Milan Interview

[cleefox]

No, it's red with a tree on it

:icon_bigg :icon_wink

 

[cleefox]

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

Eh, you cheeky pup, I've just realised. Are you calling me stooopid. :icon_bigg :icon_lol:

 

[homer]

Eh, you cheeky pup, I've just realised. Are you calling me stooopid. :icon_bigg :icon_lol:

As has been pointed out already in this thread, it's all in the interpretation of what was said, and why.....:icon_lol:

 

[cleefox]

As has been pointed out already in this thread, it's all in the interpretation of what was said, and why.....:icon_lol:

Oh, thats ok then................................... I think. :icon_eek: :icon_razz

 

[Feriol]

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.

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, but with live radio words can come out not as meant on occasions.

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.

We intend to put more detailed views out on our website tomorrow night.[/B]

i don't want to start this all off again, but perhaps the foxes talk could explain it. this comment to me seems to suggest that there is interest from the tigers.

1) no statement suggesting they were not interesed
2) The fact they have polled there members on groud sharing suggest that the FT see it as a possible offer
3) They expect that a decision may need to be made on the subject
4) why else would they need a policy?

I accept that this is an interpretation, and maybe others will read different things into those comments.

Also i see nothing to suggest any bias from the FT either for or against the idea.

 

[OldGit]

One of the recent reports of the Consultative forum quoted the chairman as saying something to the effect that the ground share idea was not dead, though not in immediate prospect, and would probably stay as a possibility until the tigers committed to redeveloping Welford Road.

Tht makes it a pertinent factor, but does not imply a bid - or indeed otherwise

 

[Chrysalis]

Who exactly are these MM naysayers and what exactly have they said?

I don't think anyone has said they don't want MM in without even hearing what he has to offer.

What I and others have said is that we shouldn't just jump into bed with the first person who makes an acceptable bid, we should look into all options and make the best decision for the club.

You seem to be ruling people out without even hearing what they have to offer.

Jeff its not hard to argue you against a manderic ownership, a very good point was made that you seem to have a problem been negative about bardon but it is fine for you to be negative about manderic.

 

[Jeff]

Jeff its not hard to argue you against a manderic ownership, a very good point was made that you seem to have a problem been negative about bardon but it is fine for you to be negative about manderic.

I have never said I'm against Mandaric taking over. I have always said we should look at all the options and do the best thing for the club. If Mandaric is the answer, I'll be happy with that. But I think we should look at all the options before making a decision, and do so knowing the possible pitfalls as well as any benefits.

What some people seem to be doing is treating MM as some kind of messiah and discounting any other bid, which would be a foolish thing to do when we don't know any of the details.

 

[Chrysalis]

I have looked at it logically, from the info I have there is what is looking like 3 realistic options.

1 - the current board invests further and things stay as they are.

I dont like this because it would appear they only investing due to their hand been forced via the manderic bid. They have had 3 years now to get it right.

2 - Bardon investment.

Dont know a lot about this bid other then its more a investment rather then takeover and it would likely involve tigers getting use of the walkers stadium something i am strongly against, also rugby men in charge of football not a good thing.

3 - Milan manderic.

Has experience in football and this option will probably keep rugby away from the walkers.

Even if there was no cash involved I would want manderic in anyway so for me its not just about the money, I believe a club is best with one guy at the top.

The only option I would probably prefer to milan is martin george suddenly showing up again but as far as I am aware that isnt the case.

 

[newtonfox]

the MM deal will be done for the 15th of next month

 

[western road]

Good job our future benefactor was'nt here today........or he'd have run a ferkin mile :icon_roll

 

[joe501]

the MM deal will be done for the 15th of next month

are you just reiterating what MM said in the interview or do you know something more?......:icon_wink