debate sensibly (or not)!
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Nov 23, 2017 12:53:03 GMT
If it was such a good deal for the club/family, why did we pull out of it ? Ok then. If it was such a bad deal for the club / owners why did we / previous owners try to go ahead with it? I would suggest the head of a multi billion pound business had far more business acumen than a part owner of a small building company. Mr Higgs put the love of the club before any business transactions to do with that club.... The Wonga deal comes to mind
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 23, 2017 12:56:59 GMT
Ok then. If it was such a bad deal for the club / owners why did we / previous owners try to go ahead with it? I would suggest the head of a multi billion pound business had far more business acumen than a part owner of a small building company. Mr Higgs put the love of the club before any business transactions to do with that club.... The Wonga deal comes to mind And wasn't it our previous board who allowed a get out clause from Sainsburys to get past their Solicitors?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Nov 23, 2017 13:00:04 GMT
I would suggest the head of a multi billion pound business had far more business acumen than a part owner of a small building company. Mr Higgs put the love of the club before any business transactions to do with that club.... The Wonga deal comes to mind And wasn't it our previous board who allowed a get out clause from Sainsburys to get past their Solicitors? or as suggested at the time, they knew about that clause, asked for it to be removed and Sainsbury said they would not sign the contract without it..........
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Nov 23, 2017 13:00:14 GMT
If it was such a good deal for the club/family, why did we pull out of it ? Ok then. If it was such a bad deal for the club / owners why did we / previous owners try to go ahead with it? Because they had much less money and were much more desperate than our new owners.
|
|