Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
A Koc & bull story?
Comments
-
Deirdre Barlow0
-
Dodgy bedouin0
-
David Brent?
0 -
Donathon Backworth biddly bong baaaaa
0 -
David Bailey?0
-
Dot Branning?0
-
-
More unbelievably crass nonsense. Ignore.cafc_will said:
0 -
-
What on earth is that website? Who writes it??0
- Sponsored links:
-
Another day , another rumour , has Koc withdrawn yet?0
-
Blimey Henry, that's harsh. Has Off_it hacked your account?Henry Irving said:
He makes the decent point that some types of businesses/men are more suited to football club ownership than others, and I think on the basis of publicly available information he's right to give Koc a positive review. What did you find so 'unbelievably crass'? I've read far worse here.
0 -
Ive read it 3 times and it still makes no sense.cafc_will said:0 -
The writer states 'My real name? I’ll tell you when CAFC tell us who really owns the club. But I’m not Airman Brown, Henry Irving or AFKA Bartram in case you were wondering'.Curb_It said:What on earth is that website? Who writes it??
I was not wondering if it was any of those three.
0 -
I definitely didnt think it was them either.
0 -
GGAGretnaGreenAddick said:
I don't have long but the basic principle is that Arsenal/Utd/Liverpool with the other bigger European clubs made the system that rewarded them much more then there league opponents, which helped make a gulf of finances, the system was so corrupt it has meant the only way for any team to on a regular basis change things is if they have a big investor, if they had never created the corrupt system then we would not have the need for clubs like City/Chelsea to do what they do.sunbury-addick said:
Sorry Gretna - you have lost me with that one, I don't like any of the clubs I mentioned, they made money thru' winning, big crowds, merchandise and kept re-investing - who and how did they screw over ?GretnaGreenAddick said:
They only managed to do that because they screwed over every other club much worse then City or Chelsea have done, they just did it back in the so called "glory days" of football when money didnt matter, which is laughable.sunbury-addick said:At least Man U, Arse, Liverpool generated the income to spend big - fair play to 'em. Chelsea and Man City totally different, don't think (not really sure tho' tbh) I'd want us like that
Ideally we would not have them spending hundreds of millions on players but blame those clubs not City/Chelsea.
Defending those clubs is like the people who think we should all still bow to the royals, keep everyone in there place.
Hope that helps but im in a bit of a rush.
I generally agree with you. You are referring to the consolidation - rigging perhaps, of TV money into the hands of the few when it could have been more sensibly divided to create amore equal and more healthy football industry.
I would add to this that, the FAPL deal preceded the Champions League deal, and is far more damaging to English football, and had global repercussions. And Ken Bates was one of the prime movers of the FAPL deal so don't spare Chelsea, please. They were run by an English **** before the Russian one took it off his hands.
0 -
It's nonsense. Sure, give Koc credit for their ethical trading and football connections but all the rubbish about RM being of Polish extraction being the factor that made him run the Club the way he did and the other huge leaps of logic are beyond comment. WUM of the worst sort. Ignore.PragueAddick said:
Blimey Henry, that's harsh. Has Off_it hacked your account?Henry Irving said:
He makes the decent point that some types of businesses/men are more suited to football club ownership than others, and I think on the basis of publicly available information he's right to give Koc a positive review. What did you find so 'unbelievably crass'? I've read far worse here.0 -
How about the Swedish 'millionaire'?
http://addickschampionshipdiary.blogspot.dk/2012/12/from-rumour-mill.html
DB? Is the B for Benny or Bjørn?0 -
DB is for Danish Bacon.0
-
Blimey, what did I do wrong to get mixed in with the 'Principals of Popularity' ?????SheffieldRed said:
The writer states 'My real name? I’ll tell you when CAFC tell us who really owns the club. But I’m not Airman Brown, Henry Irving or AFKA Bartram in case you were wondering'.Curb_It said:What on earth is that website? Who writes it??
I was not wondering if it was any of those three.
:-)
0 - Sponsored links:
-
DB is for Danish Bacon.0
-
So did I : - )AFKABartram said:
Blimey, what did I do wrong to get mixed in with the 'Principals of Popularity' ?????SheffieldRed said:
The writer states 'My real name? I’ll tell you when CAFC tell us who really owns the club. But I’m not Airman Brown, Henry Irving or AFKA Bartram in case you were wondering'.Curb_It said:What on earth is that website? Who writes it??
I was not wondering if it was any of those three.
:-)SheffieldRed said:
The writer states 'My real name? I’ll tell you when CAFC tell us who really owns the club. But I’m not Airman Brown, Henry Irving or AFKA Bartram in case you were wondering'.Curb_It said:What on earth is that website? Who writes it??
I was not wondering if it was any of those three.Curb_It said:I definitely didnt think it was them either.
Thank you Sheffield and Curb-it. Would have been quite distressing to think anyone did : - )
0 -
0
-
DB is for Danish Bacon.
0 -
I heard music when I read this...Sire, what is this comedic / lyrical web of mystery that you weave. Fooks off back to the Shakespeare thread...hmmm, wait a minute, theres a clue here! Sheik Speare middle eastern Bardouin...could be the guy.Plaaayer said:Donathon Backworth biddly bong baaaaa
0 -
That Reams fella is a bloody fruit loop.Thinks the sport PERSONality of the year should have won by a horse.PragueAddick said:My take on Reams of Verse is that he is definitely getting interesting info, but then overreaches himself. He claims that it was always the deal that Cash would invest in the Jan window if we were top half. Well, such a specific plan would be news to Richard Murray at least, and it would be kind of surprising if this bloke knew more about Cash' s intentions than RM does
0 -
Thanks for the extra info/view im always interested in the more factual discussion over the general football fan/pundit nonsense.PragueAddick said:
GGAGretnaGreenAddick said:
I don't have long but the basic principle is that Arsenal/Utd/Liverpool with the other bigger European clubs made the system that rewarded them much more then there league opponents, which helped make a gulf of finances, the system was so corrupt it has meant the only way for any team to on a regular basis change things is if they have a big investor, if they had never created the corrupt system then we would not have the need for clubs like City/Chelsea to do what they do.sunbury-addick said:
Sorry Gretna - you have lost me with that one, I don't like any of the clubs I mentioned, they made money thru' winning, big crowds, merchandise and kept re-investing - who and how did they screw over ?GretnaGreenAddick said:
They only managed to do that because they screwed over every other club much worse then City or Chelsea have done, they just did it back in the so called "glory days" of football when money didnt matter, which is laughable.sunbury-addick said:At least Man U, Arse, Liverpool generated the income to spend big - fair play to 'em. Chelsea and Man City totally different, don't think (not really sure tho' tbh) I'd want us like that
Ideally we would not have them spending hundreds of millions on players but blame those clubs not City/Chelsea.
Defending those clubs is like the people who think we should all still bow to the royals, keep everyone in there place.
Hope that helps but im in a bit of a rush.
I generally agree with you. You are referring to the consolidation - rigging perhaps, of TV money into the hands of the few when it could have been more sensibly divided to create amore equal and more healthy football industry.
I would add to this that, the FAPL deal preceded the Champions League deal, and is far more damaging to English football, and had global repercussions. And Ken Bates was one of the prime movers of the FAPL deal so don't spare Chelsea, please. They were run by an English **** before the Russian one took it off his hands.
Im also sure you could have written up what i was trying to explain a lot better then me, especially as i was attempting to do it within a minute and after a few pints celebrating the birthday of a close friend.
0 -
My favourite source for understanding all the shite is Tom Bower's book "Broken Dreams", which details how the whole dirty deal was done. It is a marvellous book (albeit you will feel like jumping in the bath afterwards to wash away all the slime). It has a complete chapter on Harry Redknapp, with the mind-boggling stat that while at West Ham he signed 144 players in 7 years...GretnaGreenAddick said:
Thanks for the extra info/view im always interested in the more factual discussion over the general football fan/pundit nonsense.PragueAddick said:
GGAGretnaGreenAddick said:
I don't have long but the basic principle is that Arsenal/Utd/Liverpool with the other bigger European clubs made the system that rewarded them much more then there league opponents, which helped make a gulf of finances, the system was so corrupt it has meant the only way for any team to on a regular basis change things is if they have a big investor, if they had never created the corrupt system then we would not have the need for clubs like City/Chelsea to do what they do.sunbury-addick said:
Sorry Gretna - you have lost me with that one, I don't like any of the clubs I mentioned, they made money thru' winning, big crowds, merchandise and kept re-investing - who and how did they screw over ?GretnaGreenAddick said:
They only managed to do that because they screwed over every other club much worse then City or Chelsea have done, they just did it back in the so called "glory days" of football when money didnt matter, which is laughable.sunbury-addick said:At least Man U, Arse, Liverpool generated the income to spend big - fair play to 'em. Chelsea and Man City totally different, don't think (not really sure tho' tbh) I'd want us like that
Ideally we would not have them spending hundreds of millions on players but blame those clubs not City/Chelsea.
Defending those clubs is like the people who think we should all still bow to the royals, keep everyone in there place.
Hope that helps but im in a bit of a rush.
I generally agree with you. You are referring to the consolidation - rigging perhaps, of TV money into the hands of the few when it could have been more sensibly divided to create amore equal and more healthy football industry.
I would add to this that, the FAPL deal preceded the Champions League deal, and is far more damaging to English football, and had global repercussions. And Ken Bates was one of the prime movers of the FAPL deal so don't spare Chelsea, please. They were run by an English **** before the Russian one took it off his hands.
Im also sure you could have written up what i was trying to explain a lot better then me, especially as i was attempting to do it within a minute and after a few pints celebrating the birthday of a close friend.0 -
wow! Thats a new squad every season pretty much?PragueAddick said:
My favourite source for understanding all the shite is Tom Bower's book "Broken Dreams", which details how the whole dirty deal was done. It is a marvellous book (albeit you will feel like jumping in the bath afterwards to wash away all the slime). It has a complete chapter on Harry Redknapp, with the mind-boggling stat that while at West Ham he signed 144 players in 7 years...GretnaGreenAddick said:
Thanks for the extra info/view im always interested in the more factual discussion over the general football fan/pundit nonsense.PragueAddick said:
GGAGretnaGreenAddick said:
I don't have long but the basic principle is that Arsenal/Utd/Liverpool with the other bigger European clubs made the system that rewarded them much more then there league opponents, which helped make a gulf of finances, the system was so corrupt it has meant the only way for any team to on a regular basis change things is if they have a big investor, if they had never created the corrupt system then we would not have the need for clubs like City/Chelsea to do what they do.sunbury-addick said:
Sorry Gretna - you have lost me with that one, I don't like any of the clubs I mentioned, they made money thru' winning, big crowds, merchandise and kept re-investing - who and how did they screw over ?GretnaGreenAddick said:
They only managed to do that because they screwed over every other club much worse then City or Chelsea have done, they just did it back in the so called "glory days" of football when money didnt matter, which is laughable.sunbury-addick said:At least Man U, Arse, Liverpool generated the income to spend big - fair play to 'em. Chelsea and Man City totally different, don't think (not really sure tho' tbh) I'd want us like that
Ideally we would not have them spending hundreds of millions on players but blame those clubs not City/Chelsea.
Defending those clubs is like the people who think we should all still bow to the royals, keep everyone in there place.
Hope that helps but im in a bit of a rush.
I generally agree with you. You are referring to the consolidation - rigging perhaps, of TV money into the hands of the few when it could have been more sensibly divided to create amore equal and more healthy football industry.
I would add to this that, the FAPL deal preceded the Champions League deal, and is far more damaging to English football, and had global repercussions. And Ken Bates was one of the prime movers of the FAPL deal so don't spare Chelsea, please. They were run by an English **** before the Russian one took it off his hands.
Im also sure you could have written up what i was trying to explain a lot better then me, especially as i was attempting to do it within a minute and after a few pints celebrating the birthday of a close friend.0 -
The rot started in the 70's (I think) when the so called big clubs stopped the away teams from receiving any revenue from gates.PragueAddick said:
GGAGretnaGreenAddick said:
I don't have long but the basic principle is that Arsenal/Utd/Liverpool with the other bigger European clubs made the system that rewarded them much more then there league opponents, which helped make a gulf of finances, the system was so corrupt it has meant the only way for any team to on a regular basis change things is if they have a big investor, if they had never created the corrupt system then we would not have the need for clubs like City/Chelsea to do what they do.sunbury-addick said:
Sorry Gretna - you have lost me with that one, I don't like any of the clubs I mentioned, they made money thru' winning, big crowds, merchandise and kept re-investing - who and how did they screw over ?GretnaGreenAddick said:
They only managed to do that because they screwed over every other club much worse then City or Chelsea have done, they just did it back in the so called "glory days" of football when money didnt matter, which is laughable.sunbury-addick said:At least Man U, Arse, Liverpool generated the income to spend big - fair play to 'em. Chelsea and Man City totally different, don't think (not really sure tho' tbh) I'd want us like that
Ideally we would not have them spending hundreds of millions on players but blame those clubs not City/Chelsea.
Defending those clubs is like the people who think we should all still bow to the royals, keep everyone in there place.
Hope that helps but im in a bit of a rush.
I generally agree with you. You are referring to the consolidation - rigging perhaps, of TV money into the hands of the few when it could have been more sensibly divided to create amore equal and more healthy football industry.
I would add to this that, the FAPL deal preceded the Champions League deal, and is far more damaging to English football, and had global repercussions. And Ken Bates was one of the prime movers of the FAPL deal so don't spare Chelsea, please. They were run by an English **** before the Russian one took it off his hands.0
