Don't we all, But we have lost control by letting the yanks gain far to much power......Calling for Jenkins head will only increase their power further....
We knew from day one these ****ers were here for the £££. They have to much power because of that bastard Jenkins and co.
Thanks for clearing that up. Didn't the Moores and Noelle discussion go away because they only wanted to take 30% which would have had little effect on finance or development of the club. After talks with the trust reps it was reported their long term plans were to look at another 30% but the main stumbling block was £30 million valued the club at around £100 million. In effect what the Kaplan / Levein share purchase agreed with. Moores / Noelle then turned their attention to other investments. In law there was nothing to stop the shareholders selling to Moores or making the same profit. As for the Chinese bid - due diligence doesn't enter into it. A quick look at the Chinese 'bid' shows up SinoFortone and its main director Zhang as very dodgy, 'He (Zhang) claimed to have committed billions of pounds to green energy, infrastructure and tourism projects ranging from Crossrail 2 to a Paramount theme park in Kent. But after more than two years and numerous press announcements, Peter Zhang’s only British asset is a £2m pub in the Chilterns. SinoFortone Group, a Chinese investment outfit that blazed a trail with a series of eye-catching deals around the time of president Xi Jinping’s 2015 state visit, can today be revealed as a shell company that has failed to fulfil almost all its promises. As for ethics? I see your point but if there is an individual or group getting in the way of essential development you either stagnate and fail or get your plan fully thought out before presenting it. Normal business practice and in no way unethical.' The Swans bid was part of that £2billion. As for ethics? I see your point but if there is an individual or group getting in the way of essential development you either stagnate and fail or get your plan fully thought out before presenting it. Normal business practice and in no way unethical.'
But Huw has been emasculated by them. He wanted Clement gone ages ago - they refused. I'm also told that he was excluded from discussions over the Stadium deal.
I see a lot of players there who were here before Laudrup. Michu - top class before injuries etc JDG - far to lazy and often went hiding Chico - better than what we have now but not as good as Ash. Pablo - sick note Canas - crap Pozuelo - crap. Not many gems there. Anyway, this is old ground which has been debated a billion times over
The reality is that Huw will remain as Chairman for as long as the Yanks want him - and he wants to continue.
Sadly all clubs are vulnerable to the greed and wealth of the PL money. Jenkins saw an opportunity and took it. If it makes you happier get relegated and those greedy owners then have to stump up cash to keep those clubs affloat.Losing millions in the process. I think Bournemouth are in for massive problems when they eventually go down. Makes you sick when we have a country where our poor are now relying on food banks and the mega rich from abroad are seeing a market for even greater wealth. Its all wrong and will continue unless we all stop shelling out to Murdoch and co. Football in the PL isnt even a game anymore its a fecking product. What a lot of bollox. And im not just saying that because we are dropping down the Championship like a stone.
Anyway Fcuk the politics and let them get on with it.......Lets get behind the manager and players and try and stay in the premiership........What the future will be will be........
Agree Dai - but we do need the Club/Yanks to invest in the squad early doors in January to give us a chance of staying up
Whilst no one can deny that, I still think we’ll be in a worse state if he goes & we’re solely left with the Yanks. Some people go on about the £500k he’s taking as chairman, isn’t Pearlman supposedly creaming £750k. I couldn’t give a fvck what Jenkins earns personally.. the Yanks are only interested in making money out of us for their other interests, maybe DC United etc. I’m like anyone else, in being pissed off the way he’s handled the supposed ‘DOF’ role & the selling out to the ‘venture capitalists’.. he said we needed investment, well we still haven't got it Huw. Jenkins’ behaviour has been despicable by the looks of it, what with the ever increasing evidence & he certainly didn’t do due diligence in the ‘next level’ bullshit. But I still feel it’ll get even uglier before it’ll get better, if he’s gone imminently. If and when the Yanks leave, hopefully in the short term. Or if & when we stabilise, if they’re in for the long haul, might be the best time for him to go..
There are a few issues with your assessment here, firstly the trust have never been against the sale of shares of any director, what they have only wanted was due diligence in making sure that any new directors were fit and proper people. Secondly the first approach of the Moor consortium was correctly ended, as they were definitely not fit and proper, and Huw Jenkins conceded this, but the rat was still hell bent on getting the club equity sold ASAP, and he and the others decided from then on to cut the trust illegally out of any discussions, and while any director has the right to sell, they do not have the right to sell at any cost, as it has to be approved by all share holders as per the original share holders agreement that Jenkins and his co-conspirators side lined and broke, and it is on this question that the Trust paid £30,000 for legal opinion, which favoured court action...............
Phil - correct, it seems that the 'Sellouts' ignored the Pre-Emption Clause in the Shareholders Agreement
What happens on the pitch is determined by what happens off it. If you "fcuk the politics" you "fcuk the team".
