Takeover at City

What ever the rights and wrongs of the situation, Thaksin is involved in all manner of political intrigues back home. The whole deal looks fraught with potential problems.

By a crook. The Premiership - Best League in the World.

can't believe the city board have ok'd this. how much trouble can you ask for?

Again, I know nothing about Thai politics, but one thing I do know is that the man is embroiled in some serious shit. As a City fan, I'm deeply uneasy about all of this.

But will you still be if City start winning things?

Great question. I'll let you know. Right now, though, I'm not comfortable with this ugly business.

Haven't met too many Chelsea fans losing sleep over how Abramovich stole his money

I thought this thread was about Birmingham City, and the Birmingham Mail's hilarious rumour that Lakshmi Mittal was considering buying them.

But yeah, Thaksin wants Sven as manager, no? One way or another you want to get like, some kind of actual pre-season.

I think Brum fans are just gonna run down a list of "Indians with some money" in their hopes of a new chairman. "JIMI MISTRY CONSIDERS SULLIVAN BUYOUT"

Shilpa Shetty then?

Has Thaksin had "his" money unfrozen then? Last I heard £1.3B was tied up in legalese.

Don't you wish for the good old days of likable club chairman of integrity, like Alan Sugar and Robert Chase?

T'Villa have got former US generals that have actually killed people posting amiably on supporters message boards about hot dog prices, they're not all bad.

Also our prior incumbent invented the bicycle kick, apparently.

Is this where we talk about Silvio Berlusconi's current campaign to ban garlic?

I know he's sensitive about ageing but has he become a vampire now?

With Dennis Tueart resigning and David Makin going too, me thinks a split board. My instinct here is that Shinawatra wanted to pay Wardle all his loans back, and then some, whereas Ransom's people might not. The way he's been frozen out is interesting, to say the least, and given Wardle's major conflict of interest, I think there's something very fishy here. A major shareholder not involved at the board could argue that the Board, by refusing to talk to Ransom, have not acted in the interests of all shareholders, and just those on the Board.

Still, cunt joins cavalcade of cunts. Just shows how fucking whorish english football is really. Human Rights abuses? Summary executions? Corruption? Nowt to do with us. We just want your cash.

Up next - Pablo Escobar, Al Capone and John Gotti.

It's just a pity Pol Pot's no longer around to invest in English football

Yeah, after he won Britain's Got Talent he's gonna be too busy to buy a club.

Don't you wish for the good old days of likable club chairman of integrity, like Alan Sugar and Robert Chase?

I think Thaksin represents a whole new level of the kind of 'likeability' you're talking about.

Another good article from David Conn:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/06/21/a_filthyrich_saviour_for_longs.html

So we've got a dodgy former Thai PM (who, by the way, is wanted for arrest back home) and Sven as manager. Great. If this was any club but City, this would be the worst idea ever.

But City being City, it's going to be another wonderful rollercoaster ride!

Still, better than being owned by Glazier, amirite pplz?

I think Thaksin represents a whole new level of the kind of 'likeability' you're talking about.

-- Daniel Giraffe, Thursday, 21 June 2007 13:44 (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

That's kinda what I meant, if you went back in time and told someone in 1996 that Doug Ellis and Robert Chase would seem like honourable men of the people compared to modern day chairman, they'd have looked at you and gone "Stop twisting my melons, man", or however they talked in the 90s.

Point taken, Dom. '...however they talked in the 90s' = LOL.

Oh to be so trusting...

(from http://www.manchestercity.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=70448 )

rest assured there is no possibility of a future Chairman of Manchester City, or any other Premiership club for that matter, being any of the the things you suggest. The Premier League in their 'fit and proper person test' ensures that such things never happen.

Yes, onimo, I saw that link at the bottom of the David Conn article. It was posted by some fan saying now this is real journalism (presumably because this is what he wanted to hear).

As things stand you get the impression that Hitler would pass the FAPP test.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/manchester_city/s/1010/1010041_bskyb_sells_city_stake.html

The sight of this man's smiling face doesn't raise my spirits.

And now the club has issued a statement desperately urging fans with shares to sell them ASAP. They really want it to go through by Wednesday when the players are due back for pre-season training. In other words, fans who bought shares not to make money but to feel that they have (literally) a stake in the club are being steamrollered into giving up their shares. On the message boards I read, most fans are quite happy to buy (sell) into the new regime, but some are expressing their discomfort.

I'd quite like Man City to draw this whole saga out for longer, so that they fail to have any sort of pre-season preparations or sign any players, and then go down.

On the other hand, what with them and West Ham spunking cash anywhere, I'd say now is a good time to be a Premiership club with some dead wood to shift. "You want to sign Kieron Richardson then? That'll be £15m please."

Hell, Chelsea might even make a profit on Shaun Wright-Phillips.

Did somebody say Darren Bent?

It's okay, we'll make that money back off selling Wayne Routledge to Aston Villa.

Mike Barnett, a lifelong Manchester City fan won’t be back after the club’s shoddy sale:
http://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/index.asp?Sessionx=IpqiNwIqNwErJW86IHqjNwB6IA&realname=City_till_they_kill_it