newms Posted 9 March 2006 Share Posted 9 March 2006 So if there was a takeover and whoevers is behind it, who do they want in. My guess would be Gary McCallister looking at the clues there Newell article Its one of the 4 last paragraphs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk Posted 9 March 2006 Share Posted 9 March 2006 So if there was a takeover and whoevers is behind it, who do they want in. My guess would be Gary McCallister looking at the clues there Newell article Its one of the 4 last paragraphs We won't get taken over this summer. As for the 'other' possibility it could be any manager out of contract now or at the end of the season./.. so take your pick from Gar Mac (why would we have him over RK???), Lennon, PETER REID, Me, and Martin O Niell (stoke the rumours fire....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 9 March 2006 Share Posted 9 March 2006 If there was a takeover, and it is a big if, they would still face the same quandary manager-wise as the present Board. Whether they want McAllister or anyone else they would have to weight that against the idea of keeping Kelly and if the guy continues to do the job asked of him by the directors why would you risk giving your investment money to someone else who perhaps had less chance of making it work. From an investors point of view, even an investor who is a fan, the manager is just like an Investment Trust or Unit Trust Fund Manager. If the investor sees a manager performing well he would be less likely to chuck his money at an unknown or someone who is performing less well. McAllister was an outstanding player who presumably has excellent contacts but he has little "form" as a manager. In investment terms he's an unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BartonFox Posted 9 March 2006 Share Posted 9 March 2006 We won't get taken over this summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newms Posted 9 March 2006 Author Share Posted 9 March 2006 I don't disagree with that. My personal opinion at the present stage would be to keep Kelly, but I know as most do if we lose our next 6 questions will be asked of Kelly. MCcallister doesnt have much management experience but he has more than Stuart Pearce, Chris Coleman or Ade Boothroyd did and there not doing too bad. For the same reasons Kelly should still be favourite imho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 9 March 2006 Share Posted 9 March 2006 I don't disagree with that. My personal opinion at the present stage would be to keep Kelly, but I know as most do if we lose our next 6 questions will be asked of Kelly.MCcallister doesnt have much management experience but he has more than Stuart Pearce, Chris Coleman or Ade Boothroyd did and there not doing too bad. For the same reasons Kelly should still be favourite imho In McAllister's case more = less successful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted 9 March 2006 Share Posted 9 March 2006 I don't understand this facination some have with Gary Mac yes he's ex Leicester but he's had a very poor start as manager when he was at Cov and I don't think he would offer us anything more and infact would probably be a far far worse option than giving Kelly a longer contract in the summer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sackmycook Posted 9 March 2006 Share Posted 9 March 2006 Gary Mac is crap at management. FACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isopen Posted 9 March 2006 Share Posted 9 March 2006 got something you want to tell us Barton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderboy Posted 10 March 2006 Share Posted 10 March 2006 He likes whistling whilst wearing a balaclava ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 10 March 2006 Share Posted 10 March 2006 If there was a takeover, and it is a big if, they would still face the same quandary manager-wise as the present Board. Whether they want McAllister or anyone else they would have to weight that against the idea of keeping Kelly and if the guy continues to do the job asked of him by the directors why would you risk giving your investment money to someone else who perhaps had less chance of making it work. From an investors point of view, even an investor who is a fan, the manager is just like an Investment Trust or Unit Trust Fund Manager. If the investor sees a manager performing well he would be less likely to chuck his money at an unknown or someone who is performing less well. McAllister was an outstanding player who presumably has excellent contacts but he has little "form" as a manager. In investment terms he's an unknown. If you are saying there is a potential investor who "In investment terms he's an unknown" do you know a name? So far we have had no proof from any party, not asking for naming on a message board, but the Trust would need to meet with this person so any info please send to [email protected] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 10 March 2006 Share Posted 10 March 2006 If you are saying there is a potential investor who "In investment terms he's an unknown" do you know a name? So far we have had no proof from any party, not asking for naming on a message board, but the Trust would need to meet with this person so any info please send to [email protected] Desperate are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BartonFox Posted 10 March 2006 Share Posted 10 March 2006 If you are saying there is a potential investor who "In investment terms he's an unknown" do you know a name? So far we have had no proof from any party, not asking for naming on a message board, but the Trust would need to meet with this person so any info please send to [email protected] Don't make yourself out to be important in all this. You have been ridden rough shod by the Club almost since your inception, why would any potential investor give two hoots about you lot? I know you think you have enough shares to be significant, but you can't even get a seat on the board <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 10 March 2006 Share Posted 10 March 2006 If you are saying there is a potential investor who "In investment terms he's an unknown" do you know a name? So far we have had no proof from any party, not asking for naming on a message board, but the Trust would need to meet with this person so any info please send to [email protected] I was saying that McAllister remains of "unknown" worth to a potential investor and that any investor might see Kelly as a better bet at this time than an "unknown" even if his initial preference was for McAllister or anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 10 March 2006 Share Posted 10 March 2006 Don't make yourself out to be important in all this. You have been ridden rough shod by the Club almost since your inception, why would any potential investor give two hoots about you lot? I know you think you have enough shares to be significant, but you can't even get a seat on the board <_< Examine our aims: Our Aims • To lobby, publicise and campaign to encourage the Board to take into account the interests of supporters when making its decisions. • To create an independent forum to raise the concerns of Leicester City Football Club supporters. • To enable a democratically elected director representing the views of the supporters to influence the decision making of the board, and to enshrine in the football club’s Memorandum and Articles of Association the representation of the Trust on the Board. • To raise money for the benefit of the club. Funds raised are to be used appropriately as to benefit the best interests of Leicester City Football Club and its supporters. • To strengthen the bonds between Leicester City Football Club and the community which it serves and to represent the interests of the community in the running of the club. • To ensure the club meets the highest standards of business management. • To promote, develop and respect the rights of members of the community served by the club and the Trust. • To encourage the club to play competitive football at the highest possible level. We would not be acting in our members interests & meeting those declared aims if we didn't meet with any potential owners. Now how about giving us say 5 examples where we have "been ridden rough shod by the Club" & we will respond point by point. Any investor needs support of its customers, if they loose this they will fail in the long run, watch the Derby situation closely in the months ahead if you don't believe us. A seat on the board, initially raising £500k was a demanding objective to achieve. Now it's down to persuading shareholders to vote for our candidate, that was never going to be a 5 minute job, but we continue to work on it & with that in mind the largest shareholder is attending our next board meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surrifox Posted 11 March 2006 Share Posted 11 March 2006 Examine our aims: Our Aims • To lobby, publicise and campaign to encourage the Board to take into account the interests of supporters when making its decisions. • To create an independent forum to raise the concerns of Leicester City Football Club supporters. • To enable a democratically elected director representing the views of the supporters to influence the decision making of the board, and to enshrine in the football club’s Memorandum and Articles of Association the representation of the Trust on the Board. • To raise money for the benefit of the club. Funds raised are to be used appropriately as to benefit the best interests of Leicester City Football Club and its supporters. • To strengthen the bonds between Leicester City Football Club and the community which it serves and to represent the interests of the community in the running of the club. • To ensure the club meets the highest standards of business management. • To promote, develop and respect the rights of members of the community served by the club and the Trust. • To encourage the club to play competitive football at the highest possible level. We would not be acting in our members interests & meeting those declared aims if we didn't meet with any potential owners. Now how about giving us say 5 examples where we have "been ridden rough shod by the Club" & we will respond point by point. Any investor needs support of its customers, if they loose this they will fail in the long run, watch the Derby situation closely in the months ahead if you don't believe us. A seat on the board, initially raising £500k was a demanding objective to achieve. Now it's down to persuading shareholders to vote for our candidate, that was never going to be a 5 minute job, but we continue to work on it & with that in mind the largest shareholder is attending our next board meeting. No need to be too defensive the FT initiative is a sound one IMHO- I support it and am not deluded enough to think it can kick down doors when the likes of the founding fathers of the post administration club can write cheques for six figure sums to become stakeholders almost as a hobby. It is always easier to snipe from the sidelines than actually do anything or try anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.