PMG -why are they now getting all the grief ?

I've posted elsewhere ref PMG, but its disappeared. Before anyone thinks I'm accusing the mods, I may well have not pressed 'send' or whatever.

When the takeover was at a critical point the Trust snet out a message which seemed abit strange, asking 'PMG to 'Do the right thing'.

They were hammerred for it.

'Don't you realise PMG have kept us alive'
'How dare you accuse PMG of looking after themselves and not caring about the club'

were the sort of lines which were posted.


Now they are the bad guys,

Why the change ?

Now, plenty of times Carl or Annis have been knocked for posting things on here which subsequently turned out to be right, and a few have had to eat humble pie after jumping to conclusions over it.

So is it fair to expect the guys from the Trust to get a bit of an apology for the attacks they recieved over that statement ?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16784&start=0

the main reason is this

~The malaysians own 36% of the shares in the club - so why should they have to keep paying 100% of the outgoings, wages or bills/debts etc etc. I think they are hoping other LARGE shareholders will step in and back them in sharing resposibilities on the financial outgoings. Surely they should, and PMG being a large shareholder should start to put money into the club instead of taking it out. (they've done very well for theselves out of the club, especially when it comes to LAND Purchases!)

Just a thought (from a minor and lesser more thought of member of society! Me)

So is it fair to expect the guys from the Trust to get a bit of an apology for the attacks they recieved over that statement ?

Meanwhile, Hell freezes over......

the main reason is this

~The malaysians own 36% of the shares in the club - so why should they have to keep paying 100% of the outgoings, wages or bills/debts etc etc. I think they are hoping other LARGE shareholders will step in and back them in sharing resposibilities on the financial outgoings. Surely they should, and PMG being a large shareholder should start to put money into the club instead of taking it out. (they've done very well for theselves out of the club, especially when it comes to LAND Purchases!)

Just a thought (from a minor and lesser more thought of member of society! Me)

Thats a fair point, BUT, don't be fooled into thinking the Malaysians are GIVING this money to the club, it'll be LOANS only which will have to be paid back.

I agree that they should be taking their share of resposiblity -and as a shareholder I wouldn't have a problem if I had to take mine (which wouls amount to about £1 a week as a % ).

The ponti being, lawnmower, different circumstances.

PMG were keeping the club afloat until the Malaysians "took over".
After then, appears they want Tien Ghee and Tan to fund everything.

Hence it's perfectly right to view PMG differently now.

Yeah, right!

:lol:

Yeah, right!

Elaborate ?

The ponti being, lawnmower, different circumstances.

PMG were keeping the club afloat until the Malaysians "took over".
After then, appears they want Tien Ghee and Tan to fund everything.

Hence it's perfectly right to view PMG differently now.

Or...
PMG were looking after their interests by not letting the club go into admin and losing part of their investment then. They were the only ones with security over anything at the club then.

And.. PMG are looking after their interests by not putting more monry into the club now.

Sorry mate, PMG are the same people and working in the same way as they always have been.

They've always wanted out., perhaps now they can see a way.

tlg the man who stood by the riddler to the end, sorry mate your a joke, you should go and watch his latest club

You can pretend that's the case if you like, Eddie. It's a load of old bollocks of course, but to be honest I couldn't give a rat's arse what lies you wish to spread about me. The personal attacks from you are water off a duck's back. However, I'd be interested to hear why your views on PMG have changed do dramatically of late. After all, on 19th March, in response to the Trust's PMG statement, you said: “Pathetic, why have a go at PMG?”

If I remember rightly at the time of publication the Trust/Supporters Club Statement did take everyone by surprise as there seemed no suggestion that PMG were going to scupper the deal and indeed they seemed highly in favour of it.

The Trust may have had information to the contrary but that was never shared with the rest of us so it was impossible to make a judgement on whether they were right to issue the statement or not.

Now there seems to be a situation where PMG are not pulling their weight in challenging the debts which were run up on their watch. This obviously could affect everything the Malaysians are trying to accomplish and as such PMG are bound to face some criticism.

For me the change in attitude is perfectly reasonable.

For me the change in attitude is perfectly reasonable.

Knock me down with a feather.....

If I remember rightly at the time of publication the Trust/Supporters Club Statement did take everyone by surprise as there seemed no suggestion that PMG were going to scupper the deal and indeed they seemed highly in favour of it.

The Trust may have had information to the contrary but that was never shared with the rest of us so it was impossible to make a judgement on whether they were right to issue the statement or not.

Now there seems to be a situation where PMG are not pulling their weight in challenging the debts which were run up on their watch. This obviously could affect everything the Malaysians are trying to accomplish and as such PMG are bound to face some criticism.

For me the change in attitude is perfectly reasonable.

Tony, that doesn't hold water with me.
The line in pink highlighted above was actually MORE true at the time of the negotioations than it is now.

PMG had the opportunity to challenge PR and what he was doing and did nothing about it until the Malaysians actually got involved.

Surely Either
a. The Trust had a valid point then, which is still valid now... i.e PMG must for the sake of the club put some of their self-interest aside or
b. they didnt and PMG are quite within their right to fight to get money which they are owed out of the club as soon as poss and not invest/loan any more.


It can't be one rule one day and another the next.

For me the change in attitude is perfectly reasonable.

Knock me down with a feather.....

Honestly there are times when you really embarrass yourself, if you can't add to the debate then why say anything at all?

A simple apology would suffice.

TLG was slaughtered over it, as was the Trust and, to a lesser extent, so was I.

I can only presume that the volte-face is due to a dictact from their Commander-in-Chief.

No way!!

Did we really agree on something?

If I remember rightly at the time of publication the Trust/Supporters Club Statement did take everyone by surprise as there seemed no suggestion that PMG were going to scupper the deal and indeed they seemed highly in favour of it.

The Trust may have had information to the contrary but that was never shared with the rest of us so it was impossible to make a judgement on whether they were right to issue the statement or not.

Now there seems to be a situation where PMG are not pulling their weight in challenging the debts which were run up on their watch. This obviously could affect everything the Malaysians are trying to accomplish and as such PMG are bound to face some criticism.

For me the change in attitude is perfectly reasonable.

Tony, that doesn't hold water with me.
The line in pink highlighted above was actually MORE true at the time of the negotioations than it is now.

PMG had the opportunity to challenge PR and what he was doing and did nothing about it until the Malaysians actually got involved.

Surely Either
a. The Trust had a valid point then, which is still valid now... i.e PMG must for the sake of the club put some of their self-interest aside or
b. they didnt and PMG are quite within their right to fight to get money which they are owed out of the club as soon as poss and not invest/loan any more.


It can't be one rule one day and another the next.

Tim with respect mate you ask the question 'what has changed?'

The biggest change between now and the time of the Trust Statement is the Malaysians are now on board. Dragging up PMG failures to challenge PR at that previous time is totally irrelevant.

The whole dynamics have changed, for our club to move forward PMG must change their attitude and help sort out debts which were incurred on their watch and not expect a third party to do it all for them. If they don't or plainly refuse then they will be criticised. I have acknowledged the Trust might have had valid reasons or information at the time for releasing their statement but they chose not to share that information with us.

Therefore the argument about whether they were right or wrong is impossible to judge, but I think it is fair to crititise PMG at the present time for their present attitude.

I think it is fair to crititise PMG at the present time for their present attitude.

What is their present attitude and how does it differ to their previous attitude?

are you a pmg fan tlg ?

i would hate to be your friend.

Don't worry, it's never going to happen.

Am I a fan of a property development company? In a word, no.

I think it is fair to crititise PMG at the present time for their present attitude.

What is their present attitude and how does it differ to their previous attitude?

How do I know your the one who released the statement slagging off PMG

Tony, that doesn't hold water with me.
The line in pink highlighted above was actually MORE true at the time of the negotioations than it is now.

PMG had the opportunity to challenge PR and what he was doing and did nothing about it until the Malaysians actually got involved.

Surely Either
a. The Trust had a valid point then, which is still valid now... i.e PMG must for the sake of the club put some of their self-interest aside or
b. they didnt and PMG are quite within their right to fight to get money which they are owed out of the club as soon as poss and not invest/loan any more.


It can't be one rule one day and another the next.[/quote]

Tim with respect mate you ask the question 'what has changed?'

The biggest change between now and the time of the Trust Statement is the Malaysians are now on board. Dragging up PMG failures to challenge PR at that previous time is totally irrelevant.

The whole dynamics have changed, for our club to move forward PMG must change their attitude and help sort out debts which were incurred on their watch and not expect a third party to do it all for them. If they don't or plainly refuse then they will be criticised. I have acknowledged the Trust might have had valid reasons or information at the time for releasing their statement but they chose not to share that information with us.

Therefore the argument about whether they were right or wrong is impossible to judge, but I think it is fair to crititise PMG at the present time for their present attitude.[/quote]


Maybe, but thats also based on snippits of info., I haven't seen any hard fact to justify the change in approach.

I really honestly beleive they are still the same people with the same goals (i.e. making sure they get their money back- with interest) as they were beofre.

AND they at both times are quite within their rights to do so, BUT I'd implore them to do what is right for the club.

As many have had to conceded that Carl/Annis have had a point, then its only fair to acknowledge that the Trust may well have had a point at the time.

I think it is fair to crititise PMG at the present time for their present attitude.

What is their present attitude and how does it differ to their previous attitude?

How do I know your the one who released the statement slagging off PMG

I didn't release the statement. CCST and CCSC did. I wrote it in conjunction with one of the CCSC committee members. Having done so, we then circulated it to the Trust board and CCSC committee for approval.

I note you haven't answered my question. I'm not surprised.

Maybe, but thats also based on snippits of info., I haven't seen any hard fact to justify the change in approach.

I really honestly beleive they are still the same people with the same goals (i.e. making sure they get their money back- with interest) as they were beofre.

AND they at both times are quite within their rights to do so, BUT I'd implore them to do what is right for the club.

As many have had to conceded that Carl/Annis have had a point, then its only fair to acknowledge that the Trust may well have had a point at the time.

Tim, I have acknowledged that the Trust almost certainly DID have a point, but their information was never shared with the rest of us so it is hard to judge for sure. I remember at the time Dr Pop made a posting on CCMB where he said the Trust and Supporters Club had double checked their info and held documentation which assured them that they were right to put out the statement about PMG.

That may well have convinced a small amount of people on the Trust Board/Supporters Club, but surly you can see that would-not surfice to convince the rest of us who were not privy to that information?

Therefore people made up their own minds and as we know opinions can vary widly.

What I find totally unfair is for someone months later to come riding claiming how 'wrong' eveyone else was when they didn't have the full facts.

BTW At the time I didn't really have an opinion one way or the other on the PMG statement.

What is their present attitude and how does it differ to their previous attitude?

How do I know your the one who released the statement slagging off PMG

I didn't release the statement. CCST and CCSC did. I wrote it in conjunction with one of the CCSC committee members. Having done so, we then circulated it to the Trust board and CCSC committee for approval.

I note you haven't answered my question. I'm not surprised.

OK you 'wrote' the statement I have fully explained my position else where, frankly cannot be bothered with your
pettiness.

Tim, I have acknowledged that the Trust almost certainly DID have a point, but their information was never shared with the rest of us so it is hard to judge for sure. I remember at the time Dr Pop made a posting on CCMB where he said the Trust and Supporters Club had double checked their info and held documentation which assured them that they were right to put out the statement about PMG.

That may well have convinced a small amount of people on the Trust Board/Supporters Club, but surly you can see that would-not surfice to convince the rest of us who were not privy to that information?

Therefore people made up their own minds and as we know opinions can vary widly.

What I find totally unfair is for someone months later to come riding claiming how 'wrong' eveyone else was when they didn't have the full facts.

BTW At the time I didn't really have an opinion one way or the other on the PMG statement.[/quote]


Ah, I see.

But I'm not going on about how 'wrong' everyone was, ( I wouldn't do that as I'm often wrong myself, especially concerning these off-field issues when we've rarely got the full facts) just trying to make out all isn't what it immediately seems to be and that it isn't wise to jump to conclusions about things.

Also, and with some justification there is a bit of trumpet blowing and 'we told you so' going on. I'm looking to put a bit of balance on it all.

I wouldn't consider anyone 'always right', or 'always wrong'.

I'm also sticking up for the Trust which I have always beleived has had to have some unfair abuse and hoping that in the future its given a bit more leeway.

Tim

I think TLG was right to question PMG's motives and ask them to do "the right thing" with the Trust, however, I think the main problem at the release of the statement was the timing, it came directly after Borely had asked for calm as negotiations with the Malaysians were at a very delegate stage.

I think the big problem with PMG is that they have taken every single asset this club had and took them for their own personal gain. So we are now left with a stadium and club that cannot afford it's mortgage or running costs. Remember, PMG were not originally brought in to own and run our club, they were brought in to oversee the completion of the stadium. They saw an opportunity, ousted Sam and raped the club of every bit of land and rental opportunity they could. But are they willing to run a nice stable club as a thank you for their gain? Nope, not interested, its just how can they make a little bit more before departing. I only hope that the Malaysians knew this would be the case before investing.