D'Artagnan 173 Posted December 17, 2015 Author Share Posted December 17, 2015 The loan repayment statement was minor in my view. How you can go on to talk of failures in transparency and investment is beyond me. The investment is there in loans that will be converted to shares. You know that so why are you claiming otherwise. You are also aware why that will take time.as has been said earlier on this forum "we are rebuilding with one hand tied behind our back" You also know why that is and who is responsible. Why don't you bring them to task ? If the necessary investment had been there - in place CS - then the omnishambles which followed would not have come to fruition. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,288 Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 We need to prioritise on the football side of things. Promotion is no longer the foregone conclusion it was supposed to be. The team needs urgent investment to guarantee promotion & get a good basis for next season. Can Mr KING provide that investment as he previously appeared to suggest? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 This incident cant be blamed for the investment piece of your triad of "investment, good governance and transparency" - in fact, I'm not sure it can be blamed for transparency either - if anything, the statement about repaying the loan was TOO transparent given it was said BEFORE full repayment had been made (probably part in haste and in part to embarrass Ashley). Good governance is little to do with this statement either. It was an erroneous statement and little more. Regarding the investment "leg" of this - are you suggesting that the current incumbents don't have the money to invest ? That is the only angle I can see here that could be legitimized. But they have already previously proven that funds are available. I doubt that the remaining 500k would be that difficult for them to secure. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 If the necessary investment had been there - in place CS - then the omnishambles which followed would not have come to fruition. how could money be put in other than through loans if they aren't able to have a share issue ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 If the necessary investment had been there - in place CS - then the omnishambles which followed would not have come to fruition. Oh please D'Art. You are trying to suggest that an erroneous statement is an "Omnishambles" - a word synonymous with the charlatans that decimated our club. Sorry, but that isn't even a stretch, it is a complete fallacy to equate the two. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted December 17, 2015 Author Share Posted December 17, 2015 This incident cant be blamed for the investment piece of your triad of "investment, good governance and transparency" - in fact, I'm not sure it can be blamed for transparency either - if anything, the statement about repaying the loan was TOO transparent given it was said BEFORE full repayment had been made (probably part in haste and in part to embarrass Ashley). Good governance is little to do with this statement either. It was an erroneous statement and little more. Regarding the investment "leg" of this - are you suggesting that the current incumbents don't have the money to invest ? That is the only angle I can see here that could be legitimized. But they have already previously proven that funds are available. I doubt that the remaining 500k would be that difficult for them to secure. I wouldnt call it transparency Craig, nor even too transparent to use your words, if the revelation is not accurate. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted December 17, 2015 Author Share Posted December 17, 2015 how could money be put in other than through loans if they aren't able to have a share issue ? Im referring to the 500K for the loan repayment CS. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted December 17, 2015 Author Share Posted December 17, 2015 Oh please D'Art. You are trying to suggest that an erroneous statement is an "Omnishambles" - a word synonymous with the charlatans that decimated our club. Sorry, but that isn't even a stretch, it is a complete fallacy to equate the two. If you want to connect the word omnishambles exclsuively with the previous incumbents Craig - then fill your boots bud. My reference to them in comparison to the new board was actually "chalk and cheese" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) how could money be put in other than through loans if they aren't able to have a share issue ? This is like many other matters, to be properly understood it needs to be examined considering Mr.MASH strategy aswell as any questions to the board. Edited December 17, 2015 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 If you want to connect the word omnishambles exclsuively with the previous incumbents Craig - then fill your boots bud. My reference to them in comparison to the new board was actually "chalk and cheese" OK, lets put it another way. You honestly believe that the QC's erroneous statement is an "Omnishambles" ? Personally I think that is very much in the extreme. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.