On the Bitsize thread it states: “Following an exchange with @JamesSeed Gerard Murphy from the Aussie Consortium warns of ‘a difficult two weeks ahead’, but also that ‘it’ll all be worthwhile’”
What he actually said was slightly different:
“There may be a couple of difficult weeks ahead but it will be all worth while when it is completed.” (When the sale is completed, not the two weeks).
I know this ‘statement‘ caused anger when the sale didn’t happen two week after it was posted. Hopefully you’ll agree that the actual words used make it less date specific.
In future I’ll keep messages like that to myself to avoid raising expectations unnecessarily.
Could just relay them accurately?
It’s only a tiny difference as @chizz has said, (but add ‘when it is completed’) but it could be interpreted slightly differently. My mistake.
That wasn't an attempt to dig you out, may have just saved you some stick when the '2 weeks' had passed.
No worries mate. I can’t believe I messed that up, considering my self proclaimed ‘I post everything verbatim’ claim. I do remember thinking it wouldn’t go down well though. :-(
On the Bitsize thread it states: “Following an exchange with @JamesSeed Gerard Murphy from the Aussie Consortium warns of ‘a difficult two weeks ahead’, but also that ‘it’ll all be worthwhile’”
What he actually said was slightly different:
“There may be a couple of difficult weeks ahead but it will be all worth while when it is completed.” (When the sale is completed, not the two weeks).
I know this ‘statement‘ caused anger when the sale didn’t happen two week after it was posted. Hopefully you’ll agree that the actual words used make it less date specific.
In future I’ll keep messages like that to myself to avoid raising expectations unnecessarily.
Could just relay them accurately?
It’s only a tiny difference as @chizz has said, (but add ‘when it is completed’) but it could be interpreted slightly differently. My mistake.
The "when it is completed" bit wasn't included when you posted it last month, though. You've added it today. I just think it's a bit unfair to @Henry Irving to criticise him for excluding something you hadn't actually posted until after Henry wrote his precis.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that the meaning of the message you got is entirely different with the inclusion of the (previously omitted) wording. And, with that inclusion, it's an even stronger, more positive message.
So, instead of the meaning being "the deal will be completed after the next two weeks, which will be difficult", it's "the deal will be completed at some stage, but the next two weeks will be difficult". One gives a deadline which, now that it's passed, means failure. The other provides some information to confirm the takeover is still progressing.
So, in the light of this, do you know, or have you heard, or do you think the difficult two weeks were successfully completed? Or have you not had an indication yet?
Apologies to everybody. I have not posted the following message for over two weeks but the way this thread has gone over the last couple of days it's time.
Does anyone else think that, as the EFL go to so many lengths to ensure the buyers are checked in the first place, they should also keep tabs on clubs and pay special attention to those that don't have hardly any senior back office management and no permanent football manager / assistant manager?
I woulda thought that when an owner starts to show signs of neglect or strange behaviour, they should be asked to come before the EFL to reassure them the Club is still in safe hands and maybe provide a plan going forward.
What is happening now is obvioudly ludicrous and makes the fit and proper person test seem a complete waste of time imo, considering RD only passed it under 4 years ago.
Perry Groves touched on this concept on the Jim White show last week when talking about Duchatelet.
Maybe this idea deserves it's own thread but they floated the idea of a yearly check up on clubs to monitor ownership and commitment to footballing success. They also mentioned owners making a deposit of, say, 10% of the purchase fee to the EFL/FA that they only get back when they meet certain criteria or sell the club.
I've mentioned before the power the NFL has over owners and it's something our football could learn from. The owner of the Carolina Panthers was forced to sell the franchise this year after allegations of sexual misconduct.
On the Bitsize thread it states: “Following an exchange with @JamesSeed Gerard Murphy from the Aussie Consortium warns of ‘a difficult two weeks ahead’, but also that ‘it’ll all be worthwhile’”
What he actually said was slightly different:
“There may be a couple of difficult weeks ahead but it will be all worth while when it is completed.” (When the sale is completed, not the two weeks).
I know this ‘statement‘ caused anger when the sale didn’t happen two week after it was posted. Hopefully you’ll agree that the actual words used make it less date specific.
In future I’ll keep messages like that to myself to avoid raising expectations unnecessarily.
Could just relay them accurately?
It’s only a tiny difference as @chizz has said, (but add ‘when it is completed’) but it could be interpreted slightly differently. My mistake.
The "when it is completed" bit wasn't included when you posted it last month, though. You've added it today. I just think it's a bit unfair to @Henry Irving to criticise him for excluding something you hadn't actually posted until after Henry wrote his precis.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that the meaning of the message you got is entirely different with the inclusion of the (previously omitted) wording. And, with that inclusion, it's an even stronger, more positive message.
So, instead of the meaning being "the deal will be completed after the next two weeks, which will be difficult", it's "the deal will be completed at some stage, but the next two weeks will be difficult". One gives a deadline which, now that it's passed, means failure. The other provides some information to confirm the takeover is still progressing.
So, in the light of this, do you know, or have you heard, or do you think the difficult two weeks were successfully completed? Or have you not had an indication yet?
Yes I’ve just apologised for missing it out, and quoted the bite size thread because that’s where many people see it. Trust me, I never criticise Henry ;-)
I don’t quite agree with your interpretations of the different versions though. The difference isn’t as great as you are suggesting I think? Neither could be interpreted as “the deal will be completed after the next two weeks, which will be difficult". I certainly don’t think either set a proper deadline for the sale as such.
The two weeks are ancient history as far as my memory is concerned. I remember they weren’t a great two weeks though. My short term memory is a bit rubbish I’m afraid.
It doesn’t really matter now as the club hasn’t been sold, and we still don’t really know why. This week I’m more worried that we’re not going to get the loan players in that we need. But we do know the reason for that. It’s because Roland is a total cnut. I’m sure the very last thing he wants is for us to be promoted after the sale. Feels like sabotage to me.
On the Bitsize thread it states: “Following an exchange with @JamesSeed Gerard Murphy from the Aussie Consortium warns of ‘a difficult two weeks ahead’, but also that ‘it’ll all be worthwhile’”
What he actually said was slightly different:
“There may be a couple of difficult weeks ahead but it will be all worth while when it is completed.” (When the sale is completed, not the two weeks).
I know this ‘statement‘ caused anger when the sale didn’t happen two week after it was posted. Hopefully you’ll agree that the actual words used make it less date specific.
In future I’ll keep messages like that to myself to avoid raising expectations unnecessarily.
Could just relay them accurately?
It’s only a tiny difference as @chizz has said, (but add ‘when it is completed’) but it could be interpreted slightly differently. My mistake.
The "when it is completed" bit wasn't included when you posted it last month, though. You've added it today. I just think it's a bit unfair to @Henry Irving to criticise him for excluding something you hadn't actually posted until after Henry wrote his precis.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that the meaning of the message you got is entirely different with the inclusion of the (previously omitted) wording. And, with that inclusion, it's an even stronger, more positive message.
So, instead of the meaning being "the deal will be completed after the next two weeks, which will be difficult", it's "the deal will be completed at some stage, but the next two weeks will be difficult". One gives a deadline which, now that it's passed, means failure. The other provides some information to confirm the takeover is still progressing.
So, in the light of this, do you know, or have you heard, or do you think the difficult two weeks were successfully completed? Or have you not had an indication yet?
Yes I’ve just apologised for missing it out, and quoted the bite size thread because that’s where many people see it. Trust me, I never criticise Henry ;-)
I don’t quite agree with your interpretations of the different versions though. The difference isn’t as great as you are suggesting I think? Neither could be interpreted as “the deal will be completed after the next two weeks, which will be difficult". I certainly don’t think either set a proper deadline for the sale as such.
The two weeks are ancient history as far as my memory is concerned. I remember they weren’t a great two weeks though. My short term memory is a bit rubbish I’m afraid.
It doesn’t really matter now as the club hasn’t been sold, and we still don’t really know why. This week I’m more worried that we’re not going to get the loan players in that we need. But we do know the reason for that. It’s because Roland is a total cnut. I’m sure the very last thing he wants is for us to be promoted after the sale. Feels like sabotage to me.
On the Bitsize thread it states: “Following an exchange with @JamesSeed Gerard Murphy from the Aussie Consortium warns of ‘a difficult two weeks ahead’, but also that ‘it’ll all be worthwhile’”
What he actually said was slightly different:
“There may be a couple of difficult weeks ahead but it will be all worth while when it is completed.” (When the sale is completed, not the two weeks).
I know this ‘statement‘ caused anger when the sale didn’t happen two week after it was posted. Hopefully you’ll agree that the actual words used make it less date specific.
In future I’ll keep messages like that to myself to avoid raising expectations unnecessarily.
Could just relay them accurately?
It’s only a tiny difference as @chizz has said, (but add ‘when it is completed’) but it could be interpreted slightly differently. My mistake.
The "when it is completed" bit wasn't included when you posted it last month, though. You've added it today. I just think it's a bit unfair to @Henry Irving to criticise him for excluding something you hadn't actually posted until after Henry wrote his precis.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that the meaning of the message you got is entirely different with the inclusion of the (previously omitted) wording. And, with that inclusion, it's an even stronger, more positive message.
So, instead of the meaning being "the deal will be completed after the next two weeks, which will be difficult", it's "the deal will be completed at some stage, but the next two weeks will be difficult". One gives a deadline which, now that it's passed, means failure. The other provides some information to confirm the takeover is still progressing.
So, in the light of this, do you know, or have you heard, or do you think the difficult two weeks were successfully completed? Or have you not had an indication yet?
Yes I’ve just apologised for missing it out, and quoted the bite size thread because that’s where many people see it. Trust me, I never criticise Henry ;-)
I don’t quite agree with your interpretations of the different versions though. The difference isn’t as great as you are suggesting I think? Neither could be interpreted as “the deal will be completed after the next two weeks, which will be difficult". I certainly don’t think either set a proper deadline for the sale as such.
The two weeks are ancient history as far as my memory is concerned. I remember they weren’t a great two weeks though. My short term memory is a bit rubbish I’m afraid.
It doesn’t really matter now as the club hasn’t been sold, and we still don’t really know why. This week I’m more worried that we’re not going to get the loan players in that we need. But we do know the reason for that. It’s because Roland is a total cnut. I’m sure the very last thing he wants is for us to be promoted after the sale. Feels like sabotage to me.
1) NLA is saying that The Aussies outbid the Saudies in the full knowledge that they were never going to pay that price but lower their offer to one which suited them once they were the only player in town. If true then scandalous imo.
2) James Seed is saying that on 18th May the Aussies had the money, the deal had been agreed with RD, but the final deal had to be signed off by all the members of the consortium. Which, because of the delay, has not happened. Begs the question why ?? Surely anyone getting involved must know the initial cost of buying the club & then the future outlay needed to fund their 5 year plan. Sounds like the original AFC deal......round up enough interest & go from there. Hardly what I would call "serious".
3) The Aussies must have had enough money at some point (18th May ?) to satisfy both RD and the EFL - FPP test passed also sometime after that. I'm assuming "enough money" to RD was £40m & to the EFL it was this plus 2 years funding.
If all of this is correct then as I've said a few times before I wish that Muir et al had never got involved. Not even the way to run a pub team.
Not sure you’ve read my recent posts properly. 2) is wrong. 3) is partly wrong. 1) is probably wrong info. There’s nothing to back it up, as far as I now.
Have a plane to catch now.
1,2 and 3 are not wrong. They are wrong in your opinion. There is a distinction.
No they are wrong actually, because he’s saying I said things that I didn’t say or imply. This applies to 2) and 3) In reference to 1) I said it is ‘probably wrong’. I then said ‘as far as I know’.
All of my info come directly from one of the consortium, so I don’t need to say ‘in my opinion’ all the time. The only issue is whether people think I’ve been lied to, and I certainly not going to write ‘unless they’re lying through their teeth’ every time I write a comment’. Other people’s sources are less direct. No one is getting info from Roland. Lieven’s info we know isn’t necessarily reliable.
Your interventions are very selective. Don’t remember you intervening with NLA when he stated: ‘They have never had the money. Fact.’ Or many other statements presented as fact that are not from a direct source. ‘The Aussies have pulled out. Mic drop.’ ‘The Aussies are charlatans, which is because they’re from convict stock’. ‘They never had the dosh’.
It’s been relentless, but how many interventions from you? Zero.
(Just my opinion mate)
And how many 'soon', 'two weeks', 'very close', 'next week or two', 'be patient, it will be worth it' has your mate spoken to you about?
None of them have been factual. Not one. Five year plan my arse.
It seem GM may actually not be ITK, or he's just stringing you along.
None of them are factual? What are you talking about? They are just reply to my oft repeated question 'is the deal off?' which I've been asked repeatedly to put to him by people on here, and on Twitter. None of them have said 'the deal will be completed next week' or whatever. They've all been of the 'we're still in it' variety. Bland, but truthful and harmless, unlike your unecessarily rude post. Plenty of people are happy to read them as well. Sure you're an anti-Aussie cheerleader, I get that, and don't have a problem with it, but no need to be so vitriolic.
Roll your neck in.
The rude and vitriolic postings seem to be coming from you to anybody that dares question the validity of this so called Australian consortium. Even you have to admit, that despite the continuous good news they leak out, mainly via you, it actually appears to be poppycock. They are no nearer purchasing the club than they were a year ago.
Have you actually sat back and asked why that is?
I repeat my question that you chose to ignore in both your responses to my post, do you think GM is just stringing you along?
Seeing as you don’t seem to be able to post with out being obnoxious you can, in the words of the great Fanny, ‘Go boil yer ‘ead’.
Comments
I'll pop in on my way home I think
In fact, I would go as far as to say that the meaning of the message you got is entirely different with the inclusion of the (previously omitted) wording. And, with that inclusion, it's an even stronger, more positive message.
So, instead of the meaning being "the deal will be completed after the next two weeks, which will be difficult", it's "the deal will be completed at some stage, but the next two weeks will be difficult". One gives a deadline which, now that it's passed, means failure. The other provides some information to confirm the takeover is still progressing.
So, in the light of this, do you know, or have you heard, or do you think the difficult two weeks were successfully completed? Or have you not had an indication yet?
Said no one, EVER.
For the love of god & all that is holy........................ROLAND JUST SELL THE FECKING CLUB ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have not posted the following message for over two weeks but the way this thread has gone over the last couple of days it's time.
Just sell the club and FUCK OFF
Maybe this idea deserves it's own thread but they floated the idea of a yearly check up on clubs to monitor ownership and commitment to footballing success. They also mentioned owners making a deposit of, say, 10% of the purchase fee to the EFL/FA that they only get back when they meet certain criteria or sell the club.
I've mentioned before the power the NFL has over owners and it's something our football could learn from. The owner of the Carolina Panthers was forced to sell the franchise this year after allegations of sexual misconduct.
I don’t quite agree with your interpretations of the different versions though. The difference isn’t as great as you are suggesting I think?
Neither could be interpreted as “the deal will be completed after the next two weeks, which will be difficult".
I certainly don’t think either set a proper deadline for the sale as such.
The two weeks are ancient history as far as my memory is concerned. I remember they weren’t a great two weeks though. My short term memory is a bit rubbish I’m afraid.
It doesn’t really matter now as the club hasn’t been sold, and we still don’t really know why.
This week I’m more worried that we’re not going to get the loan players in that we need. But we do know the reason for that. It’s because Roland is a total cnut. I’m sure the very last thing he wants is for us to be promoted after the sale. Feels like sabotage to me.
― Alan Greenspan
5 in 5 I think you’ll find!
Maybe someone can clarify:
Apparently a Mr Zager and a Mr Evans are involved and the completion date is 2525.
@SE7toSG3 looks like a bull dog chewing a wasp and @Henry Irving looks like a 1970's gay porn fluffer
Rolling with Roland's ex?