->"I blame the owners for being spiteful and losing trust over a spat with the council. I don’t blame them for being the evil scum that you seem to have to accept to gain entry here. I don’t even resent Ehab for enjoying the PL kudos and the bigtime, as he was entitled to it." Really? Just WTF do they have to do then for you to blame them and see them as 'scum' (in relation to 'our' club)? And why was Ehab entitled to 'it' - he's an utter twat. FFS.
It was nearer Allam's version than either of yours. The name was in a lot of articles at the time, and I recall googling to find out more about him. It's why the question stuck in my mind.
As I said it is an interesting discussion. Problem is none of us really know the detail of some big issues so people are bound to draw their own conclusions one way or the other without any of us having key facts to discuss. I was merely pointing out that everything he's suggested has been suggested before, although I take the point that sometimes that has been drowned out. I was kind of hoping I had missed something that had 'finally come out' but from reading it I can't see anything.
When every man and his dog on here where hanging up the bunting, waving bye bye and popping the champers because it was a done deal. Even though the evidence was all there to see if you wanted to look and listen I was told I was like the Japanese soldier not believing the war was over and living in a cave. Didn't take it personally or to heart, just use it now and again to tease others. And don't even mention flags . Happy always had an alternative view and he was never worth listening to.
I guess they were pretty confident of doing a deal if the were prepared to lay down a 6 million deposit, which goes against HullovaGuy saying we were never ever close to being sold ( or words to that effect )
As you say this sums it up. If you are interested in buying you release the 6 million. They wanted us and believed they where buying us. They forgot about the bad apple. Clearly sorting the problem out by buying Reading.
That £6m is another thing that's been reported in different ways over the years. At this point I have no idea whether or not to believe that the Allams actually managed to trouser £6m of someone else's money for nothing. It seems far too ridiculous to be true, but it's football and it's the Allams so god knows.
Dunno what you're on about. It's there in black and white that the Mail say the test never happened. AA says they failed it. The PL never said anything. Hmm...
He didn't quote them though did he. There's no record of them saying anything on the subject. Perhaps if he'd written "a Premier League spokesman tells us" or something similar. Just saying that the Premier League found the deal unacceptable is just reporting what we've heard all along, which originally came from Assem Allam and that's still the only account we've got of it. But the Mail in that other article state that the test never happened because it was never submitted to them. The Athletic put it best in their article the other week which said "any potential deal collapsed amid unconfirmed suggestions they failed the Premier League's fit and proper person test".
Instead of arguing semantics of deals that didn’t happen for whatever reason, it might be better if this thread was locked until/if there’s ever something concrete to discuss. Seeing this thread posted on with no news or possibility of new owners to discuss is, quite frankly heartbreaking.
You're sticking by the quote that suits your preconception, and ignoring comments from a journalist that is generally viewed as reputable because it doesn't. Samuel's isn't the only place I've read that version either. By the look of it, the issue was so obvious it was flagged up by the Premier League before a fit and proper test was needed, which I think is where your confusion stems from and why I asked my initial question on why the consortium included him in the first place.
but if there is a likely new owner then the thread title will be changed back to 'new owners'. if you see it still being called its current name simply ignore it while the rest of us reminisce
I completely agree that version of events is quite probable. It's very different from saying that they failed the F&P test, which might not be something you said specifically, but it is the prevailing version of events that most people seem to believe. The point of me bringing all this up wasn't to correct you or anything, I just quoted your post because you'd touched upon the subject. It was more that the Dais was just another in the line of takeover attempts that could have happened but didn't, and the "nothing to see here" reasoning for it failing offered by Assem Allam probably isn't completely true.
What PLT posts regarding the investigation by the PL, has some merit, but not really much. I think his point is that the only people who have said that the Dia's bid failed the fit and proper test are the Allams. Is this true? Unless they also spoke directly to the press regarding the Reading deal as the Financial Times in April 2017 reported that the PL had supplied the results of its investigation to the EFL. The Dia's also stated on the failed bid to buy us, that the deal to buy Hull City had been done, and that they had put together an alternative bid that was subject to the PL approval and that they still wanted to go ahead with the purchase. It was this second element that I believe Assam pulled the plug on (not the first as that according to the Dia's it had already been done).
