Cant see this picture, what does it show? thanksToday's Sun...
You must log in or register to see images
Cant see this picture, what does it show? thanksToday's Sun...
You must log in or register to see images
Cant see this picture, what does it show? thanks
Good, not that they'll care but its nice to get more press on what ****s they are. Im guessing theres no interest in anyone buying the club atm?An article in The Sun about our ****ty owners.
Good, not that they'll care but its nice to get more press on what ****s they are. Im guessing theres no interest in anyone buying the club atm?
Sadly not.
What was that thing in the Yorkshire post all about Mr Webster finding us a new owner? What was the point in it?
What was that thing in the Yorkshire post all about Mr Webster finding us a new owner? What was the point in it?
he really is incapable of correctly using parking bays isn't he
Smoke and mirrors .. usually associated with every transfer window
Sadly not.
Did burnstein report this quip?Bruce in a very hot KCOM press office post match last Monday - 'Oh dear, he's even turning off the air conditioning now, isn't he?'![]()
What has remained surprisingly transparent throughout this entire ordeal is this, which I will put in the form of a question:
Why would the owners be focusing so hard on making the club self-sustaining (something they would do if they are staying long term) for the foreseeable and not reliant on their money, when they are simultaneously looking to sell the club to, presumably, somebody who would want to invest money anyway?
Either they are trying to make us self sufficient, in which case they are sticking around because self sufficiency would only benefit them long term given how long it would take, or they are trying to sell us, in which case the need for self sufficiency is negated entirely as we don't know what a new owner would want to do.
It's bollocks. It can't be both, so the only logical solution is that this 'self sufficiency' line has been put out as a reason why they aren't spending any money to appease some of the dimmer fans. Because, short term, it's better to spend money and get us promoted and reap the benefits of the Premier League and, if we cock up, another two years of parachute money, than it would be to put no money in and struggle along after the parachute money has dried up.
Claiming you're making the club self-sufficient is just an excuse for not spending any money.
Did burnstein report this quip?
Excellent from Sir Steven Bruce. Our greatest ever manager.
I wouldn't have wasted my time typing that.I think you will find Slutsky was our greatest ever manager, Champions League and national team manager.
I think you will find Slutsky was our greatest ever manager, Champions League and national team manager.
Do you think FFP has anything to do with it?
What has remained surprisingly transparent throughout this entire ordeal is this, which I will put in the form of a question:
Why would the owners be focusing so hard on making the club self-sustaining (something they would do if they are staying long term) for the foreseeable and not reliant on their money, when they are simultaneously looking to sell the club to, presumably, somebody who would want to invest money anyway?
Either they are trying to make us self sufficient, in which case they are sticking around because self sufficiency would only benefit them long term given how long it would take, or they are trying to sell us, in which case the need for self sufficiency is negated entirely as we don't know what a new owner would want to do.
It's bollocks. It can't be both, so the only logical solution is that this 'self sufficiency' line has been put out as a reason why they aren't spending any money to appease some of the dimmer fans. Because, short term, it's better to spend money and get us promoted and reap the benefits of the Premier League and, if we cock up, another two years of parachute money, than it would be to put no money in and struggle along after the parachute money has dried up.