the_forgotten_city Posted yesterday at 09:08 Posted yesterday at 09:08 58 minutes ago, Nedman said: Give it a rest, your last piece of evidence was based on someone with the surname Walton sitting in the posh seats. Before that it was a tenuous link between us and a company that had worked with the Waltons, or something like that. Plus the fact that Stan Kroenke owns Arsenal makes it very unlikely that the Waltons are out to buy another UK club, particularly one that needs huge investment from the get go. We'll end up with Methven or Shaw. Adam Shaw???
jp1981 Posted yesterday at 09:18 Posted yesterday at 09:18 13 hours ago, owlZfan84 said: Quick! Someone check Brocostalk to see what they have heard! Has their Bizzle counterpart, the shizzle spoken about this?
bluezer Posted yesterday at 09:39 Posted yesterday at 09:39 19 minutes ago, jp1981 said: Quick! Someone check Brocostalk to see what they have heard! Has their Bizzle counterpart, the shizzle spoken about this? 2
Barnsleyowl1996 Posted yesterday at 09:42 Posted yesterday at 09:42 Want to believe the bizzle but after a tricky summer his end I am a tad concerned regarding the Walton’s that said I’m probably going to a head for a celebratory madri shortly
The Batman Posted yesterday at 09:46 Posted yesterday at 09:46 Wait until we can sign some players again. Then TheBizzle will retake his rightful place as Owlstalk ITK King
Nedman Posted yesterday at 10:14 Posted yesterday at 10:14 1 hour ago, Almat said: We've already established Stan Kroenke's ownership of Arsenal is completely irrelevant here. He isn't part of the Walton Penner group, he's just married to Anne Walton. It's not "completely irrelevant". From a football legislation standpoint it's probably fine, but from a "should we invest hundreds of millions in to London-based Arsenal, who are battling for the premier league title, the European Cup, with a World class squad, modern stadium and training facilities etc or invest hundreds of millions in to every aspect of Sheffield Wednesday in the hope they might bother the top 6 in the championship" standpoint, which one makes more financial sense? 1
Almat Posted yesterday at 10:29 Posted yesterday at 10:29 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Nedman said: It's not "completely irrelevant". From a football legislation standpoint it's probably fine, but from a "should we invest hundreds of millions in to London-based Arsenal, who are battling for the premier league title, the European Cup, with a World class squad, modern stadium and training facilities etc or invest hundreds of millions in to every aspect of Sheffield Wednesday in the hope they might bother the top 6 in the championship" standpoint, which one makes more financial sense? Kroenke's missus Anne Walton is not a member of the Walton Penner group that bought Denver Broncos. It is irrelevant. And how much do you think Arsenal are worth now? Several billions. Where's the value there? As things stand we will probably command a price of £40 million and require a few hundred million to get us where we belong. It's a daft comparison. Edited yesterday at 10:29 by Almat 1 1
royalowlisback Posted yesterday at 11:27 Posted yesterday at 11:27 1 hour ago, Nedman said: It's not "completely irrelevant". From a football legislation standpoint it's probably fine, but from a "should we invest hundreds of millions in to London-based Arsenal, who are battling for the premier league title, the European Cup, with a World class squad, modern stadium and training facilities etc or invest hundreds of millions in to every aspect of Sheffield Wednesday in the hope they might bother the top 6 in the championship" standpoint, which one makes more financial sense? You've completely changed the reason why now as to why would they invest in Wednesday, and a little dig at our club whilst you're at it. 1
Nedman Posted yesterday at 11:42 Posted yesterday at 11:42 14 minutes ago, royalowlisback said: You've completely changed the reason why now as to why would they invest in Wednesday, and a little dig at our club whilst you're at it. I've done neither but carry on
3mps Posted yesterday at 12:06 Posted yesterday at 12:06 Bizzle has a very good record and it's hard to think they could be so wrong, but Staton seems pretty certain his end and surely he wouldn't put his reputation on the line.
Southie_Owl Posted 23 hours ago Posted 23 hours ago 7 hours ago, 3mps said: Bizzle has a very good record and it's hard to think they could be so wrong, but Staton seems pretty certain his end and surely he wouldn't put his reputation on the line. Not really sure what the bizzle’s game plan is now, his theory’s have been publicly shot down by local journos since May. And KW suggested that they hadn’t heard from the Walton’s. Right now it could be a face saving exercise to pretend they are one of the mystery bidders, but why bother when hes hardly ever on his site, only ever to drop some ITK news rather than have banter or debate. Very odd
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now