Stoke City debt

[WJ99mobile]

Re: Stoke City debt

Define 'undue influence'.

"improper influence that deprives a person of freedom of choice or substitutes another's choice or desire for the person's own"

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/lega...2C%20necessity

Hope this helps

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Stoke City debt

"improper influence that deprives a person of freedom of choice or substitutes another's choice or desire for the person's own"

Hope this helps

Sure does. So how would you say that definition tallies with your suggestion that Bet365 could have an 'undue influence' on Stoke City's performance?

Were you aware that Peter Coates, Bet365's chairman, was chairman of Stoke City from 1986 to 1998 and has been their chairman from 2006 to present?

[Nobody's Rep]

Re: Stoke City debt

A quick Google reveals that a number of clubs have had larger sums converted from debt to equity in recent years (Fulham = £424 million, Man City = £304 million, Chelsea = £340 million), so it's obviously allowed.

Of course, at Cardiff City the fans have been told their owner can't convert all of his debt to equity due to one set of rules or another. If memory serves, Malaysian financial rules were given as the reason at one stage.

Do you post as ninian27 on the other board or has someone taken your exact post?

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Stoke City debt

Do you post as ninian27 on the other board or has someone taken your exact post?

No, but I've noticed somebody cuts and pastes my stuff onto that board regularly.

I rarely post on ****, but when I do I use the same username as here.

[Nobody's Rep]

Re: Stoke City debt

No, but I've noticed somebody cuts and pastes my stuff onto that board regularly.

I rarely post on ****, but when I do I use the same username as here.

That's just plain weird as one of the other comments on this thread has been cut and paste as well under a different user name??

Used to seeing them do it with Wales online articles but other posts from another board??

[WJ99mobile]

Re: Stoke City debt

Sure does. So how would you say that definition tallies with your suggestion that Bet365 could have an 'undue influence' on Stoke City's performance?

Were you aware that Peter Coates, Bet365's chairman, was chairman of Stoke City from 1986 to 1998 and has been their chairman from 2006 to present?

Turn of phrase

Peter Coates seems like a good man, but it cannot always be relied upon to be a legit owner.

We have an owner who wanted the goalkeeper to score more

We have an owner that asked managers to play certain players

Are you not saying that influences a football matches at all?

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Stoke City debt

That's just plain weird as one of the other comments on this thread has been cut and paste as well under a different user name??

Used to seeing them do it with Wales online articles but other posts from another board??

It's happened many, many times over the years. Stuff has regularly been cut and pasted on the other board under different usernames that aren't mine. I've written lengthy pieces and posted them on here as new threads, and as if by magic they appear on the other board under somebody else's username within minutes. I've long since stopped caring about it to be honest.

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Stoke City debt

We have an owner who wanted the goalkeeper to score more

We have an owner that asked managers to play certain players

Are you not saying that influences a football matches at all?

We know that such things happen and have happened here, but my question is what's the difference?

I'm pretty sure that if the EFL on the EPL had any concerns about Stoke's ownership, they would have raised them long ago.

[Nobody's Rep]

Re: Stoke City debt

It's happened many, many times over the years. Stuff has regularly been cut and pasted on the other board under different usernames that aren't mine. I've written lengthy pieces and posted them on here as new threads, and as if by magic they appear on the other board under somebody else's username within minutes. I've long since stopped caring about it to be honest.

You are missing an opportunity to have some fun though as you could write some right random stuff and see what happens

As it happens it looks like someone has called it out anyway but as you say it probably won't stop it

[NYCBlue]

Re: Stoke City debt

Why would it be illegal?

Because I would expect there to be laws against it. It's unethical. And in other instances could be a conflict of interests.

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Stoke City debt

Because I would expect there to be laws against it. It's unethical. And in other instances could be a conflict of interests.

Why is it unethical?

Bet365's owners are Stoke City fans from Stoke and have been heavily involved in Stoke City since the mid-Eighties. What's unethical about that?

[Citizen's Nephew]

Re: Stoke City debt

Because I would expect there to be laws against it. It's unethical. And in other instances could be a conflict of interests.

I gave up including football and ethics in the same sentence a long time ago NYC. I actually feel like a beaten man these days. It's like I'm in a toxic, abusive relationship with a sport. Someone suggested joining a support group but I got confused and ended up on a coach full of p*ssed up guys who were very passionate about the illegitimate offspring of a chap called Jack.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Stoke City debt

A quick Google reveals that a number of clubs have had larger sums converted from debt to equity in recent years (Fulham = £424 million, Man City = £304 million, Chelsea = £340 million), so it's obviously allowed.

Of course, at Cardiff City the fans have been told their owner can't convert all of his debt to equity due to one set of rules or another. If memory serves, Malaysian financial rules were given as the reason at one stage.

You'll maybe not be surprised to know that this message has made it unacknowledged on to another City messageboard - to be fair, the culprit is getting some stick for what he did.

[NYCBlue]

Re: Stoke City debt

Why is it unethical?

Bet365's owners are Stoke City fans from Stoke and have been heavily involved in Stoke City since the mid-Eighties. What's unethical about that?

Say it's not Bet365, but just a local bookie. And the team isn't Stoke City, but Harrogate Town. Can you see how that could be unethical?

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Stoke City debt

Say it's not Bet365, but just a local bookie. And the team isn't Stoke City, but Harrogate Town. Can you see how that could be unethical?

Not especially. As far as I'm concerned, the rules should be the same across the board and I don't believe that businessmen or women who own gambling companies should be precluded either from club ownership or club sponsorship of any kind on ethical grounds.

Say it's not Bet365, but a foreign owner with an extensive portfolio of businesses that includes various gambling enterprises. Would that be unethical?