I personally don't think there is going to be that much difference between Bates and GFH - Bates bled us dry to line his own pockets and GFH are going to do the same to appease shareholders. By the time we get a genuine buyer in will it be just as much a tangled web of mystery as to who owns us with investors spread far and wide all wanting a say.
I wonder after GFH recoup their initial costs and a bit of profit by selling chunks of the club, what's to stop them walking away and basically letting us rot? What happened with bates comments over the years, he would only sell to someone who could move us forward. That was some pile of ****. He chose an out fit that would keep him involved at the club. No other buyer in their right mind, would have done that
Agreed, but there's not much in it and the difference is narrowing all the time. The best thing about them is the fact they're not Bates... Or are they?
Here's a quote from Haigh after they took over. Says a lot I think Haigh recalls: ‘The process involved six months of tough negotiations spanning the Caribbean, Dubai, Bahrain, Monaco and Leeds with the previous owner, from whom I must say I have learnt a lot" He clearly has, and not any good stuff either
Exactly - and a question - Had it been Bates in charge when we sold Becchio in January and brought in Morison and then permitted Morison to go out on loan which in effect means we gave Becchio away would we have screamed blue murder or is it okay because we are judging GFH on what happens come the pre-season/start of season? Remember we were within touching distance of the play off's what other club would sell their leading scorer and fail to strengthen in January? Even Palace cashed in and ensured they kept their best player until the end of the season. We would have been better off selling Becchio and loaning him back until the season ends rather than a crocked has been
