Kenny Huang leading serious bid for LFC
- Thread starter Jürgen4PM
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Mmmm, it's not great is it?
I'm not in a happy place right now
I'm not in a happy place right now
[quote author=Wilko link=topic=41235.msg1151345#msg1151345 date=1281392915]
At this moment iin time the Royal Bank of Scotland look the most likely owners elect.
[/quote]
If this did happen and no proper bid was put in by Oct and RBS had the balls to take the club would we be in administration? and lose points and what not
At this moment iin time the Royal Bank of Scotland look the most likely owners elect.
[/quote]
If this did happen and no proper bid was put in by Oct and RBS had the balls to take the club would we be in administration? and lose points and what not
[quote author=Buddha link=topic=41235.msg1151307#msg1151307 date=1281385313]
SSN...
The Sahara Group, one of the parties expressing an interest in buying Liverpool, have cooled their interest.
They have taken a step back from the process, having previously looked into the prospect of launching a takeover of the Reds.
The group, headed by businessman Subrata Roy, are one of numerous parties believed to be in the running to remove George Gillett and Tom Hicks from Anfield.
However, the Indian conglomerate have opted against taking their interest any further at this juncture.
"The deal for acquisition of the LiverpoolFootball Club was in our consideration in the recent past," said head of corporate communications Abhijit Sarkar.
"However, after considering all related factors, we have decided not to go ahead with it, at least for the time being."
Chinese tycoon Kenny Huang and Syrian businessman Yahya Kirdi have also been linked with possible takeover bids of late, although neither has struck a deal as yet.
[/quote]
That's a funny thing to say
regards
SSN...
The Sahara Group, one of the parties expressing an interest in buying Liverpool, have cooled their interest.
They have taken a step back from the process, having previously looked into the prospect of launching a takeover of the Reds.
The group, headed by businessman Subrata Roy, are one of numerous parties believed to be in the running to remove George Gillett and Tom Hicks from Anfield.
However, the Indian conglomerate have opted against taking their interest any further at this juncture.
"The deal for acquisition of the LiverpoolFootball Club was in our consideration in the recent past," said head of corporate communications Abhijit Sarkar.
"However, after considering all related factors, we have decided not to go ahead with it, at least for the time being."
Chinese tycoon Kenny Huang and Syrian businessman Yahya Kirdi have also been linked with possible takeover bids of late, although neither has struck a deal as yet.
[/quote]
That's a funny thing to say
regards
[quote author=Asim link=topic=41235.msg1151347#msg1151347 date=1281393092]
[quote author=Wilko link=topic=41235.msg1151345#msg1151345 date=1281392915]
At this moment iin time the Royal Bank of Scotland look the most likely owners elect.
[/quote]
If this did happen and no proper bid was put in by Oct and RBS had the balls to take the club would we be in administration? and lose points and what not
[/quote]
This scenario was played out the other day. RBS would take over the running of the club, in effect it would be owned by the country.
They would do that to preserve the nine points to help retain the value.
It won't come to that anyway, and we will have new owners fairly soon, I still suspect that it will be Al Kharafi
regards
[quote author=Wilko link=topic=41235.msg1151345#msg1151345 date=1281392915]
At this moment iin time the Royal Bank of Scotland look the most likely owners elect.
[/quote]
If this did happen and no proper bid was put in by Oct and RBS had the balls to take the club would we be in administration? and lose points and what not
[/quote]
This scenario was played out the other day. RBS would take over the running of the club, in effect it would be owned by the country.
They would do that to preserve the nine points to help retain the value.
It won't come to that anyway, and we will have new owners fairly soon, I still suspect that it will be Al Kharafi
regards
There isn't any confirmation what the other bids involved are, is there? Some of them already appear to have fallen away.
And the only ones we know about are a couple of press hungry paper tigers circling our wounded club.
Vlad, I hope your long held belief holds up, and someone is behaving professionally behind the scenes.
And the only ones we know about are a couple of press hungry paper tigers circling our wounded club.
Vlad, I hope your long held belief holds up, and someone is behaving professionally behind the scenes.
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=41235.msg1151349#msg1151349 date=1281394280]
[quote author=Buddha link=topic=41235.msg1151307#msg1151307 date=1281385313]
SSN...
The Sahara Group, one of the parties expressing an interest in buying Liverpool, have cooled their interest.
They have taken a step back from the process, having previously looked into the prospect of launching a takeover of the Reds.
The group, headed by businessman Subrata Roy, are one of numerous parties believed to be in the running to remove George Gillett and Tom Hicks from Anfield.
However, the Indian conglomerate have opted against taking their interest any further at this juncture.
"The deal for acquisition of the LiverpoolFootball Club was in our consideration in the recent past," said head of corporate communications Abhijit Sarkar.
"However, after considering all related factors, we have decided not to go ahead with it, at least for the time being."
Chinese tycoon Kenny Huang and Syrian businessman Yahya Kirdi have also been linked with possible takeover bids of late, although neither has struck a deal as yet.
[/quote]
That's a funny thing to say
regards
[/quote]
It is, and I'm a bit disappointed actually.
I'd much rather we get a bid from a well-run company and wealthy instead one of these bloody hedge-funds with questionable wealth.
[quote author=Buddha link=topic=41235.msg1151307#msg1151307 date=1281385313]
SSN...
The Sahara Group, one of the parties expressing an interest in buying Liverpool, have cooled their interest.
They have taken a step back from the process, having previously looked into the prospect of launching a takeover of the Reds.
The group, headed by businessman Subrata Roy, are one of numerous parties believed to be in the running to remove George Gillett and Tom Hicks from Anfield.
However, the Indian conglomerate have opted against taking their interest any further at this juncture.
"The deal for acquisition of the LiverpoolFootball Club was in our consideration in the recent past," said head of corporate communications Abhijit Sarkar.
"However, after considering all related factors, we have decided not to go ahead with it, at least for the time being."
Chinese tycoon Kenny Huang and Syrian businessman Yahya Kirdi have also been linked with possible takeover bids of late, although neither has struck a deal as yet.
[/quote]
That's a funny thing to say
regards
[/quote]
It is, and I'm a bit disappointed actually.
I'd much rather we get a bid from a well-run company and wealthy instead one of these bloody hedge-funds with questionable wealth.
There is nothing questionable about the wealth of the hedge funds mentioned.
TBH I just want someone in charge who has the funds to run the club properly, build the stadium and put aside reasonable transfer funds each season. I don't care where they are from, whether they are a company, family or fund, and I don't really care too much if G&H make a profit, although obviously I prefer they don't.
TBH I just want someone in charge who has the funds to run the club properly, build the stadium and put aside reasonable transfer funds each season. I don't care where they are from, whether they are a company, family or fund, and I don't really care too much if G&H make a profit, although obviously I prefer they don't.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41235.msg1151428#msg1151428 date=1281426064]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=41235.msg1151349#msg1151349 date=1281394280]
[quote author=Buddha link=topic=41235.msg1151307#msg1151307 date=1281385313]
SSN...
The Sahara Group, one of the parties expressing an interest in buying Liverpool, have cooled their interest.
They have taken a step back from the process, having previously looked into the prospect of launching a takeover of the Reds.
The group, headed by businessman Subrata Roy, are one of numerous parties believed to be in the running to remove George Gillett and Tom Hicks from Anfield.
However, the Indian conglomerate have opted against taking their interest any further at this juncture.
"The deal for acquisition of the LiverpoolFootball Club was in our consideration in the recent past," said head of corporate communications Abhijit Sarkar.
"However, after considering all related factors, we have decided not to go ahead with it, at least for the time being."
Chinese tycoon Kenny Huang and Syrian businessman Yahya Kirdi have also been linked with possible takeover bids of late, although neither has struck a deal as yet.
[/quote]
That's a funny thing to say
regards
[/quote]
It is, and I'm a bit disappointed actually.
I'd much rather we get a bid from a well-run company and wealthy instead one of these bloody hedge-funds with questionable wealth.
[/quote]
It's a funny thing to say at this present moment with people possibly about to firm up bids. Why not just say, " nah, we have channged our minds"
regards
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=41235.msg1151349#msg1151349 date=1281394280]
[quote author=Buddha link=topic=41235.msg1151307#msg1151307 date=1281385313]
SSN...
The Sahara Group, one of the parties expressing an interest in buying Liverpool, have cooled their interest.
They have taken a step back from the process, having previously looked into the prospect of launching a takeover of the Reds.
The group, headed by businessman Subrata Roy, are one of numerous parties believed to be in the running to remove George Gillett and Tom Hicks from Anfield.
However, the Indian conglomerate have opted against taking their interest any further at this juncture.
"The deal for acquisition of the LiverpoolFootball Club was in our consideration in the recent past," said head of corporate communications Abhijit Sarkar.
"However, after considering all related factors, we have decided not to go ahead with it, at least for the time being."
Chinese tycoon Kenny Huang and Syrian businessman Yahya Kirdi have also been linked with possible takeover bids of late, although neither has struck a deal as yet.
[/quote]
That's a funny thing to say
regards
[/quote]
It is, and I'm a bit disappointed actually.
I'd much rather we get a bid from a well-run company and wealthy instead one of these bloody hedge-funds with questionable wealth.
[/quote]
It's a funny thing to say at this present moment with people possibly about to firm up bids. Why not just say, " nah, we have channged our minds"
regards
[quote author=Wilko link=topic=41235.msg1151394#msg1151394 date=1281412447]
Funny you should mention the Kuwait chap, Vlad. He's the only one who's kept his counsel and it's hardly a mystery why they abruptly dropped their interest a while back. Waiting until the American shit are desperate, no doubt.
[/quote]
I thought as much the other day. Anyone know how personally wealthy the Kharafi lot are?
Funny you should mention the Kuwait chap, Vlad. He's the only one who's kept his counsel and it's hardly a mystery why they abruptly dropped their interest a while back. Waiting until the American shit are desperate, no doubt.
[/quote]
I thought as much the other day. Anyone know how personally wealthy the Kharafi lot are?
It seems the more people look into Huang, the more he seems a bit shady.
Nick Harris, who suggested Gillett was shady BEFORE he took over reckons this is another shyster.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/08/09/revealed-liverpool-bidder-kenny-huang-in-embezzlement-puzzle-as-doubts-remain-over-background-090801/
Nick Harris, who suggested Gillett was shady BEFORE he took over reckons this is another shyster.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/08/09/revealed-liverpool-bidder-kenny-huang-in-embezzlement-puzzle-as-doubts-remain-over-background-090801/
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=41235.msg1151432#msg1151432 date=1281426668]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41235.msg1151428#msg1151428 date=1281426064]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=41235.msg1151349#msg1151349 date=1281394280]
[quote author=Buddha link=topic=41235.msg1151307#msg1151307 date=1281385313]
SSN...
The Sahara Group, one of the parties expressing an interest in buying Liverpool, have cooled their interest.
They have taken a step back from the process, having previously looked into the prospect of launching a takeover of the Reds.
The group, headed by businessman Subrata Roy, are one of numerous parties believed to be in the running to remove George Gillett and Tom Hicks from Anfield.
However, the Indian conglomerate have opted against taking their interest any further at this juncture.
"The deal for acquisition of the LiverpoolFootball Club was in our consideration in the recent past," said head of corporate communications Abhijit Sarkar.
"However, after considering all related factors, we have decided not to go ahead with it, at least for the time being."
Chinese tycoon Kenny Huang and Syrian businessman Yahya Kirdi have also been linked with possible takeover bids of late, although neither has struck a deal as yet.
[/quote]
That's a funny thing to say
regards
[/quote]
It is, and I'm a bit disappointed actually.
I'd much rather we get a bid from a well-run company and wealthy instead one of these bloody hedge-funds with questionable wealth.
[/quote]
It's a funny thing to say at this present moment with people possibly about to firm up bids. Why not just say, " nah, we have channged our minds"
regards
[/quote]
Nah... i think you are reading too much. I read that as "not for us and not now." I would be shocked if things changed favorably for them.
They were still only looking for a 51% investment as far as i know. So that wouldn't have really solved our problem.
I would get excited if Mittal was involved. He has a history of turning shite in to gold. That is what we need.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41235.msg1151428#msg1151428 date=1281426064]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=41235.msg1151349#msg1151349 date=1281394280]
[quote author=Buddha link=topic=41235.msg1151307#msg1151307 date=1281385313]
SSN...
The Sahara Group, one of the parties expressing an interest in buying Liverpool, have cooled their interest.
They have taken a step back from the process, having previously looked into the prospect of launching a takeover of the Reds.
The group, headed by businessman Subrata Roy, are one of numerous parties believed to be in the running to remove George Gillett and Tom Hicks from Anfield.
However, the Indian conglomerate have opted against taking their interest any further at this juncture.
"The deal for acquisition of the LiverpoolFootball Club was in our consideration in the recent past," said head of corporate communications Abhijit Sarkar.
"However, after considering all related factors, we have decided not to go ahead with it, at least for the time being."
Chinese tycoon Kenny Huang and Syrian businessman Yahya Kirdi have also been linked with possible takeover bids of late, although neither has struck a deal as yet.
[/quote]
That's a funny thing to say
regards
[/quote]
It is, and I'm a bit disappointed actually.
I'd much rather we get a bid from a well-run company and wealthy instead one of these bloody hedge-funds with questionable wealth.
[/quote]
It's a funny thing to say at this present moment with people possibly about to firm up bids. Why not just say, " nah, we have channged our minds"
regards
[/quote]
Nah... i think you are reading too much. I read that as "not for us and not now." I would be shocked if things changed favorably for them.
They were still only looking for a 51% investment as far as i know. So that wouldn't have really solved our problem.
I would get excited if Mittal was involved. He has a history of turning shite in to gold. That is what we need.
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=41235.msg1151443#msg1151443 date=1281427236]
It seems the more people look into Huang, the more he seems a bit shady.
Nick Harris, who suggested Gillett was shady BEFORE he took over reckons this is another shyster.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/08/09/revealed-liverpool-bidder-kenny-huang-in-embezzlement-puzzle-as-doubts-remain-over-background-090801/
[/quote]
Lets be fair though Doc, with the same kind of digging Abramovich, Al Nahyan at Citeh, Kroenke and Usmanov at Arsenal and Al Fayed, amongst numerous others, wouldnt exactly get glowing reports either would they?
It seems the more people look into Huang, the more he seems a bit shady.
Nick Harris, who suggested Gillett was shady BEFORE he took over reckons this is another shyster.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/08/09/revealed-liverpool-bidder-kenny-huang-in-embezzlement-puzzle-as-doubts-remain-over-background-090801/
[/quote]
Lets be fair though Doc, with the same kind of digging Abramovich, Al Nahyan at Citeh, Kroenke and Usmanov at Arsenal and Al Fayed, amongst numerous others, wouldnt exactly get glowing reports either would they?
[quote author=grjt link=topic=41235.msg1151450#msg1151450 date=1281428036]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=41235.msg1151443#msg1151443 date=1281427236]
It seems the more people look into Huang, the more he seems a bit shady.
Nick Harris, who suggested Gillett was shady BEFORE he took over reckons this is another shyster.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/08/09/revealed-liverpool-bidder-kenny-huang-in-embezzlement-puzzle-as-doubts-remain-over-background-090801/
[/quote]
Lets be fair though Doc, with the same kind of digging Abramovich, Al Nahyan at Citeh, Kroenke and Usmanov at Arsenal and Al Fayed, amongst numerous others, wouldnt exactly get glowing reports either would they?
[/quote]
From RAWK...
Okay let’s break it down what happened last night and how in the space of a few hours my whole mindset was changed.
One thing you have to remember is that during this whole debacle it was between 4 – 9AM my time.
After reading Nick Harris’s article I was fed up.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/08/09/revealed-liverpool-bidder-kenny-huang-in-embezzlement-puzzle-as-doubts-remain-over-background-090801/
After a weak of crap from SSN I saw this as another example of the mudslinging Bamba told us to expect. The article is written in such a way that it comes across as an attempt to undermine Huang and that’s because it is, but not for the reasons I thought.
I decided to check some of the quotes by contacting the lawyer mentioned mainly because her name was so distinct that it was easy to find her website and the idea a lawyer would reveal such information did not sit right with me. I fired off the email just before I went to bed not expecting any reply. Less than 10 minutes later she replied and my sleep was put on hold. I replied and she responded agreeing that the article was a “hatchet job†but also confirming the court cases.
I posted these emails on RAWK and everything sort of spiralled from there.
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=261478.msg7249283#msg7249283
Suddenly it was on twitter, which I only joined this week to keep track of info from Rory and Ben, and then I was getting messages from a member called Liam.
Liam sent me a response from Nick Harris.
After checking with Liam and editing out the emails I then posted this email on RAWK.
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=261478.msg7250139#msg7250139
The response that Nick wrote kind of shocked me really and around the same time I also discovered some of his previous work. I had assumed from the website and the quality of the piece that Nick was not a professional journalist, but as he says in his response he was one of the first to cotton on to G&H.
Due to this I felt it would be cowardly of me not to face the person I had accused and so sent this message to his email account.
Dear Mr Nick Harris
You may have seen my username up on RAWK with regards to your article. I have just been forwarded some emails you sent to Liam and wanted to take some time to reply to you as you took the time to reply to Liam.
I know you are a highly respected journalist and I had found your articles with regards to the present owners before I received your emails. However, your clear skill in well balanced impartial journalism seems to have escaped you in this instance.
For an example please see this post I put on RAWK
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=261478.msg7250102#msg7250102
I stand by that. I do feel you have presented your article in a manner that presents some of the unsubstantiated facts as being substantiated.
I am grateful you are trying to find the truth behind any bid for the club and if you turn out to be correct I will be the first to send you an email. However, as Liverpool fans we do not like this sort of journalism and judging by the quality of your other work neither do you.
I also want to let you know that I have put up your replies to Liam and will make sure it gets as much coverage as what I posted. I have no intention of robbing you of the right to balance out your article.
Thank you for your time
To his credit Nick responded and it is this response that has left me a little shaken to tell you the truth. He asked me not to post it on any forums and after seeing the effort he has gone in to with this story I am going to uphold his request.
What I will say is this, what he presented to me was a list that sent me from being one of the most optimistic people about this bid to now fearing that we risk being the next Portsmouth.
However, all of the evidence he presented is with regards to Kenny Huang and not the consortium. This guy could just be a sacrificial lamb that is there to take all this sort of crap and then once they are ready he will disappear in to the shadows and the wizard will step through the curtain. I hope this is the case, but also wonder at the professionalism of a consortium that chooses a man with so many unanswered questions in his past.
I have PM’d a well known user on here, and sent a message to Jim Boardman, offering them the chance to read the email Nick sent me as long as they do not post it as he requested.
I still feel that Nick did a bad job when writing this article and it was easy to think it was a hatch job done by G&H. However, I now believe the reason he wrote it like that is because he believes in the evidence he has and merely dropped the ball in the way he wrote it.
I just wanted to post this here for people who dismissed his article both for the same reasons I did and because of my posting the emails from the lawyer.
If you would like some more evidence then I have uploaded a picture of the lawyers email here
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3984/screenshot2jmb.jpg
and of Nicks here
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/5725/screenshotone.jpg.
The latter is only 26 words of 1100 word email. I apologies for the blotting out but I don’t want to break the trust of two people who took the time to write to me.
My final reply to Nick was this. –I’ve corrected a few spelling mistakes I just spotted-
Mr Harris
You have done a fantastic job uncovering all this and I see that there are many unanswered question. Having looked through what you sent me I am still saddened that you did not write a better constructed piece, and think the way it was written hid the true weight of the information. Please when you write another article do not stoop to methods of journalism that are beneath you. Your facts do the talking and you do not need sensational headlines especially when the whole LFC community has been briefed against a Hicks and Gillet mud throwing match - which you were wrongly perceived as being a part of.
From the email you have sent me you have convinced me and I only hope that, if anything, my actions have brought more attention to your story that it may have got otherwise.
Without revealing any of the information you have sent me I will do my best to improve the suspicion regarding the bid but when they have The Times newspaper on their side this is incredibly difficult.
If you really do want supports to be more receptive, and you do have the wellbeing of the club in mind, then please keep digging. All I can do is try to spread more openness to the idea this bid is not as positive as it has been made out.
You have to imagine how it is having The Times waving all that money in your face when we have spent the whole summer clinging to our best players.
Thank you for trusting me with your information and good look in your search.
I went in to this not even expecting a reply from the lawyer and came out of it with a crap load of stuff I’m not sure I wanted to know.
I would just like to apologise to NeonPeon and Jack Slater who from the outset asked the questions that I should have been asking.
I still cannot believe that a professional lawyer is so forth coming about her client’s history but maybe this sort of thing is different in the US.
I hope this has gone some way to clearing this up and I await an email from one of the people I am willing to share the email with.
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=41235.msg1151443#msg1151443 date=1281427236]
It seems the more people look into Huang, the more he seems a bit shady.
Nick Harris, who suggested Gillett was shady BEFORE he took over reckons this is another shyster.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/08/09/revealed-liverpool-bidder-kenny-huang-in-embezzlement-puzzle-as-doubts-remain-over-background-090801/
[/quote]
Lets be fair though Doc, with the same kind of digging Abramovich, Al Nahyan at Citeh, Kroenke and Usmanov at Arsenal and Al Fayed, amongst numerous others, wouldnt exactly get glowing reports either would they?
[/quote]
From RAWK...
Okay let’s break it down what happened last night and how in the space of a few hours my whole mindset was changed.
One thing you have to remember is that during this whole debacle it was between 4 – 9AM my time.
After reading Nick Harris’s article I was fed up.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/08/09/revealed-liverpool-bidder-kenny-huang-in-embezzlement-puzzle-as-doubts-remain-over-background-090801/
After a weak of crap from SSN I saw this as another example of the mudslinging Bamba told us to expect. The article is written in such a way that it comes across as an attempt to undermine Huang and that’s because it is, but not for the reasons I thought.
I decided to check some of the quotes by contacting the lawyer mentioned mainly because her name was so distinct that it was easy to find her website and the idea a lawyer would reveal such information did not sit right with me. I fired off the email just before I went to bed not expecting any reply. Less than 10 minutes later she replied and my sleep was put on hold. I replied and she responded agreeing that the article was a “hatchet job†but also confirming the court cases.
I posted these emails on RAWK and everything sort of spiralled from there.
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=261478.msg7249283#msg7249283
Suddenly it was on twitter, which I only joined this week to keep track of info from Rory and Ben, and then I was getting messages from a member called Liam.
Liam sent me a response from Nick Harris.
After checking with Liam and editing out the emails I then posted this email on RAWK.
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=261478.msg7250139#msg7250139
The response that Nick wrote kind of shocked me really and around the same time I also discovered some of his previous work. I had assumed from the website and the quality of the piece that Nick was not a professional journalist, but as he says in his response he was one of the first to cotton on to G&H.
Due to this I felt it would be cowardly of me not to face the person I had accused and so sent this message to his email account.
Dear Mr Nick Harris
You may have seen my username up on RAWK with regards to your article. I have just been forwarded some emails you sent to Liam and wanted to take some time to reply to you as you took the time to reply to Liam.
I know you are a highly respected journalist and I had found your articles with regards to the present owners before I received your emails. However, your clear skill in well balanced impartial journalism seems to have escaped you in this instance.
For an example please see this post I put on RAWK
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=261478.msg7250102#msg7250102
I stand by that. I do feel you have presented your article in a manner that presents some of the unsubstantiated facts as being substantiated.
I am grateful you are trying to find the truth behind any bid for the club and if you turn out to be correct I will be the first to send you an email. However, as Liverpool fans we do not like this sort of journalism and judging by the quality of your other work neither do you.
I also want to let you know that I have put up your replies to Liam and will make sure it gets as much coverage as what I posted. I have no intention of robbing you of the right to balance out your article.
Thank you for your time
To his credit Nick responded and it is this response that has left me a little shaken to tell you the truth. He asked me not to post it on any forums and after seeing the effort he has gone in to with this story I am going to uphold his request.
What I will say is this, what he presented to me was a list that sent me from being one of the most optimistic people about this bid to now fearing that we risk being the next Portsmouth.
However, all of the evidence he presented is with regards to Kenny Huang and not the consortium. This guy could just be a sacrificial lamb that is there to take all this sort of crap and then once they are ready he will disappear in to the shadows and the wizard will step through the curtain. I hope this is the case, but also wonder at the professionalism of a consortium that chooses a man with so many unanswered questions in his past.
I have PM’d a well known user on here, and sent a message to Jim Boardman, offering them the chance to read the email Nick sent me as long as they do not post it as he requested.
I still feel that Nick did a bad job when writing this article and it was easy to think it was a hatch job done by G&H. However, I now believe the reason he wrote it like that is because he believes in the evidence he has and merely dropped the ball in the way he wrote it.
I just wanted to post this here for people who dismissed his article both for the same reasons I did and because of my posting the emails from the lawyer.
If you would like some more evidence then I have uploaded a picture of the lawyers email here
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3984/screenshot2jmb.jpg
and of Nicks here
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/5725/screenshotone.jpg.
The latter is only 26 words of 1100 word email. I apologies for the blotting out but I don’t want to break the trust of two people who took the time to write to me.
My final reply to Nick was this. –I’ve corrected a few spelling mistakes I just spotted-
Mr Harris
You have done a fantastic job uncovering all this and I see that there are many unanswered question. Having looked through what you sent me I am still saddened that you did not write a better constructed piece, and think the way it was written hid the true weight of the information. Please when you write another article do not stoop to methods of journalism that are beneath you. Your facts do the talking and you do not need sensational headlines especially when the whole LFC community has been briefed against a Hicks and Gillet mud throwing match - which you were wrongly perceived as being a part of.
From the email you have sent me you have convinced me and I only hope that, if anything, my actions have brought more attention to your story that it may have got otherwise.
Without revealing any of the information you have sent me I will do my best to improve the suspicion regarding the bid but when they have The Times newspaper on their side this is incredibly difficult.
If you really do want supports to be more receptive, and you do have the wellbeing of the club in mind, then please keep digging. All I can do is try to spread more openness to the idea this bid is not as positive as it has been made out.
You have to imagine how it is having The Times waving all that money in your face when we have spent the whole summer clinging to our best players.
Thank you for trusting me with your information and good look in your search.
I went in to this not even expecting a reply from the lawyer and came out of it with a crap load of stuff I’m not sure I wanted to know.
I would just like to apologise to NeonPeon and Jack Slater who from the outset asked the questions that I should have been asking.
I still cannot believe that a professional lawyer is so forth coming about her client’s history but maybe this sort of thing is different in the US.
I hope this has gone some way to clearing this up and I await an email from one of the people I am willing to share the email with.
*yawn*
Alright, that sounds like a massive ego trip.
Who cares? He is a nobody, who claims he emailed to a nobody and is not able to post the response of said nobody.
Big fucking deal.
So because of this new piece of evidence (which cannot be disclosed) he has had a change of mind, but leaves enough room to wiggle, if the outcome is different. If i had the time, and felt as needy, i can post something similar on this forum.
If he can't disclose the basic premise of his argument, what use is his conclusion to anyone? What use is it to him, if i agreed or disagreed with his conclusion?
Who cares? He is a nobody, who claims he emailed to a nobody and is not able to post the response of said nobody.
Big fucking deal.
So because of this new piece of evidence (which cannot be disclosed) he has had a change of mind, but leaves enough room to wiggle, if the outcome is different. If i had the time, and felt as needy, i can post something similar on this forum.
If he can't disclose the basic premise of his argument, what use is his conclusion to anyone? What use is it to him, if i agreed or disagreed with his conclusion?
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=41235.msg1151471#msg1151471 date=1281431041]
Alright, that sounds like a massive ego trip.
Who cares? He is a nobody, who claims he emailed to a nobody and is not able to post the response of said nobody.
Big fucking deal.
So because of this new piece of evidence (which cannot be disclosed) he has had a change of mind, but leaves enough room to wiggle, if the outcome is different. If i had the time, and felt as needy, i can post something similar on this forum.
If he can't disclose the basic premise of his argument, what use is his conclusion to anyone? What use is it to him, if i agreed or disagreed with his conclusion?
[/quote]
actually what is his conclusion and what mindset has he changed from and to what?
Alright, that sounds like a massive ego trip.
Who cares? He is a nobody, who claims he emailed to a nobody and is not able to post the response of said nobody.
Big fucking deal.
So because of this new piece of evidence (which cannot be disclosed) he has had a change of mind, but leaves enough room to wiggle, if the outcome is different. If i had the time, and felt as needy, i can post something similar on this forum.
If he can't disclose the basic premise of his argument, what use is his conclusion to anyone? What use is it to him, if i agreed or disagreed with his conclusion?
[/quote]
actually what is his conclusion and what mindset has he changed from and to what?
Nobody knows.
Which correlates almost exactly with the amount of people who care.
This is what i gathered.
Poster of that thread thought Huang was the bees knees, cuz Bamba said so.
Then an Article was published on the interweb. The journalist of said article was questioning the credibility of Huang.
Poster wanted to disprove it and went about gathering evidence using his connection (which he cannot post), but ended up getting more evidence disproving his own assumption from the journalist (also something that cannot be posted).
So now Huang has gone from being the messiah to satan. But he could still be the messiah if Huang has bigger people backing him up.
.................................
He has not said anything there, other than trying to imply that he has some connections and that he is a go-getter.
OK.
Poster of that thread thought Huang was the bees knees, cuz Bamba said so.
Then an Article was published on the interweb. The journalist of said article was questioning the credibility of Huang.
Poster wanted to disprove it and went about gathering evidence using his connection (which he cannot post), but ended up getting more evidence disproving his own assumption from the journalist (also something that cannot be posted).
So now Huang has gone from being the messiah to satan. But he could still be the messiah if Huang has bigger people backing him up.
.................................
He has not said anything there, other than trying to imply that he has some connections and that he is a go-getter.
OK.
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=41235.msg1151482#msg1151482 date=1281431703]
This is what i gathered.
Poster of that thread thought Huang was the bees knees, cuz Bamba said so.
Then an Article was published on the interweb. The journalist of said article was questioning the credibility of Huang.
Poster wanted to disprove it and went about gathering evidence using his connection (which he cannot post), but ended up getting more evidence disproving his own assumption from the journalist (also something that cannot be posted).
So now Huang has gone from being the messiah to satan. But he could still be the messiah if Huang has bigger people backing him up.
.................................
He has not said anything there, other than trying to imply that he has some connections and that he is a go-getter.
OK.
[/quote]
Exactly.
Slightly simple RAWK poster believes post by other RAWK poster, reads article suggesting that dodgy middleman is a dodgy middleman and has a RAWK style epi at the very suggestion, determines through a few emails that dodgy middleman is quite possibly a dodgy middle man, trys to suggest that this is in some way incredibly important.
For fucks sake. The whole fucking site is full of hand wringing soliloquys about how everyone is feeling deep down inside (oh, and photo collages with re-written words to "My way" celebrating Rafas reign - im not even joking).
This is what i gathered.
Poster of that thread thought Huang was the bees knees, cuz Bamba said so.
Then an Article was published on the interweb. The journalist of said article was questioning the credibility of Huang.
Poster wanted to disprove it and went about gathering evidence using his connection (which he cannot post), but ended up getting more evidence disproving his own assumption from the journalist (also something that cannot be posted).
So now Huang has gone from being the messiah to satan. But he could still be the messiah if Huang has bigger people backing him up.
.................................
He has not said anything there, other than trying to imply that he has some connections and that he is a go-getter.
OK.
[/quote]
Exactly.
Slightly simple RAWK poster believes post by other RAWK poster, reads article suggesting that dodgy middleman is a dodgy middleman and has a RAWK style epi at the very suggestion, determines through a few emails that dodgy middleman is quite possibly a dodgy middle man, trys to suggest that this is in some way incredibly important.
For fucks sake. The whole fucking site is full of hand wringing soliloquys about how everyone is feeling deep down inside (oh, and photo collages with re-written words to "My way" celebrating Rafas reign - im not even joking).
It's full of people who are not quite clever to realise that they're not quite clever enough.
And then there's all the spastics.
- Status
