Love to know where the money is coming from with next to no income. If it's not from Donald like you say, it must be from a secret investor on Mars.
I've been looking at your series of posts and have no idea what your point is. What is it you're actually saying?
I said that on SMB two weeks ago. And I wasn't ITK either. I merely suggested that it would explain why Sky are quiet. That's probably how rumour started.
Sandy believes SD is an outcast and the club could run and fund itself without him. I believe that without the crowds we are very much dependable on SDs money, and he will be the reason the wages get paid on a weekly basis. Sandy believes football clubs are a profitable business without the need for owners money. I believe that's not the case.
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308118342474108930 so there is a process! don’t think it involves him though?
Earlier on in this thread we were told that none of Bob's predictions had ever come to fruition because he's not allowed to post the truth... Yet we're supposed to believe his posts about the takeover not happening, but it might be, but its hit a stalemate, but furhman isn't interested anymore. I'd say it, and his little group of cheerleaders are pathetic.
Most of bobs predictions on the SMB have been very vague and some haven't turned out to be true, that doesn't mean they weren't happening at some point it just as easily means they fell through, this is something I think smug is aware of given the unjustified abuse he got last year. That's his own stubbornness regarding the takeover or investment stuff imo, I haven't heard him say furhman isn't interested by the way. It's shame there's a few of you really upset about it all, it's not often I'll bring up the subject of Bob because I'm not his cheerleader, I'll often defend him when people have a go if I think it's right that I do that, I'd defend others if I felt they were being unjustly called out as well, even if they were rude to me.
It might be possible that Bob is telling the truth, so are the other posters and Barnes if the situation is as follows. A particular buyer(s) are actively trying to buy the club. SD is also actively wanting to sell. The buyer is close to the club already meaning DD is not a problem is seen as less of an issue. There's been lots of positive talks but theyve not reached a deal and both parties are refusing to budge and it's been like that for a while now. In that scenario the positive info ITK's are correct there is a takeover progressing along and it's going well as they continue to talk and these things take time in business. However "there is no takeover" could also be correct as it has stalled and looks a bit wobbly at present maybe even a bit of frustration creeping in. Like SD saying something like "It's just not happening at price they have offered" Just a thought.
I see so what you want is to be allowed to dig out individuals as you see fit but if that conversation isn't validated by others you want to put an end to that and have control over who posts and what they post? Is that correct?
Not correct at all. People like you and Gilly keep posting things from someone who isn't here to respond to questions. When asked you and Gilly say you can't answer for Bob ... ... it's absolutely pointless and stupid. It's not debate, it's propaganda for someone who constantly contradicts himself.
