There is every need. The owner wants to change it. You have to demonstrate why he shouldn't. Or it will happen.
I just did.
There is every need. The owner wants to change it. You have to demonstrate why he shouldn't. Or it will happen.
It wouldn't, but it answered your question. What you need to show is how the new name would bring in over and above that.
Yes, and you were going to elaborate on that to explain why.,
No, that's the point. I don't. The FA will require reasons to turn down the owners request, not reasons to allow it. That must irritate CTWD, and I can understand why, but nevertheless that is the current position.
Because you need to sleep on why you are in favour? Or just need the time to think of a reasoned response other than "cos it's his money"And tomorrow I will, but now I'm going to bed.

I've always wanted a 'ditto'; thanks!![]()
This article was in today's paper, so it's fresh to me. It is not the only source asking to see if there is a chance of compromise.
There are many different topics being debated on here at any one time, each worthy of their own threads.
I stopped listening to Mel in early December when he misled people regarding AA's interview with the Independent.
Because you need to sleep on why you are in favour? Or just need the time to think of a reasoned response other than "cos it's his money":1980_boogie_down:

No, that's the point. I don't. The FA will require reasons to turn down the owners request, not reasons to allow it. That must irritate CTWD, and I can understand why, but nevertheless that is the current position.
Did he do that; I don't recall. Mel can waffle with the best of us, but I have never had a single reason to question his honesty; his sanity, yes, but not his honesty.![]()
I don't know if he did it deliberately or knowingly but he didn't respond when questioned about it on a couple of occasions.
He suggested AA gave his interview with the Independent a fortnight before it was published & was publishing was held back deliberately by the press to inflame the situation. When questioned how he knew this he was quite insistent saying he'd been told & had had it confirmed by the club.
This information was not true, AA gave the interview in the week before it was published.
I questioned him at the time using his quotes & later on, I think this thread. He responded to neither. Either he's been misled or he's tried to mislead others. I drew my conclusion from his lack of a response.
I'm sure he will respond.
No, that's the point. I don't. The FA will require reasons to turn down the owners request, not reasons to allow it. That must irritate CTWD, and I can understand why, but nevertheless that is the current position.
Cheshire Ben, I was informed that Assem Allam gave a series of interviews, going from memory I recall that it was two weeks before the Liverpool game. I was told that Assem Allam was furious not about the quotes but about the timing of the release. There had to have been at least a conversation after the Palace match, with someone but was it Conn, I accept that reading the article it reads post Palace, but the point is that the they can die quote may have been made earlier. The other thing is that Assem Allam was adamant that he hadn't spoken to Conn after Palace, I do have my doubts about that, but the anger by all accounts was genuine.
I dropped out not because I couldn't win, but because I felt obliged to, but it doesn't matter so much now.