Fully agree, but he probably was open to them. I'm talking about when he's dead set on/against something that he's thinks is 100% the correct thing but he has someone/more then one person pushing back on it etc. Things are always agreeable when you agree with it or are open to it
I get the feeling to a large degree this is all about Duff. He has a very high opinion of himself, and largely due to Acun investment was given the tools, Jarvis and Woods to achieve what he has. From what I have seen of games, Jarvis, Woods and Moylan were much better than the others in the team, and all have left now. Duff seems to have been blown his own trumpet and both the fans and the other members of the board are now blowing smoke up his backside. Acun took 60% stake to grow the club the way he wanted to do it which is fair enough, but if the other members are against what he planned to do, I think he is wise enough to know, no point to pressing ahead and creating a backlash from fans and co-owners, better call it a day and get out. It will be interesting to see how Duff does now, he has put himself on a pedestal, which in the management game is a very dangerous thing to do.
As Two said at the weekend, if a championship club came calling for Duff, Shelbourne would see him running out the door like the road runner.
That doesn’t mean he can’t fight for wht he thinks is right, right now does it. Whatever Acun disciples think on here Over there they haven’t taken to him and personally fair play to them
Probably because there wasn't a Shelbourne equivalent of Botanic full of sycophants to fellate Acun and tell him how great he is and how much of an honour it is to be his 'friend'.
Duff has to do well now as any manager has to, he/the club have definitely put him out there. But you could agree that what you've said about it being "all about duff" 180 and say it's all about acun and he's got the hump the first time he's not got his own way or that people haven't done exactly the things he wants and so his took his ball home in a sulk. ( I'm not saying it is or isn't, just that what you've said could quote easily be turned the other way ). Truth is none of us know and probably won't ever know the real reason. It's just hard to not see that's this has happened twice with him now when he's not got his own way ( from what is in the public domain ).
He hasn’t got the hump and he hasn’t taken his ball home - the article makes it clear he hasn’t asked for his investment back. He is clearly someone who is willing to walk away if he isn’t welcome - that’s the sign of a good guy, not the bad guy you are trying to portray. In my view.
I'm not trying to portray a bad guy at all nor did I say he took his investment back, not really sure where you made that up from tbh, all I have done is show the potential other side of the coin. I know some don't like that but it's life. Just for future reference and for anyone else who puts 2 + 2 together and comes up with bollox.... I don't think acun is a bad guy
There's plenty of stuff that's happened here that other fans wouldn't appreciate. As an example, for all their sins, did the Allams ever have an Egypt flag flying at the KCOM? The guy's commercially savvy, I'd be surprised if he were to leave money on the table that he's contractually entitled to withdraw, that being said, in relative terms, it's pittance and the media **** storm it would kick up, after all his PR work on this side of the sea, probably isn't worth it.
I don't know the business details obviously, but was the 3 million euro a lump sum investment on signing over the shares back in June, or was it a guarantee of investment over a period of time? Because it would make handing back the shares and cancellation of the promised investment a lot easier... Not sure anyone writes off 3 million after a few months.
I pretty sure we will get to know what happened, Tan usually is a straight shooter and comes out and says what really happened. When you take a controlling interest in a club, I guess you expect to have a large say on how the club moves forward. From what we have seen at City he was done a pretty good job so far, yes, made one or two mistakes, but has clearly learned from them. So, if he gets the feeling the other 40% are not willing to back him and his money, then he clearly feels better get out and move on. TWT whether the 40% have engineered the right move by kicking him into the long grass.
We're very used to foreign ownership in English football, 75% of Premier League clubs are now either entirely foreign owned, or have significant foreign shareholders, so we forget that it's not like this in other countries. In Ireland, clubs are either entirely fan owned, or are owned by local fans, they don't have any foreign owners and suspicious of them, particularly of an owner that owns a bigger club elsewhere, that they could end up losing all their best prospects to (Someone mentioned Rosenberg earlier in this thread, when foreign ownership was muted there, pretty much the entire fan-base handed back their season tickets and held a ceremonial burying of the shirts). Against that backdrop, it's not really a surprise that it didn't pan out and I think some are trying to read far too much into it.
He hasn't put anything like £3m in, there were some debt guarantees that he's passed back to the new owners and there was some investment in the facilities that he's given up, but it's a six-figure sum according to the news in Ireland.
All we know so far is that not all the 3 million was reported as being paid, I saw someone quote that 750,000 had been paid to help with renovation of the ground, but other than that nothing else reported.
Sorry, completely forgot you can only look at one side of things on here without people getting upset.
He's done a fantastic job here there's absolutely no denying it. But if something along the same lines happens twice the I think people are more then entitled to question it. As I've said numerous times now, I'm sure it won't happen here due to how the club is owned but I'd question and slightly raise my eyebrows to anyone who seems to react this way when they don't get their own way
But what will he call us when the council don't sell him the land? Hull Turks? I mean, it is shorter.
