Grendel
Well-Known Member
So now you think the businessmen are as shady and secretive as hedge fund investors!
Wow just wow.
How about SISU unmask their investors at the same time? Just for balance of course, would hate people to think that you whre being one sided.
So now you think the businessmen are as shady and secretive as hedge fund investors!
Wow just wow.
Given that even people who share your views on here now cringe with embarrassment when you make a post your comment is somewhat amusing.
After months of Michael wanting talks and "all it takes is one phone call", it seems odd that he would threaten to walk away over such trivialities.
Someone is pulling his strings, I reckon.
Do you believe in fairies?
You said secrecy from investors was undesirable did you not?
This is my favourite.... show me where i said those words? I think thats how it goes isnt it?
Well, you said "how about sisu unmask their investors" - this has nothing to do with sisu but its you who is comparing their behaviour to the businessman - not me.
You either have a problem with secret investors or not.
Do you?
So you cant show me where i said that then?
Its interesting that you seem to think KCIC need to be open and transparent but not the investors in our club.I think you are missing the point.
This scenario is possible;
Someone wants to create some more negative headlines.
They conclude a good headline for kcic is "sisu do not want to double attendances in Coventry for free"
They use Michael Orton to front this.
Sisu call the bluff and accept talks.
They want to discuss some of this over the phone. Its decided this can be used as a get out of jail card - sisu will not talk.
There is no deal. There was no deal. A plan aimed at mischief went wrong and one person now carries the can while others stay away waiting for another escapade.
Now this could be wrong and is pure conjecture. The only way to prove this is show the deal and the investors.
Is it going to be like undercover boss where Ryan Haines suddenly walks out suited and booted with a bulging briefcase?
Its interesting that you seem to think KCIC need to be open and transparent but not the investors in our club.
Its interesting that you seem to think KCIC need to be open and transparent but not the investors in our club.
Anyway, this is simple for SISU - tell Michael you want to meet give him some dates times and place. I would turn up at the venue with The Telegraph having my photo taken outside too if I were them. We will then see who wants deal and who doesnt. In that case I might even turn up at Sixfields next year.
You said "why don't sisu unmask their investors" - I have to assume therefore you believe in an open policy or why make the statement? You appear to be struggling here, do you want to call it a day?
They will - Michael won't pick up the phone.
I haven't read everything on this, but is that an established fact?
Yes! He has now given ML somebody else as a contact. (Not the investors or main men). A middle middle man, which is unfair again!
Unfair on who?
Yes! He has now given ML somebody else as a contact. (Not the investors or main men). A middle middle man, which is unfair again!
Unfair? :facepalm:
FFS channel your efforts at the people that took us to Northampton not the people who are trying to get us back, regardless how they try to do it.
Telling this forum what is going on will not help anything as the past few days has proven.
Dont think I am struggling at all you said i said something which i did not, if i did please show me and i will call it a day.
Maybe because they are the ones calling for transparency and it just makes them look silly as they should surely be setting the standard of how shit should be done properly rather than just doing what they complain about?
It is also interesting that 90% (yes that number) lf people's defence is to compare them to SISU.
So if ML turns around and says we can't do the deal with KCIC because they wont say who there backers are and we need to know who we're dealing with you will in no way blame MO for the deal not happening?
So if ML turns around and says we can't do the deal with KCIC because they wont say who there backers are and we need to know who we're dealing with you will in no way blame MO for the deal not happening?
Perhaps we agree. I want all of them to be transparent - I'm not asking it of one side or the other. So, do you think SISU should be transparent about the investors in your club or not?Maybe because they are the ones calling for transparency and it just makes them look silly as they should surely be setting the standard of how shit should be done properly rather than just doing what they complain about?
It is also interesting that 90% (yes that number) lf people's defence is to compare them to SISU.
You don't even know they've agreed a deal with ACL do you?
All this person is doing is providing funding to facilitate a return to the Ricoh. He is not making any business decision on behalf of the club and therefore there is no real need to know who it is. The aim of remaining anonymous is probably because the focus should be on the club not on who a benefactor is.
So why doesnt ML email Michael with some dates and times for a potential meeting and stop dicking about?They will - Michael won't pick up the phone.
Do you have a problem with secret investors or not?
The disappointment is PWKH doesn't post in here anymore- he would at least clarify if a deal has been set up.
So why doesnt ML email Michael with some dates and times for a potential meeting and stop dicking about?
He wants to clarify a few things - oddly the phone has been in existence for well over 100 years. It's a way of having a two way dialogue - there is no justification for ignoring phone calls.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?