mackay

  • 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!
Do all your threads turn into name change threads?

Mackay would have got a fairly decent job if he'd left, can see why he didn't, but can't see them repairing their relationship beyond the end of the season.
 
LeicesterWizard said:
Mackay would have got a fairly decent job if he'd left, can see why he didn't, but can't see them repairing their relationship beyond the end of the season.
Click to expand...

Would you quit if it meant losing out on all future wages owed? He was probably hoping he'd get the sack, have the rest of his contract paid, 6 months off and then walk into a decent job. He couldnt lose, his reputation has soared this past week.
 
Bum_Chinned_Crab said:
Would you quit if it meant losing out on all future wages owed? He was probably hoping he'd get the sack, have the rest of his contract paid, 6 months off and then walk into a decent job. He couldnt lose, his reputation has soared this past week.
Click to expand...

I agree but I'm glad he hasn't been sacked. Sven was reportedly the man lined up and you know he'd only take the job if he was guaranteed a good whack to splash in January. Regardless of his managerial ability, or lack of, with enough coin to bring in some proper handy players, they'd have been safe.
 
Mr. Hat said:
I agree but I'm glad he hasn't been sacked. Sven was reportedly the man lined up and you know he'd only take the job if he was guaranteed a good whack to splash in January. Regardless of his managerial ability, or lack of, with enough coin to bring in some proper handy players, they'd have been safe.
Click to expand...

Just like he did a great job when splashing the cash at Lester..... Surely all chairmen now know he's not motivated by football at all? He's the managerial equivalent of Michael Owen in the couple of seasons before he quit.
 
Happy Tiger said:
He's been misquoted, and had his words twisted to suit various people's own agendas. I also believe he's been genuinely mistaken about what he's saying too then been misrepresented.

He's been more honest and open about his intentions than CTWD, that is for sure.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, he has spoken for himself and made himself very clear. He has been anything but open and honest.
 
Fez said:
Nonsense, he has spoken for himself and made himself very clear. He has been anything but open and honest.
Click to expand...

Whilst personally I do believe what CTWD tweeted on the night and what OLM has told us about the meeting, it's entirely possible that things have been taken out of context or misquoted, hence their refusal to release the minutes. With the situation being how it is there is absolutely no reason for CTWD to keep them out of the public domain unless there's something in there they don't want people to see.
 
Latest from twitter from RH Andy Comfort

"The Cardiff City manager Malky Mackay has called an unexpected press conference now. Interesting goings on."
 
BBC Radio Wales ‏@BBCRadioWales 5m

Finding out more on #Malky press conference. We have been informed this is a normal pre-match press conference at 1pm. #Cardiff





<laugh>

I bet Cardiff fans were ****ting themselves for a few minutes.
 
Obadiah said:
We have supported those Cardiff City fans opposed to the change of strip from the first days of our campaign. Our blog is consistent with that.

The campaign doesn't have a single objective. It has a primary objective which is to campaign to stop the name change which is what we have done and will continue to do.

You want us to have two primary objectives to stop the name change and to attack Assem Allam. The campaign from the beginning has said we don't have an issue with his ownership just the name.

I'm sorry you feel the need to rip up your membership card because we expressed sympathy to Cardiff City fans but I stand by what we wrote.
Click to expand...

Now that really is a load of nonsense and, if it's accuracy is reflected in the campaign strategy, then I see interesting times ahead.

Yes, you did and have supported the fans against the strip change; why you feel the need to keep reiterating this is beyond me as I have not questioned that - although I do wonder why you make more noise about it than many of the supporters of Cardiff. It is significant that you ignore the real point about why the campaigns feels it necessary to hold an opinion on the relative success of MM as a manager - that is something that should be left to your personal posts, or are they becoming confused?

I think the campaign needs to review how it defines it's objectives, but I will take yours as the latest version.

You want us to have two primary objectives to stop the name change and to attack Assem Allam.
Click to expand...
Where have you got that from? I have not asked you to attack him. What I have called for is an end to sugaring your every remark about him, an end to the pretense that he is an honest and open-handed owner to deal with. You don't need to attack him, simply question his words, his actions and his motives; question not just why he wishes to change the name, but why he feels it necessary to lie and deceive those people who are trying to support him. Is he talking to you yet? You keep saying you don't have an issue with his ownership, so what is the name-change and it's attached shenanigans? In the best pantomime tradition it is all very 'wishy-washy'.

I did not rip-up my membership card because you extended sympathy to the Cardiff fans, it is because you cannot see that the campaign has no right to meddle in the day-to-day football affairs of another club - you keep returning to the strip-change nonsense which you know is absolute bollocks.
 
I presume that when people signed up to the group there was a statement on intent that every member wanted (to stop the name change) or was there more. And has this statement of intent (or intents) been breached?

Ideally the next owners of Hull are 10 - 20 local business people (who have experience of running a business - unlike the typical football fan, who's brain is stretched by reading a broadsheet and who couldn't analyse a profit and loss account properly) which means that power is not in the hands of one man (let's not forget our other failed owners - Lloyd, Barlett etc) or in the hands of too many people (which is how a lot of people would define a fan's owned club - where each fan owns a share)
 
mostynthecat said:
I presume that when people signed up to the group there was a statement on intent that every member wanted (to stop the name change) or was there more. And has this statement of intent (or intents) been breached?

Ideally the next owners of Hull are 10 - 20 local business people (who have experience of running a business - unlike the typical football fan, who's brain is stretched by reading a broadsheet and who couldn't analyse a profit and loss account properly) which means that power is not in the hands of one man (let's not forget our other failed owners - Lloyd, Barlett etc) or in the hands of too many people (which is how a lot of people would define a fan's owned club - where each fan owns a share)
Click to expand...

Multiple ownership of that sort has it's pros and cons. 20 people putting in £1m each raises a fair bit of capital but then everyone will want a seat on the board and pretty soon it'll descend into bickering and arguing.

Fan ownership with an annually elected board can work but fans don't have the money to be able to raise the equivalent of £20m.

It's the same old problem - business people who have the money will want some control over their investment.
 
Chilton's Hundreds said:
Multiple ownership of that sort has it's pros and cons. 20 people putting in £1m each raises a fair bit of capital but then everyone will want a seat on the board and pretty soon it'll descend into bickering and arguing.

Fan ownership with an annually elected board can work but fans don't have the money to be able to raise the equivalent of £20m.

It's the same old problem - business people who have the money will want some control over their investment.
Click to expand...

This idea of a supporters trust is nonsense. Portsmouth are the largest example of one and they haven't got a pot to piss in as a result.
 
won't it be something like 80 million at a conservative estimate, if Hull (of whatever name) stays in the PL until Allam retires
 
markkc said:
This idea of a supporters trust is nonsense. Portsmouth are the largest example of one and they haven't got a pot to piss in as a result.
Click to expand...

Two shock revelations there:
1. Portsmouth are bigger than Real Madrid and Barcelona!
2. Portsmouth's troubles were apparently NOT caused by criminal/negligent previous owners!

You learn something new every day on here.

[Edit: dammit! Only third!]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back