Jump to content

Joey Linton

Member
  • Content Count

    248
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Been for a walk with my dad this morning and he asked question which I said I would post on here. Before Ashley came in my dad had a couple of hundred quid's worth of shares in the club, but he reckons when Ashley took over he was able to buy them under some compulsory rule because he owned so much of it already. He also paid less than my dad paid for the shares when he did it? If new owners come in and decide they dont want to work with the trust will they be able to do the same with the Trust's 1% and buy them for cheaper than the Trust paid? Or is there an agreemen
  2. Didn't say otherwise. Still it's an indication of interest that existed last time around. Maybe means the £3m isn't as impossible as some people think?
  3. Got it from there https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/newcastle-fans-pledge-50million-buy-3366385 And there https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/nust-work-ashley-aid-nufc-1409373.amp Did seem a lot for nothing to then happen with.
  4. They had £50m in pledges within a matter of weeks last time they did something similar. Wonder if they've still got the details of those people as obviously they'd be able to clear the £3m pretty quickly.
  5. Eh? I asked the question, that's the point, in the hope of getting an answer to it. Assuming that means you've not really read what I've posted, who's being deliberately difficult and awkward now?
  6. Do you know whether the prospective new owners have been made aware of the plans and reacted positively as has been reported by various outlets today, or not been contacted at all as Liam Kennedy suggests? There's a significant difference between those two scenarios.
  7. Cheers. At risk of subjecting myself to a second forum pile on for asking a question..... If "The Trust" or whatever own say 1% what sway does that really give them in decision making when someone else in the boardroom owns say 90%+? Also if this 1% group has to refer it's vote on stuff to however many thousand members to decide what they think, how does that work? Not asking you specifically, more a general question?
  8. That was part of the question really, if only members can have "a say" (or "a vote", which is what i've seen suggested today on social media), clearly there's something to have a say or a vote about, no? Wanting to understand what shouldn't be a problem.
  9. I only asked a question ffs, which was is my understanding of the situation right, then I can make my own decision, as can everyone else. I didn't say they weren't being transparent, did I? Show me where I did if so. You were the one who turned it into what we're discussing now. Sounds like you're just defending them against stuff that no one has actually said here, like......
  10. Because someone went off on a tangent when i asked a simple question rather than just confirm the answer to it........
  11. That totally misrepresents the situation - I've no intention of pledging if i then have to be a Trust member to have a say about my pledge.
  12. Its not about the cost at all, i don't think they represent either the fanbase in general (not that they claim to) or even their membership's own views. I've said all of this before though and don't intend to go over it again.
  13. I don't want to be a member of the Trust, simple as that.
  14. Is that right, any fans can pledge money but unless you're a signed up member of the NUST you then get no say on what happens with it?
×
×
  • Create New...