he says he really doesnt want to re-open the debate, yet he makes a 455 word post saying just how correct he was more than once
Q and A
- Thread starter Top_Tiger
- 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
-
he says he really doesnt want to re-open the debate, yet he makes a 455 word post saying just how correct he was more than once
Seems to be plenty missing the point, it wasn't what Acun said but what a number of posters interpreted it all to mean and then posted all the doom and gloom most of which has turned out to be incorrect.
See GFAW earlier post for examples.
See GFAW earlier post for examples.
Where was the fraud allegation?
He obviously had liquidity issues as he's alluded to himself but I don't recall there being an allegation of fraud,
What turned out to be incorrect?
Are you now saying he wasn't struggling to provide liquidity?
If he wasn't then why where the changes he alluded to necessary?
I would have given you the whole long list (yet again) ... but it seems like some don't like me pointing out that I was right all along, so I'll resist
Nice search function on here, I just typed in 'Acun is a crook', interesting viewing.
... because apparently he's lost all interest, he's bust, we're bust, he can't & isn't even paying the milkman, he's a fraud, he's selling us, (and far far worse all said at the time)
From minutes 6 to 10. "coming to what happened in summer ..... was not based on financial problems (as in not 'broke') ... but... completely based on technical problems. If it was lack of money then we would have sold Hughes for £10 million for example and wouldn't have done things that have been done". "Betrayal by Villa" (without naming them) for going back on their agreement to offset monies owed to each other and error by his staff for not understanding that the agreement carried this risk.
Like you, I'm not sure if the (personnel) changes made at a finance level relate to City or the parent organisation, not that it matters that much to our discussion. He's clearly been let down by incompetence of those he's delegated to (not just on the Villa agreement) and was clearly pissed off about it. Also noting that, once again, he readily accepts ultimate responsibility for the situation .... and has learned from it and acted.
So now pretty much everything I said at the time has now been fully vindicated and proven. No arse-liking involved, just keeping a level head while rationally looking at what was happening, what was being said by the club and bits I'd been told. All the abuse I got from some for simply being correct eh.
Yes, he probably talks and wears his heart on his sleeve a bit too much. But if we want his passion, his commitment, his ambition, the profile, his money etc etc then imo we need to embrace / accept how he is and enjoy the ride.
Btw, I'm not sure it does add value when he doesn't own the ground and it's surrounds. The famous old Allam quote comes to mind. Moving the 1st team to a new location and having the academy join them there would to my mind be the better move, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening. I'm sure they, as with previous regimes, must have considered doing so but for whatever reasons keep deciding against it. There must be good reason as it keeps happening.
p.s. I really don't want to re-open the debate. I know what I posted and I knew it was correct all along. I know what some others posted and it was wrong, and in some cases shameful. It's gone and the future looks bright (if only our injury curse would end).
On the adding value thing, as the ground is intrinsically linked to the football club - which he does own - any improvements to, or surrounding, the ground, does add value to the club, despite not having direct ownership of the ground. What he's essentially doing is adding value to our lease agreement.
Totally agree. I hate seeing templated kits, it’s ****ing disgusting the amount of money they charge and make. I always loved our Umbro designs, but think they’ve gone downhill these days too, and connected to Castore now. What about Hummel?
I remember a huge sinkhole opening up in Tokyo a few years back. 36 hours later you couldn’t see a single ****ing scratch.
I would have given you the whole long list (yet again) ... but it seems like some don't like me pointing out that I was right all along, so I'll resist
You repeatedly denied the club were in any financial trouble at all, so keep dreaming.
Hummel, Errea and Umbro would be my preference.
I had a look at the proposals errea had done for City when I took Les Motherby and another City fan for a look around the errea HQ in Parma. They were class, something totally different but bound to be a big hit if ever used.
As it stands errea are in the running but not the box seat.
The EFL were refusing to let us sign players for free until we offloaded players. I'm pleased that much of the doom-mongering appears to have been bullshit, but all was not totally fine.You must log in or register to see images
They do make some nice kits. Do you know who is the front runner for our next kit supplier?
I don't. Was just quoting my mate at errea. I'd be surprised if it was Hummel, their uk licensee is a basket case that keeps going bust and starting again. Then again Acun might favour that sort of dealing!
From the latest 1904 Club it sounds like the proposal for the academy development at the stadium is quite limited, centred around a redevelopment of the existing artificial pitches which the Allams left to rot. A cost of £2m was mooted, which surely can't cover much. Perhaps that explains how it can be done in such a short timeframe.