Would you take going down a division if we moved to a 50+1 model?

Originally Posted by jem

maybe go and have a lie down? you've earned it.

Typical pithy response because you know you're wrong, standard jem fare.

Originally Posted by dunk

Typical pithy response because you know you're wrong, standard jem fare.

it's not because I know I am wrong; it's because you don't know you're wrong. nothing ever gets done by people being negative. if you think that governments and football authorities don't have the power to govern the game, then I can't fix you. I've got better things to do than trying to get through to you. also, not only can billionaire businessmen be forced to give up half of their business (a) there are ways to make that business worthless (could be achieved by enough people just lying in bed - you could manage that, couldn't you?); and (b) if you read what I actually wrote, it is not necessary to hand over 50% of the ownership, merely voting rights to veto certain actions.

what's your £#%&!ing answer? doing £#%&! all. mocking any potential solution. £#%&! off.

Originally Posted by jem

it's not because I know I am wrong; it's because you don't know you're wrong. nothing ever gets done by people being negative. if you think that governments and football authorities don't have the power to govern the game, then I can't fix you. I've got better things to do that trying to get through to you. also, not only can billionaire business be forced to give up half of their business (a) there are ways to make that business worthless (could be achieved by enough people just lying in bed - you could manage that, couldn't you?); and (b) if you read what I actually wrote, it is not necessary to hand over 50% of the ownership, merely voting rights to veto certain actions.

what's your £#%&!ing answer? doing £#%&! all. mocking any potential solution. £#%&! off.

What a load of shite.

Murdering the whole family is the solution.

Originally Posted by dunk

Murdering the whole family is the solution.

well, obvs, that would be my first choice too. must could probably raise the money for that, at least.

Originally Posted by jem

well, obvs, that would be my first choice too. must could probably raise the money for that, at least.

I can't believe there are so many guns and reds in the States and not one of them has even been shot at. Says it all imo.

Originally Posted by jem

it's not because I know I am wrong; it's because you don't know you're wrong. nothing ever gets done by people being negative. if you think that governments and football authorities don't have the power to govern the game, then I can't fix you. I've got better things to do than trying to get through to you. also, not only can billionaire businessmen be forced to give up half of their business (a) there are ways to make that business worthless (could be achieved by enough people just lying in bed - you could manage that, couldn't you?); and (b) if you read what I actually wrote, it is not necessary to hand over 50% of the ownership, merely voting rights to veto certain actions.

what's your £#%&!ing answer? doing £#%&! all. mocking any potential solution. £#%&! off.

This with brass #@&%!s on. 50+1 is a suggested route - it’s a political statement, not a position based on tangible facts. It directs authorities and owners to an alternative structure that has proved to work in other countries. It relies on accepting that football clubs are community enterprises not investment tools. Albeit they can be both. It’s therefore unlikely to ever happen. But why on earth not advocate it? The alternative is to sit on your arses complaining about everything and doing absolutely nothing.

Originally Posted by Hyman_Roth

This with brass #@&%!s on. 50+1 is a suggested route - it’s a political statement, not a position based on tangible facts. It directs authorities and owners to an alternative structure that has proved to work in other countries. It relies on accepting that football clubs are community enterprises not investment tools. Albeit they can be both. It’s therefore unlikely to ever happen. But why on earth not advocate it? The alternative is to sit on your arses complaining about everything and doing absolutely nothing.

Think dunk was at swimming Sunday mate....

Originally Posted by jem

it's not because I know I am wrong; it's because you don't know you're wrong. nothing ever gets done by people being negative. if you think that governments and football authorities don't have the power to govern the game, then I can't fix you. I've got better things to do than trying to get through to you. also, not only can billionaire businessmen be forced to give up half of their business (a) there are ways to make that business worthless (could be achieved by enough people just lying in bed - you could manage that, couldn't you?); and (b) if you read what I actually wrote, it is not necessary to hand over 50% of the ownership, merely voting rights to veto certain actions.

what's your £#%&!ing answer? doing £#%&! all. mocking any potential solution. £#%&! off.

Anyone can come up with a ‘solution’ if they live in £#%&!ing Narnia. Why don’t you beat a respectful retreat and let those of us who live in the real world carry on this discussion.

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

Think dunk was at swimming Sunday mate....

Was at OT actually pal. Albeit breifly.

Originally Posted by dunk

Was at OT actually pal. Albeit breifly.

only kidding mate....

Originally Posted by Hyman_Roth

This with brass #@&%!s on. 50+1 is a suggested route - it’s a political statement, not a position based on tangible facts. It directs authorities and owners to an alternative structure that has proved to work in other countries. It relies on accepting that football clubs are community enterprises not investment tools. Albeit they can be both. It’s therefore unlikely to ever happen. But why on earth not advocate it? The alternative is to sit on your arses complaining about everything and doing absolutely nothing.

Because advocating something that’s never going to happen in a million years confuses the matter in hand, namely that the only real solution here is meaningful representation on the board - a veto vote is also never going to happen btw - and legislative restrictions on what owners can and cannot do.

Originally Posted by utd99

Anyone can come up with a ‘solution’ if they live in £#%&!ing Narnia. Why don’t you beat a respectful retreat and let those of us who live in the real world carry on this discussion.

are you having a discussion? must have missed your proposed solution.

in the real world. precious.

Originally Posted by jem

are you having a discussion? must have missed your proposed solution.

in the real world. precious.

See above

Originally Posted by utd99

Because advocating something that’s never going to happen in a million years confuses the matter in hand, namely that the only real solution here is meaningful representation on the board - a veto vote is also never going to happen btw - and legislative restrictions on what owners can and cannot do.

both of which were suggested above.

Originally Posted by utd99

See above

take your head out of your arse.

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

only kidding mate....

Swimming was 5am this morning

Whereas your solution is that the Glazers roll up to the forecourt in a lorry and just start turfing shares out the back like Denzel Washington in American Gangster?

For someone who tries so hard to be clever, you’re not very clever are you?

Originally Posted by utd99

Whereas your solution is that the Glazers roll up to the forecourt in a lorry and just start turfing shares out the back like Denzel Washington in American Gangster?

For someone who tries so hard to be clever, you’re not very clever are you?

read what I wrote. argue with what I wrote. if you just want to have an argument in your head, there's no need to type it up. of course the glazers aren't willingly going to start handing out shares. no one suggested that, you straw man fighting £#%&!wit.

Originally Posted by jem

read what I wrote. argue with what I wrote. if you just want to have an argument in your head, there's no need to type it up. of course the glazers aren't willingly going to start handing out shares. no one suggested that, you straw man fighting £#%&!wit.

You were the one who used the word “gratis” mate. Why don’t you look up the definition in the Clever @#%&!s dictionary?

Originally Posted by utd99

You were the one who used the word “gratis” mate. Why don’t you look up the definition in the Clever @#%&!s dictionary?

He thinks the Government can pass legislation that would mean billionaire owners of a business registered in Delaware, USA (? I think) can be forced to relinquish shares and/or voting rights in the UK.

They can't even get Brexit right ffs, Or anything for that matter.

Originally Posted by utd99

Because advocating something that’s never going to happen in a million years confuses the matter in hand, namely that the only real solution here is meaningful representation on the board - a veto vote is also never going to happen btw - and legislative restrictions on what owners can and cannot do.

Tbf - a successful negotiating technique is to demand the undemandable knowing that you’ll settle for something far less onerous.

Your seat on the board thing is probably an accurate position of what we end up with but it’s surely shouldn’t be the starting position?

I was always convinced the esl was a rouse to get a relaxation elsewhere - still a bit dumbfounded that they were actually serious about it. The dicks.