About as dodgy as Mandaric. He's had more clubs than.................Bates.

Since when has Mandaric denied ownership? Easy to see how Bates managed to pull the wool over weeds' eyes so easily!

And the irony is, such was the hatred of allen at the time, the wednesday supporters trust actually supported bates bid.

At least that other fans favourite geoff sheard ultimately saved wednesday, oh hang on, he turned out to be a fantasist.

Sol, yep Wednesdayite did back the Bates bid but as the poster says Allen never entertained it. At the time Sheard was around, we were desperate for anything and the sight of a potential buyer sat in the Directors Box was greeted with joy at finally being released from the financial shackles. As you say, thankfully again, the board did not go through with this one!!

Football is littered with dodgy owners and even dodgier potential owners!!

So far Mandaric has a decent track record of turning clubs around and then selling them on for a profit. He does not deny this is the reason he bought us, and if he is to achieve his goal then he needs to get us out of this league asap or else he will never get his money back. I can live with his goals and my only caviat is that he is very careful as to who he sells us to when that time finally arrives, but at the end of the day that will be his decision not ours!!

Having said that, his ownership of us has never been questioned or in doubt!

Wednesday were well rid of Bates or you would be paying twice as much to watch 3 rate football

And for the 140 other days a year when there's no football bates would have charged you to go swimming there...

Never hear about Mandaric these days.

Seems to keep a low profile, just like Ken Bates.

Bates is a character to say the least.

I think all Wednesday fans realize Mandaric is a clear headed business man. As soon as he can get the level of profit he wants for the club, he'll be gone.

Unfortunately, this raises the chances of us having our own dodgy owner in the future.

Look at Portsmouth. Mandaric got them in good shape, but sold them to a bunch of sheisters.

Fair comment, St Charles.

Was just pointing out - something about people in glass houses etc.

And you may be right, probably don't need to worry about his tenure, but afterwards.

comment by Sol (U2745)
posted 6 minutes ago
Fair comment, St Charles.

Was just pointing out - something about people in glass houses etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't disagree, I think while we had to suffer for a few more months and almost went into admin, we were lucky to avoid both Bates and Sheard.

Are you happy with Bates "owning" the club?

Time will tell whether Mandaric gets it right, but for now he is a hero as he saved us from admin and potentially liquidation. All we have to do is look at Plymouth to see just how close we were to the abyss!!

"Are you happy with Bates "owning" the club?"

No.

article creator aka the poster with no name!

you must create the most stupid and pointless threads of any menber of ja606 absolute numpty!

Tez, what was your point about u10727, do not be shy?
He/she might be like me, can not be bothered making up a username. When they only post a comment every blue moon.

u10727 isnt a blue moon guy/girl it just proves his lack of imagination.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Is this the same Mandaric who was up on tax evasion charges. All football owners have murky pasts if we dig deep enough, it's just that Bates does love to give everybody his views. Just a minute that's what we are doing on here!!!

Twinned in Switzerland !

Yes we are cas, but we are not the owners, for us its not a choice, its in the blood!! Owners should be seen and not heard, thats the managers job but Uncle Ken has always been outspoken, so I suppose he is not going to change now!!

As 666 states, MM tends to keep in the background and appoints football people to do the day to day running of the club. This is what he has done with us by bringing in 3 or 4 board directors to run the club. Sure its his money and him making the ultimate decision but he rarely says anything in public.

So an owner who is a football fan should be quiet, just because he is an owner. Why? Surely he has the right to freedom of speach.

comment by CasWhite (U8740)

"All football owners have murky pasts if we dig deep enough"

With due respect that is a silly comment.

For Mr. Bates, one can use one's bare hands, no shovel needed.

Jonny and you say my comment is silly then say can use bare hands.

Good play on words J.L.A

I'm just wondering if Pappy Smurf will be getting any royalties from the new film.....and whether or not he'll declare them!

comment by CasWhite (U8740) posted 11 minutes ago

Jonny and you say my comment is silly then say can use bare hands.

So what's your point? I used a metaphor. Is that bad?

Would it be better for you if I said, "Indeed old chap, Cas, we all have done some things that may not be quite appropriate but what Mr. Bates is alleged/proven to have done is easier to find and is much more openly available than others?"

Thanks DRY.

This wasn't intended to provoke a 'our owner is worse than yours' debate. I genuinely feel sorry for Leeds fans that they have to tolerate this vile individual as their owner.

If I was a Leeds supporter, I think I'd only go to away games; have any Leeds fans considered boycotting them at home? They seem to get decent crowds.

Taking a step back from it all, the whole situation seems utterly ridiculous: a football club owned via a maze of holding companies, all registered in offshore tax havens. And all of a sudden, when the Premier League raise their eyebrows, Bates steps forward as the owner and they mystery is unravelled. What a coincidence. The only thing this geezer respects is money, shame his accumulation of it seems to always mean his investors losing their's.