Quote:
Originally Posted by maccawozzagod
i've got to say that i agree with Long Time Red, the idea of US owning the club is very appealing, but the person who owns ASFC (or 51% + whatever is 'left over' from the share issue shambles) was unwilling to lend ears to the proposals made by ASSF when the club was practically dead in the water. Why would that change now that the club is in far calmer waters?
|
Don't 'they' own 51% of a club indebted to Ilyas? Until they grace his palm with a lllllllot of cash, they have to listen, right?