Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Salford City: Ryan Giggs and ex-Man Utd pros agree takeover
A-R-T-H-U-R
Posts: 7,678
Anyone any background on this - are they 'doing an Ebbsfleet'?
Interesting development.
Now THAT would be a feeder club!
Interesting development.
Now THAT would be a feeder club!
1
Comments
-
Scholes, Giggs, Butt and the Neville brothers will be the owners of this Northern Premier league Div 1 North side if approved. Maybe Beckham has encouraged them, he is very good mates with Gary Neville. No need to spend any money on a manager or coaching staff, may even see the odd appearance from some of them :-00
-
Feeder club for becks new mls club. Get to spend a year abroad playing in England for the youngsters.1
-
There's a 2 billion pound consortium that those guys are meant to representing and involved with to buy man utd from the glaziers
Becks and co and the royal family of Quatar (spelling)0 -
No u in Qatar NLA.nth london addick said:There's a 2 billion pound consortium that those guys are meant to representing and involved with to buy man utd from the glaziers
Becks and co and the royal family of Quatar (spelling)
0 -
Thought it looked wrong
Just spoke to sepp blatter and for the right amount of money he could get the spelling changed8 -
No he in EnfieldAbsurdistan said:
No u in Qatar NLA.nth london addick said:There's a 2 billion pound consortium that those guys are meant to representing and involved with to buy man utd from the glaziers
Becks and co and the royal family of Quatar (spelling)9 -
Damn your answers are good1
-
Looks like they are intent on blowing their money as quickly as they earned it.0
-
Think you will be so so wrong.
Doubt it cost very much.
Their connection will push up crowds and attract young talented players.
I can see them in the football league within 5 years.0 -
And that's when the losses will get even bigger. The last thing they should want (financially) is promotion.0
- Sponsored links:
-
Do you think over on SalfordLife, or whatever their version of CharltonLife is, there are posters moaning about this takeover, knowing for sure that all their best talent will be sent to Old Trafford, and that they will be lumbered with Man U cast offs?
Just a thought, like.4 -
the takeover by the Neville Brothers, Butt, Scholes and Giggs has been approved
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/300199160 -
Giggs would be better suited to managing Salford rather than Manchester United methinks. I guess that the chaps have big plans for the club. It helps that their 'partner' in the venture is a billionaire from the far east. He has just bought Valencia F C .. expect a few loan signings probably from the east coast of Spain to the dockside of Manchester2
-
I don't think Paul Scholes should be allowed to manage Oldham while he's a shareholder of Salford.4
-
Why??Chizz said:I don't think Paul Scholes should be allowed to manage Oldham while he's a shareholder of Salford.
10% or less is seen as an investment only.
There are rules that no players can move between clubs.
And If they play each other next season and 1 of them plays a weaker team I am sure the FA will look into it.0 -
Eh? You're suggesting it's ok to be a shareholder of one club and the key employee of another; but he can't have shares in the same club he manages?bobmunro said:Chizz said:I don't think Paul Scholes should be allowed to manage Oldham while he's a shareholder of Salford.
As long as he's not a shareholder at Oldham then I can't see a problem.
Or are you saying something else?0 -
Why? Simply because he may have an influence over two clubs in the same competitions next season. It's a dangerous precedent.WestStandNeil said:
Why??Chizz said:I don't think Paul Scholes should be allowed to manage Oldham while he's a shareholder of Salford.
10% or less is seen as an investment only.
There are rules that no players can move between clubs.
And If they play each other next season and 1 of them plays a weaker team I am sure the FA will look into it.2 -
I think he's saying he can't be a shareholder in both clubs, which the rules confirm.Chizz said:
Eh? You're suggesting it's ok to be a shareholder of one club and the key employee of another; but he can't have shares in the same club he manages?bobmunro said:Chizz said:I don't think Paul Scholes should be allowed to manage Oldham while he's a shareholder of Salford.
As long as he's not a shareholder at Oldham then I can't see a problem.
Or are you saying something else?
0 -
Chizz said:
Eh? You're suggesting it's ok to be a shareholder of one club and the key employee of another; but he can't have shares in the same club he manages?bobmunro said:Chizz said:I don't think Paul Scholes should be allowed to manage Oldham while he's a shareholder of Salford.
As long as he's not a shareholder at Oldham then I can't see a problem.
Or are you saying something else?He can be a shareholder (significant control) of Salford and a key employee of Oldham. Yes, as a manager of Oldham he could also be a shareholder of Oldham, and therefore have significant control, but in that case he would need to relinquish any shareholding in Salford.As a manager he has significant influence of Oldham, but not significant control. The Chairman (owner) of Oldham could sack Scholes, Scholes could not sack the Chairman!The rules cover ownership of more than one club, that does not also encompass employees!I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant but hey ho!6 - Sponsored links:
-
Just scrapped their academy. As it says in the article, EPPP doesn’t help clubs of their size develop their own young players. Cheaper to run an u23 team and sign young players released by bigger clubs.0
-
They didn't have a full academy anyway, just an U18 side
I can't blame them. Brentford for example, who don't have an academy, made a LOT more money out of Konsa than we did.5 -
Dont blame them
Why do a lot of clubs up that way need Academies when the likes of Man City and Man Utd release so many kids each year?
I remember Joe Sealey talking about focusing on that if his takeover @ Bury had worked
e.g. He questioned why no teams in the Greater Manchester area picked up David Brooks (went to Sheffield United, now at Bournemouth) when he got released by Man City0 -
Thank you. That's interesting and helpful.bobmunro said:Chizz said:
Eh? You're suggesting it's ok to be a shareholder of one club and the key employee of another; but he can't have shares in the same club he manages?bobmunro said:Chizz said:I don't think Paul Scholes should be allowed to manage Oldham while he's a shareholder of Salford.
As long as he's not a shareholder at Oldham then I can't see a problem.
Or are you saying something else?He can be a shareholder (significant control) of Salford and a key employee of Oldham. Yes, as a manager of Oldham he could also be a shareholder of Oldham, and therefore have significant control, but in that case he would need to relinquish any shareholding in Salford.As a manager he has significant influence of Oldham, but not significant control. The Chairman (owner) of Oldham could sack Scholes, Scholes could not sack the Chairman!The rules cover ownership of more than one club, that does not also encompass employees!I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant but hey ho!
What did seem obvious from what you posted is that you couldn't see a problem. I can see a problem, which is that I don't think it seems appropriate for someone to be a part-owner of one club while being a key employee of another.
I am sorry not to have already known the rules around this. Employment in the football word isn't my day-to-day job.0 -
Never understand why people get so wound up about Salford, I would rather we were owned by people who understand the game, fan engagement and English football in general rather than some of the tossers we have had walk through the door in recent years2
