You don't make any sense. The money has gone into the club and then out to pay creditors. None of the money was received due to the club changing it's name. The club's name DOES have a price. If Allam could show that changing the name would result in a lot more income I think many fans would accept the name change. If anything I think the name change would result in less income for the club so why should I support the change of name? Why is there a few people on here that seem incapable of sensible logical thought?
He has to choose one of two responses: (a) No, I'm drunk, or (b) Yes, I'm sober. It's my brain that's the problem.
Personally my position is no different, the name-change is simply wrong as there is neither ryhmne nor reason in it. It is nothing more than a vitriolic barb against HCC. I am anti-Allem as he is anti-me. He has lied, manipulated, insulted and laughed at his customers, the club's supporters. It does come across that his money buys him the right to do all of these acts of dishonesty and offensive manipulation - it doesn't, not in my book. This is panning out exactly as I predicted from day one; I believe there will be insufficient reason for the FA to reject his application. I also believe that the sale of the club will be an end result; probably in the summer. I also think that all of the talk of fan-ownership is pie-in-the-sky.
Oh yes; just made the jump into the 6th decade and spent the end of the 5th in the dog-house! Party night tomorrow though, so .. . .
Do you think Allam just has to apply for the name change and not give any reasons? The anti-name change people will give plenty of reasons plus the FA/Premier League should consult the fans. Why would the name change be accepted if nobody comes up with a good reason to support it?
With this in mind how about the following chant for Saturday:- FA Don't change our name Ebernezer Cobb morley Will turn in his grave.
I got asked a question today about the name change which I didn't have a clue. Would it have cost MR Allem a fee for applying for a name change? I haven't a frigging clue.
You are a very rude and arrogant man and certainly not as sharp as you think you are. If I have read your posts correctly you say that should AA show increased money from the name-change then you would be happy to accept it. That in turn gives an inference that, in your opinion, the name-change has a value. My point is that if it has a value, then AA has more than paid that valuation already. He has stumped his cash in (however he has structured it) and if it is simply a question of money (in your thinking)then you really should not be so vocal in your complaint, as it's rather two-faced. If he stumps up for players in the window, how many letters can he juggle? How's your pussy these days? Now clear off and unravel your thinking.
What part of 'insufficient reason' do you have a problem with? The last time I looked insufficient did not mean zero or none. You talk too much, try thinking more Bearing in mine I am anti-name change, let me pose the following points: Any business prognosis based on the name-change is, ultimately, an opinion or educated projection, but not certain and, as such, I believe the FA will err to the side of he-who-pays-the-piper. The only real argument is that of history, heritage and tradition; but would that be good enough to win the day? The whole consultation element is an unknown quantity. I certainly believe that, should they ask in a certain way, then the measure of 'not keen, but will accept his decision' will be the majority and that ambivalence must be given to the owner. I have given you reasonable responses, so if you can try and stop being a Pratt then maybe the board can progress.
You turn 50 after 50 years, so whilst you're 50 it's your 51st year and that's part of the 6th decade of your life.
