Hughesy Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 In my opinion, if it is significant, it would mean a takeover would be imminent. But it is more than likely to be something completely meaningless. Literally as meaningless as amending the provisions about whether a board meeting can held by telephone or needs to be a physical meeting. The articles basically govern how a company is run and so loads of it is boring admin stuff. If you suffer from insomnia, read a set and you’ll soon find out how dull most of it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 In my opinion, if it is significant, it would mean a takeover would be imminent. But it is more than likely to be something completely meaningless. Literally as meaningless as amending the provisions about whether a board meeting can held by telephone or needs to be a physical meeting. The articles basically govern how a company is run and so loads of it is boring admin stuff. Are there any other clubs that are known to have been funded by debt? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Man Utd is the obvious example that I can think of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 First (and only) ones I thought of too. And in their case the articles were changed around 6 months after the Glazers acquired full control. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odear Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 I`d take Kenyon in a heartbeat. I still cant quite imagine the club being ran in a professional (Not necessarily altruistic) manner given the manner that it has been ran in my lifetime. For all the Hall / Shepherd achievements (In terms of stature, stadium etc) they made some shocking decisions on their watch. Dalglish, Souness, Allardyce. Yup some stinkers there. Not to mention the treatment of SBR. I think the club did the correct thing in being floated so I think Keegan jumped the gun the first time. He still had total control over transfers and the players were totally behind him. If he was offered that scenario now he’d bite your hand off after what he experienced with Mike Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 At least Shepherd had the kind of self-serving ego where he cared what the fans thought about him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Haven’t actually checked the full set of articles (and in a very different time zone at the moment), but the 1998 article amendment that Chris posted on Twitter is unusual in that it allows the directors the ability to refuse a share transfer. That is a massive red flag for a bank - but no idea why the banks that lent to us at the time didn’t spot that and change it. Unless there was a subsequent amendment or the money was lent somewhere else in the group. Weird. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 I`d take Kenyon in a heartbeat. I still cant quite imagine the club being ran in a professional (Not necessarily altruistic) manner given the manner that it has been ran in my lifetime. For all the Hall / Shepherd achievements (In terms of stature, stadium etc) they made some shocking decisions on their watch. Dalglish, Souness, Allardyce. Yup some stinkers there. Not to mention the treatment of SBR. I think the club did the correct thing in being floated so I think Keegan jumped the gun the first time. He still had total control over transfers and the players were totally behind him. If he was offered that scenario now he’d bite your hand off after what he experienced with Mike Ashley. Keegan didn't have full control rgouch, he was told he needed to sell Ferdinand as part of the float. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-421 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Keegan didn't have full control rgouch, he was told he needed to sell Ferdinand as part of the float. I didn't know that (that Ferdinand sale was part of float). I thought it was just that KK knew a PLC would be more concerned about balancing the books - which was then borne out when we sold Ferdinand (under Dalglish) for the same money we paid for him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consortium of one Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Well, if Mr. Kenyon wanted to join with my consortium, I'd be amenable to that. One of my stipulations would be that I get to slap Charnley hard on his cue ball pate and kick him (repeatedly) out of the building. I'll leave the fat man to the rest of you lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonArmy1892 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 We are being taken for a ride, again. Nothing to see here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NobbyOhNobby Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 If this goes through and our new shirt sponsor isnt Greggs, then it's all been a waste of time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonArmy1892 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Or it goes through but our new shirt sponsor is sports direct. Would take it at this point tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heake Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 At least Shepherd had the kind of self-serving ego where he cared what the fans thought about him. My overriding memory of their stewardship is that they were tolerated notwithstanding that they seen the whole operation as a cash cow with added local Kudos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Toon Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 We are being taken for a ride, again. Nothing to see here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xLiaaamx Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 I'd take anything that ousts his control over our transfer policy and team first and foremost. One battle at a time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odear Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 I`d take Kenyon in a heartbeat. I still cant quite imagine the club being ran in a professional (Not necessarily altruistic) manner given the manner that it has been ran in my lifetime. For all the Hall / Shepherd achievements (In terms of stature, stadium etc) they made some shocking decisions on their watch. Dalglish, Souness, Allardyce. Yup some stinkers there. Not to mention the treatment of SBR. I think the club did the correct thing in being floated so I think Keegan jumped the gun the first time. He still had total control over transfers and the players were totally behind him. If he was offered that scenario now he’d bite your hand off after what he experienced with Mike Ashley. Keegan didn't have full control rgouch, he was told he needed to sell Ferdinand as part of the float. No, Ferdinand left because Dalglish told him he wasn’t in the plans. Then after Shearer did his cruciate ligament, the club were under pressure to convince him to stay but he wanted out at that point. The rest is history. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heake Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 I`d take Kenyon in a heartbeat. I still cant quite imagine the club being ran in a professional (Not necessarily altruistic) manner given the manner that it has been ran in my lifetime. For all the Hall / Shepherd achievements (In terms of stature, stadium etc) they made some shocking decisions on their watch. Dalglish, Souness, Allardyce. Yup some stinkers there. Not to mention the treatment of SBR. I think the club did the correct thing in being floated so I think Keegan jumped the gun the first time. He still had total control over transfers and the players were totally behind him. If he was offered that scenario now he’d bite your hand off after what he experienced with Mike Ashley. Keegan didn't have full control rgouch, he was told he needed to sell Ferdinand as part of the float. No, Ferdinand left because Dalglish told him he wasn’t in the plans. Then after Shearer did his cruciate ligament, the club were under pressure to convince him to stay but he wanted out at that point. The rest is history. Ah the halcyon days Of Guivarch, Andersson etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
astraguy Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 We are being taken for a ride, again. Nothing to see here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie1892 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 didnt the mackems do this as well? im sure it was on their takeover thread on RTG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Those days never really ended Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 I`d take Kenyon in a heartbeat. I still cant quite imagine the club being ran in a professional (Not necessarily altruistic) manner given the manner that it has been ran in my lifetime. For all the Hall / Shepherd achievements (In terms of stature, stadium etc) they made some shocking decisions on their watch. Dalglish, Souness, Allardyce. Yup some stinkers there. Not to mention the treatment of SBR. I think the club did the correct thing in being floated so I think Keegan jumped the gun the first time. He still had total control over transfers and the players were totally behind him. If he was offered that scenario now he’d bite your hand off after what he experienced with Mike Ashley. Keegan didn't have full control rgouch, he was told he needed to sell Ferdinand as part of the float. No, Ferdinand left because Dalglish told him he wasn’t in the plans. Then after Shearer did his cruciate ligament, the club were under pressure to convince him to stay but he wanted out at that point. The rest is history. Yep, he’s done quite a few interviews telling it that way. 100% a Dalglish decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 The two things aren't mutually exclusive. Fucking Odin trying to lay down the law on KK to Tooj FFS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 always remember there being a financial element to the ferdinand sale personally Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Definitely recall it being Ferdinand or Asprilla that had to be sold and Dalglish chose Asprilla after having assurances he was settled. Come Jan he had gone as well. Ferdinand not going back on agreeing to sign for Spurs was due to him being told he wasn't in Dalglish's plans, selling one or the other was a board/plc requirement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts