Win or lose their arbitration appeal, the 19:04 action would have boiled over - either in opposition or taking the piss.
Name change decision postponed?
- Thread starter Charon
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Win or lose their arbitration appeal, the 19:04 action would have boiled over - either in opposition or taking the piss.
He has the small issue of having to leave 24 hours after announcing it.
Didn't Dr Allam BSC, OBE, MBE, PHD, KFC, BLT AND Right Honorable Gentleman say some time back that whatever the outcome of the appeal there would be no second application. Did he not say in one of his rambling ststatement's (think it was the one where he said Reading had a subterranean supermarket under their ground) that he only went to arbitration because he had promised the silent majority he would.
This could be wrong but it's not that easy to put together the pieces of some of his outbursts.
This could be wrong but it's not that easy to put together the pieces of some of his outbursts.
Last edited:
If we stay up surely he isn't stupid enough to turn is back on the 5 billion TV deal. That is of course if we are still in the premier league in a few seasons. Also can't see him leaving unless we find a buyer. Not going to risk losing his investment. Interesting times.
NorthFerribyTiger
Well-Known Member
We all know the value of his promises....it will have been an off the cuff comment, taken out of context, not meant literally & down to English not being his first language...like his promise to give the club away if he could not sell it
Your brain cell must be killing you after that.
There won't be a 2nd application.
Why do you think there will be?
When this goes through, it will be the 1st application still, being reconsidered after it was decided the FA didn't follow their own rules and didn't make the decision the correct way in the first place.
See? That's not a 2nd application.
Might wanna think a bit next time before effortlessly making yourself look like a twat.
You're welcome.
If the Doc had been informed that the FA hadn't followed their rules he wouldn't have been able to contain himself, the whole world and his dog would have known two minutes after him. He hasn't asked for disclosure as he doesn't want to spend whats left of the season being taunted by the fans that he's abused.
All this wild speculation is the reason the postponement was a bad idea.
And we've got three months of it to look forward to.
And we've got three months of it to look forward to.
If the answer is that he's failed with his appeal, I make you right.
Vice versa and I think it's a good call, as you simply don't need the distraction of protests etc at this time.
1 thread on here, some ramblings on CI and probably a whine on AN about it? Hardly loads of wild speculation is it? There's more wild speculation about the future of the KC and the SMC.
We've got 3 months left of an exciting football season to look forward to.
It might all be down to that flawed hurried ballot - you know the loaded questions etc.
We know part of the process was consultation with the fans and perhaps the FA should have said 'go back and do a proper ballot with an independent overseer' and then come back with the results rather then knock back the application.
A simple YES/NO ballot to one simple unambiguous question.
We know part of the process was consultation with the fans and perhaps the FA should have said 'go back and do a proper ballot with an independent overseer' and then come back with the results rather then knock back the application.
A simple YES/NO ballot to one simple unambiguous question.
I can't see it being that - as I remember the ballot was held too late to be included in the Allams' submission to the FA - Ehab confirmed it in that talk he did with Humberside around the West Ham game last season.
Since this was looking at the process, I can't see how something the applicant omitted from their application could be an issue in this arbitration.
I'm looking at it from a 'technical breach of the procedure' viewpoint.
The club didn't consult with the fans so technically the FA Council didn't have the necessary information to make a final decision.
I'm only guessing.....
Would that be irony?
The club who didn't have/want ( * ) a ballot of fans claim the FA technically broke the procedure because the club didn't consult the fans.
I know they had their dodgy ballot but even the club knew it was too late to include it in their presentation.
There's no FA rule that says the club had to consult fans, it will have no bearing, the arbitration panel will only review their own procedures.
