Mittal

[LeeCookFan]

Why has no one criticized him for not loaning money to the club?

He has a stake in the club worth 16 times more than Flavios stake, yet heard a lot of anti-Flavio stuff for him not loaning money to the club.

[stan_bowles]

Because Amit is a 'fan' because he went to a couple of away games.

[Rich]

because it's public knowledge that Flavio is buddies with Bernie who owns 60% plus!

If you owned a third and didn't agree with the people who owned the majority would you put money in to see them pocket it/waste it in ways you completely disagree with?

[Slydo]

Why has no one criticized him for not loaning money to the club?

He has a stake in the club worth 16 times more than Flavios stake, yet heard a lot of anti-Flavio stuff for him not loaning money to the club.

I said the same thing to my mate today nit to #### him off but I asked why he hasn't put any money in for transfers eg 250k to get naughton on loan.

[stan_bowles]

because it's public knowledge that Flavio is buddies with Bernie who owns 60% plus!

If you owned a third and didn't agree with the people who owned the majority would you put money in to see them pocket it/waste it in ways you completely disagree with?

No.

You would either buy them out if you were serious about us or sell your share and sod off to some other club.

Explain to me why you think the Mittals still own a third?.

I can't see a reason.Not willing to buy,unless it's at a knockdown price,well they are Indian,and not willing to buy as that means spending money,not an Indian thing unless it guarantees a profit.

[Rich]

They are not going to be mugged off and let them 2 crooks walk away with a massive profit as their expense. It's business regardless of how much money they all have in the bank and tied up elsewhere.

It proves the Mittal's aren't as passionate as we hoped or you're right they would have paid over the odds IF they are actually interested in owning the club outright.

[stan_bowles]

They are not going to be mugged off and let them 2 crooks walk away with a massive profit as their expense. It's business regardless of how much money they all have in the bank and tied up elsewhere.

It proves the Mittal's aren't as passionate as we hoped or you're right they would have paid over the odds IF they are actually interested in owning the club outright.

Most football clubs lose money.If the Mittals are here to think they can make money they are seriously ill informed.

This has happened far before SKY ever got involved.

[Warnocks Lad]

Yeah its eccelstone that needs to go.

[stan_bowles]

Yeah its eccelstone that needs to go.

But what will the Mittal's bring?.

Who can honestly say with ITK proof?.

[sirpiechucker]

Why would you pay more than you own? If three people were to buy a car and one of them owned 30% why would they pay more than 30% for it? If they were only allowed to drive it two days a week why pay more?

[stan_bowles]

Why would you pay more than you own? If three people were to buy a car and one of them owned 30% why would they pay more than 30% for it? If they were only allowed to drive it two days a week why pay more?

Why would you want to own 30% of a car that is owned by two w@nkers who don't care if it ends up in the scrapyard and you lose your money?.

Why the hell are the Mittals still involved with T & C?.

[LeeCookFan]

Why would you pay more than you own? If three people were to buy a car and one of them owned 30% why would they pay more than 30% for it? If they were only allowed to drive it two days a week why pay more?

Well who is to say he is not spending? While T&C feel they own 70% and should only spend 70%?

Also, if they felt strongly they could push the issue or loan the club some money, yet they are doing sod all.

Why are T&C always criticise but not Mittal/Bhatia? Surely they are all as guilty as each other.

[stanistheman]

because it's public knowledge that Flavio is buddies with Bernie who owns 60% plus!

If you owned a third and didn't agree with the people who owned the majority would you put money in to see them pocket it/waste it in ways you completely disagree with?

Totally and utterly agree, Why should Mittal spend his money when they pull all the strings?

I am not a huge fan of Mittal, because I think he could have bought the club outright last January for real, rather than just go along with the rumour given that he had become the majority shareholder.

[silvercue]

No one should be slagged off for not pumping in money to a club they don't owm.

And they are hardly wanting a knock down price - 100million for QPR - you're having a laugh.

[BennyBoyRs]

The point many are missing is that they don't want £100m for QPR. They want £100m for their share, which puts their value of us closer to £150m.

Ridiculous price.