Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
morty

Mick Dennis article.

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="Jim Smith"]A bit of smoke and mirrors though as always when it comes to investment. I remain to be convinced how genuinely "open" to investment our owners have been.

A hypothetical scenario though. Given that the only real way we can compete financially long term is to re-establish ourselves at prem level and actually remain there, would fans prefer to take more of a punt whilst we are up there in return for accepting player sales in the event of relegation, rather than what appears to be the current approach which is to be more frugal whilst in the prem having half an eye on the following season?[/quote]Hasn''t the last transfer just taught us that even if you choose to sell players it''s not guarenteed.

[/quote]

Not really. I''m sure that if we had really wanted to sell certain players we could have done and indeed if we had a more coherent proactive rather than reactive strategy then we could have done.

For example, I am sure that had the decision been taken to move on Brady and Klose then we could have done so, probably for something in the region of £20 million plus. Yes sometimes your recruitment is so horrendously bad (see RVW and Naismith) that you get stuck with players you cannot shift but it seems to me that our current approach seems to ignore the fact that I a worst case scenario on relegation you can sell players, particularly in today''s inflated market.

In short, should we be giving ourselves a better chance to stay up by splashing more cash rather than worrying so much about what happens if we are relegated?

I would add though that even with the money we have spent in recent seasons I think we could and probably would have stayed up had (i) Hughton been sacked 3 months earlier, (ii) the recruitment in the summer of 2015 not been such a shambles and (iii) Alex Neil not lost the plot last season. It doesn''t therefore just come down to money but my overall view is that our current ownership model/approach is placing us at something of a disadvantage and we need to do something different if we are fortunate to get up again.

On the investment/buyers front I would also add that I think the timing of any willingness to allow new owners/investment is important. It is perhaps not surprising that at a time when we had debts of £23m that had to be repaid on promotion there were not buyers queuing up. Can the same be said of a premier league club with zero external debt or even last time we were in the championship? Everton, Swansea and Palace have all found investment in recent years whilst premier league clubs, but perhaps the key point is Moxey''s admission that any investor will want control. I think what Mick has said in his article is accurate and Delia & MWJ have never deliberately set out to damage the club, indeed often the opposite, but the question for me now is whether we risk getting left behind with the way football is evolving.[/quote]

Sorry, I know realise that it was foolish of me to use a real world example against a hypothetical scenario.

[/quote]

Which players are you suggesting we "could not" sell then?

We didn''t want to sell Brady and scared off suitors with the price tag. We obviously didn''t want to sell Klose.

We ended up having to keep Lafferty because we weren''t able to sign any more strikers.

The only other obvious one was Naismith who I am sure we could have sold had we been determined to do so.[/quote]You know this how?What was the price tag?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]The only other obvious one was Naismith who I am sure we could have sold had we been determined to do so.[/quote]How Jim?The guy''s on a VERY lucrative contract here, has done nothing to suggest we''d have any grounds for negating his contract, and even if any potential suitor is put off by his personal demands, we can''t force him to amend them either.Which means either HE has to choose to move, or we have accept the deal we''ve done and live with the consequences - much like Chelsea had to with Winston Bogarde, and Leeds did with Seth Johnson...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Glenn Medeiros "][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Glenn Medeiros "]That said having to pay off the huge debt they built up has hindered the club ever since[/quote]£7m was inherited from Chase and another large chunk was forced on them by having to rebuild the South Stand (£8.5m?) and if I remember correctly, interest on the loans was around £1.5m per year. So once again, another myth from the mouth of the Waveney washed ashore. [;)][/quote]

So 7 million inherited the rest built up by them. Mismanagement of the club resulting in relegation to the 3rd tier compounded the issue

Remember prudence with ambition. Nothing prudent about building a stand that nearly bankrupts the club.

They have been lucky with Lambert and McNally without them we would have been royally screwed[/quote]They had no choice. The council refused to issue a safety certificate effectively closing the stand. Next!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]

Which players are you suggesting we "could not" sell then?

We didn''t want to sell Brady and scared off suitors with the price tag. We obviously didn''t want to sell Klose.

We ended up having to keep Lafferty because we weren''t able to sign any more strikers.

The only other obvious one was Naismith who I am sure we could have sold had we been determined to do so.[/quote]

Moxey said ''two or three''

“We were working on two or three deals which were going out,

unfortunately they fell down and we had one or two players that we were

interested in signing but primarily because those deals didn’t go out,

we weren’t able to bring those deals in,” the former Wolves chief

continued.

“In effect, we were looking to offload some of the

players that we wanted to shift, weren’t able to do that and that

hampered our ability to potentially bring somebody in.”

I don''t know who they were or how determined Moxey was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Glenn Medeiros "][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Glenn Medeiros "]That said having to pay off the huge debt they built up has hindered the club ever since[/quote]£7m was inherited from Chase and another large chunk was forced on them by having to rebuild the South Stand (£8.5m?) and if I remember correctly, interest on the loans was around £1.5m per year. So once again, another myth from the mouth of the Waveney washed ashore. [;)][/quote]

So 7 million inherited the rest built up by them. Mismanagement of the club resulting in relegation to the 3rd tier compounded the issue

Remember prudence with ambition. Nothing prudent about building a stand that nearly bankrupts the club.

They have been lucky with Lambert and McNally without them we would have been royally screwed[/quote]They had no choice. The council refused to issue a safety certificate effectively closing the stand. Next! [/quote]

Close it then temporarily but don''t bankrupt the club it''s really not rocket science!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis is Delias mouthpiece in the press , he would defend her come what may , all people should worry about is why a club with 4 of the last 5 seasons in the Premiership, parachute payments , a player sold for £11 million cannot afford one decent striker in the squad .Where''s the money gone ???????/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Lessingham Canary"]TC said;

Moxey said ''two or three''

I believe it was Lafferty, Mulumbu and possibly Ruddy ?[/quote]

Do you what the determination threshold was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Glenn Medeiros "][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Glenn Medeiros "][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Glenn Medeiros "]That said having to pay off the huge debt they built up has hindered the club ever since[/quote]£7m was inherited from Chase and another large chunk was forced on them by having to rebuild the South Stand (£8.5m?) and if I remember correctly, interest on the loans was around £1.5m per year.

So once again, another myth from the mouth of the Waveney washed ashore. [;)][/quote] So 7 million inherited the rest built up by them. Mismanagement of the club resulting in relegation to the 3rd tier compounded the issue Remember prudence with ambition. Nothing prudent about building a stand that nearly bankrupts the club. They have been lucky with Lambert and McNally without them we would have been royally screwed[/quote]They had no choice. The council refused to issue a safety certificate effectively closing the stand.

Next!
[/quote] Close it then temporarily but don''t bankrupt the club it''s really not rocket science![/quote]

Sometimes I think how much simpler life must be, if you live in a black-and-white world like Waveney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]A bit of smoke and mirrors though as always when it comes to investment. I remain to be convinced how genuinely "open" to investment our owners have been.

A hypothetical scenario though. Given that the only real way we can compete financially long term is to re-establish ourselves at prem level and actually remain there, would fans prefer to take more of a punt whilst we are up there in return for accepting player sales in the event of relegation, rather than what appears to be the current approach which is to be more frugal whilst in the prem having half an eye on the following season?[/quote]Jez covered it in his interview on Radio Norfolk, the club is not for sale. So if that is the case, it seems the owners would be more than happy to take someone''s money and invest it into the club as long as they get to say how, when and where it is spent and the investor not looking for anything in return (such as a seat on the board at "their" football club).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CanaryOne"]Dennis is Delias mouthpiece in the press , he would defend her come what may , all people should worry about is why a club with 4 of the last 5 seasons in the Premiership, parachute payments , a player sold for £11 million cannot afford one decent striker in the squad .Where''s the money gone ???????/[/quote]

Those new sausage roll heaters didn''t come cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Iwans Big Toe"][quote user="Jim Smith"]A bit of smoke and mirrors though as always when it comes to investment. I remain to be convinced how genuinely "open" to investment our owners have been.

A hypothetical scenario though. Given that the only real way we can compete financially long term is to re-establish ourselves at prem level and actually remain there, would fans prefer to take more of a punt whilst we are up there in return for accepting player sales in the event of relegation, rather than what appears to be the current approach which is to be more frugal whilst in the prem having half an eye on the following season?[/quote]Jez covered it in his interview on Radio Norfolk, the club is not for sale. So if that is the case, it seems the owners would be more than happy to take someone''s money and invest it into the club as long as they get to say how, when and where it is spent and the investor not looking for anything in return (such as a seat on the board at "their" football club).

[/quote]I am sure there could be some compromise, with perhaps Delia, or her nephew retaining a certain amount of control. The trouble is there are few people who would turn up and just bung us a load of dosh to spend how we like. Investors want the control to make their investment grow, lets remember few are in it for the love of the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"][quote user="Iwans Big Toe"][quote user="Jim Smith"]A bit of smoke and mirrors though as always when it comes to investment. I remain to be convinced how genuinely "open" to investment our owners have been.

A hypothetical scenario though. Given that the only real way we can compete financially long term is to re-establish ourselves at prem level and actually remain there, would fans prefer to take more of a punt whilst we are up there in return for accepting player sales in the event of relegation, rather than what appears to be the current approach which is to be more frugal whilst in the prem having half an eye on the following season?[/quote]Jez covered it in his interview on Radio Norfolk, the club is not for sale. So if that is the case, it seems the owners would be more than happy to take someone''s money and invest it into the club as long as they get to say how, when and where it is spent and the investor not looking for anything in return (such as a seat on the board at "their" football club).

[/quote]I am sure there could be some compromise, with perhaps Delia, or her nephew retaining a certain amount of control. The trouble is there are few people who would turn up and just bung us a load of dosh to spend how we like. Investors want the control to make their investment grow, lets remember few are in it for the love of the club.[/quote]

Yes but the issue is really one the one hand you are saying you are open to investment yet on the other making it virtually inevitable, on a practical level, that nobody will want to invest due to the terms investment is available upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Iwans Big Toe"][quote user="Jim Smith"]A bit of smoke and mirrors though as always when it comes to investment. I remain to be convinced how genuinely "open" to investment our owners have been.

A hypothetical scenario though. Given that the only real way we can compete financially long term is to re-establish ourselves at prem level and actually remain there, would fans prefer to take more of a punt whilst we are up there in return for accepting player sales in the event of relegation, rather than what appears to be the current approach which is to be more frugal whilst in the prem having half an eye on the following season?[/quote]Jez covered it in his interview on Radio Norfolk, the club is not for sale. So if that is the case, it seems the owners would be more than happy to take someone''s money and invest it into the club as long as they get to say how, when and where it is spent and the investor not looking for anything in return (such as a seat on the board at "their" football club).

[/quote]I am sure there could be some compromise, with perhaps Delia, or her nephew retaining a certain amount of control. The trouble is there are few people who would turn up and just bung us a load of dosh to spend how we like. Investors want the control to make their investment grow, lets remember few are in it for the love of the club.[/quote]

Yes but the issue is really one the one hand you are saying you are open to investment yet on the other making it virtually inevitable, on a practical level, that nobody will want to invest due to the terms investment is available upon.[/quote]If you owned Norwich City, would you hand it over lock, stock and barrel, to someone who inevitably wants to make profit from it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Iwans Big Toe"][quote user="Jim Smith"]A bit of smoke and mirrors though as always when it comes to investment. I remain to be convinced how genuinely "open" to investment our owners have been.

A hypothetical scenario though. Given that the only real way we can compete financially long term is to re-establish ourselves at prem level and actually remain there, would fans prefer to take more of a punt whilst we are up there in return for accepting player sales in the event of relegation, rather than what appears to be the current approach which is to be more frugal whilst in the prem having half an eye on the following season?[/quote]Jez covered it in his interview on Radio Norfolk, the club is not for sale. So if that is the case, it seems the owners would be more than happy to take someone''s money and invest it into the club as long as they get to say how, when and where it is spent and the investor not looking for anything in return (such as a seat on the board at "their" football club).

[/quote]I am sure there could be some compromise, with perhaps Delia, or her nephew retaining a certain amount of control. The trouble is there are few people who would turn up and just bung us a load of dosh to spend how we like. Investors want the control to make their investment grow, lets remember few are in it for the love of the club.[/quote]

Yes but the issue is really one the one hand you are saying you are open to investment yet on the other making it virtually inevitable, on a practical level, that nobody will want to invest due to the terms investment is available upon.[/quote]If you owned Norwich City, would you hand it over lock, stock and barrel, to someone who inevitably wants to make profit from it?[/quote]

If it became clear to me that financially we were struggling to compete and that the person in question has the resources to enable us to compete and indeed potentially kick on and establish ourselves at the top level then yes and I think the last few seasons in the prem where our wage structure has prevented us from competing with even the likes of Bournemouth and Palace coupled with this summer and the way championship clubs are splashing the cash shows something may need to give.

I want my team to do as well as it possibly can on the pitch. I support a football team not a bank balance. Subject to the club not going bust and ceasing to exist I don''t give a t**s if we are debt free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Iwans Big Toe"][quote user="Jim Smith"]A bit of smoke and mirrors though as always when it comes to investment. I remain to be convinced how genuinely "open" to investment our owners have been.

A hypothetical scenario though. Given that the only real way we can compete financially long term is to re-establish ourselves at prem level and actually remain there, would fans prefer to take more of a punt whilst we are up there in return for accepting player sales in the event of relegation, rather than what appears to be the current approach which is to be more frugal whilst in the prem having half an eye on the following season?[/quote]Jez covered it in his interview on Radio Norfolk, the club is not for sale. So if that is the case, it seems the owners would be more than happy to take someone''s money and invest it into the club as long as they get to say how, when and where it is spent and the investor not looking for anything in return (such as a seat on the board at "their" football club).

[/quote]I am sure there could be some compromise, with perhaps Delia, or her nephew retaining a certain amount of control. The trouble is there are few people who would turn up and just bung us a load of dosh to spend how we like. Investors want the control to make their investment grow, lets remember few are in it for the love of the club.[/quote]

Yes but the issue is really one the one hand you are saying you are open to investment yet on the other making it virtually inevitable, on a practical level, that nobody will want to invest due to the terms investment is available upon.[/quote]If you owned Norwich City, would you hand it over lock, stock and barrel, to someone who inevitably wants to make profit from it?[/quote]

If it became clear to me that financially we were struggling to compete and that the person in question has the resources to enable us to compete and indeed potentially kick on and establish ourselves at the top level then yes and I think the last few seasons in the prem where our wage structure has prevented us from competing with even the likes of Bournemouth and Palace coupled with this summer and the way championship clubs are splashing the cash shows something may need to give.

I want my team to do as well as it possibly can on the pitch. I support a football team not a bank balance. Subject to the club not going bust and ceasing to exist I don''t give a t**s if we are debt free.[/quote]I don''t disagree with the premise of what you are proposing. But I totally back the current stance of the owners that whoever comes in has to be 100% right for Norwich City.And I don''t entirely agree that we are struggling to compete, frankly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s unfair to compare us with Palace and Bournemouth, one has an owner worth over £100m and the other an investor that is a billionaire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Iwans Big Toe"][quote user="Jim Smith"]A bit of smoke and mirrors though as always when it comes to investment. I remain to be convinced how genuinely "open" to investment our owners have been.

A hypothetical scenario though. Given that the only real way we can compete financially long term is to re-establish ourselves at prem level and actually remain there, would fans prefer to take more of a punt whilst we are up there in return for accepting player sales in the event of relegation, rather than what appears to be the current approach which is to be more frugal whilst in the prem having half an eye on the following season?[/quote]Jez covered it in his interview on Radio Norfolk, the club is not for sale. So if that is the case, it seems the owners would be more than happy to take someone''s money and invest it into the club as long as they get to say how, when and where it is spent and the investor not looking for anything in return (such as a seat on the board at "their" football club).

[/quote]I am sure there could be some compromise, with perhaps Delia, or her nephew retaining a certain amount of control. The trouble is there are few people who would turn up and just bung us a load of dosh to spend how we like. Investors want the control to make their investment grow, lets remember few are in it for the love of the club.[/quote]

Yes but the issue is really one the one hand you are saying you are open to investment yet on the other making it virtually inevitable, on a practical level, that nobody will want to invest due to the terms investment is available upon.[/quote]If you owned Norwich City, would you hand it over lock, stock and barrel, to someone who inevitably wants to make profit from it?[/quote]

If it became clear to me that financially we were struggling to compete and that the person in question has the resources to enable us to compete and indeed potentially kick on and establish ourselves at the top level then yes and I think the last few seasons in the prem where our wage structure has prevented us from competing with even the likes of Bournemouth and Palace coupled with this summer and the way championship clubs are splashing the cash shows something may need to give.

I want my team to do as well as it possibly can on the pitch. I support a football team not a bank balance. Subject to the club not going bust and ceasing to exist I don''t give a t**s if we are debt free.[/quote]I don''t disagree with the premise of what you are proposing. But I totally back the current stance of the owners that whoever comes in has to be 100% right for Norwich City.And I don''t entirely agree that we are struggling to compete, frankly.[/quote]

Yes they should be selective and not sell up to any old crook, of course that is the case.

However, if you aren''t prepared to relinquish control then you aren''t going to have any potential investors or buyers to select from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People tend to look at the rich owners who are currently ploughing loads of money in, so at the moment it''s Bournemouth etc.  A few years back it was QPR.  When Lerner bought Villa, he ploughed in a lot of money before he realised it''s a mugs game.  Going back in the 90s it was Blackburn, which was great for them for a short period but didn''t last and just look at them now.  And we need to remember (snigger) when the binners were pretty excited about having Marcus Evans take over. 

 

People just cherry pick the good examples and ignore the cases when it works out badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

People tend to look at the rich owners who are currently ploughing loads of money in, so at the moment it''s Bournemouth etc.  A few years back it was QPR.  When Lerner bought Villa, he ploughed in a lot of money before he realised it''s a mugs game.  Going back in the 90s it was Blackburn, which was great for them for a short period but didn''t last and just look at them now.  And we need to remember (snigger) when the binners were pretty excited about having Marcus Evans take over. 

 

People just cherry pick the good examples and ignore the cases when it works out badly.

[/quote]The fact is though (seeing as this is a thread all about facts), every single owner of a football club in the top two divisions and six or seven in the third tier of English football has an estimated net worth that is greater than our current owners. I see no reason why this trend will change and the longer we go on with the Smith''s refusing to allow others the opportunity to invest in the football club the further behind we are likely to find ourselves falling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Happy with every thing in that article but...

Why is the club categorically not for sale? Right, there''s scope for a lot of bad investment out there and there''s slim pickings interested in us anyway, which is fine...but why are they refusing all approaches?

You can argue that it''s theirs and they can do what they please. But they are getting on a bit and while I''m happy enough with their stewardship, I don''t look forward to when Tom takes over.

I really, really don''t like the idea of nepotism or hereditary ''successors'' anyway, it reminds me of when humanity was still stuck in the stupid ages but how are we to know he''d be any better or worse than any investor the club is refusing to speak to? You can''t tell me that just because he happens to be part of Delia''s family that he''ll automatically run the club as well as she has? Or that he''s even capable?

This transition to me has all the risk and none of the potential reward that another takeover could bring.

TL;DR: The article is informative and pleasing on the whole. But I just really do not like this categorically not for sale stance we''re taking. There is no harm at all in being open to and listening to offers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It''s true that well over 40 clubs have wealthier owners than ours. It''s also true that the majority of them have spent less time in the EPL than us since they got that investment. It''s also true that however many have rich owners the PL holds just twenty of them and three of those get relegated every season. Therefore it''s not true that having a richer owner will mean we are more successful. Of course if we have a very rich owner we should become more successful. Someone like the guy at Man Citeh would gaurantee it. If such an investor was to show interest I don''t believe he would be turned away. Just any richer owner will probably leave us in this same cycle of being competitive in the Champs but not in the Prem. And the moaners will remain in a never ending cycle of moaning and wanting more. And the investor will look to sell to someone else or out pull and let us rot. 
Apparently all this is ambition although I don''t see it. I know people who have been City fans for over 50 years and have spent at least half that time moaning about it. There by the grace of God....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Iwans Big Toe"][quote user="Its Character Forming"]

People tend to look at the rich owners who are currently ploughing loads of money in, so at the moment it''s Bournemouth etc.  A few years back it was QPR.  When Lerner bought Villa, he ploughed in a lot of money before he realised it''s a mugs game.  Going back in the 90s it was Blackburn, which was great for them for a short period but didn''t last and just look at them now.  And we need to remember (snigger) when the binners were pretty excited about having Marcus Evans take over. 

People just cherry pick the good examples and ignore the cases when it works out badly.

[/quote]

The fact is though (seeing as this is a thread all about facts), every single owner of a football club in the top two divisions and six or seven in the third tier of English football has an estimated net worth that is greater than our current owners. I see no reason why this trend will change and the longer we go on with the Smith''s refusing to allow others the opportunity to invest in the football club the further behind we are likely to find ourselves falling.

[/quote]

Yes but the fact is that some of those rich owners have brought success to their clubs, and some haven''t - some are awful and having our club as the plaything of a rich investor could turn into a complete nightmare.  Also the fact is that TV money in the Prem is so big nowadays that the wealth of the club owners is relatively less important than it used to be.  We had the money last season to stay up, it was other mistakes which were the cause of our getting relegated.

 

So for me it''s crucial to get back up this season.  If we don''t, I would then agree it will become pressing to think about this.  But it''s important to remember it''s not a one-way bet.  Having a new rich owner can be great for a club - but can also end up as a disaster.  I don''t see a recognition of the balance of risks from a lot of posters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blackburn were fine before Walker died thats where that started to go wrong as others didnt have his money or passion

The thing i worry about we have no money now , what happens when Delia and Micheal Stand down / leave / pass away and Tom gets the club

Tom has not even got Their wealth so we will be in a worse position

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="norfolkngood"]Blackburn were fine before Walker died thats where that started to go wrong as others didnt have his money or passion

The thing i worry about we have no money now , what happens when Delia and Micheal Stand down / leave / pass away and Tom gets the club

Tom has not even got Their wealth so we will be in a worse position[/quote]

We have gone beyond relying on anybody''s wealth.  We live within our means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ricky Spanish"]Happy with every thing in that article but...

Why is the club categorically not for sale? Right, there''s scope for a lot of bad investment out there and there''s slim pickings interested in us anyway, which is fine...but why are they refusing all approaches?

You can argue that it''s theirs and they can do what they please. But they are getting on a bit and while I''m happy enough with their stewardship, I don''t look forward to when Tom takes over.

I really, really don''t like the idea of nepotism or hereditary ''successors'' anyway, it reminds me of when humanity was still stuck in the stupid ages but how are we to know he''d be any better or worse than any investor the club is refusing to speak to? You can''t tell me that just because he happens to be part of Delia''s family that he''ll automatically run the club as well as she has? Or that he''s even capable?

This transition to me has all the risk and none of the potential reward that another takeover could bring.

TL;DR: The article is informative and pleasing on the whole. But I just really do not like this categorically not for sale stance we''re taking. There is no harm at all in being open to and listening to offers[/quote]

So when you go to the big football field in the sky, you will not bequeath your house and other assets to your children and other family? You''re going to pass everything to an unknown foreigner, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
morty wrote the following post at 13/09/2016 10:06 AM:

So basically Crafty, you have F-all.

😁

Just like you so my opinion is no less valid. As I have repeatedly said none of us have the information to know what is correct or incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...