Milan Interview

[DesertFox]

What I want to know is, since when did the Leicester Tigers ever say they were making a bid?

If we insist on calling it the "Tigers" bid then surely the alternative is the "Portsmouth" bid? Honestly, people, what a load of old bollocks! :icon_roll

It's all moot anyway - MM will own the club by Christmas, as I have said all along....

... and thank feck for that!

 

[OldGit]

The answer of course is never.

One poster said that he knew the identity of one of the potential bidders, on the basis that someone from thaty company had been at the club discussing a secondary kit sponsorship.

Someone else identified that company as one involved in sponsorship of the tigers.

Within minutes it was an "established fact" that the Tigers were about to buy the club and evict LCFC from the stadium. :icon_roll

I can reveal here and now that another bidder with the same objective. They are in fact.....

Alliance and Leicester!!!!


How do I know?

Obvious - they have a stand named after them at both the Walkers and Welford Road. It is part of a plan for world domination I tell you.

 

[Melton Fox]

Check out the quote from Ian Bason as confirmed by the Foxes Trust

Just to clarify what was said today

The term "last chance for Tigers" was used. The basis of the comment was that it is doubtful that if MM or another large investor took over the club that they would want to share the ground, it doesn't mean the Trust was stating a case for or against ground sharing.

 

[OldGit]

and the quote continues

"It has been stated on another message board that the term "put a bid in" was used. I do not recall saying it and doubt I would have used that phrasing"

and then goes on further to set context.



DF's question, however, was when had the tigers ever said they were putting in a bid.

 

[Melton Fox]

DF's question, however, was when had the tigers ever said they were putting in a bid.

Well then that makes the statement even worse. The FT are asking the "Tigers" and I use their words, without any interest from the "Tigers" already being expressed.

I'm afraid to say OG, this is the most evidence we have so far that the FT want a bid from the "Tigers", this is in their own words on a local radio station for the whole of the county to hear, this isn't an overdramatised rumour now, I never truly believed in the interest from the "Tigers", or the interest from the FT towards the "Tigers" until I read this quote from them this morning

 

[OldGit]

Well then that makes the statement even worse. The FT are asking the "Tigers" and I use their words, without any interest from the "Tigers" already being expressed.

I'm afraid to say OG, this is the most evidence we have so far that the FT want a bid from the "Tigers", this is in their own words on a local radio station for the whole of the county to hear, this isn't an overdramatised rumour now, I never truly believed in the interest from the "Tigers", or the interest from the FT towards the "Tigers" until I read this quote from them this morning

"Context wise it related to us e-mailing members for views on ground sharing, during the interview in relation to the results of the questionnaire we sent out based on the replies up to last night, shows less support for ground sharing than in 2004 when we consulted members previously. The whole purpose of that exercise was so we had a clear picture of our members current views & didn't make any decisions based on members thinking from 2 years ago.

In summary there is no Trust policy on ground sharing, this will be decided after the weekend (as we set a deadline of a week to respond) by our members feedback, that is democracy."

It was Radio Leicester, home of fearless and accurate reporting

 

[cleefox]

As I understand from a poster on another board, RL said that if the T****s wanted to go groundshare they would have to get on with it and FT replied yes they would. OK clever clogs, where does that state that the FT invited a bid from a T****s consortium? Can we now move on from this hysteria over something that appears never to have been said.

 

[Melton Fox]

As I understand from a poster on another board, RL said that if the T****s wanted to go groundshare they would have to get on with it and FT replied yes they would. OK clever clogs, where does that state that the FT invited a bid from a T****s consortium? Can we now move on from this hysteria over something that appears never to have been said.

I'm not talking about a groundshare, I've never mentioned a Tigers takeover with a groundshare since this whole debate has been going. Go on then Clever Clogs, tell me where I have

 

[cleefox]

I'm not talking about a groundshare, I've never mentioned a Tigers takeover with a groundshare since this whole debate has been going. Go on then Clever Clogs, tell me where I have

Not necessarily aimed at you old bean. Aimed at everyone who ranted and raved over something the FT probably did not say on RL about groundshare/T****s bid. :icon_wink

You have to realise I've not been on since last night.

 

[Melton Fox]

Not necessarily aimed at you old bean. Aimed at everyone who ranted and raved over something the FT probably did not say on RL about groundshare/T****s bid. :icon_wink

You have to realise I've not been on since last night.

Sorry, when you used the term "clever clogs" underneath my previous statements, I assumed you meant it was me. I also took "clever cogs" as an insult to a specific individual as opposed to a group.

I apologise for my misunderstanding

 

[homer]

Sorry, when you used the term "clever clogs" underneath my previous statements, I assumed you meant it was me. I also took "clever cogs" as an insult to a specific individual as opposed to a group.

I apologise for my misunderstanding

To be fair to cleefox, he's hardly going to call you clever is he........:icon_wink

 

[cleefox]

Sorry, when you used the term "clever clogs" underneath my previous statements, I assumed you meant it was me. I also took "clever cogs" as an insult to a specific individual as opposed to a group.

I apologise for my misunderstanding

Absolutely none taken. If we cannot discuss this whole thing there would not be a lot of point to posting on this Board. I just cannot believe how much hokum is being spread as truth. The last thing I want is for people on this Board to take anything said on here personally, it's just healthy debate with a lot of opposing views.

My take on the FT is that they have not helped their cause at times recently but I'm still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at the moment. However I quite understand yours and other peoples attitude as well.

 

[cleefox]

To be fair to cleefox, he's hardly going to call you clever is he........:icon_wink

Very True. :icon_wink

Just to add, the splinters are starting to hurt. :icon_wink

 

[OldGit]

Very True. :icon_wink

Just to add, the splinters are starting to hurt. :icon_wink

get a cushion. I have.:icon_bigg

 

[Melton Fox]

However I quite understand yours and other peoples attitude as well.

Please don't get me wrong, i'm not anti FT, I'm just not pro FT. They have never done anything to convince me why they are good for the supporters

 

[homer]

get a cushion. I have.:icon_bigg

Thought you already had one after sticking that roman candle up your arse ?

 

[cleefox]

get a cushion. I have.:icon_bigg

Hope it is not a T****s one, that will start off another rumour. :icon_bigg

 

[OldGit]

Wouldn' fit - I am well known as a tight a***d b*****d

 

[OldGit]

Hope it is not a T****s one, that will start off another rumour. :icon_bigg

No, it's red with a tree on it

 

[cleefox]

Please don't get me wrong, i'm not anti FT, I'm just not pro FT. They have never done anything to convince me why they are good for the supporters

I realise a lot of people are neither pro or anti, but they have not always helped themselves at times over the past week have they. They need to really consider what they say before they say it.