PMG - A Joint Statement From CCSC and CCST

There's no problem when interests co-incide.

Malaysians suddenly love Cardiff City? Especially businessmen? I've no doubt they can see the money they can make through marketing in Malaysia and the Far East.

if people are prepared to stump up the cash, then why shouldn't they be allowed to profit? it seems people expect football clubs to be run as charities.

Why is why it makes questioning PMG's motives baffling, when Ridsdale's have been worse - he's invested nothing!

Why kick Ridsdale when he's down? Well, he needs to be removed or there's no deal. Malaysians won't invest with him around. That is an incentive to reming him of his duty; PMG don't even become a factor unless Ridders agrees to leave.

the difference between Ridders and PMG is that, unless mistaken, Trust officials haven't had unofficial meetings with PMG.

I don't attack PMG for making a profit.

But PR was put in place with their backing. Which they have continued to provide untill now even at the recent EGM

Ridsdale doesn't have to agree to leave does he. He can be sacked as Chief Executive and voted off the board.

On his own he is powerless surely. And as it is as clear as day that he has lost PMG's backing he is now an irrelevance.

Steve Davies, you probably the most sensible poster about and you sum it up perfectly.

There's no problem when interests co-incide.

Malaysians suddenly love Cardiff City? Especially businessmen? I've no doubt they can see the money they can make through marketing in Malaysia and the Far East.

if people are prepared to stump up the cash, then why shouldn't they be allowed to profit? it seems people expect football clubs to be run as charities.

Why is why it makes questioning PMG's motives baffling, when Ridsdale's have been worse - he's invested nothing!

Why kick Ridsdale when he's down? Well, he needs to be removed or there's no deal. Malaysians won't invest with him around. That is an incentive to reming him of his duty; PMG don't even become a factor unless Ridders agrees to leave.

the difference between Ridders and PMG is that, unless mistaken, Trust officials haven't had unofficial meetings with PMG.

I don't attack PMG for making a profit.

But PR was put in place with their backing. Which they have continued to provide untill now even at the recent EGM

Ridsdale doesn't have to agree to leave does he. He can be sacked as Chief Executive and voted off the board.

On his own he is powerless surely. And as it is as clear as day that he has lost PMG's backing he is now an irrelevance.

He can be sacked.

And depending upon the contract he's under, demand a large fee for that. Which is almost certainly an issue.

Now, I agree - he is an irrelevance. But he's an irrelevance who has the ability to hold things up whilst negotiating a settlement.

I don't doubt Guy et al thought Ridders would do a good job running the club until it was sold. They may have tolerated some of the mistakes. I just don't think they really knew the total balls up he made of it.

The point being, not once, ever have the Trust reminded Ridsdale of his duty - you could argue the previous statement where they "reminded" the entire board - but the point still remains. When Ridsdale WAS a relevance, when he was (mis)managing the club on a day to day basis, he was not singled out in any such statement.

Trust is a joke mate... pathetic in fact especially since Corks stepped down.