Twitter has a lot to answer for, giving airtime to clueless gobshites like this.
Edited.For fucks sake, when does he go back to nursery school?
He asks if your neighbour was starving would you not help them and buy food for them? Well what if your neighbour had no food because they are drug addicts and spend all their money on crack.... Would you give them a tenner if they promised sincerely that it would go on food and only food and the thought of buying more crack never entered their head?
And to think he is probably old enough to vote....
The good people of Moston can tell you all aboit covenents being ripped up....Covenants can be broken. There is almost always a legal way of doing it. I don't pretend to know the technicalities, but a good solicitor certainly would. So I am by no means reassured by the alleged covenant on Gigg Lane.
It's a bit like "listed buildings". Some people think if a building is "listed" it is safe. Not necessarily.
Think about it. Nothing happens for five years, Gigg Lane gets overgrown, "travellers" camp on the car park and set fire to stuff, the whole place becomes an eyesore. What will the local community say then? I can tell you, they'll be raising hell.
The only way to save it is to secure it for a practical use (for example for a new football club) and to do that someone is going to have to stump up millions.
Twitter has a lot to answer for, giving airtime to clueless gobshites like this.
Bolton are the third best supported team in the area behind Utd and City.
For fucks sake, when does he go back to college?
He asks if your neighbour was starving would you not help them and buy food for them? Well what if your neighbour had no food because they are drug addicts and spend all their money on crack.... Would you give them a tenner if they promised sincerely that it would go on food and only food and the thought of buying more crack never entered their head?
And to think he is probably old enough to vote....
Covenants can be broken. There is almost always a legal way of doing it. I don't pretend to know the technicalities, but a good solicitor certainly would. So I am by no means reassured by the alleged covenant on Gigg Lane.
It's a bit like "listed buildings". Some people think if a building is "listed" it is safe. Not necessarily.
Think about it. Nothing happens for five years, Gigg Lane gets overgrown, "travellers" camp on the car park and set fire to stuff, the whole place becomes an eyesore. What will the local community say then? I can tell you, they'll be raising hell.
The only way to save it is to secure it for a practical use (for example for a new football club) and to do that someone is going to have to stump up millions.
And what is your point?
You're wrong about our support.
I thought that was pretty obvious from my reply.
The EFL failed to protect them from unscrupulous , corrupt ownership and then the EFL decided to make an example of them. Disgraceful.
Their argument is that the buyer came forward with proof of funds before the 5pm deadline on Tuesday. C & N Sporting Risk pulled out at such a late point that it gave very little time for anyone else to complete a deal but the one they had looked like it could be done quickly, perhaps before the game tomorrow. It feels to me that Bury were made an example of to hurry up those involved in the Bolton deal which suddenly completed sharpish.They really ought to let go now.
They are considering legal action because the EFL won’t rescind or put them in L2 now that a buyer came forward too late.
Whilst the EFL must have some responsibility in the saga of Bolton & Bury I have some sympathy for them. Generally the clubs having financial problems are desperate for the owners to sell and move on. A potential buyer appears, does their due diligence etc and by the time all this is sorted the creditors are threatening liquidation. What is the EFL to do at this stage when they apply their test of suitability for ownership? Imagine if Bury had agreed a deal on deadline day and the EFL say no they are not "Fit & Proper. All hell would break loose. Perhaps this is why some clubs appear to bounce between frying pan and fire because the EFL might have some doubts but are not in a position to say we have doubts therefore we will not let the sale go ahead.The EFL failed to protect them from unscrupulous , corrupt ownership and then the EFL decided to make an example of them. Disgraceful.
What appears to have happened at Bury is that Day sold to Dale for £1 (because he needed shut of his businesses quickly) and they both went to the EFL to notify them before the league had chance to investigate Dale. I'm not sure if the EFL have made any errors, but you would think that they should still perform a fit and proper test on the new owner. The fact he had links to so many insolvent businesses should have been a reason to bar him from ownership so it suggests they didn't perform the check adequately if at all, but how that would work for the club I don't know, it may have meant they should have been kicked out or at least warned to find a new buyer last season. This may have given them more time to find a buyer, undergo due diligence and sort out the issues that prevented C & N (or someone else) from completing on Tuesday.Whilst the EFL must have some responsibility in the saga of Bolton & Bury I have some sympathy for them. Generally the clubs having financial problems are desperate for the owners to sell and move on. A potential buyer appears, does their due diligence etc and by the time all this is sorted the creditors are threatening liquidation. What is the EFL to do at this stage when they apply their test of suitability for ownership? Imagine if Bury had agreed a deal on deadline day and the EFL say no they are not "Fit & Proper. All hell would break loose. Perhaps this is why some clubs appear to bounce between frying pan and fire because the EFL might have some doubts but are not in a position to say we have doubts therefore we will not let the sale go ahead.
Their argument is that the buyer came forward with proof of funds before the 5pm deadline on Tuesday. C & N Sporting Risk pulled out at such a late point that it gave very little time for anyone else to complete a deal but the one they had looked like it could be done quickly, perhaps before the game tomorrow. It feels to me that Bury were made an example of to hurry up those involved in the Bolton deal which suddenly completed sharpish.
No disrespect to you, but the point of my post was that towns like Bury, Bolton, Oldham and Rochdale have a population who, in the majority, clearly prefer to support United and Liverpool, and now kids also turning towards City.
For a town that wants to be a city, the support for Bolton is pretty crap. Looking at the last attendance, which could quite easily have been Bolton's last ever game as a league club, there were 5,000 there. Now Bolton have been saved, what do you expect your next home gate to be?