Thats interesting i have no idea of figures just making them up. But say Mr Allam paid 20 million and guaranteed 40 million, will he have enough by the end of this season or next season to walk away with a small profit and say i arent guarnteeing the loans anymore? Plus he can sell Hudd either at Xmas for 8-10 million or in summer, a rival would willing buy him. Add Davies and Brady at say 5 million apiece. Forget JTW signings and he's gone?
I don't think they are. The only people I've heard that are not against are a few on here, and it seems to be largely the same few that take a contrary view on any topic. I've yet to see anyone that's seriously in favour of the name change.
Are you blind? It doesn't take a genius to understand AA's personality. Proud, stubborn man who likes his own way and has done well for himself following his gut instinct. What do you think will happen if you slap him in the face telling him "you can't do this, you are wrong"... There's no saving face from this. Don't be silly. Our only hope is a fresh start and him selling to someone else. Anything else and the club will be falling for the next few years. And of course CTWD's moral high ground will just think "he started it.. it's his fault" and sure he started it but someone is making it a lot worse. It didn't have to go this way but CTWD's ringleader and the rest of the knights templar are making a **** load worse.
A referendum wouldnt work. Everyone seems to fall into two categories - a) against the name change or b) not really bothered. Those in the 'not really bothered' camp then have a decision to make. Some will choose for and some will choose against without really having a preference therefore making the results not a true representation of the actual population.
Are you sure you're asking them the right question? which should be... Would you rather keep our name and history intact? or piss off our owner and risk him ruining our club on the field so he can get a return on his investment? I suspect the results would be different than. Do you want to keep the name or Do you want to change it?
That's democracy. How else do you poll supporters views in a way the FA could see as acceptable? Mr Allam claimed turning up yesterday was a vote for the name change.
That's the wrong question. It really is, do you want the name to change. If it's your version, that's blackmail, which should be an absolute nonstarter for any sports fan.
I did say that about two weeks. I said that after reading comments and the video he made showing he didn't have a plan after all. People were calling him clueless. So for me it'd make more sense to campaign for him to leave than for the name change. At least I'd understand it more.
It's not blackmail... it's cause and consequence. I never got a reply to CTWD followers a few months back when this started when I asked them: "what if the name change was a condition of AA coming in with his £50 million and saving the club 3 years ago? " How would you feel then? You'd be in the minority if your stance was the same. That's what happened at Cardiff. The change of colours happened before the PL. Once the man delivered the PL. The colour change anger died out. However, ungrateful city fans got the PL before the name change proposal.
Lol Chazzster, you can't simply walk away and say 'I'm not guaranteeing the loans anymore' *rolling eyes emoticon* Some people appear to think that because some of the money pumped in by AA was by way of guarantee of loans, that his financial commitment is/was in some way diluted, IT WASN'T! Even if ALL of the commitment was made by way of guarantees, he would still need to have had the security to acquire those guarantees in the first place, and his risk factor would be EXACTLY the same.
It's not my campaign. I'm saying It'd make more sense. If he's as clueless as CTWD make him out to be then why stop at the name change? Perhaps it's because CTWD want the cake and eat it.
It's a non-question as that's not the position we are in. There are a variety of scenarios that could possibly leave people more accepting of a name change, but the PR so far from the Chairman has put paid to that. It's not cause and consequence either, not changing the name leaves us exactly where we are. What you're doing is painting a disrespectful picture of the Chairman and hazarding a guess at his reaction, which may or may not be right.
But you're the one suggesting it. How do you envisage a campaign like that working? It's aim would be for the chairman to go, and then...what exactly? Oh, and CTWD haven't said he's clueless, that's posters on here that have possibly implied it, not the campaign.
I wonder what investor would choose to allow Mr Allam access to his funds given AA's acerbic 'my way or the high way' management style? I'm guessing most investors would be unwilling to invest unless they got some control. Would that mean 51% ownership? Wouldn't they then just 'downsize' AA about 5 minutes after inking the deal?
The Allams get what they want and stay Also coughing up more cash for a player or 2 in January. I just think if they walk away we will be in the smelly stuff
Same response expected. "Non-question" ok then... this is about morals and values and how far you're willing to go to withhold them. That's why this question is relevant.
