From today's Times:I could have benefited by £20 million but I did not wish to saddle the club I had run since 1968 with debt.
InterestingI thought Doug had a legal obligation to get the best result for the shareholders, though, not to knock 30m off the price because he thought he was dying.
Most fan shareholders probably wouldn't be that bothered but institutional investors might be interested to know their potential returns were arbitrarily slashed by 26%
Let's face it, it was only a matter of time before Doug would lay credit to his stewardship being responsible for those 80's successes. I bet most fans under the age of 35 not clued up on the clubs history think he was in charge at that time. Why else would he have a stand named after him?
I like Doug, he did the best he could (wether it was good enough or not is up for debate) and left us with a good owner going forward. He was never as bad as his crtics claimed and never as good as he thought he was.
The thing with Doug is that people tend to view him in black or white terms.Regardless of the fact that he was an ego-centric, relatively parsimonious, ultra-cautious and unambitious chairman, you have to consider the state the club were in in 1968 when he took over.Shit, did I just defend Doug?
Hve to say, though, now of all times his sussing out of the shyster Gillet looks like a very cute bit of business by him, so you can hardly blame him for wanting to point out that he averted (possibly) similar disaster for Villa.
ha ha, remember the banner up the holte mate?Cock, Piss Ell-is
Or he just chose a cash buyer because he wanted a quick sale, before he was welcomed by St Peter at the Great Doug Ellis Pearly Gates, as they will soon become known as.
Quoteha ha, remember the banner up the holte mate?Cock, Piss Ell-isyou know what, Rob? I've still got that old model of Villa Park at home (the one with the old Trinity Road stand, complete with a mock-up of that banner in the back of the Holte.A witty combination of Alan Partridge and anti Ellis