Got to be the EFL. I'm confident if we'd stayed up the PL would have stopped it. Relegation means we have to start again with the EFL but it is what it is. For what it's worth I completely agree with Al about protests now being pretty pointless (and have been for a while) and there isn't a way to make them sell when they don't want to. That fact is particularly depressing because even if we do go up again (which absolutely isn't an easy thing) they'll just piss about again and stall until relegation gives them another excuse to stop pretending to sell again.
Has there been some change to make anyone believe there will be change regarding name use or concessions? There won't be and trying to achieve it is the truely futile act. A passive display, like the red cards, is a viable in-stadium protest at their ownership; I believe it is totally unimportant that many will have memberships - the time for staying away as a protest has long passed. I posted a while back that the tactical use of local, national and social media is the way forward, but everything should be about their departure. Using name use and concessions as a lever in that is the more realistic way forward. Trying to appeal to the good nature of the Allams is foolish and demeaning. They understand the consequences of their actions all too well; to keep claiming they are too stupid to do so is the really stupid thing in all of this. If anyone wants to beat the Allams then give them credit for knowing what they are doing and try to understand why they do it. And understand, they will not back down.
As ever you are 100% wrong. I'd totally forgotten what Obi had to say on them. Even now I can only vaguely recall what he said. You can **** off if you think I'm telling you who I've heard the truth from but it's 100% more reliable than you. You can't sell to people who have no money, or who fail the tests or who just don't want the buy us. FACT.
OLM what makes you think you know what the truth behind the Peter Grieve bid is. I got my facts from the published documents in the US SEC.
I never said there was anything wrong with your post, though as he was obviously not funding the deal himself, his net worth was rather irrelevant. Though as you ask, the bit about people on here being wealthier than him is bollocks. He spent 25 years as an investment banker, heading up one of Goldman Sachs most successful divisions, he's not exactly skint. Neither was he 'never to be heard of again', he's still involved in plenty of things.
Peter Grieve was one of 400 vice presidents at Goldman Sachs. He isnt poor, but he only had a 10% share in the bank he was chairman that had to be bailed out by Citizen First. His shares were worth less than $5m at the time. He is into the App development industry and Windy River Group, who he is the chairman of, has not filed its accounts for 2016. Last accounts show a zero value on its shares. The investor who he had in tow, is one of the biggest penny share brokers in the us and is heavily into cannabis farming.
Apologies, with his shares in one company only being worth $5m, there'll obviously be loads of people on here who've got more money than him. Silly me.
According to the Allams we had many potential buyers not only the American and the chinese Dei. Everytime a deal fell through it seemed like two more were knocking on the door.
I accept your apology. Seeing as I didn't post anything ****e about the supposed ****s allegedly interested in buying our club. The only ****e posted was you lieing and making false statements about my posts. As per.
Indeed. Silly you. LESS than 5 million, and that's 5 million that wasn't hard cash. Now its no cash by the looks too. He'd have made a brilliant owner eh? Weren't you and the Trust wholly supportive of him and hinting at inside info? Oh aye.
It was my understanding that Grieve was heading a consortium who had the money ready if a deal was on the table, but the price and inclusions changed too often for them to progress. They had money, but no patience with the greedy ****s across the table. The cost of the preliminary talks alone signified intent. Any other arguments are just plain daft.
So would that be the SEC that didn't quite see the Enron scandal coming? Don't most rich people and rich institutions have their money tied up rather than in a bank account? I think you will find that a number of people had actually heard of him (both before AND since).
Is it? Nothing either of you day is convincing. Will you post convincing proof of your belief he did not represent a body of interest that could satisfy a sales deal?
Over the years I have found that those who argue the financial detail are full of ****; nothing has changed. These deals are complex and full of specialist detail. I'm certain the Allams have learnt alot, but it's quite obvious there are some, on here, who have learnt **** all.
Why would any rich backers send Peter Grieve on there behalf? It all seems a little odd. My opinion is there wasn't even anything at all in it.
