Re: City, should we be concerned? : Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:59 pm  

Oh dear. Burns has not a shred of dignity left. What a sycophant. To Sir, with love, indeed.

Re: City, should we be concerned? : Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:14 pm  

WormInHand wrote:

Oh dear. Burns has not a shred of dignity left. What a sycophant. To Sir, with love, indeed.

Ridiculous coverage. Hoggarth and Dean praising Allam's passion and fronting up, Burns with his head up Allam's ass.
No calling out all the false claims he's made. Wow.

Re: City, should we be concerned? : Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:21 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Ridiculous coverage. Hoggarth and Dean praising Allam's passion and fronting up, Burns with his head up Allam's ass.
No calling out all the false claims he's made. Wow.

Burns has always been the same with those in charge at City. He kissed Duffen's backside for years but as soon as he was gone he slated him.

Re: City, should we be concerned? : Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:38 pm  

WormInHand wrote:

But, but, but... he spent the whole dreary 45 minutes going on about how he is a man of his word! Didn't you hear him say he couldn't live without principles? How he said he'd act within 24 hours if the FA said no, and how he honoured that promise after 22 hours?

He doesn't lie or make false promises - he said as much about eighty times!

I don't think we've appreciated what he's been up against. Trying to reason with those Labour councillors who havenever travelled further than Doncaster can't have been easy, you know. And, like he said, what difference does it make who owns the freehold? It's what you plan to do with it what counts. Assem was going to build a hotel you know. He said so today. Hang on, what happened to the 'sporting village'....?

No, I must've got that bit wrong, him being a principled man of his word, and all.

Did you forget about the new stadium in Melton?

Re: City, should we be concerned? : Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:01 am  

Looks like he's bought the back page of the Hull Daily Mail this morning!!! I tend to think if it were us or Rovers they'd be loving it!

Re: City, should we be concerned? : Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:02 am  

The Dentist Wilf wrote:

Looks like he's bought the back page of the Hull Daily Mail this morning!!! I tend to think if it were us or Rovers they'd be loving it!

has the swear filter kicked in, or did you really mean "loving" Wilf?

Re: City, should we be concerned? : Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:14 am  

Staffs FC wrote:

Not forgetting the Melton stadium plans which must have cost a pretty penny to draw up.

Silly me, it is clear he has been treated shockingly throughout this whole affair!

Re: City, should we be concerned? : Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:29 am  

I know many have pointed this out already, but this idea about being a man of his word is just plain boring now.

Allam states he put the club up for sale 22 hours after the FA's name change decision (on 10th April). There are three factors to consider.

1. Who was made aware of this intention to sell? Did he instruct Corporate Finance types to find a buyer? Why no public announcement of the intent to sell?

2. Is it just a little bit coincidental that on 10th April City were just 3 days away from an FA cup semi final against lower league opposition with the real (and ultimately realised) probability of getting to the final which would lead to European football. This fact alone would have increased interest in the club. So, was the club really up for sale on 10th April? Why announce that the club was for sale from 10th April FIVE months later? Or is it such a coincidence that now they are out of Europe, he wants out?

3. He openly stated he would WALK away from the club with 24 hour. He didn't, therefore another "going against his word" event. If it was his intention to leave, then why appeal against the name change if he was going? Of course there is doubt as to if that appeal ever happened judging by things being tweeted (sorry, but thats going against your word again Mr A). In a similar fashion certain public officials have tweeted that no offical bids for the stadium were ever proposed.

I won't drag up the move to Melton and his previous business issues.

City will be better off rid of him. Many of their fans will not see this at the moment due to their league status (which he accredits to himself rather then the management and players).

Was never to be trusted and continues to hide behind "his word" which is clear means something different to him than the rest of the population.

Re: City, should we be concerned? : Fri Sep 12, 2014 9:21 am  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

I know many have pointed this out already, but this idea about being a man of his word is just plain boring now.

Allam states he put the club up for sale 22 hours after the FA's name change decision (on 10th April). There are three factors to consider.

1. Who was made aware of this intention to sell? Did he instruct Corporate Finance types to find a buyer? Why no public announcement of the intent to sell?

2. Is it just a little bit coincidental that on 10th April City were just 3 days away from an FA cup semi final against lower league opposition with the real (and ultimately realised) probability of getting to the final which would lead to European football. This fact alone would have increased interest in the club. So, was the club really up for sale on 10th April? Why announce that the club was for sale from 10th April FIVE months later? Or is it such a coincidence that now they are out of Europe, he wants out?

3. He openly stated he would WALK away from the club with 24 hour. He didn't, therefore another "going against his word" event. If it was his intention to leave, then why appeal against the name change if he was going? Of course there is doubt as to if that appeal ever happened judging by things being tweeted (sorry, but thats going against your word again Mr A). In a similar fashion certain public officials have tweeted that no offical bids for the stadium were ever proposed.

I won't drag up the move to Melton and his previous business issues.

City will be better off rid of him. Many of their fans will not see this at the moment due to their league status (which he accredits to himself rather then the management and players).

Was never to be trusted and continues to hide behind "his word" which is clear means something different to him than the rest of the population.

Not forgetting the interview on Blunderside where he said he couldn't favour one RL team above the other and suggested merging, then loans Rovers £1m.

Re: City, should we be concerned? : Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:25 am  

He is not going anyway City owe £80m to Allamhouse so he won't just write that off. He will want profit so someone will have to pay over £100m for a team who doesn't own the ground when there are other teams up for sale.