Jump to content

Ericz

Member
  • Posts

    323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Remember: Ashley is only willing to pay peanuts. Therefore Carlton Cole is a big no-no.
  2. Ryan Giggs, 38, for 5 million sounds like a better deal.
  3. Ericz

    Shefki Kuqi

    It is sad. Let's see how they fare in the grand scheme of things. If we stay up, major spring cleaning is needed in the summer. You don't have to worry about that i.e. major spring cleaning. That's certainly one area Mike excels in.
  4. Ericz

    Shefki Kuqi

    The consolation is it's not going to be any worse than Joe Kinnear and Alan Smith.
  5. Is Nate that mystery mod that never posts, I don't believe he is a real person but only a figment of Daves imagination. Good game. Good game ! All these while, it was pretty tight at the top.
  6. This http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/8909/nufc10homen.jpg This must be one of the best shirt that I've seen. Any idea where I might be able to get it?
  7. I do admire their spirit. Compared to many self-proclaimed fans out there, they are in fact attempting to do something and/or putting their words/thoughts into action, rather than engaged in mere chatters. I don't see why others criticism(s) against them can be warranted.
  8. If I am not mistaken, legislation is able to achieve that aim. It depends on how the legislation is being drafted/worded. There would definitely be some consideration which will not put the current shareholder(s) in an unduly unfair circumstances. It could be a forced sale and purchase type of transaction. The true question is whether is it sound enough for parliament to adopt such measures. The magical 25% is because usually for special resolution, one will need 75% of the votes cast in order to veto certain decision. The 25% is good because we can convince a minority or a minority can convince us whether to veto a particular decision by the majority. The ability for the Supporters' Trust to veto decision on its own may unduly hinder the proper functioning of the club. As a matter of fact, I am of the view that the veto powers of the Supporters' Trust should be limited and can only be used in certain circumstances, likewise, their powers should be limited as well. binnsy is right. In reality, it could be 10 to 12% to be reasonably sufficiently to achieve most, if not all, of the advantages I have mentioned above. What I am opposed to is absolute ownership or majority ownership by the Supporters' Trust. For the first question, as above mentioned, it is possible by way of legislation. The second question is an interesting one. I would think that fans who wants and able to contribute to the club can be a part of the Supporters Trust. The membership fees should be a reasonable/nominal one and the Supporters' Trust is free to accept donations. However, it must be mentioned and emphasized that not being part of the Supporters Trust does not mean that you are not a fan of Newcastle United. As for whether NUST gets it by default, regrettably, they do have grounds to claim it. I am not sure as to how the situation will unfold. It can go either way really but the name of the Supporters' Trust must be 'Newcastle United Supporters' Trust' and not some wacko names. Yes, I am sure they have different roles but I do not see any reason why as to they should not be together. From a corporate governance point of view, I do see certain benefits from such an arrangement i.e. check and balance, accountability, transparency and and involvement for the fans as stakeholders. Arsenal's Supporters' Trust has been doing quite well with these in recent years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_Supporters_Trust
  9. What do you think of an idea where there is a compulsory legislation or regulation stating that there should be a compulsory 25% ownership of the football clubs by its Supporters' Trust? What is a Supporter's Trust? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supporters%27_trust What are the advantages of such a legislation? * Providing an identity for fans * Forging a greater bond between the fans and the club they support * Closeness between the club, the players and the fans * Ability to take a more active role in the management of the club * Possibility of a Supporters' Trust providing funding to the Club * More transparency between fans and the club - could lead to more understanding * Safeguard to irresponsible owners - check and balance What are the disadvantages? * Business not lucrative enough to attract investors * Possibility of Supporters' Trust causing unnecessary hindrance to the club * Possibility of the management becoming a populist management Other issues * Other conditions to think about: - i.e. Supporters' Trust can ONLY hold 25 % shares, should it be restricted to only local fans or international fans? * Other problems to think about: - i.e. What if the club issues shares - will it not dilute the ownership of the Supporter's Trust or must the Supporter's Trust engage in compulsory acquisition? How to bring it up to the Government or respective authority? Please discuss. I would like to hear your views.
  10. ESPN: Campbell eyes move to Newcastle United by Harry Harris, Football Correspondent ( Link: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=691372&sec=england&cc=4716 )
  11. Ericz

    Mort.

    I'm merely reiterating the point made by many others before me and that is, "In the commercial world, a Director's duty is to the corporation/company." Only then can the Director be considered a professional one. They don't owe a duty to any of you i.e. fans. Like it or not, football is now a business or a rich man's plaything / trophy. Unfortunately, the world is cruel. Welcome to the real world. That being said, character and personality do play a part. Some people have personality that are so arrogant and reluctant to communicate to anyone. In my perspective, generally, that is something that can never be changed.
  12. I think that human beings simply love to over-complicate matters. Mr Keegan is doing what most people (yes, even the most passionate of Newcastle fans) would have done. He is making a rational decision and few self-proclaimed Newcastle fans, when placed in his position, would take a different course of action. Is it in accordance to one's or Mr Keegan's principles? I have no idea, much less have knowledge of what his principles are. In fact, I do find some posters here rather amusing, their false pretences of adopting a moral high ground atop a pedestal, chastising the poor man (not so poor now obviously), when even they themselves, passionate fans so to speak, if placed in Keegan's position, may very well possibly adopt the same decision. We're talking about the right to a £25million compensation, not a £2,500 compensation. What will the outcome be if it's a £2,500 compensation? Face it, we will never know. It's a moot point. JUST MOVE ON.!
  13. An important question for all of you passionate fans here: - If you (anyone of you here) were in Keegan's position, what would you have done i.e. pursue a £25million compensation or forfeit all your rights?
  14. From legal and footballing perspectives, it is a good decision as it sets a precedent for future constructive dismissal of this kind in the world of football. What's unfortunate is that this club is the losing party.
×
×
  • Create New...