The Ownership Question
With the latest update appearing on twitter that nothing appears to happening from yet another "in the know" internet sleuth, the tongues again are set wagging about what is set to be happening Trent Side.
Make no mistake the confusion is mainly lying in the fact that people are constantly making stuff up to look like they were there first. Anyone who would be in the know would be sworn to silence or simply would stoop so low as to feed tit bits of information on the internet.
So those that crave attention from everyone falling over themselves to speculate on the information they unique source that can't be revealed, start to evolve stories. It must be an Arab, because there was a Halal meal ordered in the board restaurant. (This is actual real logic followed on another site. Hang on, they ordered burgers, Americans love burgers right? Maybe it’s Americans.
They become so desperate for any sign to mean anything that they see reasoning where there is none. Whatever happened to just waiting? Everyone feels we have a right to know, well at the end of the day we don't. We feel we do, but we don't get to have any say.
And the problem with the likes of Twitter and Facebook is that these now spread like wildfire. The forums often run with it. I've seen some forums who will literally believe anything said on Twitter. Now Twitter is a great tool at times, but just look how often there’s a rumour of a famous death goes round, and you see that all it takes is one silly rumour snowballs.
Everyone wants to believe.
With the new media people feel they have ownership of news too, being able to report or spread. So it's easy for rumour to become gospel quickly. Some more unscrupulous sites exploit this. All you have to do is realise that the way spammers entice you in with a title or theme that looks amazing, the same with Forest news, "we know who the new owners are" that’s right, before its ever been reported so you click, I myself do, to see what’s being reported. Some are more reliable than others though, as 24-7 law says, if the Mirror reports it, it usually isn't true.
I don't have any information on the new owners; I won't tease you with reports of it being said consortium from wherever. There are fanciful reports of it being a Billionaire, which frankly is unlikely. The first question you'd ever have to ask is why they would buy the club. Other than being a fan there is little point, unless they are seeking to build us up in the Premier League to then sell. To profiteer.
Many will say OK, if that’s what they want it involves them making investment and wanting to further us for profits. True, but is also implies no real connection to the profit. Players would be sold and cheaper loan alternatives who do a job but with no long term link bought in. Additionally, if and when it all starts to go wrong, they again don't have a connection so would be liable to jump ship.
We will be sold, and we will have new owners and I have written repeatedly before, beware of strangers baring gifts. To be honest I would query why anyone would take this mess on, other than simple love for the club. Just remember Irving Scholar and Nigel Wray. That lesson should speak volumes just within our semi recent past about what new owners can do.