I think his main concern will have been whether he was going to get paid not how that payment was being funded.
Sir Adam....
- Thread starter SW3 Chelsea Tiger
- Start date
-
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
-
I think his main concern will have been whether he was going to get paid not how that payment was being funded.
So other people can be wrong but you can't ?
And I don't think anyone is saying Adam Pearson didn't do a brilliant job either. I met him on the day/night he took over the club. I was at the shareholders meeting were all the smaller shareholders had to give their shares up so he could take over. On the same night at the same hotel there was a fund raising night for the club and Pearson joined our table along with John Holmes, the new commercial manager for the club. Everything Pearson told us he would do, he did, and he every player he said he would sign, he did.
This thread started when someone asked if they thought he sold the club to someone who could fund it properly or not..
No-one, or at least I'm not, is saying he did a bad job for us and I met him on many occasions to do with club business.
Last edited:
I don't disagree, but that still implies he'd have done the basic checks to make sure he'd have been funded.
None of that's a dig at AP, it's just a simple appraisal of the situation as I see it.
I said none of us know what happened, not that I'm right and anyone else is wrong, you seem to regularly respond to posts that weren't posted.
I don't disagree with what you said and I know you haven't accused him of anything.
Frankly, if Bartlett told him that he'd pay him £13m, but £3m of it would come from a loan taken out against the stadium lease, I suspect he wouldn't have cared (I wouldn't if I was in his shoes, most clubs have some sort of borrowing, it's peanuts compared to the £42m we're currently carrying).
FFS your replying before I've even finished the post.
And you seem to regularly respond to every post I make. This has been mentioned before but you denied it.
Last edited:
Which confirms the point I'm making, that contrary to your earlier comments, Pearson was quite liable to have known about the arrangement.
I just find it disappointing that fans are so eager to claim dodgy dealings when referring to one of our best ever owners, particularly when I don't think they were dodgy, so I end up fighting his corner a little.
I haven't claimed any dodgy dealings. I was making one simple point, that you accept that you agree with.
Defending him is fine, I'd be glad to see him, or someone similar here, but it doesn't help if that defence is misleading.
There you go again. How do you know that 'Ulrika's claim was nonsense' ? You don't .
But according to you only you can be right.
I only had the one point, and you have now agreed with my initial point that the comment of yours that I was replying to was misleading.
I'm not sure there's anything else to discuss on that now.
The lease allowed for a loan to be taken out against it, there was nothing illegal about it, it's a matter of public record, not an opinion.
Adam can do now wrong, Ehab can do no right.
Is that how it works with you ?
Well, I'm trying to think of three things that Adam did wrong and three things that Ehab has done right (without doing them wrong first) and, in truth I'm struggling.
I judge both on their actions.
So yes, pretty much, Adam did it all right and Ehab did it all wrong.
