Jump to content

Sport Republic

Dusic

By Dusic,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Toadhall Saint

Toadhall Saint

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Perhaps they intend to invest to raise the value. We simply don't know, so it is sensible to sit of the fence before writing it off as a disaster before anything has even happened.

Sitting on the fence is an option (not sure it’s that sensible tho - fiddling while Rome burns?) as always but I’ll nail my colours to the mast. I’m in the no camp unless I’m convinced otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint lard

saint lard

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Has there been any credible evidence to support that claim?

You were defending this Dagrosa fella on Twitter,and it appears you still feel the need to do so. 
even though they fell drastically down the table,he overruled the coaches and management,tried to ban certain sections of the fanbase,and is widely hated by all of Bordeaux for what he did. 
you are fixated with the term ‘asset stripped’....there are many ways of doing that besides just player sales. 
As I said before...you claim to be ‘saints researcher’....do your research.

you are often quick enough to be pedantic with others.do your own homework instead of picking holes in others  

you can only judge on what he did in his very short stint at Bordeaux,it was short because he was found out and hounded out by fans and the French media.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, saint lard said:

You were defending this Dagrosa fella on Twitter,and it appears you still feel the need to do so. 

you are fixated with the term ‘asset stripped’....there are many ways of doing that besides just player sales. 
As I said before...you claim to be ‘saints researcher’....do your research.

 

 

Asking for evidence is not defending... it is asking for evidence. I'm puzzled why you are conflating the two.

The burden of proof is on people claiming he asset stripped Bordeaux. The burden of proof is not on the person asking where the evidence is.

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Asking for evidence is not defending... it is asking for evidence. I'm puzzled why you are conflating the two.

The burden of proof is on people claiming he asset stripped Bordeaux. The burden of proof is not on the person asking where the evidence is.

Have a little Google MLG. It's easy to find out that this guy had a mare at Bordeaux. Perhaps post some links to evidence that he'd be good news. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Fitzhugh Fella said:

Where’s SISA when you need them?

Seriously the fans should at least have a voice in something so potentially harmful to their club. I can hear the groans from people reading that but this could be a very pivotal moment and a very dangerous one too. At present all we have is Adam Blackmore (no offence Adam). 

Do SISA even still exist ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, egg said:

1) Have a little Google MLG. It's easy to find out that this guy had a mare at Bordeaux.

2) Perhaps post some links to evidence that he'd be good news. 

1) My question was a response to the claim of asset stripping. A google doesn't find proof of that. 

2) I haven't claimed he'd be good news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chewy

Chewy

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

Asking for evidence is not defending... it is asking for evidence. I'm puzzled why you are conflating the two.

The burden of proof is on people claiming he asset stripped Bordeaux. The burden of proof is not on the person asking where the evidence is.

Burden of proof? This isn’t a court of law you pretentious, pedantic bore. This is a football forum. A forum where the majority have looked at what this guy and his co-investors actually did at Bourdeaux, and decided they think it and him stinks.

you can try and argue your way out of a paper bag by quoting some Plato, a bit of obsolete latin and some case law, all of which might sound wonderful in your head in some fantasy High court.

Or you can accept that most of us are perfectly capable of seeing the evidence and forming rational opinions (safe in the knowledge they have no say in it anyway), that they don’t have to justify to you or anyone with a ‘burden of proof’. On a football forum.

  • Like 7
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Chewy said:

Burden of proof? This isn’t a court of law you pretentious, pedantic bore. This is a football forum. A forum where the majority have looked at what this guy and his co-investors actually did at Bourdeaux, and decided they think it and him stinks.

you can try and argue your way out of a paper bag by quoting some Plato, a bit of obsolete latin and some case law, all of which might sound wonderful in your head in some fantasy High court.

Or you can accept that most of us are perfectly capable of seeing the evidence and forming rational opinions (safe in the knowledge they have no say in it anyway), that they don’t have to justify to you or anyone with a ‘burden of proof’. On a football forum.

🙄

Where? Where have you looked? Is it credible evidence? It is not unreasonable to ask what the evidence is! 

Just because this is a football forum doesn't mean we should just accept random rumours regardless of evidence. That is moronic.

Edited by Matthew Le God
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Roo1976

Roo1976

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Fitzhugh Fella said:

Where’s SISA when you need them?

Seriously the fans should at least have a voice in something so potentially harmful to their club. I can hear the groans from people reading that but this could be a very pivotal moment and a very dangerous one too. At present all we have is Adam Blackmore (no offence Adam). 

As i said in my post fear  what happened and is continuing to hamper Coventry city

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chewy

Chewy

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

🙄

Where? Where have you looked? Is it credible evidence? It is not unreasonable to ask what the evidence is! 

I read stuff. On t’internet. Like everyone else. 

You can read, can’t you? I know you struggle to count to two so thought I’d check.
I’m not building a water tight case for court. I don’t have to provide a list of references in the appendix. I don’t particularly care because I’m not the buyer or seller so have no clout. I’m just a fan, on a fans forum, expressing an opinion. And quite frankly your view on its validity is as irrelevant as all our opinions on the sale or any other sodding matter. It’d just be a lot less tedious for the rest of us to not have to deal with your pedantic and entirely pointless attempts to take every thread into a debating society class where the sole goal is to prove what a clever debater and user of language you think you are, rather than actually hold a belief of your own with any degree of conviction or genuine feeling.

Find it yourself, read it. Form an opinion. Share it, or don’t share it. Agree or disagree. I don’t care. I do know you’re an annoying pedant, though.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
captainchris

captainchris

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Fitzhugh Fella said:

Where’s SISA when you need them?

Seriously the fans should at least have a voice in something so potentially harmful to their club. I can hear the groans from people reading that but this could be a very pivotal moment and a very dangerous one too. At present all we have is Adam Blackmore (no offence Adam). 

Oh yes yes let’s ask 32000 people for their ‘expert’ opinion, I fear that would not take us too far forwards....

We must rely on people who have all the facts in front of them and who have expertise to to make a properly informed decision.

Fans will not fall into that category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
verlaine1979

verlaine1979

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) My question was a response to the claim of asset stripping. A google doesn't find proof of that. 

2) I haven't claimed he'd be good news.

You haven't looked very hard. Examine the seasonal transfer balance of Bordeaux before and after the takeover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, verlaine1979 said:

You haven't looked very hard. Examine the seasonal transfer balance of Bordeaux before and after the takeover.

The insand outs for 19/20 compared with 18/19 look pretty much comparable on TransferMarkt

19/20

In £15m

Out £47m

18/19

In £19m

Out £46m

 

He took over in Nov 18, so the major sales of the 18/19 season happened in the summer of 2018 before he turned up. This also makes any comparison to seasons prior to this irrelevant.

He was gone by December 2019 so subsequent seasons also irrelevant.

Struggling to see huge evidence of "asset stripping".

The forum finance/French football experts might need to help me out. 

Edited by CB Fry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tajjuk

tajjuk

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Chewy said:

Burden of proof? This isn’t a court of law you pretentious, pedantic bore. This is a football forum. A forum where the majority have looked at what this guy and his co-investors actually did at Bourdeaux, and decided they think it and him stinks.

you can try and argue your way out of a paper bag by quoting some Plato, a bit of obsolete latin and some case law, all of which might sound wonderful in your head in some fantasy High court.

Or you can accept that most of us are perfectly capable of seeing the evidence and forming rational opinions (safe in the knowledge they have no say in it anyway), that they don’t have to justify to you or anyone with a ‘burden of proof’. On a football forum.

Your post is a very sad indictment of the state of the world, 'I am going to spout random opinions with nothing to back it up and how dare you challenge me for such trivial things as facts and evidence'.

Congrats you sound just like a Trump supporter, a great intellectual crowd to be in. 

If you are capable of making a 'rational opinion' as you claim, then you are equally as capable of explaining what its based on and why you have said what you have said, hardly very hard to say well he did X, Y and Z at Bordeaux and thus I think he might do this at Saints is it? 

Or if it is hard to do that then you are very likely talking bollocks. 

I generally if find someone makes a shit claim on the internet, its common practice to ask them to support said shit claim, that is generally how I find life works as well. 

Call him names all you like (another great sign that your opinion is baseless) but asking for evidence of asset stripping when it has not been explicitly mentioned anywhere by anything I have read, seems more than fair. 

Edited by tajjuk
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Convict Colony

Convict Colony

Posted
Posted

I know i posted about Redball on the other thread a while back but them having 440mil pounds to spend as a blank cheque company who is focused on using analytics in football seems more plausible as a buyer than borrow other people's money da grossa.

"RedBall Acquisition Corp, a special purpose acquisition company, or Spac, set up by Mr Beane and Gerry Cardinale, founder of the private equity firm Redbird Capital Partners, raised $575m in August with the aim of acquiring a sports franchise. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Convict Colony said:

I know i posted about Redball on the other thread a while back but them having 440mil pounds to spend as a blank cheque company who is focused on using analytics in football seems more plausible as a buyer than borrow other people's money da grossa.

"RedBall Acquisition Corp, a special purpose acquisition company, or Spac, set up by Mr Beane and Gerry Cardinale, founder of the private equity firm Redbird Capital Partners, raised $575m in August with the aim of acquiring a sports franchise. "

Gone quiet from those guys.  Don’t they only have a certain time to use the money, too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raging Bull

Raging Bull

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Convict Colony said:

I know i posted about Redball on the other thread a while back but them having 440mil pounds to spend as a blank cheque company who is focused on using analytics in football seems more plausible as a buyer than borrow other people's money da grossa.

"RedBall Acquisition Corp, a special purpose acquisition company, or Spac, set up by Mr Beane and Gerry Cardinale, founder of the private equity firm Redbird Capital Partners, raised $575m in August with the aim of acquiring a sports franchise. "

mr bean GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Suhari said:

Heard this? From about 38 minutes.

https://www.spreaker.com/user/12250300/mata-offered-man-utd-exit

(hopefully the link works).

Suggests it's all agreed, and with the PL to make a decision. Don't like the sound of it. 

Surely there's better options for us elsewhere?

 

 

Wonder if it's agreed between all parties, Gao - DaGrosa & Kat. Presumably they would have sounded her out before it goes to the PL , or would he have to go the PL for 80% stake ?

None of us know, but does she have a veto ? 

Unfortunately all of our ill informed speculation is a waste of time, we can only sit back and watch it unfold.

Get it right this time Kat, please ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Master Bates

Master Bates

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Badger said:

Wonder if it's agreed between all parties, Gao - DaGrosa & Kat. Presumably they would have sounded her out before it goes to the PL , or would he have to go the PL for 80% stake ?

None of us know, but does she have a veto ? 

Unfortunately all of our ill informed speculation is a waste of time, we can only sit back and watch it unfold.

Get it right this time Kat, please ?

Yeah she does, it was reported as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, John D said:

Whether she sells her share won't matter. Unless Gao is a fucking moron (which isn't inconceivable) there is no way she has a veto on who he sells his shares to. 

True but most people don't want to own 80% of a private company. The only reason she still has her 20% is because Gao couldn't raise the money for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, John D said:

Whether she sells her share won't matter. Unless Gao is a fucking moron (which isn't inconceivable) there is no way she has a veto on who he sells his shares to. 

It is quite possible that she inserted a clause that she had first option on his shares, and vice versa, but once she's pased up that opportunity he'd probably be free to sell as he saw fit. (Hopefully not).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, John D said:

Whether she sells her share won't matter. Unless Gao is a fucking moron (which isn't inconceivable) there is no way she has a veto on who he sells his shares to. 

It is quite possible that she inserted a clause that she had first option on his shares, and vice versa, but once she's passed up that opportunity he'd probably be free to sell as he saw fit. (Hopefully not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wild-saint

wild-saint

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Badger said:

It is quite possible that she inserted a clause that she had first option on his shares, and vice versa, but once she's passed up that opportunity he'd probably be free to sell as he saw fit. (Hopefully not).

 She probably does but it would stipulate at fair market value and how they come to that number.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Saint Garrett said:

Surely a matter of time before rules are brought in to stop people "owning" part of multiple clubs.  I can't stand this "City Football Group" thing. Wouldn't like us being part of a similar scheme either.

What issues do you have with it? If Saints were to be part of it, as a Premier League club they would likely be the figurehead club of a group.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Garrett

Saint Garrett

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

What issues do you have with it? If Saints were to be part of it, as a Premier League club they would likely be the figurehead club of a group.

Because it's shit, and not what football is about IMO. I dislike the whole 'football is a business' thing, (despite being well aware it is now), but this goes a step too far IMO.  Look at the nonsense between Watford and Udinese for example.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})

  I accept