16 Jan 2014 16:23:46
In regards to this Ashley Barnes business. Could it be that GFH have already agreed a fee for the club, based on assets, which would include players. Therefore by allowing Barnes to be signed they in effect would be buying him for the club and not getting their investment back. I don't claim to be in the know. Just thought it might be a possibility.

Cheers

Ben - Telford

1.) 16 Jan 2014
Thank god I think. I don't think he's a good player and not what we want to buy

2.) 16 Jan 2014
Sorry don't quite follow the argument re assets. The new owners were going to pay for Barnes so why should GFH benefit from the increased asset value. The price agreed would have been based on value of assets before Barnes. If GFH were going to pay for Barnes then you have a valid argument,

3.) 16 Jan 2014
Op here.I didn't know who had put the money up for him.just a thought if it was HGH.

4.) 16 Jan 2014
That is what I was thinking

5.) 16 Jan 2014
I did think that might be the case

6.) 17 Jan 2014
17 Jan 2014 19:20:39
Lets just hope the block on the Barnes move was just a sensible bloke not wantin to part with more money for another striker that doesn't score goals. Lita is now being mentioned, by august we may have all Brians reading team. Did he mention he took them up? And they were a great set of lads