Author Topic: Guochuan Lai (Read 2369664 times)

BB74 · « **Reply #1325 on:** July 05, 2015, 06:51:17 PM »

Quote from: Groovephil on July 05, 2015, 06:47:27 PM

I guess the stadium will be developed pretty sharpish if these folks come in? Anyone think we could move? Plenty of land available in West Brom.

I don't think I'll cope if we actually become title contenders? What will the London press think? They'll hate it.

I would hate to move stadium. Things would never be the same again. Would much rather buy up land around the ground and extend that way rather than to a new souless stadium.

Jimmy · « **Reply #1326 on:** July 05, 2015, 06:51:49 PM »

Please dont make us move, please dont change our name, please dont change the kit.

LiamTheBaggie · « **Reply #1327 on:** July 05, 2015, 06:53:18 PM »

Quote from: devonbaggiecjaj on July 05, 2015, 06:44:14 PM

Would you know what the Â£2 million break cause JP has in the contract means.

I wouldn't I'm afraid.

I would imagine it is some form of penalty for whether the preferred bidder now withdraws his interest.

I've only ever heard of them in context of housing - although I imagine the principle is slightly the same.

LiamTheBaggie · « **Reply #1328 on:** July 05, 2015, 06:56:41 PM »

Quote from: Groovephil on July 05, 2015, 06:47:27 PM

I guess the stadium will be developed pretty sharpish if these folks come in? Anyone think we could move? Plenty of land available in West Brom.

I don't think I'll cope if we actually become title contenders? What will the London press think? They'll hate it.

I don't see us moving stadium - as it stands there is no reason for us to do so.

I'd be more interested to see what happens with regards to ticket pricing - will they remain lenient with their pricing or will the potential new ownership increase the match-day prices?

Also, we will never win the league whilst the league maintains its current format so we can cross that off the list.

frazzle · « **Reply #1329 on:** July 05, 2015, 06:59:22 PM »

Quote from: Groovephil on July 05, 2015, 06:47:27 PM

I guess the stadium will be developed pretty sharpish if these folks come in? Anyone think we could move? Plenty of land available in West Brom.

I don't think I'll cope if we actually become title contenders? What will the London press think? They'll hate it.

Haha. Getting well ahead of yourself there fella!

ex coseley kid · « **Reply #1330 on:** July 05, 2015, 07:02:59 PM »

Quote from: Jimmy on July 05, 2015, 06:51:49 PM

Please dont make us move, please dont change our name, please dont change the kit.

Quite. I'd take mid-table championship mediocrity over any of those happening.

BB74 · « **Reply #1331 on:** July 05, 2015, 07:07:40 PM »

It was a few weeks ago when we first heard the name Wang Jianlan. It was mentioned at the bottom of a Birmingham Mail article in the comments section. This was subsequently seen as a hoax after that fake twitter account nonsense.

Was the person who made that comment ITK all along? Or was it just a lucky guess?

Laurie Cunningham · « **Reply #1332 on:** July 05, 2015, 07:20:07 PM »

It's as if it's written in stone with some comments , where's the proofs this guy as bought WBA ?

BB74 · « **Reply #1333 on:** July 05, 2015, 07:21:23 PM »

Quote from: Laurie Cunningham on July 05, 2015, 07:20:07 PM

It's as if it's written in stone with some comments , where's the proofs this guy as bought WBA ?

There won't be any written proof until the contract is signed.

mifos · « **Reply #1334 on:** July 05, 2015, 07:22:56 PM »

Quote from: BB74 on July 05, 2015, 07:07:40 PM

It was a few weeks ago when we first heard the name Wang Jianlan. It was mentioned at the bottom of a Birmingham Mail article in the comments section. This was subsequently seen as a hoax after that fake twitter account nonsense.

Was the person who made that comment ITK all along? Or was it just a lucky guess?

I've seen nothing more than circumstantial evidence so far. We're still at 2+2=5 at the moment.

The description 'Chinese consortium' makes me think it's a group of less wealthy investors.

Laurie Cunningham · « **Reply #1335 on:** July 05, 2015, 07:25:07 PM »

Quote from: BB74 on July 05, 2015, 07:21:23 PM

There won't be any written proof until the contract is signed.

So why all the excitement ?

BB74 · « **Reply #1336 on:** July 05, 2015, 07:27:12 PM »

Quote from: Laurie Cunningham on July 05, 2015, 07:25:07 PM

So why all the excitement ?

I'm not excited. I'm sceptical. You'll have to ask the excited people that question.

Laurie Cunningham · « **Reply #1337 on:** July 05, 2015, 07:28:14 PM »

Quote from: BB74 on July 05, 2015, 07:27:12 PM

I'm not excited. I'm sceptical. You'll have to ask the excited people that question.

That's what I'm trying to do !

Standaman · « **Reply #1338 on:** July 05, 2015, 07:29:53 PM »

In simple terms exclusivity deals mean Peace is only going to talk to the Chinese for fixed period of time. Exclusivity could be agreed at any point in the process for instance at the due diligence stage. All the terms might be agreed in principle and it is just a question of the legal work being tied up or there could be outstanding issues which need to resolved before any deal is in done.

A break clause on a contract would stipulate an amount one or both of the parties would have to pay to break it early. If we sack him we would have to pay Â£2m and I suspect if he resigned to join another club that is the level of compensation that we would get. It would appear that should we be taken over it invalidates the break clause certainly on TP's side.

Groovephil · « **Reply #1339 on:** July 05, 2015, 07:35:03 PM »

Quote from: frazzle on July 05, 2015, 06:59:22 PM

Haha. Getting well ahead of yourself there fella!

What do you mean?

I've ordered my Messi and Ronaldo home and away tops, starting learning Chinese and put everything I have on Albion winning the prem by 2018.

I'm all in.

PsalmXXIII · « **Reply #1340 on:** July 05, 2015, 07:35:22 PM »

Quote from: BB74 on July 05, 2015, 07:07:40 PM

It was a few weeks ago when we first heard the name Wang Jianlan. It was mentioned at the bottom of a Birmingham Mail article in the comments section. This was subsequently seen as a hoax after that fake twitter account nonsense.

Was the person who made that comment ITK all along? Or was it just a lucky guess?

Or option three, not ITK and an incorrect guess. It could be anyone. We'll find out soon hopefully.

Sted1990 · « **Reply #1341 on:** July 05, 2015, 08:00:29 PM »

The Mirror who broke the story have now changed the article so there's now no talk of them speaking to Peace for 4 months. So either it was all lies or the club have threatened them with legal action.

Droitwich Baggie · « **Reply #1342 on:** July 05, 2015, 08:04:29 PM »

It isn't the Disney group is it?

That is just a Mickey Mouse outfit.

tennant1wba · « **Reply #1343 on:** July 05, 2015, 08:11:35 PM »

http://thebaggiesway.com/2015/07/05/new-owner-of-west-brom-revealed/

baggie38 · « **Reply #1344 on:** July 05, 2015, 09:03:07 PM »

Quote from: Groovephil on July 05, 2015, 06:47:27 PM

I guess the stadium will be developed pretty sharpish if these folks come in? Anyone think we could move? Plenty of land available in West Brom.

I don't think I'll cope if we actually become title contenders? What will the London press think? They'll hate it.

I think your getting a little to carried away. Let's not forget Fifa fair play rules mean we won't really be able to spend much more then we do currently.

WBArgo · « **Reply #1345 on:** July 05, 2015, 09:06:17 PM »

Quote from: baggie38 on July 05, 2015, 09:03:07 PM

I think your getting a little to carried away. Let's not forget Fifa fair play rules mean we won't really be able to spend much more then we do currently.

FFP doesn't really exist though, does it?
It burnt Man City and PSG one season, many clubs still spent wildly such as Man Utd and a few months ago the FFP's rules were 'relaxed', it's basically been a failure.

LiamTheBaggie · « **Reply #1346 on:** July 05, 2015, 09:47:35 PM »

My understanding was that it was only there to keep the status quo in tact.

Equally, the FFP in the championship are just as ridiculous.

If the clubs are not going to abide by the system rules then it should be scrapped. Unfortunately with the amount of sponsoring opportunities available it just provides too many loop holes.

Furthermore, I never understood why clubs such as ourselves who have been prudent with our finances have been placed under such restrictions because others have been reckless with their spending. The strict rules and punishments should be on those who continue to make substantial losses - not on those who break even and make profits like ourselves and Newcastle for example.

Yamaka · « **Reply #1347 on:** July 05, 2015, 10:41:48 PM »

Swansea or Norwich would be better examples, although I take your point. Newcastle are massively in debt to the tune of Â£90+ million.

Standaman · « **Reply #1348 on:** July 05, 2015, 11:18:32 PM »

Football has a problem for decades clubs across Europe have got themselves into financial difficulties by paying too much for players in wages and fees. Financial management and governance in general has been appalling and not only that but because of the football creditors rule the players have been largely protected form the consequences of this incompetence.

FFP was an attempt to bully clubs into getting their house in order, points deductions are all well and good when a club goes into administration but at that point the damage has been done. However the unintended consequence was to prevent clubs from running at a loss even if the ownership was willing and able to fund those losses. This obviously played into the hands of the clubs that were already wealthy and made it more difficult for the next Man City to emerge.

FFP is going to be relaxed but it won't be completely discarded the sort of losses shipped by Man City in their early years under the Mansour's probably would still fall foul of the regulations. The Â£30m a season cap on losses currently in force in the Premier League is probably going to be the effective cap.

Ultimately the days of the sugar daddy owner have gone. I do not expect the new ownership to throw money at the club to chase a dream.

PsalmXXIII · « **Reply #1349 on:** July 06, 2015, 08:04:22 AM »

It's times like this our decision as a club to vote against FFP makes even more sense.