I think Kelly would be delighted if he was on that salary, Duzza! I think we can take it as read that Chrysalis hasn't been privy to Kelly's payslips.
or someone who cant read what I written properly.
Foxes trust you at it again, you said you was been negative earlier due to inaccurate reporting and then for a short time your attitude improved been more neutral, yet here you are again been very negative towards manderic. Its for this reason people think you are a joke and suspect you are part of the spanner in the works with you trying to keep your position at the club alongside tim davies and co trying to keep their salaries intact.
As long as Bill Anderson & the Mercury keep quoting a £25m figure, we have to keep correcting this. If they stop using it & mis-leading fans, then we wouldn't have the need to correct it. Have a go at the Mercury not us.
If you look in last night's edition, another shareholder has been equally critical of it's continued use and the Merc editor clearly states in response that £16m of the £25m relates to the stadium debt.
So as an example, if MM plans to maintain the Teachers arrangement (assuming that they are happy to do so), then any figure relating to the stadium is irrelevant with the status quo maintained of the current financial set up.
Anyway how are we being negative when we are looking at the initial indictative offer document & it doesn't mention or add up to that £25m figure? We are stating facts.
As we have said a number of times, we will support the bid if once the legal document is received we feel it is the best way forward & hope that the offer is such so that we can.
Regarding the 25 million - If we take the stadium out the equation and assume promotion can be done at the end of 'next' season then I reckon he would have the following costs.
4-6 million cover shortfall in current operating budget and avoid having to sell players.
5 million transfer funds and increases in wages.
3 million initial payment to shareholders.
2 million to pay off kelly and employ new manager
FT and others only see the value of the shareholding as the amount of the takeover why? maybe this is all they are interested in, to everyone else what he needs to invest is the cost of him doing the takeover.
Not at all, we don't feel figures relating to the stadium are relevant, but the money required to cover losses & funding the playing squad is actually more important than shareholders getting their money up front.
We know that you can't go into detail but what is holding everything up and is the media speculation that it is all falling apart factual.
Are all parties still at the table and when can we expect to ehar something.
Well all I can say is that this is getting very silly. The month is nearly out and we have no offer yet. Just how much negotiation is taking place because it seems as though nothing has happened.
that's what the FT want you to think....
do not be fooled.
Why???
so whose fault are these hidden debts? milans?
don't think so do you?
and how awfully inconveniant this delay is for those that earn 6 figure salaries who could lose their jobs if MM takes over
read between the lines people!!
...read between the lines people!!
It's reading between the lines that leads to people making up random bullshit that other people then take on as fact.
It's reading between the lines that leads to people making up random bullshit that other people then take on as fact.
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Liverpool | 21 | 50 |
2 | Arsenal | 22 | 44 |
3 | Nottm F | 22 | 44 |
4 | Chelsea | 22 | 40 |
5 | Manchester C | 22 | 38 |
6 | Newcastle | 22 | 38 |
7 | Bournemouth | 22 | 37 |
8 | Aston Villa | 22 | 36 |
9 | Brighton | 22 | 34 |
10 | Fulham | 22 | 33 |
11 | Brentford | 22 | 28 |
12 | Palace | 22 | 27 |
13 | Manchester U | 22 | 26 |
14 | West Ham | 22 | 26 |
15 | Tottenham | 22 | 24 |
16 | Everton | 21 | 20 |
17 | Wolves | 22 | 16 |
18 | Ipswich | 22 | 16 |
19 | Leicester | 22 | 14 |
20 | Southampton | 22 | 6 |