@Chris said:
That estate agent must be working for a flat rate fee.
Not sure about the relevance of living up north to growing cannabis?
Sorry bit of an in joke for myself, just had a few in the papers up here recently.
i once owned a property in Lancashire, (as a landlord), the final nail in the coffin of my ownership was the discovery of a cannabis farm by the local police force and the damage caused in relieving the tenant of said plants. I sold it a fortnight later!
Well done on going to over 50% of home matches @marlowchair . Wondered why you limited your posts to off the field matters. Do you have a season ticket?
@marlowchair said:
It’s exactly what I was referring to.
We will be told we are not able to fund and sustain a league club. We will be told we have tried our best. We will be told we have to keep selling our prized possessions like 09 to keep our heads above water.we will be told our esteemed and hard working football club directors have kept us afloat for as long as they can. We will be walked through an investment prospect to sell. I know the details of the proposal but will only see criticism and derail the topic from the salient points if I say them.
We will be told the great men who have been propping our cashflow up month to month when needed won’t keep doing it forever and so we must take the deal . Or this will at very least be inferred .
The concern with this is. Those who will tell us the club isn’t sustainable on current funding models are also the ones controlling the club strategically and operationally day to day - so it is they who have failed us to this point ( in terms of running a loss making enterprise ) who now will be selling the investment model to us.
The big concern for us as a supporter trust is that we have in my opinion a lack of objectivity.
Your statement Marlow c. You really are in a difficult position. You don’t agree with the boards proceedings. You know change is needed but you aren’t, it seems keen on the Yankees. I wouldn’t want to be in your position.
@TrueBlu said:
Your statement Marlow c. You really are in a difficult position. You don’t agree with the boards proceedings. You know change is needed but you aren’t, it seems keen on the Yankees. I wouldn’t want to be in your position.
My impression of @marlowchair posts is that he/she is very much not impressed with the machinations of the trust & has done his/her level best to bring it to our attention?
@micra said:
It certainly will. I imagine word has got round very quickly about tonight’s forum and potentially the numbers could be very substantial.
Conversely, the short notice and snow/ice could reduce the numbers? As the conditions were yesterday, I now have to work tonight but I'm reasonably confident I will get a balanced view in the end. Main thing for me is how Mr Harman intends to clear the charge on AP should he take over?
Perhaps worth noting, if this is your priority @EwanHoosaami , that there are currently three charges on AP - the recent Luby ones but in addition very longstanding ones in favour of Mr Kane (or strictly speaking his wife) and "the Chairboy Funders". Until the Ibe money came through there was also one in favour of Steve Hayes.
Whether this is relevant to you is obviously for you to decide.
@DevC said:
Perhaps worth noting, if this is your priority @EwanHoosaami , that there are currently three charges on AP - the recent Luby ones but in addition very longstanding ones in favour of Mr Kane (or strictly speaking his wife) and "the Chairboy Funders". Until the Ibe money came through there was also one in favour of Steve Hayes.
Whether this is relevant to you is obviously for you to decide.
Do we know what security is on those other charges?
Apologies @micra, maybe I should have placed a comma after the word thanks. Just showing my appreciation for updating my knowledge base of extra charges on AP that I was unaware of.
@DevC - To clarify your statement regarding the charges on Adams Park, it should be made clear that the Chairboy Funders Charge was registered as long ago as 16th May 2013 and Sandra Kane's on 6th July 2012.
Thanks, These are charges against FALL, who own the stadium with the direct reason of keeping it safe and separate. It was made clear the stadium isnt affected by this process and isn't for sale.
Trevors email says " Firstly, there was a question as to whether the Trust had broken one of its own rules (rule 102) in relation to the loan we have recently taken from Bill and Jim, and the charge against the stadium. The answer to this is no – the loan has been taken out by the club, rather than by the Trust.
Comments
Had Beeks been on the pop earlier ? sounded a bit slurred...
256 unread posts. A very tedious thread.
On the up side we just took the posh to the cleaners.
‘Helicapter crosh’ - yes one or two pre-match sherbets to steady the nerves methinks
I wasn’t at the game today unfortunately. I don’t often miss home matches but had other priorities .
i once owned a property in Lancashire, (as a landlord), the final nail in the coffin of my ownership was the discovery of a cannabis farm by the local police force and the damage caused in relieving the tenant of said plants. I sold it a fortnight later!
I miss at least a third of them. Can’t do everything. Just means you’ve no chance of winning one of RITM’s tin Loyal Supporter badges.
Bad one to miss though!
I’m there much more Often than not ,and happy with my reason for being elsewhere yesterday
Well done on going to over 50% of home matches @marlowchair . Wondered why you limited your posts to off the field matters. Do you have a season ticket?
I go to over 90% and 70% of away , am ST holder and legacy member. Not that I think it matters .
What’s your point ?
Having established that @marlowchair has a loved one who is very ill, his level of attendance is even less relevant.
@Ozzie_the_Relaxed , need thread headers summarising any new developments.
1,000 posts - nope, still nothing new.
Well said @Shev!
James - they are now available via the Trust website.
Is it just me, or can anyone get the Facebook live stream to work?
August 2018
Your statement Marlow c. You really are in a difficult position. You don’t agree with the boards proceedings. You know change is needed but you aren’t, it seems keen on the Yankees. I wouldn’t want to be in your position.
I’ve never said I’m not keen on the yankees? That’s simply not true.
My impression of @marlowchair posts is that he/she is very much not impressed with the machinations of the trust & has done his/her level best to bring it to our attention?
It’ll be interesting to see how many board members are there tonight and will they ask any questions or stay shushedum
It certainly will. I imagine word has got round very quickly about tonight’s forum and potentially the numbers could be very substantial.
It will be interesting to see how many go along.
Conversely, the short notice and snow/ice could reduce the numbers? As the conditions were yesterday, I now have to work tonight but I'm reasonably confident I will get a balanced view in the end. Main thing for me is how Mr Harman intends to clear the charge on AP should he take over?
Perhaps worth noting, if this is your priority @EwanHoosaami , that there are currently three charges on AP - the recent Luby ones but in addition very longstanding ones in favour of Mr Kane (or strictly speaking his wife) and "the Chairboy Funders". Until the Ibe money came through there was also one in favour of Steve Hayes.
Whether this is relevant to you is obviously for you to decide.
Do we know what security is on those other charges?
Very thanks @Devc
full details here https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07884604/charges. it always has been public information.
????
Apologies @micra, maybe I should have placed a comma after the word thanks. Just showing my appreciation for updating my knowledge base of extra charges on AP that I was unaware of.
@DevC - To clarify your statement regarding the charges on Adams Park, it should be made clear that the Chairboy Funders Charge was registered as long ago as 16th May 2013 and Sandra Kane's on 6th July 2012.
Thanks, These are charges against FALL, who own the stadium with the direct reason of keeping it safe and separate. It was made clear the stadium isnt affected by this process and isn't for sale.
Trevors email says " Firstly, there was a question as to whether the Trust had broken one of its own rules (rule 102) in relation to the loan we have recently taken from Bill and Jim, and the charge against the stadium. The answer to this is no – the loan has been taken out by the club, rather than by the Trust.
Seems a litte skewed no?