Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Giggler are you OK? Are you OK Giggler?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Guy Profumo View Post
When they sponsored Burra I'd always assumed they were a construction company that poured concrete.
That sketch is dated because the DOJ prevented them from buying Time-Warner Cable. Instead, Charter/Spectrum did. But Comcast merged with NBC/Universal.
If you've seen 30 Rock, you'll remember Kabletown, which was not so loosely based on Comcast.
http://www.kabletown.com/company.shtml
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post
Ah, thanks for clarifying that.
The Conn story literally makes me feel sick with anger at what these chancers are allowed to get away with in harming civic institutions and loading them with debt. People need to do jail time for fraud.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Diable Rouge View Post
Indeed - one imagines even Bolton and Bury fans would want some definitive statement this evening.
Given the situation as of this morning, the only "definitive" statement that could responsibly be made tonight is that the clubs are being expelled.
If serious potential buyers have indeed emerged at the last minute, they cannot have had time to do the necessary diligence on what they are proposing buying and (more importantly) the EFL cannot have had sufficient time to review their bona fides.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
In case any of our non-US readers want to know what Comcast is known for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMcny_pixDw
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ursus arctos View PostYes, they are now controlled by Comcast, but I was trying to invoke past nadirs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMcny_pixDw
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Rogin the Armchair fan View PostWhen are the football league going to make an actual announcement that doesn't just read like a Financial Times article describing corporate acquisition law, but explains to the likes of me whether Bury (and Bolton) are going to stay in the league or not?
Leave a comment:
-
The story will keep rolling on its own until the Football League take definitive action
The spotlight always attracts chancers and fantasists.
Leave a comment:
-
Graun's source is Sky, who presumably want to keep the story rolling.
Leave a comment:
-
Graun reporting three fresh offers on the table for Bury. They can't be realistic, surely?
Leave a comment:
-
Yes, they are now controlled by Comcast, but I was trying to invoke past nadirs
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Guy Profumo View PostStill the "fan owned" model, still living "within our means" and largely hand to mouth.
No offers of any amount of cash refused.
This isn't our thread.
Our crisis was in the past, and has gone.
I know though, when it was all going wrong the good people at Wimbledon did offer advice and moral support
I'd suggest the Bury and Bolton "action teams" contact much the same people
Also, say, Halifax, Chester, Scarborough, Hereford, and the like.
Leave a comment:
-
It's the tiniest of points on this dark day, but Sky Sports News are no longer part of the Murdoch empire, are they? Although there aren't disinfectants strong enough to remove that sort of stench quickly.
Leave a comment:
-
Thanks, Ursus. Ken Anderson, Bolton chairman, wants an indemnity clause against any future civil action, which prompted my question. Source: Bolton supporter site
http://www.wanderersways.com/forum/t...ver/page/1081/
Leave a comment:
-
When are the football league going to make an actual announcement that doesn't just read like a Financial Times article describing corporate acquisition law, but explains to the likes of me whether Bury (and Bolton) are going to stay in the league or not?
Leave a comment:
-
Because the buyer is being asked to give up its primary means of recourse in the event that the asset has been misrepresented.
You might consider it if you are literally paying nothing for the asset (just acquiring liabilities), but even then it is dangerous lest a related claim be brought against you later on. And when you are dealing with a structure as opaque as this one seems to be, the mere request sets off all kinds of alarms, especially when the seller has been less than transparent.
Leave a comment:
-
Ursus, yes, that was my meaning. Can you expand on why it's a toxic demand?Last edited by Satchmo Distel; 27-08-2019, 17:27.
Leave a comment:
-
Assuming that you are talking about being held harmless by the buyer, no single demand is more likely to drive interested parties away as fast as they can.
Leave a comment:
-
I think the Bolton issue is that the outgoing chairman wants legal immunity. I could imagine Dale demanding similar.
Leave a comment:
-
"Jim White" is trending on Twitter.
(Neither in a good way, nor a tragic one.)
Leave a comment:
-
Still the "fan owned" model, still living "within our means" and largely hand to mouth.
No offers of any amount of cash refused.
Leave a comment:
-
But not that unsurprising, when have they ever given a fuck about supporters?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: