Barnsley V Port Vale, as I saw it.

No it doesn't.

 

No, you don't, Red Rain. You have self-evidently picked out bits of what I had to say to suit your own argument.

If you read again you will see that I said I didn't mind whether Mr Cryne sold on (which he has often said he is prepared to do to the 'right person') or whether he went into partnership with another owner. Whatever money Mr Cryne has invested cannot be said to have been invested wisely, given that we have dropped a league, our gates are declining and we are now struggling a division lower. There would be benefit for Mr Cryne in a change of direction in order that he could recoup some of the money invested to date. What counts is whether the club provides entertainment, and hence value for money for it's paying customers. Some may be prepared to put up with any old crap, but I'm not one of them!

 

You are a difficult person to pin down because every time you make a contribution to the debate, you say something different. Every time I knock away an argument, your argument changes direction. To be honest, I don't know what your argument is any more, and I do not think that you do either. As it is though, I find it difficult to see any cogent argument behind your continual changes in direction. I am only too happy to enter into debate with you again once you have thought it through and have a proper and sustainable position. Until then I am calling a halt to my side of our debate.

 

So according to that you can buy my house but only get the garden. Which cannot be developed. I am sure someone will jump at that deal?

 

Not at all. The analogy is that of buying a business that operates from rented premises. You are buying the goodwill, and fixed and current assets less liabilities.