Lots of talk about this board

What's the difference between how they're doing things & how the previous owner did them?

 

They are foreign

 

They release catchy 21 word jingles.

 

And that’s the issue with a lot of people

 

I genuinely believe that's part of it. And not because they're forrin in a xenophobic sense but because people don't trust them and their intentions.

 

Did the Crynes not also get torn to shreds for selling our best players on the cheap, and buying mainly lower league talent? Don Rowing was the whipping boy back then, rather than Conway.

Mark Robins, our most successful manager for many years in terms of league position, was also effectively sacked for demanding more investment in the team.

Same as it ever was...

 

Not for me it's not.

Its because they're liars.

 

We used to sell our best player every summer with the previous owners, now we sell anyone, including the manager. Its difficult to support a feeder club.

Imagine someone writing the “Oakwell Centurions” book now. We’d have to include Checkatrade appearances.

 

Quality loan players

 

And they still owe money. I find that worrying,

 

What have they lied about?

 

We only signed them when we needed a get out of jail free card once we'd got past the Robins era.

And let's not forget we brought Woodrow in on loan too.

 

Not this again.

There's been threads of here over the last 18 month's documenting this - mainly in the Questions For Paul Conway Thread from a Q and A a bit back.

I'll dig it up if you want.

 

That was with a clause to buy..

 

We sold pretty much our entire team in January under the previous owners that time we had a chance.

They also sold Lee Johnson to Bristol City.

 

Even worse then, foreign liars

Edit: thought I'd add a winky emoji. Last time I made a comment in jest that someone could take personally, he DMd me on Twitter essentially asking me for a fight. Quite funny really.

 

If you can I'd appreciate it, I've not seen it.

 

Same as we had with Morsy I assume.

 

Not one of us on here knows why they bought the club in the first place or what their long term definition of success is.

All the previous owners, with varying degrees of success, were driven by on field results. Despite claiming not to ‘do anything stupid’ after nearly three years ownership I’m still none the wiser.

On the lies front they started off by agreeing to buy the club for a modest initial outlay and annual payments. That turned out to be false when they stopped the annual payments.

 

Did we know that before? In terms of defining success etc?

If we were driven by on field results we wouldn't have sold our best players in January that year or dismantled that side.