the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 90% of people in scotland support one or other of the old firm. such figures are available. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 people who are against sugar daddys always say not another sugar daddy. who pray tell was the previous one? because it sure wasn't sdm. we don't need to rebuild on a foundation of sand that is debt but if someone want's to put in cash bring it on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 people who are against sugar daddys always say not another sugar daddy. who pray tell was the previous one? because it sure wasn't sdm. we don't need to rebuild on a foundation of sand that is debt but if someone want's to put in cash bring it on. Yes it was him and many of us happily cheered him on never asking where the money was coming from. The fact he didn't actually have the money is surely the point. Perhaps for a one off capital project like building a stand or similar, but to fund players and wages I think it is a bad idea. Run properly we shouldn't require any external financing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 their is a world of difference between sdm and a sugar daddy. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 their is a world of difference between sdm and a sugar daddy. No, there really isn't. Far to many of us were more than happy to go along with SDM as long as he signed a few big names and promised us the stars. Some didn't, but most of us did. It's exactly the same. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 no its completely different. we though sdm was a sugar daddy when in fact he was just running up debt. dave king has covered this very issue in the past. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 we should remain debt free or with very sustainable debt levels but if someone wants to subsidise better players within that then fine. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 no its completely different. we though sdm was a sugar daddy when in fact he was just running up debt. dave king has covered this very issue in the past. No it's not, it's exactly the same, hindsight is all very well but at the time most were perfectly happy to swallow SDMs bullshit and assume he'd pick up the bills. We've no guarantees the next 'sugar-daddy' won't be the same, as such we're better off without them. Have we learned nothing? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 well i agree a sugar daddy not putting any money in is a bad thing. but then he's not a sugar daddy is he? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,803 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 we should remain debt free or with very sustainable debt levels but if someone wants to subsidise better players within that then fine. That ... and provide stability if need be. And I rather have a King doing it than some faceless bank director et al. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.