That's who I meant, I've been laughing so much since last night I forgot which was the pig ugly one.I think it's far, far worse. We could be talking luke chadwick here
Ouch.Another failure - not holding back the years
Yup. Silverlake for example put a big wedge in for 10%. They naturally want to look after their investment. A seat on the board is commonplace in such circumstances. They will carry out oversight of executive performance and demand changes if execs not up to scratch. Big spends like a new stadium will see shareholders have a major involvement. The general direction of travel as you say is important and is bolstered by major policies. I think City and its shareholders are very much on the same page.I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with you a lot today mate!
Any organisation is ultimately moulded by the people that own it, because only they have the power to do something about it. They might not be responsible for day to day decisions (although they should have oversight of them) but they should have the ultimate say around strategy, senior recruitment, financial planning and the general direction of travel of the organisation. They own the business and so those things have to rest with them. Without positive and well-considered input into these factors, any organisation will start to decline and eventually rot. As has happened at united.
Moreover, there are five Glazers on the United board, making executive decisions around the club (just like Silverlake have one on ours) so to characterise them as passive recipients of dividends is demonstrably wrong.
The Glazers wouldn't be able to bring them in as long as the piss can is stinking the place out. Their problems all centre on that old **** being there. I hope he lives to 150
I noticed the 4th official didn’t look too pleased at full time yesterday.