project big picture

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
What’s the official rationale behind vetting new owners?

If it’s to stop ****e like Wigan’s owners getting their claws on a team then it’s a good thing.

We know what the unofficial line is but that’ll never be approved anyway, they’ll have no justification in a high-court to stop a business transaction with good merit, so Newcastle fans need to calm down a bit.

Not saying I’m for/against it but I need to hear more than bullet points.

Also the Glazers & Ed need be shot first.
 
Anyone who puts Ole in charge and keeps him there should not be given more responsibility.

If it wasn't so funny for the rest of us I would support a move for kicking them out of English football.
 
Tel said:
What’s the official rationale behind vetting new owners?

If it’s to stop ****e like Wigan’s owners getting their claws on a team then it’s a good thing.

We know what the unofficial line is but that’ll never be approved anyway, they’ll have no justification in a high-court to stop a business transaction with good merit, so Newcastle fans need to calm down a bit.

Not saying I’m for/against it but I need to hear more than bullet points.

Also the Glazers & Ed need be shot first.
Click to expand...


It's to stop any takeover that would compromise the order at the top. It's clear to me that what's happened at Chelsea, City along with seeing Everton doing big things that they said enoughs enough this summer when the Toon takeover had them shirting their pants, so they want to remove the thing that haunts their dreams.. takeovers of clubs outside the cartel. They'll just say no to anything that concerns them and yes to anything they can still trample over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NostradEmus
captain wrong said:
It's to stop any takeover that would compromise the order at the top. It's clear to me that what's happened at Chelsea, City along with seeing Everton doing big things that they said enoughs enough this summer when the Toon takeover had them shirting their pants, so they want to remove the thing that haunts their dreams.. takeovers of clubs outside the cartel. They'll just say no to anything that concerns them and yes to anything they can still trample over.
Click to expand...
Its not mate it's about saving the small clubs from going under.
 
captain wrong said:
It's to stop any takeover that would compromise the order at the top. It's clear to me that what's happened at Chelsea, City along with seeing Everton doing big things that they said enoughs enough this summer when the Toon takeover had them shirting their pants, so they want to remove the thing that haunts their dreams.. takeovers of clubs outside the cartel. They'll just say no to anything that concerns them and yes to anything they can still trample over.
Click to expand...

It's to take the decision away from the cowardly PL who were willing to entertain a murderous dictator taking over a club as a PR tool.
 
Mick O'Toon said:
Is it though? Liverpool didn't think about the small clubs when they furloughed their staff a few months ago albeit they backtracked but the intent was still there.
Click to expand...
How you linking us trying to furlough staff with saving small clubs bro?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ivan Dobsky
astro said:
Anyone who didn't notice clubs facing relegation last season threatening to bankrupt the entire football system with [HASHTAG]#nullandvoid[/HASHTAG] just to avoid relegation for themselves also hasn't been paying attention.

**** the small clubs. When facing a disaster they only looked out for themselves.
Click to expand...

^^^^ This. My first instinct is no, and it's ironic that the FA would finally stop it anyway with their golden share - that which many on here tried to brush under the carpet when the FA said last season would not be null and voided. But let's not pretend that rampant self-interest drives all the teams, top or bottom, anyway: it's like some people I know being totally for FFP and against sugar-daddies - until they club they support gets taken over by spendthrift billionaires. I also find it a bit ironic that Leicester are not in group of Big 6 and 3 coat-holders and West Ham are: that in itself shows the inherent flaws in it. But I still don't buy into the argument that it makes it more difficult for another Leicester will come form nowhere to win the Prem any more that Spurs will win it because they are in the Big 6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bumps, Solid Air and Sucky
Donga Darko said:
^^^^ This. My first instinct is no, and it's ironic that the FA would finally stop it anyway with their golden share - that which many on here tried to brush under the carpet when the FA said last season would not be null and voided. But let's not pretend that rampant self-interest drives all the teams, top or bottom, anyway: it's like some people I know being totally for FFP and against sugar-daddies - until they club they support gets taken over by spendthrift billionaires. I also find it a bit ironic that Leicester are not in group of Big 6 and 3 coat-holders and West Ham are: that in itself shows the inherent flaws in it. But I still don't buy into the argument that it makes it more difficult for another Leicester will come form nowhere to win the Prem any more that Spurs will win it because they are in the Big 6.
Click to expand...
Many will not like this harsh troof.
 
Interesting that Parry has refused to deny that he's advised the big clubs to resign from the PL and rejoin the EFL should this fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back