|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Jan 12, 2015 16:35:55 GMT
I followed that group through the youth team very closely as my son was involved. Hunter and Harrison were poles apart in terms of attitude. Hunter let himself, his team mates and the club down repeatedly - an absolute big head. Ellis was NEVER like that and had one bad season as a result of a false allegation of rape. I think that's a lot more interesting than anything on here about Hunter. Do you still think that Ellis can become the player he promised to be during his breakthrough season? Yes, I absolutely do. His problem I think is that he is having to rebuild trust which he lost last year. I am told he is a completely different person this year so I am disappointed he hasn't had a few more chances.
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Jan 11, 2015 16:30:18 GMT
Was he any different to Harrison interms of personality/ attitude? Don't think so, maybe DC and MC would have got more from him than McGee and ward. We will never know but he apparently had the same talent/ability as Scott Sinclair and at one point Man U and arsenal had scouts down to watch him! O well I followed that group through the youth team very closely as my son was involved. Hunter and Harrison were poles apart in terms of attitude. Hunter let himself, his team mates and the club down repeatedly - an absolute big head. Ellis was NEVER like that and had one bad season as a result of a false allegation of rape. Look what happened to Ched Evans - that would knock ANYONE off their stride. The talk of the big clubs bring interested was bulls*** - agent talk to get him a contract. I stood next to an Everton scout at one game who told me they had been asked to take a look but that there was no real interest and couldn't believe that was the kid he had been told about. Was more interested in Tom Lockyer and Darren ?midfielder? The youth team were always better without him as they were a team and not 10 + a one selfish big head. Hunter got exactly what he deserved when he was shown the door. Sorry to be so blunt but it does annoy me when people completely misrepresent what happened. This was NOT a management issue, it was a player's attitude issue.
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Dec 30, 2014 11:18:45 GMT
Fwiw, it interested me because I don't have my ear as close to the ground as others and often skip over the Sainsbury's type threads because, well, I've got other things to be getting on with. What has been posted has the ring of truth about it and has been backed up by those more in the know. So it feels like solid info, though no closer to knowing how things will turn out. So thanks for posting I agree with that. You heard something interesting so you posted it. There is no obligation to read back through thousands of posts to see if it was mentioned before by someone else. Those who were criticising? - well we can all form our own view on them - probably best not to share our opinions!!!
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Dec 23, 2014 13:40:33 GMT
Two questions. 1. If we have a 'watertight' contract why are the BoD still talking about dotting the i's and crossing the t's? 2. Why have Barclay's called in their loan, why did another bank not step in and why go to a 'hedge fund' style operation for the money? All this suggests a serious crisis in the background. We might get a bit of money out of Sainsbury's (we certainly can't afford to sue them for the next 2 or 3 years) but it won't be enough to clear all the debts. The BoD will then find MSP own the Mem and we are paying rent before we go into administration and the Mem is sold for housing or a supermarket with MSP taking all the profits. I am very sorry but how anyone who has followed this could draft this is completely beyond me? It starts off of with nonsense, adds 2+2 to get 7 and then assumes the worst case on that. Bewildering or trouble-making? I can't figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Dec 21, 2014 14:34:53 GMT
People are assuming that this is short term (cashflow finance). My guess (see my post above) is that it is development funding, designed to deal with the uncertainties of the cashflow implications of funding a development project.
If the Sainsbury's deal goes ahead, the deal has staged payments based on milestones in the contract - you need the cashflow to fund the development to reach each milestone.
If Sainsburys do not buy the Mem but we end up with compensation, then we will need finance to develop UWE until cash is realised from the men sale (to whoever).
Both these options are positive news.
There are also a number of more negative scenarios such as needing the cash to pay off Geoff D's loans and not being able to raise it elsewhere but my "digging" makes me think MSP would now only be involved if it was one of the first two.
Again, I do not know anything for certain, but I feel positive about this and not negative.
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Dec 21, 2014 13:18:06 GMT
One thing Steve, Balanta's substitution was not tactical, he was injured, no other reason to sit on a pack of ice. agree with the rest though LSG i thought the complete opposite at the time. The substitution was tactical, the ice pack was to hide embarrassment. Don't know for sure
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Dec 21, 2014 13:14:29 GMT
Too much guessing and not enough facts For instance - registration of the charges - nominal lawyer fees as is a standard document so not expensive. Why do you say the loans are bridging loans? - no evidence that that is the case. Who says the loans are short term loans? - Cheshire Gas - stop guessing about things you evidently have no knowledge. fanatical ~ how do you know that I know nothing about finance? I have a background of 40 years in banking and finance. You know absolutely nothing about me. Let me know your email address and I will happily send you my CV. Have you had a look at MSP or are you a board member with insider knowledge? Just take a look at their website. MSP state on their website ~ "We provide one to twelve month asset-based loans of up to 70% loan to value." Finance up to 12 months is classed by the FCA as short term finance and as such may be classed as bridging finance depending on the nature and structure of the loan. fanatical to quote you ~ "stop guessing about things (and people) you evidently have no knowledge." But if you talk to people in the industry who DO know MSP they have changed strategy in the last couple of years to focus on development loans as the High Street Banks are still too focussed on building their balance sheets and are not yet back in this market. They have added people with building/development experience (eg QA and Surveyors) to their board/ management team. The short term finance was perfect for the depths of the recession, development financing is perfect for the climb out. These boys are smart. No insider knowledge but a chat with partner of one of the Big 4 suggests to me that this is good news and not bad. Only time will tell though.
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Dec 19, 2014 16:31:07 GMT
Bristol rugby fan for those who thought I was a city fan I have no interest in football really but do in the mem and I for one am hoping u lot go belly up we can buy our home back for a £1 and turf u lot out on to the streets! And that situation is looking more and more likely I work in finance for small businesses and some medium size and mcp are like the wonga of the business world there is quiet often one outcome when they are involved. They call in there debts on the date signed in the contract which is usually within 12 months I've never seen longer, then they strip you of your assets that the loan was secured against and bang they have there profit and who ever has nothing! And you can guarantee they valued the loan at about 40% of what they seen the assets are worth good luck you are going to need it. Thank god the rugby have a good backer now. Come on bris If you're a rugby fan, why do you spend so much time copying and pasting from OTIB? Anyway, it turns out its MSP not MCP and I'd be interested to know how many of your clients use them. I've worked in SME finance for 25 years and until this week I had never heard of them. Come on Bris and UTG Well said. I too have done several private equity backed deals as a finance director and have never heard of MSP. Having dug around, they are specialists in financing development projects - oh we must be going bust before Christmas !!!! CO3 is bullsh1tting on a grand scale - lots of your clients have used them have they. Ho, Ho, Ho. Done your homework yet?
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Dec 16, 2014 14:15:55 GMT
Interesting that the existing stadium loan with Barclays has just been refinanced by MCP. According to their website, MCP Capital is a private equity funder - i.e. a long term investor who invariably takes share capital and puts one of their own on to the board of directors. This could of course be a bail out scenario but, being an optimist, I think it could also mean something big (e.g. transition to new debt free stadium) is about to happen. PE investors are much more flexible than the banks but as far as I'm aware they don't usually pawnbroke (in the sense that they lend directly against an asset). Someone, somewhere must have produced a fairly convincing business plan based on the expected outcome with Sainsburys. Who are the directors of MCP, any clues who is behind it?
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Dec 16, 2014 7:24:49 GMT
First goal was dire goalkeeping as pushed it on to his own player. Second goal keeper should have been screaming to Leadbitter to kick the ball out. There was no control from the keeper over his defenders but Leadbitter was very slack as well. The second goal should also have been heade4d clear by the defender who allowed Artus to get to it first when it favoured the defender. For the first goal the defender at the near post could have headed it away but clearly got a call from the keeper who then completely fluffed it. 100% keepers fault. For the second I thought Trotman should have given clear instructions to Leadbitter. Either way he should have been told what to do - if you don't get a call you have to stick it out. Danny Liability I am afraid.
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Dec 13, 2014 8:54:53 GMT
I enjoyed that debate.
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Nov 19, 2014 18:48:26 GMT
He called Higgs an oompa lumpa and a pussy'ole. Not Higgs' biggest fan myself but glad we've got rid of a player with that sort of unprofessional attitude. He wouldn't have said that if he had to run 20 yards before he could say it. Still blame him personally for both goals against City in the JPT. Stood and watched on both occasions instead of tracking back.
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Nov 16, 2014 11:32:44 GMT
Was Brunt/Harrison really marking Blisset, or did he just completely lose McChrystal? If the former I admit it's an odd choice, as you can't imagine Brunt being marked by Blisset at the other end! Still feel he should have done a straight swap of Clarke for Sinclair and hoped Martin improved if we had a midfielder who could pass to him. The Sinclair miss control when put clean though seems to have gone unnoticed on the forum so far? We debated this at the time. For all the subsequent corners Parkes had him so I think it was big Tom.
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Nov 15, 2014 21:14:22 GMT
Great in the air, very quick but rubbish on the ground.
No thanks
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Nov 10, 2014 19:30:14 GMT
Can a mod get rid of this thread please. I asked a question, I got the answer so its done. But the thread is now turning into somethings else which is not needed. Thanks. Good question - he got a 3 match ban. Personally I wouldn't pick him either way at full back as any player who's second touch is a tackle is a liability. He did it several times in that game. In one, the tackle ricocheted into space and he went on a great run. Many on here said it was a great run but it was equally as shocking - he just got lucky. On the third or fourth occasion he got sent off. Right wing or nowhere for me.
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Nov 9, 2014 21:28:56 GMT
What a bizarre thread this is. Ollie pulled out of training with a tight hamstring so wasn't available. The Gaffer said this very clearly In both his pre-match and post-match interviews.
Clearly no conspiracy whatsoever - unless of course someone knows different !!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Nov 3, 2014 11:06:06 GMT
If someone is breaking the law, then yes, they should be banned. However........ "If they're not breaking the law then they’re not doing anything wrong, are they? We’ve got robust laws about incitement to violence and the rest. And the thing about this free speech stuff is the “free” that’s in the phrase. I am and should be allowed to say “lock up the filthy homos” however stupid, impolite or hateful it would be for me to say this. Just as Abu Hookhand is at liberty to discuss the finer points of stoning them or pushing a wall over on them. What neither of us may say is let’s go stone that filthy homo over there. That’s just what free speech means." It's a concept that seems to have been misunderstood by the moral high and mighty on this forum. Oh well, at least we now know we can call someone a 'fool' on this forum and it's allowed. www.timworstall.com/Sometimes by trying to be clever you prove without doubt how stupid you are !!!
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Nov 3, 2014 0:59:43 GMT
Well done mods and admin. It's the right decision.
The forum is a better place without that rubbish
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Oct 27, 2014 7:38:57 GMT
Agree 100%. Just a nasty, trouble making, sh1t stirring post. And a bit of contrived team-tag going on as well I think. We win 7-1 and yet some people have to find something to moan about. What's this really about guys but because it isn't what you are pretending it's about. I think that's another ad hominem which dodges the op's point And quite deliberately so as the post deserves no response but the poster (and his tag team) need to be pulled up for their trouble-making.. Thanks for helping me make that clear. I have had the occasional dealings with Holtby and found him professional and helpful. The fact that he is also a passionate Gashead I find reassuring rather than a problem.
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Oct 27, 2014 7:27:35 GMT
Agree 100%. Just a nasty, trouble making, sh1t stirring post. And a bit of contrived team-tag going on as well I think. We win 7-1 and yet some people have to find something to moan about. What's this really about guys but because it isn't what you are pretending it's about.
|
|