Jump to content

cbirks

Sheffield Wednesday Fan
  • Content Count

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

141 Excellent

About cbirks

  • Rank
    Sheffield Wednesday Reserves
  • Birthday 17/06/1987

Profile Information

  • Location
    London
  • Interests
    Sheffield Wednesday FC
    Theatre
    Acting
    Music
    History

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. From his first game he's played by and for himself, and it's increasingly clear he's not good enough to do so.
  2. Quite right, too. We'd be screaming for investigation if someone else did it.
  3. 0-0 vs Plymouth at home 2005. Dull dull dull. Some guy started having a spliff at the back of North Stand and sympathetically shared it with about 8 strangers sat around him.
  4. Except for that massive stadium he owns that he could fleece us for, drain us in rent, or could sell to anyone he likes for houses.
  5. Pressure is absolutely on Bullen. It's one thing to send out players you know, who you've worked with over summer, using a system they've trained for; it's a completely different ask to bed in new recruits and get them on board. How the new signings go will tell us if there's a manager there, and personally I think it's where he'll come unstuck, bless him.
  6. For anyone that's seen him play: in the event of a Lees/Hector partnership, could Borner fit in elsewhere besides CB or would he be competing with them for a start?
  7. Allardyce. Heart nearly stopped seeing his face on Star site.
  8. https://www.occrp.org/en/azerbaijanilaundromat/the-origin-of-the-money
  9. Well I'd better pipe down, then, if I don't have the same insights as I did nearly a decade ago. Incidentally, though, this is exactly why Mandaric didn't sell to Mammadov, as he and most of the Azerbaijan super rich are knee-deep in this stuff.
  10. So, sadly not. This is unfortunately a very well documented thing that we're very much fighting a losing battle to contain. The telltale signs are in this Sheffield 2, 3, 4 & 5 business. One owns the other, which is in turn director of the first which is joint owned by the next two and around and around. It's a process my which individuals take advatage of the legal status of a limited liability company. At best, it is a way of hiding income and avoiding taxation - something I reiterate that we DO NOT WANT, expecially with our individual hard earned cash going into it, and especially with the EFL making its own rules to combat this sort of thing; what's legal may not be ok in football. At worst, its a way to hide true ownership and thus a way to embezzle money for individuals, as money is moved into one of these companies (as even The Star says seemingly offshore companies) where is passed to individuals. Call me every name under the sun but I'm not wrong in this. This is what the Panama Papers was all about. It must be said I don't think DC is going for option 2, but nonetheless we should be very disappointed that our club has gone this way, particularly if we don't even own our own ground. What we're hoping for in all of this is for DC to be benevolent, to be doing this with genuinely the clubs interests at heart, with some sort of magnanimous plan to hand it all back to us if/when he's out.
  11. It's not good news. It means our club is now participating in the world of offshore international finance. Our money that we pay into the club is now being siphoned abroad, never returning in taxation that will benefit our society. It's part of the exact same legislation-dodging world that the superrich have been indulging in, the exact same processes that Cameron, Yanokuvic, Putin, Trump, everyone have used to plunder their countries. Welcome to klepocracy. Those that think it'll benefit our club are short-sighted. This is the short of stuff that keeps the poor poor and rich ever, ever richer, the stuff that means most of London is technically foreign territory. I would LOVE to be proved wrong. But I'm also 100% not.
  12. It's an asset loss. Hopefully our owner is benevolent and honours the spirit of the move (i.e. some sort of gentleman's acknowledgement that the asset is his in name only for the purposes of FFP), but it is nonetheless an asset loss and not objectively a good thing. Again, hopefully it all works out wonderfully.
  13. Look, he's just obviously not good enough. Even if he's not as bad as people say, he's not good enough. Maybe he will be, maybe he'll still be on our books then, but right now he's not.
×
×
  • Create New...