1000 Shares Issue!!! - Page 12

DAV007 · 15-10-2009, 14:10

You cant compare David Oneills actions to Eric Whalley dealings

Bin Laden is better at Google Page Ranking than Eric.

O'neill has made the worst possible decision for the club and has not be transarent with the facts, except repeating how he gave £100,000.
The best deal for the club was the ASSF offer, this was not the best deal for David O'neill.
IMO, he has placed his own interest above ASFC.
I dont know how anyone could understand it any other way?

An offer was on the table which would have had accrington stanley with no debt, a broad base of ownership and JC would be abe to bring players in (the ban would have been lifted by now)
Instead, we have MORE debt, same incompetent leadership and no genuine clear ambition/plan to establish Stanley as a football league club.

I hate to say it but the ASSF offer will probably never be matched again.
It was all about the club, all for the club, with only the club at heart.
I hope the ASSF utilise their new share holding to expose the truth, input new fresh ideas and ultimatly raise the profile of the club to ensure investment in the playing squad.
Unless the 11 that cross the line are good enough to stay in league 2, nothing else at the club really matters.

BTW - is it Swindon who are interested in Michael Symes?

Doug · 15-10-2009, 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAV007

You cant compare David Oneills actions to Eric Whalley dealings

Bin Laden is better at Google Page Ranking than Eric.

O'neill has made the worst possible decision for the club and has not be transarent with the facts, except repeating how he gave £100,000.
The best deal for the club was the ASSF offer, this was not the best deal for David O'neill.
IMO, he has placed his own interest above ASFC.
I dont know how anyone could understand it any other way?

An offer was on the table which would have had accrington stanley with no debt, a broad base of ownership and JC would be abe to bring players in (the ban would have been lifted by now)
Instead, we have MORE debt, same incompetent leadership and no genuine clear ambition/plan to establish Stanley as a football league club.

I hate to say it but the ASSF offer will probably never be matched again.
It was all about the club, all for the club, with only the club at heart.
I hope the ASSF utilise their new share holding to expose the truth, input new fresh ideas and ultimatly raise the profile of the club to ensure investment in the playing squad.
Unless the 11 that cross the line are good enough to stay in league 2, nothing else at the club really matters.

BTW - is it Swindon who are interested in Michael Symes?

The Khan/ASSF offer could have stayed on the Table; because the Board wouldn’t Jump when Mr. Khan said Jump he withdrew not only his offer to underwrite any share issue, he also withdrew his offer to match what the Directors were putting in? Had he had not done that we wouldn’t have had to take the loan.

The ASSF is only a few months old; despite their collective experience and absolute dedication they wouldn’t have been able to do any better; and maybe no worse that the current incumbents. If the ASSF (with others) goes and sits down with the club and works together change will come; if hostility develops between the two parties the ASSF and or future groups may find it’s self /themselves isolated.

I hope a Trust does come to the fore in time and the Club goes from strength to strength; but it won’t happen if we continue to bicker and point fingers.

Redskin · 15-10-2009, 14:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAV007

You cant compare David Oneills actions to Eric Whalley dealings

Bin Laden is better at Google Page Ranking than Eric.

O'neill has made the worst possible decision for the club and has not be transarent with the facts, except repeating how he gave £100,000.
The best deal for the club was the ASSF offer, this was not the best deal for David O'neill.
IMO, he has placed his own interest above ASFC.
I dont know how anyone could understand it any other way?

An offer was on the table which would have had accrington stanley with no debt, a broad base of ownership and JC would be abe to bring players in (the ban would have been lifted by now)
Instead, we have MORE debt, same incompetent leadership and no genuine clear ambition/plan to establish Stanley as a football league club.

I hate to say it but the ASSF offer will probably never be matched again.
It was all about the club, all for the club, with only the club at heart.
I hope the ASSF utilise their new share holding to expose the truth, input new fresh ideas and ultimatly raise the profile of the club to ensure investment in the playing squad.
Unless the 11 that cross the line are good enough to stay in league 2, nothing else at the club really matters.

BTW - is it Swindon who are interested in Michael Symes?

Ask yourself this!...was the offer valid?.....money in a bank account?....Why did mr Khan run away?......I'll double what the Directors put in he said!!!!!!.........

DAV007 · 15-10-2009, 14:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redskin

Ask yourself this!...was the offer valid?.....money in a bank account?....Why did mr Khan run away?......I'll double what the Directors put in he said!!!!!!.........

your all forgetting something.
The current board didnt want his money!
They wanted someone to give them £200,000 in return for a thankyou.

Khan had the cash down, that wasnt the problem. The current board wanted a bail out (sell their shares) or a donation.
Yes, its their shares/their club - but it was NOT in the clubs long term interest.

JEFF · 15-10-2009, 14:40

I e-mailed the Club for Share Package details at 12.04pm today and I got a reply at
2.32pm today. Not bad for a change.

Doug · 15-10-2009, 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAV007

your all forgetting something.
The current board didnt want his money!
They wanted someone to give them £200,000 in return for a thankyou.

Khan had the cash down, that wasnt the problem. The current board wanted a bail out (sell their shares) or a donation.
Yes, its their shares/their club - but it was NOT in the clubs long term interest.

What’s in the best interest of the club is that we survived.

We can now go forward; form a trust and work with the club and people like Mr. Khan who I would love to come back into the fold and help take the Trust and the Club forward…bitching about the Board and what didn’t or should have happened is point less; unless you are intent on giving yourself an heart attack

DAV007 · 15-10-2009, 14:53

Doug
it seems astonishing someone people have described O'neill as a knight in shining armour!

We had the chance to do more than just survive, more than re-finance the debt, more than beg of the footballing world for donations.

AccyMad · 15-10-2009, 14:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

The Khan/ASSF offer could have stayed on the Table; because the Board wouldn’t Jump when Mr. Khan said Jump he withdrew not only his offer to underwrite any share issue, he also withdrew his offer to match what the Directors were putting in? Had he had not done that we wouldn’t have had to take the loan.

The ASSF is only a few months old; despite their collective experience and absolute dedication they wouldn’t have been able to do any better; and maybe no worse that the current incumbents. If the ASSF (with others) goes and sits down with the club and works together change will come; if hostility develops between the two parties the ASSF and or future groups may find it’s self /themselves isolated.

I hope a Trust does come to the fore in time and the Club goes from strength to strength; but it won’t happen if we continue to bicker and point fingers.

Sorry Doug but Ilyas didn't withdraw his offers because the board wouldn't jump when he asked them to as you put it, he withdrew his offers because of the insults levelled at him by two of our directors, if they hadn't done that the offers would still be on the table. Those two directors should be removed from the board and if they are not I can only assume that the chairman agrees with their comments.

Redraine · 15-10-2009, 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by AccyMad

Sorry Doug but Ilyas didn't withdraw his offers because the board wouldn't jump when he asked them to as you put it, he withdrew his offers because of the insults levelled at him by two of our directors, if they hadn't done that the offers would still be on the table. Those two directors should be removed from the board and if they are not I can only assume that the chairman agrees with their comments.

Well said, AccyMad. That's it in a shameful nutshell. A horrible stain on this great club's reputation.

Doug · 15-10-2009, 16:15

Posted via Mobile Device
None of us were at that meeting. We may never know the truth unless a compliant is made to bring the matter into the open. Until then its hearsay.

mab · 15-10-2009, 16:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by AccyMad

Sorry Doug but Ilyas didn't withdraw his offers because the board wouldn't jump when he asked them to as you put it, he withdrew his offers because of the insults levelled at him by two of our directors, if they hadn't done that the offers would still be on the table. Those two directors should be removed from the board and if they are not I can only assume that the chairman agrees with their comments.

and this which was posted on the 10/10/09 ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEFF

These two Directors are probably friends of EW and are carrying on his gripe. They should be named and shamed so that the fans can let them know what they think of them.
(Quote)
And ferther more if what i was told today and i have NO reason to not believe that its true then may be its time for the FA to investigate this board meeting and find out what was said and let them deal with it

(Unquote) and i still think they should go both of them sentiment of who they are has gone and what they have done for the club in the past

shakermaker · 15-10-2009, 16:44

"If he gets us out of this mess..." is a phrase I've read a few times in reference to David O'Neill. Let's just be clear, O'Neill passed up on the only opportunity to ensure that the club (not 'the brand' as he likes to call it) gets out of the dungheap. The alternative method of paying debt that he has presented is taking out more debt. 'A few short term loans', he breezily labels them. This is what he has chosen instead of having all debts cleared and a club recapitalised. Sing the chairman's praises at your peril.

yonmon · 15-10-2009, 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAV007

Doug
it seems astonishing someone people have described O'neill as a knight in shining armour!

We had the chance to do more than just survive, more than re-finance the debt, more than beg of the footballing world for donations.

And in the new 'STANLEY STRIP' as well !!

'ON STANLEY!!!...ON!!....TO GREATER THINGS !!!'

VALAIRIAN · 15-10-2009, 21:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redskin

I Totally AGree!!!!.the negative brigade are the same people who failed to secure World domination through the ASSF!.Support the club and stop thinking about personal gains!.If you don't like the idea and concept and your only contribution is to criticise the Directors et al, then perhaps you should "go forth"..............Sour Grapes!!!!!!

Do not think you will find much negativity from me!!!!!

VALAIRIAN · 15-10-2009, 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by AccyMad

Sorry Doug but Ilyas didn't withdraw his offers because the board wouldn't jump when he asked them to as you put it, he withdrew his offers because of the insults levelled at him by two of our directors, if they hadn't done that the offers would still be on the table. Those two directors should be removed from the board and if they are not I can only assume that the chairman agrees with their comments.