Jump to content

BREAKING - George Hirst Gone


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

The only question that raises for me is, if the powers that be in football are prepared to just sit back and ignore such a dubious way of injecting funds into a club (which they clearly are) then why not just let the club owner put in an equivalent sum of money without having to go to the trouble of setting up non trading companies to do it? :wacko:

 

I'm sure the powers that be would blather on about sustainability, but if a club owner is determined to run their club recklessly, they still will. See Villa for a recent example. The current system doesn't prevent stupidity.

 

If a club is lucky enough to be taken over by a wealthy owner who's happy to invest in the club, let them crack on with it, I say. Otherwise, you just create a situation where the drawbridge has been pulled up now that the likes of Chelsea and Man City are safely on the other side of it, and that seems very unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, longreach said:

As an outsider not living anywhere near Sheffield, what is/was the issue with D Taxis?

 

 

Ring em

 

01143959595


"The best poster on Owlstalk by far" - Kaven Walker

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, longreach said:

As an outsider not living anywhere near Sheffield, what is/was the issue with D Taxis?

 

 

They aint got any cars lol

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, longreach said:

As an outsider not living anywhere near Sheffield, what is/was the issue with D Taxis?

 

Geoffrey called for a D-taxi three months ago and is still waiting. 

 

He's kept himself preoccupied by shouting at clouds and waving his fist at pigeons. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SiJ said:

Geoffrey called for a D-taxi three months ago and is still waiting. 

 

He's kept himself preoccupied by shouting at clouds and waving his fist at pigeons. 

297.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, longreach said:

I did and got yer mum.......

Seriously, saw they were sponsors, so what happened??

 

I think Geoffreys beef is with the hypocrisy of calling out Leicester for using a loophole to avoid paying a transfer fee - while not seeing a problem with us having 2 'sponsors' owned by our Chairman who aren't actually trading.

 

Was my Mum ok?? I must pop round and see her this morning


"The best poster on Owlstalk by far" - Kaven Walker

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

It's not just the scale of it that differs, though.

 

Morally, a chairman using a loophole to pump a bit more of his cash into the club he owns in order to attempt to compete on an even footing with clubs whose bank balances have been artificially inflated by obscene parachute payments is hardly comparable to a club screwing another out of a development fee for a young player who came through their academy.

Poor attempt. Getting parachute payments is not bending the rules. There's plenty of teams in the Championship not on parachute payments. Is it morally acceptable for us to try and gain an unfair advantage over them?

We weren't screwed out of a fee. We turned down several bids before the petty training embargo and he might never play for Leicester.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, @owlstalk said:


I'm a bit confused about what you're saying here

The statement reads to me that one side of the story is known via a press statement

We know that to be true as fact

Cant' see how you can call it baseless?

 

Exactly, it had to be ‘rightly’ worded (or factual) otherwise the chairman and the club would have been liable. What is more, if it wasn’t right then we would have had a counter statement from Hirst Jnr and Co by now.

 

Whilst there are always two sides to things - facts are facts. So based on what I have read from official sources (and what has gone on since), I am fully behind our chairman in regards to how he has dealt with this. 

Edited by AwokenGiant
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AwokenGiant said:

What is more, if it wasn’t right then we would have had a counter statement from Hirst Jnr and Co by now. 


No there wouldn't

What makes you think that would happen?


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:


No there wouldn't

What makes you think that would happen?

 

If he would have been misrepresented, it would have been in his best interest to make a statement! 

Edited by AwokenGiant
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hillsborough Mole said:

 

I think Geoffreys beef is with the hypocrisy of calling out Leicester for using a loophole to avoid paying a transfer fee - while not seeing a problem with us having 2 'sponsors' owned by our Chairman who aren't actually trading.

 

Was my Mum ok?? I must pop round and see her this morning

 

Having been on the interjangle, I now understand the DTaxi issue.  Yer Mum's fine by the way, you should visit more often!!:rolleyes:

 

There is a certain similarity between Geoffrey  and the munter called Tonto........doesn't like answering questions does he/she

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

SURELY THE WHOLE EFFECT BOILS DOWN TO A SIMPLE ANSWER. 

 

IN ORDER FOR THERE  TO BE A CONTRACT, TWO PEOPLE MUST AGREE!

1THEPERSON OFFERING THE CONTRACT MUST DECIDE HOW MUCH IT IS WORTH PAYING FOR THE SIGNATURE/SEVICES OF THE PERSON INVOLVED, 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/06/2018 at 16:34, Bluesteel said:

Is it less compo rather than none?

 

Convoluted way of getting him to Leicester in a years time. 

Star say the UEFA rules will give us about 180k. Wondrous. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...