Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YankeeCanary

Be Wary Of Promises Of New Ownership

Recommended Posts

While most of realise that Norwich need new investment ( who doesn''t? ) it''s interesting to review what Derby County has gone through in recent times. Derby has a better pedigree than Norwich and their supporter loyalty is similar to that of Norwich fans ( although Derby''s seating capacity is greater ). There is now further speculation of new interest in Derby. If you were a neutral which of the two clubs would you lean toward? 

In current news, Derby Chairman Adam Pearson, who I believe has a 25% interest in the club,  insisted the club will not become the subject of a hostile takeover from a Saudi Arabian consortium.

Weekend reports suggested a group would make an offer of £22million for the club, with a pledge to invest a further £10million in players.

American group General Sports and Entertainment bought Derby only a year ago and Pearson said: "We have received no such approach from any consortium. We are very happy with the present shareholding and we have no intention of selling the club."

Prior to the American group buying Derby it was thought the transaction would leave them debt free, as well as giving Derby the ability to buy players to maintain their Premiership status. A badly failed Premiership season later ( having acquired only only a third of the points Norwich gained on our last Premiership outing ) and with the departure of Bill Davies and Paul Jewell, two managers many posters here have thought of as attractive for Norwich in the past, Derby County finds itself not in a dissimilar position to Norwich.

After the takeover of the current Derby owners Peter Gadsby, the former Derby Chairman, had hit out at the Derby board for the lack of jurisprudence and vetting of the new ownership: Gadsby stated that he felt compelled to make public his serious concerns and “to question whether any new money has been invested since the takeover by General Sports & Entertainment.”

He claimed that he had been thwarted in attempts to gain confirmation of the £50m investment that was pledged by GS&E. “Following my appointment as a non-executive director at the time of the club''s takeover by GS&E in January this year, I repeatedly sought confirmation that public pledges of an investment of £50m – £18m to purchase shares, £22m to clear debts and £10m for new signings – were being honoured,” he said. “Right up to the moment I discovered that my position had been terminated, no answers were forthcoming. “Nor was there a single official board meeting at which these crucial matters could be raised, an astounding state of affairs."

Notice the word "pledged". Any word that looks like a pledge, a promise, or new player investment has to be suspect with any current board doing their job. 

Share this post


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

While most of realise that Norwich need new investment ( who doesn''t? ) it''s interesting to review what Derby County has gone through in recent times. Derby has a better pedigree than Norwich and their supporter loyalty is similar to that of Norwich fans ( although Derby''s seating capacity is greater ). There is now further speculation of new interest in Derby. If you were a neutral which of the two clubs would you lean toward? 

In current news, Derby Chairman Adam Pearson, who I believe has a 25% interest in the club,  insisted the club will not become the subject of a hostile takeover from a Saudi Arabian consortium.

Weekend reports suggested a group would make an offer of £22million for the club, with a pledge to invest a further £10million in players.

American group General Sports and Entertainment bought Derby only a year ago and Pearson said: "We have received no such approach from any consortium. We are very happy with the present shareholding and we have no intention of selling the club."

Prior to the American group buying Derby it was thought the transaction would leave them debt free, as well as giving Derby the ability to buy players to maintain their Premiership status. A badly failed Premiership season later ( having acquired only only a third of the points Norwich gained on our last Premiership outing ) and with the departure of Bill Davies and Paul Jewell, two managers many posters here have thought of as attractive for Norwich in the past, Derby County finds itself not in a dissimilar position to Norwich.

After the takeover of the current Derby owners Peter Gadsby, the former Derby Chairman, had hit out at the Derby board for the lack of jurisprudence and vetting of the new ownership: Gadsby stated that he felt compelled to make public his serious concerns and “to question whether any new money has been invested since the takeover by General Sports & Entertainment.”

He claimed that he had been thwarted in attempts to gain confirmation of the £50m investment that was pledged by GS&E. “Following my appointment as a non-executive director at the time of the club''s takeover by GS&E in January this year, I repeatedly sought confirmation that public pledges of an investment of £50m – £18m to purchase shares, £22m to clear debts and £10m for new signings – were being honoured,” he said. “Right up to the moment I discovered that my position had been terminated, no answers were forthcoming. “Nor was there a single official board meeting at which these crucial matters could be raised, an astounding state of affairs."

Notice the word "pledged". Any word that looks like a pledge, a promise, or new player investment has to be suspect with any current board doing their job. 

[/quote]

Shouldn''t this piece have been retained till Mr Doncaster''s fortnightly column preachings in the local Archant rag are printed?

Considering its content, word for word - it really could have been written by him.....Substitute Derby for Gretna....and away yer go! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difficulty that those posters who are so obsessed with "board out" mentality is their inability to see further than their noses as opposed to what was stated in this thread title and original post. If one learns to be objective regarding football on the whole, and what other clubs can experience if not careful, rather than just charging down a road of "I want what that club has" or "I want him/them out" then you start to read and learn, rather than stay mired in your little world of chopping on biscuits as you sit comfy in your seat and moan at what''s in front of you. Try a banana instead. You don''t need to chomp your jaws quite as firmly and it truly can lead to one being more mellow. 

Look at the pathetic responses:

"Which it makes it all the more important to take absolutely seriously, and to absolutely prioritise, the financial interest of local billionaire fans."

 "Considering its content, word for word - it really could have been written by Doncaster in his fortnightly column.....Substitute Derby for Gretna....and away yer go!"

"Beware new ownership eh?" and Canary Nut comparing Randy Lerner''s determination and commitment with Peter Cullum is beyond a joke.  

This thread is NOT about avoidance of new ownership, simply pointing out the dangers that are out there when those charged with the resaponsibility ensure they receive more than a promise before control changes hands. Not a constructive thought or response between the three of you as to what Derby experienced and the subject of the thread which is to beware of promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need new owners with more finance, thats obvious and the board knows this as well but I would never protest about them cause they have done their best, just a shame their managerial decisions have been bad ones!

 

Roeder out! 

Share this post


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

The difficulty that those posters who are so obsessed with "board out" mentality is their inability to see further than their noses as opposed to what was stated in this thread title and original post. If one learns to be objective regarding football on the whole, and what other clubs can experience if not careful, rather than just charging down a road of "I want what that club has" or "I want him/them out" then you start to read and learn, rather than stay mired in your little world of chopping on biscuits as you sit comfy in your seat and moan at what''s in front of you. Try a banana instead. You don''t need to chomp your jaws quite as firmly and it truly can lead to one being more mellow. 

Look at the pathetic responses:

"Which it makes it all the more important to take absolutely seriously, and to absolutely prioritise, the financial interest of local billionaire fans."

 "Considering its content, word for word - it really could have been written by Doncaster in his fortnightly column.....Substitute Derby for Gretna....and away yer go!"

"Beware new ownership eh?" and Canary Nut comparing Randy Lerner''s determination and commitment with Peter Cullum is beyond a joke.  

This thread is NOT about avoidance of new ownership, simply pointing out the dangers that are out there when those charged with the resaponsibility ensure they receive more than a promise before control changes hands. Not a constructive thought or response between the three of you as to what Derby experienced and the subject of the thread which is to beware of promises.

[/quote]

OK......I just thought it warranted a pathetic response.[8-|]....Didn''t wish to disappoint - and I actually only read the first....[S]ZZZZzzzzz

Share this post


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

The difficulty that those posters who are so obsessed with "board out" mentality is their inability to see further than their noses as opposed to what was stated in this thread title and original post. If one learns to be objective regarding football on the whole, and what other clubs can experience if not careful, rather than just charging down a road of "I want what that club has" or "I want him/them out" then you start to read and learn, rather than stay mired in your little world of chopping on biscuits as you sit comfy in your seat and moan at what''s in front of you. Try a banana instead. You don''t need to chomp your jaws quite as firmly and it truly can lead to one being more mellow. 

Look at the pathetic responses:

"Which it makes it all the more important to take absolutely seriously, and to absolutely prioritise, the financial interest of local billionaire fans."

 "Considering its content, word for word - it really could have been written by Doncaster in his fortnightly column.....Substitute Derby for Gretna....and away yer go!"

"Beware new ownership eh?" and Canary Nut comparing Randy Lerner''s determination and commitment with Peter Cullum is beyond a joke.  

This thread is NOT about avoidance of new ownership, simply pointing out the dangers that are out there when those charged with the resaponsibility ensure they receive more than a promise before control changes hands. Not a constructive thought or response between the three of you as to what Derby experienced and the subject of the thread which is to beware of promises.

[/quote]i''m sure all of us who are engaged in attempting to make profits during this nasty and severe recession will have first hand experience of clients who have cancelled orders (sometimes at the last moment), backtracked, attempted to renegotiate their contract terms or simple gone bust...what seemed reasonable 12, 6 months ago - can seem very unreasonable or even impossible now...in short - i have no doubt the yankee consortium investing in derby meant what they said at the time, but in the teeth of the credit crunch, they may well be digesting new economic realities that have cause them to backtrack on some of their earlier promises...therefore YC - your conclusions may be premature - but i''m sure all will made clear in due course...however, to translate this experience to NCFC is probably irrelevant - because as is clear, only a cash rich superprime could afford to purchase NCFC in the present climate - becuase only they would posess the necessary liquidity and collaterols to first buy the maj shareholding, renegotiate (or clear) the club debt, and be in a position to fund the playing side - as rationally befits the MO of a successful person///in my view YC - although i applaud your caution, i do not see the derby situation as being transferable to the sale of NCFC - purely becuase a new set of economic conditons exist now than then, and because bank credit is in very short supply - by default,,,only the credit worthy need apply!!!hope this helps you get a good night sleep YC!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Lucky. I sleep well regardless of all events around me. I would only repeat, regardless of the prevailing economic climate at any point in time, one has to be careful not to jump on the basis of anything that resembles a promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"]Thanks Lucky. I sleep well regardless of all events around me. I would only repeat, regardless of the prevailing economic climate at any point in time, one has to be careful not to jump on the basis of anything that resembles a promise.[/quote]fair enough yc - don''t trust at least until you can see the colour of the money - lol...doubt is everywhere in the downturn, but by definition, its a lack of confidence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Canary Nut"]Beware new ownership eh?  Try telling that to the fans of Liverpool, Manchester United, Aston Villa (best deal of all), Wigan, Hull, Fulham..........and in the Championship try telling that to the fans of Wolverhampton Wanderers, Birmingham, Reading etc.[/quote]

Liverpool fans hold protests against their American owners, and Man Utd fans started a new football club. Owners of Man Utd and Liverpool have landed them with huge debts.

Share this post


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

This thread is NOT about avoidance of new ownership, simply pointing out the dangers that are out there when those charged with the resaponsibility ensure they receive more than a promise before control changes hands.

[/quote]Much like the hiring of new managers, then.  Luckily, we''ve got a top notch selection panel courtesy of our wonderful board of directors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="tom cavendish"]

[quote user="Canary Nut"]Beware new ownership eh?  Try telling that to the fans of Liverpool, Manchester United, Aston Villa (best deal of all), Wigan, Hull, Fulham..........and in the Championship try telling that to the fans of Wolverhampton Wanderers, Birmingham, Reading etc.[/quote]

Liverpool fans hold protests against their American owners, and Man Utd fans started a new football club. Owners of Man Utd and Liverpool have landed them with huge debts.

[/quote]

Yes, really terrible. How both those clubs have suffered under their new owners!!

Must be awful winning Premiership titles and European Champions Cups, spending millions on the likes of Torres and Berbatov. Thank goodness it doesn''t happen at lil'' old Naarwich. We''ve got lovely land to cheer instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you imagine that Norwich were sold for £50m and then the new club owners just added that £50m to the club debt - so the club owes that £50m to the new owners.

Basically, the new owners get the club for free and the clubs owes an extra £50m than it did before. And then the new owners didn''t invest any new money in players as they had promised, instead they put the club even further into debt to buy players - then you''d might not be so happy with new owners.

Or perhaps you would prefer Kassam who has done wonders for Oxford Utd, Sam Hamman, or even Peter Ridsdale who did a lovely job with Leeds.

Share this post


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

:Look at the pathetic responses:

"Which it makes it all the more important to take absolutely seriously, and to absolutely prioritise, the financial interest of local billionaire fans."

This thread is NOT about avoidance of new ownership, simply pointing out the dangers that are out there when those charged with the resaponsibility ensure they receive more than a promise before control changes hands. Not a constructive thought or response between the three of you as to what Derby experienced and the subject of the thread which is to beware of promises.

[/quote]For a supposedly balanced and reasonable contributor, it''s a real shame that you feel the need to use disparaging language to describe the contributions of those who respond to you. Perhaps, given such an inability to avoid condescending us lowly individuals, it''s best in future if prospective respondents simply do not bother.To respond once again, my intital response to you was in my view an entirely "constructive response", in that it served to contrast that particular situation at Derby with the uniquely favourable position our board found themselves in last year. A "pledge" of significant investment from a bonafide, verifiable, UK born, UK based, extremely wealthy Norwich fan could not be any more different - or any more conducive to delivering a productive partnership - than the wanton and careless involvement of a faceless "sportstainment" corporation, based thousands of miles away in a country that barely understands the rules of football - let alone football fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Peter Thorne"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

:Look at the pathetic responses:

"Which it makes it all the more important to take absolutely seriously, and to absolutely prioritise, the financial interest of local billionaire fans."

This thread is NOT about avoidance of new ownership, simply pointing out the dangers that are out there when those charged with the resaponsibility ensure they receive more than a promise before control changes hands. Not a constructive thought or response between the three of you as to what Derby experienced and the subject of the thread which is to beware of promises.

[/quote]

For a supposedly balanced and reasonable contributor, it''s a real shame that you feel the need to use disparaging language to describe the contributions of those who respond to you. Perhaps, given such an inability to avoid condescending us lowly individuals, it''s best in future if prospective respondents simply do not bother.

To respond once again, my intital response to you was in my view an entirely "constructive response", in that it served to contrast that particular situation at Derby with the uniquely favourable position our board found themselves in last year. A "pledge" of significant investment from a bonafide, verifiable, UK born, UK based, extremely wealthy Norwich fan could not be any more different - or any more conducive to delivering a productive partnership - than the wanton and careless involvement of a faceless "sportstainment" corporation, based thousands of miles away in a country that barely understands the rules of football - let alone football fans.
[/quote]

Peter, perhaps my tone was a little harsh but I was influenced by the threee responses, none of which addressed the point of the thread. You are covering old ground with respect to the Peter Cullum issue. It''s clear that we are on the opposite side of the fence with regard to his interest. You will simply have to accept that my view is to trust the current majority shareholders to be better able to judge, versus you and me, whether what Peter Cullum had to offer would advance the interests of NCFC. To me, everything else is speculation by the uninformed. Why do I believe that? Because they have a lot more invested in the club than anyone else. They have been successful in other areas of their endeavours and, in my view, are intelligent enough to know whether what was on offer facilitated their best estimate of it being time for them to depart. They didn''t. For you to speak of a productive partnership is you both guessing and hoping that something would work. You have no accountability if it doesn''t. That''s why what you and I have to say on the matter carries very little weight.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we as a club just sit and wait like a single girl at her prom, and just hope some nice rich man (or woman, better be PC about this!) comes along with good intentions and sweeps us off our feet! Hopefully someone will and we won''t be hung out to dry with all the munters, (like Aldershot, Gretna...hehe!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]I guess we as a club just sit and wait like a single girl at her prom, and just hope some nice rich man (or woman, better be PC about this!) comes along with good intentions and sweeps us off our feet! Hopefully someone will and we won''t be hung out to dry with all the munters, (like Aldershot, Gretna...hehe!)
[/quote]

Jimmy, if you feel like a single girl at the prom and want to both dance and head off into the sunset with the first man that asks you then....THAT''S YOUR CHOICE. However, don''t delude yourself into believing that means that you own the dance hall.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="tom cavendish"]

If you imagine that Norwich were sold for £50m and then the new club owners just added that £50m to the club debt - so the club owes that £50m to the new owners.

Basically, the new owners get the club for free and the clubs owes an extra £50m than it did before. And then the new owners didn''t invest any new money in players as they had promised, instead they put the club even further into debt to buy players - then you''d might not be so happy with new owners.

Or perhaps you would prefer Kassam who has done wonders for Oxford Utd, Sam Hamman, or even Peter Ridsdale who did a lovely job with Leeds.

[/quote]

 

Welcome to the world of modern finance. Living on the never-never. That''s why it''s important the youth team set up is improved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of girls did that with dashing American gentlrmrn in WW2, only to regret it 9 monrhs later ........Sorry YC, couldn''t resist it !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ron obvious"]
A lot of girls did that with dashing American gentlrmrn in WW2, only to regret it 9 monrhs later ........

Sorry YC, couldn''t resist it !
[/quote]

Those smooth well groomed GI''s were so cute and entirely different to our male "East Anglian jug-eared bog-snorklin'' hay-bale munchin'' sugar-beet for brains bumpkins"....Dem Goddam yanks, promised us silk stockings, candy, dollars in our purses - and a whole new life.......In a hot an'' arid tumbleweed festooned trailer park on the outskirts of Tucson....Surrounded by "Big-bellied Budweiser swilling an'' baccy chewin'' pig-molestin'' rednecks"......"YEE HAH!"...."Yer jus'' squeal loika piggy boy....am a gonna catch yah!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ron obvious"]A lot of girls did that with dashing American gentlrmrn in WW2, only to regret it 9 monrhs later ........Sorry YC, couldn''t resist it ![/quote]?????I really must wear my glasses when typingor at least turn the light on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ron obvious"]
A lot of girls did that with dashing American gentlrmrn in WW2, only to regret it 9 monrhs later ........

Sorry YC, couldn''t resist it !
[/quote]

No need to be sorry Ron. My mother was one of those young girls. I never knew my father, except by name. He went back to America when I was two years old. Many years later, when I was based in Canada and had raised a family of my own, I attempted to contact him in the U.S. a couple of times by letter ( in a very discreet fashion not wishing to interfere with his American family ) but received no response. I learned a long time ago that one''s beginnings can help establish the right path in life but it doesn''t define the kind of person you ultimately become. That''s up to each one of us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bloody Hell Yankee! That is an amazing coincidence! I''m glad to see a flip remark by me, albeit in total innocence of your situation, didn''t upset you. I can think of a few others who would have gone ballistic.I''m pleased it all turned out so well for you. Respect to you & yours sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FAO Peter Thorne

I fully support your suggestion of not posting in future.  After all you have nothing sensible to say.  You clearly have no understanding of the Cullum ''offer'' despite innumerable threads on the subject and I suspect that you''re not really interested in the facts.  I cannot be bothered to go into again as you are not likely to comprehend the reality of the situation now if you haven''t already.  As I say give the ''not posting'' a go and see how that works for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Balham Yellow"]

FAO Peter Thorne

I fully support your suggestion of not posting in future.  After all you have nothing sensible to say.  You clearly have no understanding of the Cullum ''offer'' despite innumerable threads on the subject and I suspect that you''re not really interested in the facts.  I cannot be bothered to go into again as you are not likely to comprehend the reality of the situation now if you haven''t already.  As I say give the ''not posting'' a go and see how that works for you.

[/quote]

Balham, I readily admit my knowledge of the Cullum situation is based on secondary information only, i.e., existing media reports. Frankly, I am extremely irritated by your suggestion that I am either not concerned with the facts, or your implication that I lack the requisite intelligence to have formed by own assessment of what happened based on these reports. I accept the whole saga is riddled with hearsay and speculation, chiefly the fault of woeful investigative journalism around the whole affair. What is known is that Cullum was explicitly concerned with providing investment for the playing side; however it is entirely possible that Cullum''s intentions in this regard were not "honourable" and the quoted £20m figure was Cullum''s hostile takeover bid - which of course, as has been discussed ad infinitum ever since, would not have been acceptable.

However, from my perspective, given the state of our club and the wider economy a truly open minded, ambitious and foreseeing board would have made every effort to involve a man such as Cullum, and if no such arrangement could be formed (which I find hard to beleive), such a board would then disclose details of why negotiations broke down. The fact they did not opened the door for futher unhelpful speculation and acrimony between fans coming to opposing analyses of what took place, a outcome that still reflects badly on both Cullum and the existing board.

As to your equally insulting recommendation to cease posting, I will treat that with the contempt it deserves.

I may not be the authority on these matters (if you look at the innumerable threads at the time, you''ll see no contibution from me) but I will continue to try and use the resources available, including accepting corrections from more knowledgeable contibutors, to form my own evaluation and contribute to this forum as I see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Peter Thorne"][quote user="Balham Yellow"]

FAO Peter Thorne

I fully support your suggestion of not posting in future.  After all you have nothing sensible to say.  You clearly have no understanding of the Cullum ''offer'' despite innumerable threads on the subject and I suspect that you''re not really interested in the facts.  I cannot be bothered to go into again as you are not likely to comprehend the reality of the situation now if you haven''t already.  As I say give the ''not posting'' a go and see how that works for you.

[/quote]

Balham, I readily admit my knowledge of the Cullum situation is based on secondary information only, i.e., existing media reports. Frankly, I am extremely irritated by your suggestion that I am either not concerned with the facts, or your implication that I lack the requisite intelligence to have formed by own assessment of what happened based on these reports. I accept the whole saga is riddled with hearsay and speculation, chiefly the fault of woeful investigative journalism around the whole affair. What is known is that Cullum was explicitly concerned with providing investment for the playing side; however it is entirely possible that Cullum''s intentions in this regard were not "honourable" and the quoted £20m figure was Cullum''s hostile takeover bid - which of course, as has been discussed ad infinitum ever since, would not have been acceptable.

However, from my perspective, given the state of our club and the wider economy a truly open minded, ambitious and foreseeing board would have made every effort to involve a man such as Cullum, and if no such arrangement could be formed (which I find hard to beleive), such a board would then disclose details of why negotiations broke down. The fact they did not opened the door for futher unhelpful speculation and acrimony between fans coming to opposing analyses of what took place, a outcome that still reflects badly on both Cullum and the existing board.

As to your equally insulting recommendation to cease posting, I will treat that with the contempt it deserves.

I may not be the authority on these matters (if you look at the innumerable threads at the time, you''ll see no contibution from me) but I will continue to try and use the resources available, including accepting corrections from more knowledgeable contibutors, to form my own evaluation and contribute to this forum as I see fit.

[/quote]

....and so you should Peter but it makes for a slightly more concilliatory forum ( we wouldn''t want all the venom removed ) if, when responding to an original post, you at least acknowledge the intent of what''s been stated rather than simply restricting your response to something that only serves us to wander down the Cullum path....yet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, Yankee, I should apologise - in hindsight I concede I may have unhelpfully derailed your thread.However, I disagree it''s unrelated from our own "takeover"/investment situation last year. The situation at Derby shows how correct it is that the custodians of clubs are extremely wary and protective of unknown or potentially cynical investment. In this way I respect and endorse our board of directors for having their set of " criteria" to screen potential investors. The fact is that Cullum, on paper at least, must have complied with most if not all of those criteria, which makes it all the more damning that our board have failed to explain why no agreement could ulimately be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the apology Peter. By the way, if you look carefully at what I had to say, I don''t believe I said that it''s unrelated to our own "takeover/investment situation" last year, simply that the Peter Cullum situation has been thoroughly covered previously. Your final point is fair enough but I would suggest if you or I were in the place of the current majority owners, we might be inclined to say less rather than more publically while we continue to work and hope for investment opportunities ( including Peter Cullum ) through quieter channels. That''s what I would do in any event.

Share this post


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

This thread is NOT about avoidance of new ownership, simply pointing out the dangers that are out there when those charged with the resaponsibility ensure they receive more than a promise before control changes hands. [/quote]

Haven''t Wolverhampton Wanderers done very well with a change of ownership for a NOMINAL sum and a promise to invest in their playing squad.

BTW. How many old owners of a business can dictate to the new owners what the new owners can do with a business?

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...