Search results

The share offer wasn't in the manuscript the club asked to see. I am not saying that the club was being reasonable or unreasonable in asking to see it, or that DK was being reasonable or unreasonable in saying no. I'm just giving the facts. I absolutely agree with you that there is nothing in...

You pose a question in your first paragraph and conjure up an answer and associated conclusions in the second. Your answer is wrong. The club refused to stock the book because it wasn't given pre-publication sight of the manuscript.

I can't imagine why my determined defence of DK's heroic and successful actions caused you to write as you did.

I'm not sure if this question is directed at me or Sir Albion. I'm just unaware of a queue of people offering to take on the Albion in 96/97. Sir Albion says that two others were given the task (who they were and who gave them the task isn't clear) and Ben's Grandad tells us that two other...

I really don't want to get sucked into shouting for one side or the other on this - like most people on the thread I'm just team Albion - but there are some bits in here I really don't understand. You say that Dick Knight was one of three 'that had the task' of taking over the club with nothing...

I'm sorry but I must respond - DK put a far greater of his wealth into the club than 15 per cent. The money was less than Tony Bloom's but the generosity was eye-watering.

You're right, and I believe he himself drew attention to this in one of his letters on the subject. However, the rule - a common clause in company articles - was intended to keep predators at bay 17 years or so ago when the ownership of the club was far less settled than it is now. I'm not...

I'm not taking sides here because rows in the family make me sad but are you really suggesting that none of the 270 people who applied for shares would otherwise have bought the book? I would have thought that the people who applied for shares would have been among the book's likeliest buyers.