Ownership developments

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


Let's hope the Prince noticed the office block and the hotel five years ago. Otherwise he's going to look a bit daft. I'm sure he's stayed in the hotel.

However you want to present it, you're talking the valuation down. As shown above. I may be wrong but I got the impression it wasn't about the valuation but about whether the Prince actually wants it.
I would have thought the means of valuation would have been set down in the original agreement. But who knows?

I think between us we have discovered the underlying cause of discord between the two of them. The Prince prefers to rent at knock down rates rather than buy the ground with McCabe reminding him he's still got an oar to stick in. Do you want to tell the judge or me?
 
I think between us we have discovered the underlying cause of discord between the two of them. The Prince prefers to rent at knock down rates rather than buy the ground with McCabe reminding him he's still got an oar to stick in. Do you want to tell the judge or me?


My usual experience with Judges is they suggest I've said enough already, so you can do it. :)

Look away now Pinchy,


enjoy the game Snooty!
 
I may have missed it and I’m not prepared to read the full transcript again, but I don’t recall anyone saying £20m will guarantee promotion. Not since Jack Walker anyway.

The £20m is how much McCabe wants for BL, Shirecliffe etc.
It was a number being thrown around, I don't believe for an instant it will be invested. My belief the root of this saga is that one or both of our owners has a buyer and they want all the gold for themselves.
 
It was a number being thrown around, I don't believe for an instant it will be invested. My belief the root of this saga is that one or both of our owners has a buyer and they want all the gold for themselves.
Being thrown around by whom?

I’d suggest that if McCabe had a buyer, he wouldn’t have offered his shares at £5m. If the Prince had a buyer, then surely he’d have agreed to the deal and then sold on. He’s now having to pay for litigation and risks losing.

We’ll find out in due course though. We’ll see how keen our owners are to keep fighting each other when we’re close to the bottom of the league and Wilder tells them if he doesn’t get funds for the JTW he’s off. There’s bound to be a couple of clubs underachieving around Christmas time, he’ll get offers again.
 
Got the new home shirt then ?
I got a half and half shirt.
I used to have a half and half shirt, I had half, my mate had the other half, but he gave 80% of his half it to a twat in his local.
I’ve got a shirt that’s worth nothing now. I may as well just give him my half but the c***t won’t give me anything for it.:rolleyes:
 
I used to have a half and half shirt, I had half, my mate had the other half, but he gave 80% of his half it to a twat in his local.
I’ve got a shirt that’s worth nothing now. I may as well just give him my half but the c***t won’t give me anything for it.:rolleyes:

Can't you lend him your half?
 
Seems from the accounts and the court judgement details we had to raise money to get us through to the end of the year and keep current levels of spending, unless we chose to believe the HRH teams version of no new money nor strengthening required. Brooks may well have wanted to go but looks to me like someone had to be sold to fund the club whether the player wanted it or not.
 
Seems from the accounts and the court judgement details we had to raise money to get us through to the end of the year and keep current levels of spending, unless we chose to believe the HRH teams version of no new money nor strengthening required. Brooks may well have wanted to go but looks to me like someone had to be sold to fund the club whether the player wanted it or not.


If we hadn't sold Brooks then we would have a shortfall. If Kev say had vetoed the sale for his own purposes he may have benefitted legally. Either he didn't or we couldn't keep the player.

Whichever, or whatever, Wilders budget is of paramount importance as is the two owners each honouring the promise that appears to have been made to Wilder regarding cash being made available.
 

If we hadn't sold Brooks then we would have a shortfall. If Kev say had vetoed the sale for his own purposes he may have benefitted legally. Either he didn't or we couldn't keep the player.

Whichever, or whatever, Wilders budget is of paramount importance as is the two owners each honouring the promise that appears to have been made to Wilder regarding cash being made available.

I think the Wilder/ cash issue was addressed in today's Star.
He gas been told to carry on with his recruitment plans.
 
With the £4m up front from the Brooks money, is my guess. That’s enough to keep Wilder here for now and allow him to do a bit of shopping. Fans are happy, Wilder is happy (ish), and Kev and Abdul can slug it out for the big spoils in Court, safe in the knowledge that there’ll be no accusations against them from the fans, for now.
 
With the Brooks money available? Or part of it ?

Gas?
Didn't specify - but if the names bandied about are true there must be sufficient for CW to make use of.

Gas looks like a combination of sausage fingers and predictive text :(
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom