Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:00 pm
Lawnmower wrote:Bakedalasker wrote:corky wrote:Blue_Always wrote:corky wrote:Blue_Always wrote:Great days, unique fans, real identity. Proper football culture.
Yes a great day Saturday at Burnley with all the above ingredients only unlike the desperation days some still crave for, we actually won something.
What ever happened saturday was tarnished massively by the fact that within the space of one season blue is seemingly our third kit. You won't find many that craved this.
Well all I seen was 1800 City fans many in Blue, some in red all having a fantastic time, going nuts like the old days...I honestly did not see or hear anyone at full time or during the celebrations say "this is spoilt because we are not playing in blue" Nobody craved for a red kit, nobody wanted it and very few like it but we have it and the bloke who pays the taxes, wages, etc and saved us from possible liquidation and definite administration has some strange fascination with a red kit and the fortune it brings...I do not know why, maybe its a cultural thing but he wants us in red and there was no big queue of investors willing to step in instead of Tan.
Hopefully we can return to Blue one day or certainly keep blue as the away kit for the time being, I hope so.
Really pisses me off when guys like you start talking like this Corky. You nor nobody else knows if any one else would have stepped in. If there was anyone else they would not have made their intentions clear while Tan was sniffing about unless it was someone like Bill Gates. That is how business works and that is why we did not others willing to step in.
Believe what you want. I agree with Corky, only Ridsdale's smoke and mirrors in the courts and promises of payment kept us from admin. A new investor had had years to come in Tan was our last chance. I reckon 90% of people see it the same and anyone who thinks otherwise is being unrealistic. The first thing tan had to do was chuck the best part of £6m in to get us through the summer, then pay off the stadium creditors, and then work on others. A new investor would have needed £15m minimum just to get us through the first season, and that was if they could offload players etc.. Not many of those around.
Whatever anyone's views on the rebrand are- and trust me nobody wanted it - the one that doesn't stack up is 'someone else would have saved us'.
Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:35 pm
Lawnmower wrote:Bakedalasker wrote:corky wrote:Blue_Always wrote:corky wrote:Blue_Always wrote:Great days, unique fans, real identity. Proper football culture.
Yes a great day Saturday at Burnley with all the above ingredients only unlike the desperation days some still crave for, we actually won something.
What ever happened saturday was tarnished massively by the fact that within the space of one season blue is seemingly our third kit. You won't find many that craved this.
Well all I seen was 1800 City fans many in Blue, some in red all having a fantastic time, going nuts like the old days...I honestly did not see or hear anyone at full time or during the celebrations say "this is spoilt because we are not playing in blue" Nobody craved for a red kit, nobody wanted it and very few like it but we have it and the bloke who pays the taxes, wages, etc and saved us from possible liquidation and definite administration has some strange fascination with a red kit and the fortune it brings...I do not know why, maybe its a cultural thing but he wants us in red and there was no big queue of investors willing to step in instead of Tan.
Hopefully we can return to Blue one day or certainly keep blue as the away kit for the time being, I hope so.
Really pisses me off when guys like you start talking like this Corky. You nor nobody else knows if any one else would have stepped in. If there was anyone else they would not have made their intentions clear while Tan was sniffing about unless it was someone like Bill Gates. That is how business works and that is why we did not others willing to step in.
Believe what you want. I agree with Corky, only Ridsdale's smoke and mirrors in the courts and promises of payment kept us from admin. A new investor had had years to come in Tan was our last chance. I reckon 90% of people see it the same and anyone who thinks otherwise is being unrealistic. The first thing tan had to do was chuck the best part of £6m in to get us through the summer, then pay off the stadium creditors, and then work on others. A new investor would have needed £15m minimum just to get us through the first season, and that was if they could offload players etc.. Not many of those around.
Whatever anyone's views on the rebrand are- and trust me nobody wanted it - the one that doesn't stack up is 'someone else would have saved us'.
Tue Apr 23, 2013 12:00 am
Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:41 am
Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:15 am
Blue_Always wrote:Fair play to you Dai for using 'in my view'........far too many here are portraying their humble opinion as fact to further convince people that black is white.
I would have taken administration in order to presrve fan assocation with the club, it hasn't been a disaster for Leeds or dare i say it The Jacks. Talk of liquidation with a club the size of ours, is 'in my humble opinion' a bit OTT.
Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:50 am