Ehab Speaks

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
originallambrettaman said:
As I believe we're about to sell Snodgrass as well, I think he's simply full of ****.
Click to expand...

Snodgrass wants to go, unless everything we've seen and heard is wrong. We need strengthening in attack, wings and defence, the proceeds of these sales will fund more players specific to Silvas plans.

Who would you have sold to raise the money?
 
Fez said:
Snodgrass wants to go, unless everything we've seen and heard is wrong. We need strengthening in attack, wings and defence, the proceeds of these sales will fund more players specific to Silvas plans.

Who would you have sold to raise the money?
Click to expand...

We've sold Livermore for £10m, we're probably about to sell Snodgrass for about the same and we've just mortgaged our training ground and our Premier League TV money for the next eighteen months.

This doesn't suggest to me that we're about to spend £30m on squad strengthening, it suggests someone's getting all their money out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dills double deckers, Sir Cheshire Ben, SW3 Chelsea Tiger and 1 other person
Fez said:
Exactly, this was my point prior to Swansea.

The only thing I would advise is that the wording of any communication to them should not be critical and it should not be accompanied by announcements that can ne construed as pompous and critical.

Keep it flat, conciliatory and even handed. Then, if no response, highlight this in a respectful and matter of fact manner.

Let the media draw their own conclusions, because there is a limit to how much bad press he and his businesses can weather. There's always an end game.

Edit: but not publicly, it's too much of a dare.
Click to expand...
I can see your point but I do agree with a public letter
A private one would likely be just ignored so apart from a few people feeling good about themselves it would serve no purpose
A public one clearly shows everyone that the Trust are open to a meeting (just seen letter which I think is pretty good)
 
Obadiah said:
If it is an olive branch I think any contact should be private. If a bridge is going to be built it will take a bit of give and take on all sides. If he's not interested it'll soon become apparent to the vast majority of supporters. After all the major issues are the failure of the club to use our name and the lack of concessions.
Click to expand...
I can see your point but I do agree with a public letter
A private one would likely be just ignored so apart from a few people feeling good about themselves it would serve no purpose
A public one clearly shows everyone that the Trust are open to a meeting (just seen letter which I think is pretty good)
 
dennisboothstash said:
I can see your point but I do agree with a public letter
A private one would likely be just ignored so apart from a few people feeling good about themselves it would serve no purpose
A public one clearly shows everyone that the Trust are open to a meeting (just seen letter which I think is pretty good)
Click to expand...

Once a reasonable amount of time had passed for a response, then the initiative could be made public.

But it's academic now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMD
originallambrettaman said:
We've sold Livermore for £10m, we're probably about to sell Snodgrass for about the same and we've just mortgaged our training ground and our Premier League TV money for the next eighteen months.

This doesn't suggest to me that we're about to spend £30m on squad strengthening, it suggests someone's getting all their money out.
Click to expand...

I think it is a mistake to confuse being a selling club with being a club being sold.

If Silva wants fresh blood then the club needs to raise funds to do that, most, if not all clubs do the same. It will be easier to judge when the window closes.

Are you saying we didn't need new players, we didn't need to sell, or we should of sold others. Who would you have sold, if you think it was necessary?

Bearing in mind that selling now allows a budget to be realised for targeted, rather than panic buys, I think a wait and see approach is fair enough.

The mortgage and the PL money is a concern, but I don't know the detail.
 
Fez said:
The mortgage and the PL money is a concern, but I don't know the detail.
Click to expand...

I think the charge on the training grounds is worthless. Allamhouse have a prior charge on the properties and they're worth nowhere near £70 million.
 
Obadiah said:
Don't the rules say the money must be spent on remaining competitive. If the parachute payments go straight to the bank can't the Premier League refuse to pay them over?
Click to expand...

The letter filed with Companies House is for the Premier League to sign, to approve the deal they're doing.

Switching the debt from them personally, to a bank isn't against Premier League rules, nor is it illegal.

As for the Premier League rules on being competitive, if they're anything like the rest of their rules, they won't be worth the paper they're written on and the Allams will ignore them as they have for many of the other rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT and ....
originallambrettaman said:
The letter filed with Companies House is for the Premier League to sign, to approve the deal they're doing.

Switching the debt from them personally, to a bank isn't against Premier League rules, nor is it illegal.

As for the Premier League rules on being competitive, if they're anything like the rest of their rules, they won't be worth the paper they're written on and the Allams will ignore them as they have for many of the other rules.
Click to expand...


Pretty much this , I've read the relevant parts a few times now (The companies house document) and OLM has this spot on, the next 18 months money is signed off now to a bank as part of a loan
 
.... said:
Pretty much this , I've read the relevant parts a few times now (The companies house document) and OLM has this spot on, the next 18 months money is signed off now to a bank as part of a loan
Click to expand...

Who is responsible fot the loan, is it the owners of the club?
 
Fez said:
Once a reasonable amount of time had passed for a response, then the initiative could be made public.

But it's academic now.
Click to expand...

The Trust has to be transparent otherwise it will be seen as a cosy 'clique'.

Which is why any meeting also has to be out in the public domain with none of those 'non-disclosure agreement' bollocks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kempton
originallambrettaman said:
The letter filed with Companies House is for the Premier League to sign, to approve the deal they're doing.

Switching the debt from them personally, to a bank isn't against Premier League rules, nor is it illegal.

As for the Premier League rules on being competitive, if they're anything like the rest of their rules, they won't be worth the paper they're written on and the Allams will ignore them as they have for many of the other rules.
Click to expand...

The document filed at Companies House is a debenture and relates solely to the assets of the Hull City Tigers Limited. The Premier League are being asked to acknowledge receipt of the debenture, nothing else. It is obvious why the bank want the Premier League to sign the notice. It stops the Premier League paying the monies to Hull City Tigers Limited if they call in the security.

The bank is well aware that the Premier League don't have to pay the parachute monies to the club (see Schedule 6 paragraph 3 (i)). The club is under any obligation to abide by the Premier league Rules see clause 6.8. I would say paying £40 million to a bank that repaid the Allams rather than protecting players' contracts is something the Premier League would enforce. But you never know.

I didn't say switching the debt was against Premier League rules, it is illegal though.
 
Chilton's Hundreds said:
The Trust has to be transparent otherwise it will be seen as a cosy 'clique'.

Which is why any meeting also has to be out in the public domain with none of those 'non-disclosure agreement' bollocks.
Click to expand...

It needs to do what is reasonable to move it's objectives forward. It must make its own decision on whether or not a NDA is worthwhile. The clique stuff is a nonsense, just a NOT606 daftness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back