3points We just have to wait and see what happens I guess.
Really?
by NewCorkSeth » 06 Nov 2013 21:11
3points We just have to wait and see what happens I guess.
by Ian Royal » 06 Nov 2013 21:14
by grey_squirrel » 06 Nov 2013 21:17
by Royal Lady » 06 Nov 2013 21:27
3pointsElm Park Pasty3points SJM needed to sell a stake to fund some of his other business operations. He is now relaxed about what is happening as his immediate cash flow problems were resolved by AZ's cash. AZ is complete history and won't be seen at RFC again - apparently his dad gave him the money for the first tranche and AZ said he could raise the cash to fund the rest. He hasn't been able to do this. As already stated AZ is drumming up buyers - there are three un-named interested parties and SJM is biding his time. However, if a deal isn't imminent come January then we will see a number of higher earning players being sold, and the likes of Baird and Sharp will leave as well. We could have a lot more young players being blooded in the second half of the season.
I don't know if what you say is true or not, time will tell. However, I am having a little problem with your credibility, given you make one post about the Millwall game, one post claiming to know all about the Drenthe/Williams situation and now this.
Been a long time reader of the site, but just recently decided to register and share my views on things. My info comes from a business acquaintance (another ST holder) who is friends with one of the old (pre AZ era) RFC directors. I only see him a couple of times a year, but we had lots to discuss when I saw him earlier this week. I think it's good info. We just have to wait and see what happens I guess.
by One8Seven1 » 06 Nov 2013 21:35
3points SJM needed to sell a stake to fund some of his other business operations. He is now relaxed about what is happening as his immediate cash flow problems were resolved by AZ's cash. AZ is complete history and won't be seen at RFC again - apparently his dad gave him the money for the first tranche and AZ said he could raise the cash to fund the rest. He hasn't been able to do this. As already stated AZ is drumming up buyers - there are three un-named interested parties and SJM is biding his time. However, if a deal isn't imminent come January then we will see a number of higher earning players being sold, and the likes of Baird and Sharp will leave as well. We could have a lot more young players being blooded in the second half of the season.
by mathematically_safe » 06 Nov 2013 22:04
by Royal Lady » 06 Nov 2013 22:05
by NewCorkSeth » 06 Nov 2013 22:42
Lacoste lets be honest, nobody knows what the fuc k is going on here, if anything. There does however seem to be something going on that just isn't quite right.
No smoke without fire, and it appears to be quite a bit of smoke
by multisync1830 » 06 Nov 2013 23:40
mathematically_safe The story i heard, and i make no claims for accuracy, is that the Russians are mightily oxf*rd off with SJM concerning the sale of the hotel.
Apparently SJM did not include the hotel as part of the original sale to TSI but offered them first dibs. In the meantime he's sold the hotel to a Canadian private equity firm.
As a result Anton wants out.
Anyone else heard this?
by maffff » 07 Nov 2013 08:21
by Extended-Phenotype » 07 Nov 2013 09:01
Royal Lady
Baird and Sharp are only short term loans until January anyway aren't they?
by ZacNaloen » 07 Nov 2013 10:38
by PistolPete » 07 Nov 2013 10:52
by Extended-Phenotype » 07 Nov 2013 10:57
PistolPete
To me, and I have no inside knowledge, it seems that Anton has made a decision to look for outside investment seeing as he already has the 51% controlling stake and there is nothing SJM can do about it.
by melonhead » 07 Nov 2013 11:05
Lacoste lets be honest, nobody knows what the fuc k is going on here, if anything. There does however seem to be something going on that just isn't quite right.
No smoke without fire, and it appears to be quite a bit of smoke
by Extended-Phenotype » 07 Nov 2013 11:24
melonheadLacoste lets be honest, nobody knows what the fuc k is going on here, if anything. There does however seem to be something going on that just isn't quite right.
No smoke without fire, and it appears to be quite a bit of smoke
i believe there are many examples of smoke issuing forth without any actual flamage.
by tee peg » 07 Nov 2013 11:54
by Extended-Phenotype » 07 Nov 2013 11:57
by melonhead » 07 Nov 2013 12:01
Extended-PhenotypemelonheadLacoste lets be honest, nobody knows what the fuc k is going on here, if anything. There does however seem to be something going on that just isn't quite right.
No smoke without fire, and it appears to be quite a bit of smoke
i believe there are many examples of smoke issuing forth without any actual flamage.
Actually, most combustibles smoke first before igniting.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 290 guests