Guest Gemmill Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Vic has been right about FS uptill now which must be gauling his usual detractors. Thank You. Apart from the bit where he said that Shepherd would launch a counter-bid for the club. And it's pretty obvious that Shepherd's stay under Ashley is going to be a fleeting one. Thank You Too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Vic has been right about FS uptill now which must be gauling his usual detractors. Thank You. I must have missed the bit where Shepherd launched a counter bid and stopped the takeover from happening That was lost in the sub-space time fracture, can't really blame Vic for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Too late. Unlucky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Vic has been right about FS uptill now which must be gauling his usual detractors. Thank You. I must have missed the bit where Shepherd launched a counter bid and stopped the takeover from happening That was lost in the sub-space time fracture, can't really blame Vic for that. So, he wasn't 'spot on' then, was he? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Vic has been right about FS uptill now which must be gauling his usual detractors. Thank You. Apart from the bit where he said that Shepherd would launch a counter-bid for the club. And it's pretty obvious that Shepherd's stay under Ashley is going to be a fleeting one. Thank You Too. The Greggs pasty horde counter bid failed......But it was close. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Vic has been right about FS uptill now which must be gauling his usual detractors. Thank You. I must have missed the bit where Shepherd launched a counter bid and stopped the takeover from happening but you have missed the bit where I said shepherd woulc be involved in a future ashley set-up. something I do believe stopped him making a counter bid. Or are you that naive that given the nature of all the other recent take-overs there was absolutely no-one willing to back shepherd against ashley? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Vic has been right about FS uptill now which must be gauling his usual detractors. Thank You. I must have missed the bit where Shepherd launched a counter bid and stopped the takeover from happening That was lost in the sub-space time fracture, can't really blame Vic for that. So, he wasn't 'spot on' then, was he? Tbf he has been known to bend reality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Parky angers the gruesome twosome Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Vic has been right about FS uptill now which must be gauling his usual detractors. Thank You. I must have missed the bit where Shepherd launched a counter bid and stopped the takeover from happening but you have missed the bit where I said shepherd woulc be involved in a future ashley set-up. something I do believe stopped him making a counter bid. Or are you that naive that given the nature of all the other recent take-overs there was absolutely no-one willing to back shepherd against ashley? I think that no one in their right mind would have backed Shepherd under the circumstances and I don't see how the promise of being chairman in name only (which is what he is imo) would have stopped him launching a counter-bid. Shepherd didn't have the financial clout or the connections to do anything about it once the Halls sold up. And he's a goner anyway, as time will tell, I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Parky angers the gruesome twosome You and Steve? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Vic has been right about FS uptill now which must be gauling his usual detractors. Thank You. I must have missed the bit where Shepherd launched a counter bid and stopped the takeover from happening but you have missed the bit where I said shepherd woulc be involved in a future ashley set-up. something I do believe stopped him making a counter bid. Or are you that naive that given the nature of all the other recent take-overs there was absolutely no-one willing to back shepherd against ashley? so you think he'll be here at the end of the season, Shepherd? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Vic has been right about FS uptill now which must be gauling his usual detractors. Thank You. I must have missed the bit where Shepherd launched a counter bid and stopped the takeover from happening but you have missed the bit where I said shepherd woulc be involved in a future ashley set-up. something I do believe stopped him making a counter bid. Or are you that naive that given the nature of all the other recent take-overs there was absolutely no-one willing to back shepherd against ashley? I think that no one in their right mind would have backed Shepherd under the circumstances and I don't see how the promise of being chairman in name only (which is what he is imo) would have stopped him launching a counter-bid. Shepherd didn't have the financial clout or the connections to do anything about it once the Halls sold up. And he's a goner anyway, as time will tell, I think. name only? what was he doing in Barcelona then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 There's no way Shepherd will be involved in the Ashley set-up as I see it. He hasn't been so far and won't be once he's no longer ill. Ashley is probably clever enough to know how crass it would have appeared to have sacked Shepherd while he was still in hospital and told him he could stay on as chairman for an interim period. The latest shenanigans will probably just hasten Shepherd's departure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Vic has been right about FS uptill now which must be gauling his usual detractors. Thank You. I must have missed the bit where Shepherd launched a counter bid and stopped the takeover from happening but you have missed the bit where I said shepherd woulc be involved in a future ashley set-up. something I do believe stopped him making a counter bid. Or are you that naive that given the nature of all the other recent take-overs there was absolutely no-one willing to back shepherd against ashley? I think that no one in their right mind would have backed Shepherd under the circumstances and I don't see how the promise of being chairman in name only (which is what he is imo) would have stopped him launching a counter-bid. Shepherd didn't have the financial clout or the connections to do anything about it once the Halls sold up. And he's a goner anyway, as time will tell, I think. name only? what was he doing in Barcelona then? That was his son, wasn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlufPurdi Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 blueyes.gif Beat me to it.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 well what's bort doing sending someone to represent the club to barca and sacking him a week later? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 btw, so who's going to the FA board meeting later on? who will be going to the league chairmans meetings? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 well what's bort doing sending someone to represent the club to barca and sacking him a week later? Was Bort in by then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 btw, so who's going to the FA board meeting later on? who will be going to the league chairmans meetings? You should be asking who went to the one only a couple of weeks ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 btw, so who's going to the FA board meeting later on? who will be going to the league chairmans meetings? You should be asking who went to the one only a couple of weeks ago. Or who went to Barcelona. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 btw, so who's going to the FA board meeting later on? who will be going to the league chairmans meetings? You should be asking who went to the one only a couple of weeks ago. Or who went to Barcelona. makes perfect sense tbh be funny when the barca president rings up to speak to kenneth shepherd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sam S Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Apologies for getting back on topic. A bit of a contradictory report, it states one agent and two deals. BUT it also states 'The unnamed deal is certainly part of the investigations that provoked yesterday's raids,' which is weird, I want to find out what other deals Mckay was involved in, that haven't been mentioned in the Stevens report? Although the contradiction is probably explained by the fact it's a copy n paste job from different sources. http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_2542300,00.html The police investigation that prompted morning raids on three football clubs on Monday is reported to be focused on whether the trio were defrauded by a 'well-known agent'. Other than insisting that the raids at Portsmouth, Newcastle and Rangers were not connected to Lord Stevens' ongoing Quest inquiry into alleged Premier League corruption, police have refused to shed any official light on the stunning development. The investigation is shrouded in such mystery that the police will not even confirm the name of the detective leading the inquiry. However, The Daily Telegraph says that 'Detectives are investigating allegations against a well-known agent, who has not been named, and are focusing on whether the clubs themselves have been defrauded.' A clue as to what the City of London Police - described as Britain's leading fraud investigators - may be probing can also be found in the report issued by Lord Stevens last month in which the Quest team confided that they had been asked not to study one particular transfer at the request of 'another regulatory authority'. 'The unnamed deal is certainly part of the investigations that provoked yesterday's raids,' reports The Independent. The Guardian, though, says that 'the inquiry is focused on two transfers', both of which were completed in January 2005: 'Amdy Faye from Portsmouth to Newcastle at a cost of £2m and Jean-Alain Boumsong from Rangers to Newcastle at a cost of £8.2m. Although a French international defender, the price paid for Boumsong raised eyebrows since only six months previously he had arrived at Rangers from the French club Auxerre on a free transfer.' Both transfers were cited by Lord Stevens in his report as requiring further investigation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 The Boumsong deal did indeed raise eyebrows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sam S Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Indeed it did, like David Murray was quoted as saying, 'Graeme has continued to help Rangers since he left by buying players.' but it was one of the 16 mentioned in the Stevens report, it's the undiclosed one that the Independent is implying is part of this investigation. IIRC there were issues with Newcastle's transfers of Emre, Luque, Faye and Boumsong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCW1983 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 What i find the most worrying thing about all this is that it comes as no surprise to me, i always feel that with Newcastle when there is summit dodgey in the news or rumoured we are most likely involved and hopefully it will all end now with a new chairman and whatnot...thats how i will remember Freddys reign....dodgy as fuck !!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now