|
|
Stadium
Oct 11, 2023 20:11:58 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by rockwall on Oct 11, 2023 20:11:58 GMT 1
Fuck me, does Kim Jung Il know about you in case he's looking for a new head of PR ? I don't get the Kim Jung reference? Are you suggesting Nagel is a potential nuclear terrorist? Bit if a bizarre comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by King Neil on Oct 11, 2023 20:21:44 GMT 1
Can someone genuinely clarify who owned the old Leeds Road ground It was always owned by the football club right from construction Hilton crowther a local mill owner formed the club and paid for the grounds construction In 1960 we sold Dennis law to man City for 53.000 pounds and used the money to pay for the floodlights No lease no kirklees council involvement |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2023 20:59:21 GMT 1
Erm I'm pretty sure they did but happy to be corrected. Also just because something could happen doesn't mean it will either. Leap of faith. All I see is a guy who wants to jump in feet first and embrace everything about the club from its history (memorabilia) to the fans (changes to match day experience) to the community (charity work) to the future of the club (ability to generate extra income) no way do I see anything at all to be worried about. Quite the opposite in fact. How would you feel if Kev listened to you and decided to back off then Ken Davy picked up the entire thing with 100% shares. Shudder So what if Kev keeled over and popped his clogs after buying the ground under a different company ( no-one lives forever). Whoever inherits his assets may not give a shiny shite about football. They may be solely interested in getting as much as possible for that piece of land ‘over there’ that Ol Kev strangely spent money on. Do you think they would get planning permission to turn it into flats? Also, given the millions it would cost to demolish it, do you think the sums would add up if they did? It is in the middle of an industrial and commercial area. That does not make it ‘hot property’ for houses. Whoever ended up with it would have a sports stadium on their hands. All they could do is try and maximise the profit, which could affect Town, or sell it, and I’m not sure there would be a very long queue of potential buyers. |
|
|
|
Post by terriersyndrome on Oct 11, 2023 21:02:29 GMT 1
The Kirklees/McAlpine/Galpharm/John Smith's stadium was technically the first purpose built state of the art, all seat stadium built from scratch in England after the Taylor report. 30 years later it still looks modern. It needs a little TLC, but compared to stadiums like Hillsborough it's in good shape. It's a decent stadium to buy if it's going to get the required investment. The area around the stadium has massive potential aswell Which is one of the reasons that the club should own it. If its developed correctly and used right it could bring in a lot of money for the club.. If its developed by A.N.Other then its A.N.Other which benifits. Nagle talked about the club being run sustainably. To do this requires income to be increased massively so he may see the Stadium as a good way to do this, the stadium and it's surrounding areas could be redeveloped and utalised far better than it is at present. Obviously the Club is unlikey to be in a position to finance a payment for but the Stadium at this time, so the owner may have to use personal funds to do and have them sit on the accounts as debt until the money is paid back. That would bring it's own risks of course, but at least the stadium would be 'ours' When you say 'the club should own it' what do you mean? You must live in the clouds if you think the 'club' are in any position to buy and maintain the stadium over the long term, nevermind develop the area around the stadium? The only way any of this is possible is if somebody like KN is willing to use his own wealth/connections to invest. Anyone who has objections to KN putting money into the stadium doesn't see the bigger picture. That is literally the only way having the stadium is sustainable, the council have said they will no longer invest any money into it, otherwise the stadium will close and we'll be ground sharing with Halifax or Bradford. There's some ridiculous, unrealistic comments on here about ownership of the stadium. The 'club should own the stadium' statement is not a realistic option in any way, shape or form, unless the investors are willing to 'gift' it at massive cost. Dean Hoyle is a multimillionaire town fan but didn't do it after over a decade owning the club, thinking an international owner would do it is just mental. |
|
|
|
Stadium
Oct 11, 2023 21:05:05 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Ginger Ogre on Oct 11, 2023 21:05:05 GMT 1
So what if Kev keeled over and popped his clogs after buying the ground under a different company ( no-one lives forever). Whoever inherits his assets may not give a shiny shite about football. They may be solely interested in getting as much as possible for that piece of land ‘over there’ that Ol Kev strangely spent money on. Do you think they would get planning permission to turn it into flats? Also, given the millions it would cost to demolish it, do you think the sums would add up if they did? It is in the middle of an industrial and commercial area. That does not make it ‘hot property’ for houses. Whoever ended up with it would have a sports stadium on their hands. All they could do is try and maximise the profit, which could affect Town, or sell it, and I’m not sure there would be a very long queue of potential buyers. The person getting it may not want to demolish it for housing or whatever. A football club needs a stadium. If an individual has ownership of said stadium they could if they wanted, hold the club to ransom in regards to rent to use it. The club have then got 2 options; pay the rent or move out and build a new stadium. Its OK fans saying they trust Nagle to do what's right here and now, but with something like this you've got to have more long term thinking as lot can go sour very quickly with individuals as we have well seen at HTFC in the not so recent past. |
|
|
|
Stadium
Oct 11, 2023 21:09:34 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Ginger Ogre on Oct 11, 2023 21:09:34 GMT 1
Which is one of the reasons that the club should own it. If its developed correctly and used right it could bring in a lot of money for the club.. If its developed by A.N.Other then its A.N.Other which benifits. Nagle talked about the club being run sustainably. To do this requires income to be increased massively so he may see the Stadium as a good way to do this, the stadium and it's surrounding areas could be redeveloped and utalised far better than it is at present. Obviously the Club is unlikey to be in a position to finance a payment for but the Stadium at this time, so the owner may have to use personal funds to do and have them sit on the accounts as debt until the money is paid back. That would bring it's own risks of course, but at least the stadium would be 'ours' When you say 'the club should own it' what do you mean? You must live in the clouds if you think the 'club' are in any position to buy and maintain the stadium over the long term, nevermind develop the area around the stadium? The only way any of this is possible is if somebody like KN is willing to use his own wealth/connections to invest. Anyone who has objections to KN putting money into the stadium doesn't see the bigger picture. That is literally the only way having the stadium is sustainable, the council have said they will no longer invest any money into it, otherwise the stadium will close and we'll be ground sharing with Halifax or Bradford. There's some ridiculous, unrealistic comments on here about ownership of the stadium. The 'club should own the stadium' statement is not a realistic option in any way, shape or form, unless the investors are willing to 'gift' it at massive cost. Dean Hoyle is a multimillionaire town fan but didn't do it after over a decade owning the club, thinking an international owner would do it is just mental. I've literally said in the post you have quoted. Nagle may need to pay the outlay for the stadium then it sits on the accounts a debt and repay him, much like a mortgage that you or (presumably) you have. If the stadium makes money, HTFC make money and pay the loan off quicker, then once this debt is cleared anything else comes to HTFC Simple really. |
|
|
|
Post by htafcokay on Oct 11, 2023 21:13:33 GMT 1
Can someone genuinely clarify who owned the old Leeds Road ground It was always owned by the football club right from construction Hilton crowther a local mill owner formed the club and paid for the grounds construction In 1960 we sold Dennis law to man City for 53.000 pounds and used the money to pay for the floodlights No lease no kirklees council involvement And yet in November 1985, the club signed a lease extension of 125 years granted by Kirklees Council. ![]()  |
|
|
|
Post by htafcokay on Oct 11, 2023 21:16:42 GMT 1
Can someone genuinely clarify who owned the old Leeds Road ground It was always owned by the football club right from construction Hilton crowther a local mill owner formed the club and paid for the grounds construction In 1960 we sold Dennis law to man City for 53.000 pounds and used the money to pay for the floodlights No lease no kirklees council involvement A clipping from December 1984   |
|
|
|
Post by htafcokay on Oct 11, 2023 21:21:35 GMT 1
Can someone genuinely clarify who owned the old Leeds Road ground It was always owned by the football club right from construction Hilton crowther a local mill owner formed the club and paid for the grounds construction In 1960 we sold Dennis law to man City for 53.000 pounds and used the money to pay for the floodlights No lease no kirklees council involvement  Oh look, here's a photograph from July 1988 with the new lease, and there's John Harman on it as well.  And then the article, which confirms that the original 99-year lease was granted in 1908 when the club was formed. Case closed |
|
|
|
Post by The Sheriff Strikes Back on Oct 11, 2023 21:23:56 GMT 1
Can somebody please explain to me the difference between town's owners owning the ground pre 1994 and why it would be such a catastrophe for someone to own the ground post 1994? I fail to see the bed shitting significance between the two. Because its Nagel. It's 'Nagle', actually. |
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Oct 11, 2023 21:36:06 GMT 1
Fuck me, does Kim Jung Il know about you in case he's looking for a new head of PR ? I don't get the Kim Jung reference? Are you suggesting Nagel is a potential nuclear terrorist? Bit if a bizarre comparison. It was meant that your sticking up for the Flash 'Tache reminds me of North Korean media. Apologies if the little dig wasn't obvious 😉 |
|
ben1987
Mental Health Support Group
Posts: 7,256
|
Post by ben1987 on Oct 11, 2023 21:42:13 GMT 1
Can somebody please explain to me the difference between town's owners owning the ground pre 1994 and why it would be such a catastrophe for someone to own the ground post 1994? I fail to see the bed shitting significance between the two. It wouldn't be a catastrophe It's just a few paranoid peeps on here thinking bad stuff is always going to happen He already owns the club and could inflict severe damage now if he wished...the stadium has no other use as a commercial enterprise other than football so who could use it other than us...rule out Giants cos they Don't have a pot to piss in Far better owning your own home than renting/leasing....no brainer Fans are right to be paranoid. A life long fan of the club promised to put the stadium shares in a trust to prevent them falling into the wrong hands, because of this I make no apologies for being paranoid about Nagles intentions. And it’s got nothing to do with Nagle, it’s just how I am now with who ever owns the club, now or in the future. |
|
k1man999
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,556
|
Stadium
Oct 11, 2023 21:47:54 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by k1man999 on Oct 11, 2023 21:47:54 GMT 1
It wouldn't be a catastrophe It's just a few paranoid peeps on here thinking bad stuff is always going to happen He already owns the club and could inflict severe damage now if he wished...the stadium has no other use as a commercial enterprise other than football so who could use it other than us...rule out Giants cos they Don't have a pot to piss in Far better owning your own home than renting/leasing....no brainer Fans are right to be paranoid. A life long fan of the club promised to put the stadium shares in a trust to prevent them falling into the wrong hands, because of this I make no apologies for being paranoid about Nagles intentions. And it’s got nothing to do with Nagle, it’s just how I am now with who ever owns the club, now or in the future. I get this as we were promised this is what would happen. However if Mr Nagle was from slawit or Birkby would they be this uproar from the majority, probably not. |
|
|
|
Post by dugnet on Oct 11, 2023 22:10:55 GMT 1
Isn't it the case that other than statements eluding to a deal being potentially in the offing we know nothing? I am not surprised at the speculation but surely are we not better to see what actually happens?
I really have no incling as to the outcome, the plans or the actual motivation so I'm prepared to wait and see.
I do hope for the best, I haven’t heard anything that concerns but equally I haven’t really encourages me that the Nagle era will be successful. If there is a message for Mr Nagle here it is that there is a degree of uncertainty among the fans. It might be something he might want to consider addressing, directly (ie not with soundbites but with explained explicit detail) with the fans.
I have posted before that I don't think Mr Nagle and team have read the room and got a handle on the frustrations and disappointment among the fan base. We can't change the mistakes of the past, and I'm definitely not intending to open that debate, but I think our outlook is influenced by them.
Mr Nagle needs the fans onside, for many reasons, if only to maintain credibility. The fact there is so much, negative, speculation tells its own story.
Personally, and it is a personal view, I'm becoming exhausted with debate and hoping the club will believe in, and try and exploit, the potential I believe there is. That doesn't mean that Mr Nagle won't realise some, or all, of that potential but as it stands we are all still questioning and unsure.
Here's hoping for a clear picture, some evidence of positive progress and, oh yes, winning some games of football.
UTT
|
|
|
|
Post by Walton-on-the-Hill Terrier on Oct 11, 2023 22:16:06 GMT 1
There’s been discussions and concerns about the ownership of the stadium ever since it was built, false promises about putting shares into trust, stories or rumours about KSDL’s financial woes, a lack of ambition and a lack of investment etc etc.
At long last it seems like there’s going to be a real change. Good. What’s the alternative- keep the status quo and allow the stadium infrastructure to continue to deteriorate?
There is a risk in any change of ownership, in any business transaction. Is there anything that I personally can do to affect this? Simple answer, no! The last thing I’m going to do is become paranoid about it and make myself ill with worry over something that I can’t control or influence.
Get on with it. You never know, it might just end up being the best outcome for HTAFC. As said, the status quo isn’t a viable option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Ern on Oct 11, 2023 22:30:57 GMT 1
It was always owned by the football club right from construction Hilton crowther a local mill owner formed the club and paid for the grounds construction In 1960 we sold Dennis law to man City for 53.000 pounds and used the money to pay for the floodlights No lease no kirklees council involvement Oh look, here's a photograph from July 1988 with the new lease, and there's John Harman on it as well. And then the article, which confirms that the original 99-year lease was granted in 1908 when the club was formed. Case closed Well it's not though really is it. The club still owned the ground, just not the land it sat on which meant they were free to make whatever money they could from it without a portion going into Kirklees councils coffers. I'm not completely against the council retaining the lease as long as they aren't restrictive on what developments we can do with the land in order to generate more income. Retaining the lease would ensure an owner can't just sell it off for housing. |
|
|
|
Post by Solihull Terrier on Oct 11, 2023 22:39:03 GMT 1
It's also not necessarily about mistrusting KN, who knows who he might sell it to in the years to come and what their motivations might be. It’s a spurious point…given also “who knows who KN might sell Hudds Town FC to in future and what their motivations might be”. He’s the owner, we have to give him a chance to demonstrate his intent over the next 5…7…10 years, if we don’t then there’s no point anyone owning the club and we might as well call it a day. The current stadium ownership setup clearly has flaws but its one big positive was that it made it very hard for any one nefarious individual to take the ground away from us as we have seen happen far too many times at other clubs. It feels like most of the solutions discussed would remove that safety net. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Ern on Oct 11, 2023 22:52:15 GMT 1
It’s a spurious point…given also “who knows who KN might sell Hudds Town FC to in future and what their motivations might be”. He’s the owner, we have to give him a chance to demonstrate his intent over the next 5…7…10 years, if we don’t then there’s no point anyone owning the club and we might as well call it a day. The current stadium ownership setup clearly has flaws but its one big positive was that it made it very hard for any one nefarious individual to take the ground away from us as we have seen happen far too many times. It feels like most of the solutions discussed would remove that safety net. To own the stadium with the council owning the land would take us right back to where we were pre 1994 (point taken htfcokay) and unless he/she can whip out a clipping from the 1960s I don't think it ever harmed us in the past? My thoughts on this are; I agree there always has to be a degree of cautiousness when it comes to the club, however in order for us to progress, things have to change. We can't just expect a rich owner to keep throwing their own money at it. We need to identify alternative revenue streams. Add to that the fact Kirklees now want out of the stadium, mainly because they are absolutely useless, that means we need to secure its future in another way. Stadium is in disrepair, kirklees won't pay anymore towards it, FFP restricts us from moving forwards with the playing staff...what's the other option? If fan apathy sways the thinking of the current ownership what is to stop us from becoming a bottom dwelling team with a fast decaying stadium and playing in front of 4000 fans again. Would those against change be satisfied then simply because the stadium didn't change hands? There is a much much bigger picture here that I feel some just aren't seeing. Sometimes you need to have some faith. |
|
|
|
Post by shawsie on Oct 11, 2023 23:21:22 GMT 1
We have to simply let KN, KD and Kirklees continue dialogue with a view to changing the ownership structure.
The current model isn’t working and there’s no money available for the urgent capex requirements needed under the current arrangements. Allowing it to continue longer term is not an option as it will eventually be closed down as unsafe.
I get the suspicion of some - I along with some on here protested at Ken Davy’s antics with the shares, but sadly DH didn’t deliver his side of the bargain either as far as I am aware so it remains a bit of a mess.
I welcome KN entering into dialogue on this - it shows along with other fan related actions that he wants bigger crowds spending more time and money at facilities which are acknowledged to need improving. Having just been to a bundesliga game I have to say it’s worlds apart from a supporter perspective. The football ain’t the best standard, but the fan zones, infrastructure, facilities etc embarrass us………everything is centred around fans enjoying a day out. Not rip off pricing and crap service for 2 hrs then piss off home having vented your spleen like a number of clubs provide here.
Hopefully a common ground can be found.
|
|
|
|
Post by townarentbest on Oct 11, 2023 23:39:59 GMT 1
We have to simply let KN, KD and Kirklees continue dialogue with a view to changing the ownership structure. The current model isn’t working and there’s no money available for the urgent capex requirements needed under the current arrangements. Allowing it to continue longer term is not an option as it will eventually be closed down as unsafe. I get the suspicion of some - I along with some on here protested at Ken Davy’s antics with the shares, but sadly DH didn’t deliver his side of the bargain either as far as I am aware so it remains a bit of a mess. I welcome KN entering into dialogue on this - it shows along with other fan related actions that he wants bigger crowds spending more time and money at facilities which are acknowledged to need improving. Having just been to a bundesliga game I have to say it’s worlds apart from a supporter perspective. The football ain’t the best standard, but the fan zones, infrastructure, facilities etc embarrass us………everything is centred around fans enjoying a day out. Not rip off pricing and crap service for 2 hrs then piss off home having vented your spleen like a number of clubs provide here. Hopefully a common ground can be found. I do wonder if a lot of this stuff has more appeal to a ‘tourist’ type fan. If you’re over here from Singapore or wherever I bet youd also have a grand day out in the Old Trafford superstore, go into a big marquee and swill rubbish lager with a big screen and loads of folk, take in a game and eat out etc. Nothing against them, but I’m pretty sure a fan zone at Town is not something I’d ever contemplate spending time in pre or post match, likewise the last thing I could imagine doing on a matchday is going into a shop and buying a replica shirt….and more importantly, there’s not many tourists who would do that either. We need to get promoted. Until then, all this stuff is going to be just playing at it…but…definitely need to get going now and heading in the right direction, so that if and when the opportunity comes along, the club can ride the  this time instead of meekly saying “our job was to get promoted, we didnt really have an idea of what comes next”. |
|
|
|
Post by detox on Oct 12, 2023 0:41:14 GMT 1
It was always owned by the football club right from construction Hilton crowther a local mill owner formed the club and paid for the grounds construction In 1960 we sold Dennis law to man City for 53.000 pounds and used the money to pay for the floodlights No lease no kirklees council involvement Oh look, here's a photograph from July 1988 with the new lease, and there's John Harman on it as well. And then the article, which confirms that the original 99-year lease was granted in 1908 when the club was formed. Case closed It won't shut the numbskull up though..he was told this about 10 pages ago..... |
|
|
|
Post by ritchie on Oct 12, 2023 1:22:16 GMT 1
If the argument is it's 'safer' under the current arrangement, than under Nagle, who might sell the club to a bad owner, could that bad owner not just try buy it from the current arrangement (if Nagle left as is) when they come in? Ideally Nagle buys it and puts it in trust/offers favourable lease terms but not sure how realistic that is? I think we have to trust Nagle here. He might have shown naivety with twitter/transfers/warnock etc but I strongly beleive his heart is in the right place. I dont feel he's got involved to 'flip' the club/gamble on making it big and selling us off, he seems to be doing it on the whole for personal reasons (enjoyment). unless he's a fantasic actor, I see it as something he takes pride from and perhaps even wants a legacy. It's not some hedge fund situation where it's all about cash. I trust he will care and do his best for htafc and thats all we can ask in these days of football ownership It must be enjoyment then, after watching the first couple of those videos he's no fantastic actor 😉😁 I nearly put that in my post |
|
|
|
Post by rockwall on Oct 12, 2023 6:26:48 GMT 1
I don't get the Kim Jung reference? Are you suggesting Nagel is a potential nuclear terrorist? Bit if a bizarre comparison. It was meant that your sticking up for the Flash 'Tache reminds me of North Korean media. Apologies if the little dig wasn't obvious 😉 Movember is approaching. I could join em. |
|
araucaria
Frank Worthington Terrier
Posts: 1,802
|
Post by araucaria on Oct 12, 2023 9:37:51 GMT 1
Erm I'm pretty sure they did but happy to be corrected. Also just because something could happen doesn't mean it will either. Leap of faith. All I see is a guy who wants to jump in feet first and embrace everything about the club from its history (memorabilia) to the fans (changes to match day experience) to the community (charity work) to the future of the club (ability to generate extra income) no way do I see anything at all to be worried about. Quite the opposite in fact. How would you feel if Kev listened to you and decided to back off then Ken Davy picked up the entire thing with 100% shares. Shudder It was always a 40-40-20 ownership until we went into administration, Davy then put our shares into his 'sporting umbrella' until Hoyle bought them back. 30 years later it's still a decent stadium. Nagle will be picking up a bargain tbf. If the grant bodies that funded more than 80% of the Stadium no longer want their money back, then he may well get a bargain, albeit one with a repair bill of £9m. |
|
|
|
Post by detox on Oct 12, 2023 9:55:12 GMT 1
It was always a 40-40-20 ownership until we went into administration, Davy then put our shares into his 'sporting umbrella' until Hoyle bought them back. 30 years later it's still a decent stadium. Nagle will be picking up a bargain tbf. If the grant bodies that funded more than 80% of the Stadium no longer want their money back, then he may well get a bargain, albeit one with a repair bill of £9m. The initial cost of the stadium was £15m (for 2 stands initially)funded from Sale of Leeds Rd £5m, private Investment £3.75m, Grants £4.25m and KMC £2mThe North Stand was (I believe) funded by Town..Not sure if the South Stand was part of the £15m, or in addition.. |
|
araucaria
Frank Worthington Terrier
Posts: 1,802
|
Post by araucaria on Oct 12, 2023 10:23:24 GMT 1
If the grant bodies that funded more than 80% of the Stadium no longer want their money back, then he may well get a bargain, albeit one with a repair bill of £9m. The initial cost of the stadium was £15m (for 2 stands initially)funded from Sale of Leeds Rd £5m, private Investment £3.75m, Grants £4.25m and KMC £2mThe North Stand was (I believe) funded by Town..Not sure if the South Stand was part of the £15m, or in addition.. At the time I heard £16m for the first two stands; £4m from Leeds Road and most of the rest from grants, and the Council making up the unfunded balance. I know nothing of any private investment. The South Stand was in addition and the final total more than £30m. Town contributed to the North Stand to ensure it got built, but they only funded about £1m out of more than £10m. Anyway, the National Lottery grant rules say that if you sell the asset, and it has to be with their consent, then they MAY want their share of the original funding back. If they do want it back, the sale must be at full market value. I would imagine that the other grant-funding bodies will have the same rules. Maybe the passage of 30 years and the large repair bill will help to overcome that obstacle. |
|
ram
Andy Booth Terrier
delete account
Posts: 3,717 
|
Stadium
Oct 12, 2023 11:18:06 GMT 1
Post by ram on Oct 12, 2023 11:18:06 GMT 1
If the current situation continues,and KSDL and the Kirklees Council go bust.What then? Surely the Council have to cut their losses by selling the shares to someone,No?
|
|
|
|
Stadium
Oct 12, 2023 11:24:53 GMT 1
Post by royrace on Oct 12, 2023 11:24:53 GMT 1
It was always a 40-40-20 ownership until we went into administration, Davy then put our shares into his 'sporting umbrella' until Hoyle bought them back. 30 years later it's still a decent stadium. Nagle will be picking up a bargain tbf. If the grant bodies that funded more than 80% of the Stadium no longer want their money back, then he may well get a bargain, albeit one with a repair bill of £9m. Surely the price will be 60% of the going rate taking everything into account including repairs and anything specifically paid for recently by the football club. I guess it should be a bricks and mortar valuation but taking into account how KSDL is performing. If it's losing money the going rate might not be much and KN may well end up getting a bargain. Very difficult to value I would imagine and the Giants and council might just be happy to hand it over. |
|
|
|
Stadium
Oct 12, 2023 12:39:31 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by lossiemouthtownfan on Oct 12, 2023 12:39:31 GMT 1
Be very surprised if the Gaints hand over their 20%
|
|
crux
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 4,123
|
Stadium
Oct 12, 2023 13:40:24 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by crux on Oct 12, 2023 13:40:24 GMT 1
Be very surprised if the Gaints hand over their 20% I suspect the Giants share/cost/future will take the longest discussion. I'm sure Ken Davy will want to ensure the future once he's no longer their owner is secured. |
|
this time instead of meekly saying “our job was to get promoted, we didnt really have an idea of what comes next”.
