PJPoolie wrote: Darlogramps wrote:
Where's this idea that we were 50/50 over getting him back involved come from? The monumentally deluded PJ Poolie seems to be peddling this myth. Don't think there's any evidence for it whatsoever.
From what I saw, heard and read, the overwhelming majority would have been against Raj being back involved - I certainly think he'd have lost any vote on his involvement had it gone to the fans.
There were a few on here who wanted to hear him out, which is where the discussion came from. But that was nothing like 50% of the fanbase.
First time here about five years I had an inkling you'd be talking about this. Sussex will explode with excitement.
Can you not read Gramps? It's fairly easy to read a thread and attribute comments to the correct person. Tree With Hamster said that about your fans being your fans being 50/50 I haven't commented on it as I don't know enough about the situation to. All I have said is that I have an open mind, as I don't know any details. I did hear the rumour last week that he was one of the people Jeff Stelling was speaking to, it's not with the idea of him buying the club alone. We are looking for an investor who will be willing to form a consortium with The Trust which Jeff is the president of, he is also willing to put some of his own money into the club. With the this in mind I'm willing to trust (no pun intended) the people involved here and believe that they are working towards a sustainable business model going forward which is absolutely in the best interests of the club.
My comments about him being nothing like Coxall and Goldberg are true. They didn't put any money into the club it, it was debt free when they were given it. They were asset strippers pure and simple who wanted to take as much as they could for as long as they could get away with it for. Sage got lured in and have ended up picking up the pieces and I feel the situation has been worsened by some shocking decisions on and off the field, and some dubious at best financial management the Dave Jones disaster being one which we are apparently still paying for in various ways. You could compare Raj to Backledge who owns Sage, who wants his money back at least in part, as he came in to a failing unstainable business failed to turn it around and as a result has ended up putting in a fair amount of his own cash in just to fund week to week running costs. Not the biggest villian in the piece if we go pop by any means but plenty of questionable stuff has gone on and you wonder what his inentions were in the first place, but I think it was only ever to try and protect his investent after he'd realised he'd borrowed a chancer in Coxall a lot of cash.
Fair cop - that's what I get for reading threads at 1:30 in the morning.
However you are still monumentally deluded. You've decided you want his investment (whether you want to admit that or not) and are rewriting facts to suit that view. That's confirmation bias.
"He was spoken of quite highly until the end,"
That's like saying after a 2-1 defeat "Ignoring the two stoppage time goals against, we won that game 1-0." You can't delete key events to suit your own confirmation bias.
When Singh lost ownership of the Arena and following his subsequent behaviour, that's when his true motives began to be questioned. No one speaks highly about Singh now. Not after he went back on his word about expecting any return. Not after he made himself a major creditor when he said he wouldn't. Not after he made it impossible to agree a CVA. Not after the full level of his reckless ownership was laid bare.
Just see what some of the key players in the 2012 administration (players, fans, the rescue group) have to say about his behaviour.
"In no way was he the serious villain in Darlington's situation. The damage had been done."
The 2012 administration was all on him. He set the budget. He overspent. Yes the stadium was a drain, but he chose to spend recklessly. He chose to behave in that manner. Then he chose to go back on his word, nearly killing the club.
"(Trying to get back involved shows) he clearly doesn't feel as if he has anything to be ashamed of from his time at Darlington."
Oh well that's fine then. I'd say it demonstrates his greed, shamelessness and grotesque lack of self awareness.
It's odd you say he needs to be heard, but ignore the warnings of people with experience of him. Again, confirmation bias.
As loan_star and Gums have said on the Bunker, Singh will want something as part of this, if he is indeed investing. He's not the philanthropist type, regardless of whether he comes in with Stelling and the Trust or not. Don't delude yourself otherwise. But you seem to think you're an expert in his motives already.