| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust 10:16 - Nov 21 with 18657 views | KeithHaynes |
It’s been an interesting topic for sure, which does sometimes spill over in to other threads, and understandably so. I've taken some time out to look at the specific action taken. It’s my understanding that this is very clearly down to specific issues around the weeks leading up to the sale of the club by the old board. The exclusion of the supporters trust in the sale and despite the trust wishing to be involved were excluded. That’s the basis of the action. For it to be a valid action the statements of truth gathered by the ( plaintiff) other words are used to describe them have to have some depth in law. Clearly the trust haven’t gone ahead to freeze assets and this is another topic which needs clarification. This action is not against Swansea City FC, as it was then or is now. The claims being brought are not against the club.
They are against those individuals who sold the club as they were, not the club as it was, nor as it is now. I think this should be a key area for people to dwell upon. I would have thought both sides ( and there are many sides named because it isn’t one entity) will have already disclosed at least some, but not all of their paperwork similar to criminal cases ( CPIA it’s called criminally ) As there is no fixed date as yet for a trial my understanding is full disclosure has to go ahead before any trial. I think that’s around eight weeks prior.
That aside, it still seems to me to be pretty clear the various named persons will either have to settle to some extent prior to any trial date or go ahead and defend the action. This isn’t as a whole being but as individuals. For example, Jenkins and Dineen will be separate defendants as will the rest of the then board. Any award will not be paid for by the club but by the individuals from their own personal wealth, if of course they lose the action. That will be measured by percentages, but I’m pretty certain won’t amount to the actual money lost by the trust when the sale went ahead.
That’s my take on it, please discuss that here folks, give it some thought before pressing enter, there are clearly some differing stances on here, which is healthy and as I would expect in a society where personal interests and views will always be different. If we can keep the topic on this thread it will be an interesting discussion. |  |
| |  |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:36 - Nov 26 with 635 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:10 - Nov 26 by Chief |
Again the victim getting most of the criticism. Its outrageous. |
Again, its like being mad at the lion for acting like a lion.
They had personal finances at play and were always going to act that way.
The Trust had a clear remit to protect the club and the organisation itself and failed multiple times.
I am not blaming them for the actions of the others, I am blaming them for being in the position where they couldn't do anything about it or benefit from it. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:36 - Nov 26 with 635 views | NotLoyal |
There’s some very interesting messages on here, from what I’ve read personally, one or two could get a disclosure order to become witnesses from my basic law knowledge. Wouldn’t that be a laugh 😠|  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:11 - Nov 26 with 597 views | AndyCole |
Unfortunately the Trust has become a laughing stock amongst most sensible, objective fans.
The Trust officials and advisors are a motley gang of public sector workers and accounts clerks. Desperately lacking the commercial acumen and knowledge of the football industry to do us fans justice. Exacerbated by the tardy way in which they flunked the big exam.
The motley crew are up against highly successful commercial professionals with vast knowledge of the industry. It's a bit like Neath Ladies cricket team turning up at the Liberty for a game of competitive football against our first team, with Ayew leading the line. Embarrassing. |  |
| Pro free speech and alternative opinions -
Anti gang-bullying and poor modding thereof -
Will always make a stand against those who consistently choose to turn a blind eye |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 00:34 - Nov 27 with 545 views | Garyjack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:11 - Nov 26 by AndyCole |
Unfortunately the Trust has become a laughing stock amongst most sensible, objective fans.
The Trust officials and advisors are a motley gang of public sector workers and accounts clerks. Desperately lacking the commercial acumen and knowledge of the football industry to do us fans justice. Exacerbated by the tardy way in which they flunked the big exam.
The motley crew are up against highly successful commercial professionals with vast knowledge of the industry. It's a bit like Neath Ladies cricket team turning up at the Liberty for a game of competitive football against our first team, with Ayew leading the line. Embarrassing. |
So 15 pages and 323 posts in, you add this. Nothing of any substance, no opinion on the case itself, just a load of conjecture and word salad. But hey, you're in now, so we look forward to hearing your constructive reasoning behind your bizarre post. Over to you. The stage is yours. |  | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 01:36 - Nov 27 with 526 views | NotLoyal |
I had cheese and toast for tea. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 07:53 - Nov 27 with 489 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:36 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
Again, its like being mad at the lion for acting like a lion.
They had personal finances at play and were always going to act that way.
The Trust had a clear remit to protect the club and the organisation itself and failed multiple times.
I am not blaming them for the actions of the others, I am blaming them for being in the position where they couldn't do anything about it or benefit from it. |
Apart from hiring a firm of private detectives to shadow the sellouts, bug their phones and emails I'm struggling to see how the trust could have adapted to the point where they would have somehow known about K&Ls bid when it arrived with the sellouts? [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 7:58]
|  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:11 - Nov 27 with 484 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:11 - Nov 26 by AndyCole |
Unfortunately the Trust has become a laughing stock amongst most sensible, objective fans.
The Trust officials and advisors are a motley gang of public sector workers and accounts clerks. Desperately lacking the commercial acumen and knowledge of the football industry to do us fans justice. Exacerbated by the tardy way in which they flunked the big exam.
The motley crew are up against highly successful commercial professionals with vast knowledge of the industry. It's a bit like Neath Ladies cricket team turning up at the Liberty for a game of competitive football against our first team, with Ayew leading the line. Embarrassing. |
Absolutely astonishing that a supporters trust is staffed by....... Supporters.
Staggering | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:14 - Nov 27 with 483 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 07:53 - Nov 27 by Chief |
Apart from hiring a firm of private detectives to shadow the sellouts, bug their phones and emails I'm struggling to see how the trust could have adapted to the point where they would have somehow known about K&Ls bid when it arrived with the sellouts? [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 7:58]
|
You would have to be pretty thick to think that it would be the only bid coming considering they were actively looking to sell their shares. You would also have to be pretty thick to think you would be a popular part of the shareholding after scuppering the last one.
As I’ve told you many times now. After Noell came calling the Trust made it clear privately and publicly that they were not interested in selling their shares. They should have been screaming from the rooftops that they are in on any deal.
Not sure how many more times I can say that. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:15 - Nov 27 with 479 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:11 - Nov 27 by Chief |
Absolutely astonishing that a supporters trust is staffed by....... Supporters.
Staggering |
Supporters who often stopped competent people from joining by extending term limits and taking up positions they then complained they couldn’t dedicate time to. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:16 - Nov 27 with 479 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:14 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
You would have to be pretty thick to think that it would be the only bid coming considering they were actively looking to sell their shares. You would also have to be pretty thick to think you would be a popular part of the shareholding after scuppering the last one.
As I’ve told you many times now. After Noell came calling the Trust made it clear privately and publicly that they were not interested in selling their shares. They should have been screaming from the rooftops that they are in on any deal.
Not sure how many more times I can say that. |
None of this in any way means K&L would have bid for the trusts shares. We know the trust would have still scrutinized and caused hassle for them. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:21 - Nov 27 with 476 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:16 - Nov 27 by Chief |
None of this in any way means K&L would have bid for the trusts shares. We know the trust would have still scrutinized and caused hassle for them. |
They were excluded because they were becoming a barrier to sale. Once they announced they had no desire to sell their shares then the others didn’t want them involved then. If they had wanted to sell their shares then they would have received an offer, their shareholding is a more desirable % than some of the other shareholder %. There is no reason they wouldn’t have bought the Trusts shares, it’s not like all the other shareholders were friends with Kaplan. The Trusts shares are as good as other people’s. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:28 - Nov 27 with 472 views | vetchonian |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:11 - Nov 26 by AndyCole |
Unfortunately the Trust has become a laughing stock amongst most sensible, objective fans.
The Trust officials and advisors are a motley gang of public sector workers and accounts clerks. Desperately lacking the commercial acumen and knowledge of the football industry to do us fans justice. Exacerbated by the tardy way in which they flunked the big exam.
The motley crew are up against highly successful commercial professionals with vast knowledge of the industry. It's a bit like Neath Ladies cricket team turning up at the Liberty for a game of competitive football against our first team, with Ayew leading the line. Embarrassing. |
What about the fact we paid someone with a string of business failures behind him a six figure salary to be the cheif executive of the football club?
Were the club that proffesional commercially...we could generate huge income during our PL reign
Made some disasterous decsions regarding managers and players?
I think you are a little disengenuous to the Trust board...some of whom work/worked in the private sector for blue chip organisations so IO think you are a little off course here.
And if we are talking about the court case ....it will be fought by barristers not the Trust board!! | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:49 - Nov 27 with 467 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:21 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
They were excluded because they were becoming a barrier to sale. Once they announced they had no desire to sell their shares then the others didn’t want them involved then. If they had wanted to sell their shares then they would have received an offer, their shareholding is a more desirable % than some of the other shareholder %. There is no reason they wouldn’t have bought the Trusts shares, it’s not like all the other shareholders were friends with Kaplan. The Trusts shares are as good as other people’s. |
Well they are a supporters trust. If they think a deal isn't in the best interests of the club its their job to be barrier. And I'm certain they would still have been perceived to have been a barrier no matter what they had said in the past in relation to other potential deals. So I'd say its still unlikely that they would have received an offer - These Americans saw they could fully control a football club but only pay for 68% of it. The trusts shares weren't the same others though, the trust have a board and members, not individuals who'll personally receive money. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:50 - Nov 27 with 465 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:15 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
Supporters who often stopped competent people from joining by extending term limits and taking up positions they then complained they couldn’t dedicate time to. |
Got any specific examples of that? | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:56 - Nov 27 with 460 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:49 - Nov 27 by Chief |
Well they are a supporters trust. If they think a deal isn't in the best interests of the club its their job to be barrier. And I'm certain they would still have been perceived to have been a barrier no matter what they had said in the past in relation to other potential deals. So I'd say its still unlikely that they would have received an offer - These Americans saw they could fully control a football club but only pay for 68% of it. The trusts shares weren't the same others though, the trust have a board and members, not individuals who'll personally receive money. |
That’s the shortsighted nature of it all though. Being a barrier was harming the club because it means if they were bypassed (which was always on the cards after Noell) then they would find themselves a minority shareholder with no voting power.
This is my whole point. They were too rigid, lacked foresight and refused to adapt when it was clear they needed to. The Trusts shares were just as good as the rest of their shares, had they been made available it would have been more beneficial buying the Trusts shares than the others. I don’t know why you think they would have preferred to have bought the others over the Trusts.
The Americans made an offer for the Trusts shares then withdrew. As you say, they got to a point where they didn’t need to. But had they have been open to discussions then no doubt their shares would have been first to have been bought because it means they get rid of one of the biggest shareholders whose aims aren’t necessarily going to align with their own.
No brainer. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:59 - Nov 27 with 457 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:50 - Nov 27 by Chief |
Got any specific examples of that? |
Phil hogging the chairmanship after so many failings. The Coozegate debacle where he pushed him under the bus to save his own skin when he could have stepped aside. The Res having an interview and them deciding not to bring him on board and choosing for more amiable and subservient options when it really needed a shake up. They were made aware of term limits then looked to overturn them so they could continue in their positions.
The examples are endless. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:09 - Nov 27 with 454 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:56 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
That’s the shortsighted nature of it all though. Being a barrier was harming the club because it means if they were bypassed (which was always on the cards after Noell) then they would find themselves a minority shareholder with no voting power.
This is my whole point. They were too rigid, lacked foresight and refused to adapt when it was clear they needed to. The Trusts shares were just as good as the rest of their shares, had they been made available it would have been more beneficial buying the Trusts shares than the others. I don’t know why you think they would have preferred to have bought the others over the Trusts.
The Americans made an offer for the Trusts shares then withdrew. As you say, they got to a point where they didn’t need to. But had they have been open to discussions then no doubt their shares would have been first to have been bought because it means they get rid of one of the biggest shareholders whose aims aren’t necessarily going to align with their own.
No brainer. |
As a supporters trust they are always going to be perceived to be a barrier to potential takeovers even if they'd said publically that they'd love to sell all their shares.
Because it's easier to buy the sellouts shares - a few individuals shares who'd already considered previous offers rather than a supporters trust body with members and a board even if they'd announced previously that they'd consider offers.
I think this all a cover. Its nothing to do with the trusts previous stances on deals and share sales. Even if the trust had announced they would be open to sell im still sure the Americans and sellouts would have kept this from them. The nature of the trust as a body could still have scuppered or hassled the deal and they knew that. Thats the nature of the body. 68% money for 100% control is all it was about. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:15 - Nov 27 with 446 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 17:02 - Nov 24 by swancity |
Jenkins a great man ? 😂
And Dineen doing lots for charities ?
Your continued efforts to put them on a pedestal, ignoring their misdemeanours are embarrassing and while you do make some good points they can’t be taken seriously as a consequence. |
Jimmy Savile also did a lot for charity. Could someone please ban this very tedious pain in the @rse?
Not Nigel - although to be fair he is a bit tedious too |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:17 - Nov 27 with 440 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:09 - Nov 27 by Chief |
As a supporters trust they are always going to be perceived to be a barrier to potential takeovers even if they'd said publically that they'd love to sell all their shares.
Because it's easier to buy the sellouts shares - a few individuals shares who'd already considered previous offers rather than a supporters trust body with members and a board even if they'd announced previously that they'd consider offers.
I think this all a cover. Its nothing to do with the trusts previous stances on deals and share sales. Even if the trust had announced they would be open to sell im still sure the Americans and sellouts would have kept this from them. The nature of the trust as a body could still have scuppered or hassled the deal and they knew that. Thats the nature of the body. 68% money for 100% control is all it was about. |
I don’t think that makes much sense to be honest.
If they said (as they should) that any bid that comes in next that they want to accept, then they are also selling. They wouldn’t have been perceived to be a barrier and would be in discussions from the start. As a buyer their shares would be infinitely more valuable than the others.
This whole 68% thing doesn’t make sense either. They could have done that by buying the Trusts shares and not buying one of the other people shares, something that was a far more desirable prospect. The Trust was left out because they said their shares were not for sale.
It really is that simple. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:18 - Nov 27 with 438 views | onehunglow |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:15 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
Supporters who often stopped competent people from joining by extending term limits and taking up positions they then complained they couldn’t dedicate time to. |
and also "supporters" who stabbed other supporters in the back.
It was what the Trust was for;to protect the club
Back stabbings country aren't we | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:27 - Nov 27 with 433 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:17 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
I don’t think that makes much sense to be honest.
If they said (as they should) that any bid that comes in next that they want to accept, then they are also selling. They wouldn’t have been perceived to be a barrier and would be in discussions from the start. As a buyer their shares would be infinitely more valuable than the others.
This whole 68% thing doesn’t make sense either. They could have done that by buying the Trusts shares and not buying one of the other people shares, something that was a far more desirable prospect. The Trust was left out because they said their shares were not for sale.
It really is that simple. |
This is still no guarantee that they'd have got any bids - as I've said and theres no way of either of us proving this. But as a supporters trust with a board and members and the fact that the Americans can get full control without having to bother engaging the trust suggests to me that they still wouldn't have bothered and i still think the sellouts would have colluded to exclude them because they could still have hampered the deal they were so keen to get through.
But they didn't find that out did they? And the fact that the trust entered into discussions post sale with them to potentially sell shares suggests at that particular time, at those same particular terms they may have been open to the idea. There's no point going round on circles on this but the proof is in the pudding. If the Americans had a document signed by the trust rejecting the bid (that was of the same terms the sellouts had) the trust wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But they don't. They carried on regardless without consulting the trust. Both sides did and the failure to do this is not only prejudicial but also left them open to legal proceedings. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:33 - Nov 27 with 429 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:27 - Nov 27 by Chief |
This is still no guarantee that they'd have got any bids - as I've said and theres no way of either of us proving this. But as a supporters trust with a board and members and the fact that the Americans can get full control without having to bother engaging the trust suggests to me that they still wouldn't have bothered and i still think the sellouts would have colluded to exclude them because they could still have hampered the deal they were so keen to get through.
But they didn't find that out did they? And the fact that the trust entered into discussions post sale with them to potentially sell shares suggests at that particular time, at those same particular terms they may have been open to the idea. There's no point going round on circles on this but the proof is in the pudding. If the Americans had a document signed by the trust rejecting the bid (that was of the same terms the sellouts had) the trust wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But they don't. They carried on regardless without consulting the trust. Both sides did and the failure to do this is not only prejudicial but also left them open to legal proceedings. |
Of course it was a guarantee.
Like I said. Their shares are more desirable than anyone else’s, if there was to be a bid then their shares would be number 1 target. They would have all been in negotiations together, for some reason you don’t seem to see that.
They could have got full control of the club without engaging Martin Morgan too. Or any of the others they could have decided not to buy from. Like I said, had their shares been available then they would be first to go. For some reason you seem to think the Trusts shares would be an option to buy at the end of the other shareholders sales, why are they in the queue first? That scenario doesn’t reflect reality.
The Trust would be front and square at the top of the line, make no mistake. Then this whole “they didn’t buy my shares” issue would be someone else’s problem.
They are in the position they are in because they were spectacularly stupid, spectacularly short sighted and spectacularly incompetent. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 9:35]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:41 - Nov 27 with 425 views | swancity |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:33 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
Of course it was a guarantee.
Like I said. Their shares are more desirable than anyone else’s, if there was to be a bid then their shares would be number 1 target. They would have all been in negotiations together, for some reason you don’t seem to see that.
They could have got full control of the club without engaging Martin Morgan too. Or any of the others they could have decided not to buy from. Like I said, had their shares been available then they would be first to go. For some reason you seem to think the Trusts shares would be an option to buy at the end of the other shareholders sales, why are they in the queue first? That scenario doesn’t reflect reality.
The Trust would be front and square at the top of the line, make no mistake. Then this whole “they didn’t buy my shares” issue would be someone else’s problem.
They are in the position they are in because they were spectacularly stupid, spectacularly short sighted and spectacularly incompetent. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 9:35]
|
We all recognise that the Trust made mistakes but two wrongs do not equate to a right, either legally or morally
I drop my wallet containing £100, you walk right behind me and run off with it is still a theft, still an illegal and planned action to deceive and exploit and that’s how it’ll be viewed in simple terms to use an analogy
The QC advice is that the Trust have a good strong case. I’ll leave it there... | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:46 - Nov 27 with 425 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:33 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
Of course it was a guarantee.
Like I said. Their shares are more desirable than anyone else’s, if there was to be a bid then their shares would be number 1 target. They would have all been in negotiations together, for some reason you don’t seem to see that.
They could have got full control of the club without engaging Martin Morgan too. Or any of the others they could have decided not to buy from. Like I said, had their shares been available then they would be first to go. For some reason you seem to think the Trusts shares would be an option to buy at the end of the other shareholders sales, why are they in the queue first? That scenario doesn’t reflect reality.
The Trust would be front and square at the top of the line, make no mistake. Then this whole “they didn’t buy my shares” issue would be someone else’s problem.
They are in the position they are in because they were spectacularly stupid, spectacularly short sighted and spectacularly incompetent. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 9:35]
|
I don't see that no because the trust had different aims to the sellouts who's aim was to seemingly to cash out at all costs. Obviously not the stance of the trust even if they'd announced that they'd be open to selling previously. And theres also the complications of having a board and members so those shares wouldn't be as desirable as the rest.
Morgan was in the camp of sell at all costs& obviously in cahoots with the other sellouts so the thought of excluding him is unfeasible.
I dont know what you mean by the queue comment. The bids to the sellouts presumably were submitted at or around the same time. The trust weren't in the queue at all. They weren't advised any queue was open.
Again that's a completely sweeping statement with no basis in reality. They've been screwed over. You can't say the Americans / sellouts would definitely have included the trust if they'd at some point said they would be open to sell. And i think thats pretty irrelevant anyway. Deals like that shouldn't be based on an assumption that they would have rejected that particular deal at that particular time. To just not bother and then claim afterwards 'i thought they wouldn't want to' isnt good enough. Especially in light of succeeding events that we know definitely happened - the trust engaged in negotiations with the Americans to sell their shares.
Documented actions and events with tangible evidence will look far better in court than assumptions and hearsay. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 9:47]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:51 - Nov 27 with 419 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:46 - Nov 27 by Chief |
I don't see that no because the trust had different aims to the sellouts who's aim was to seemingly to cash out at all costs. Obviously not the stance of the trust even if they'd announced that they'd be open to selling previously. And theres also the complications of having a board and members so those shares wouldn't be as desirable as the rest.
Morgan was in the camp of sell at all costs& obviously in cahoots with the other sellouts so the thought of excluding him is unfeasible.
I dont know what you mean by the queue comment. The bids to the sellouts presumably were submitted at or around the same time. The trust weren't in the queue at all. They weren't advised any queue was open.
Again that's a completely sweeping statement with no basis in reality. They've been screwed over. You can't say the Americans / sellouts would definitely have included the trust if they'd at some point said they would be open to sell. And i think thats pretty irrelevant anyway. Deals like that shouldn't be based on an assumption that they would have rejected that particular deal at that particular time. To just not bother and then claim afterwards 'i thought they wouldn't want to' isnt good enough. Especially in light of succeeding events that we know definitely happened - the trust engaged in negotiations with the Americans to sell their shares.
Documented actions and events with tangible evidence will look far better in court than assumptions and hearsay. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 9:47]
|
That’s my point. Once it became clear that their days as a large shareholder was numbers their aims should have aligned, they were too rigid and failed to adapt.
If they stated after Noell that any sale after that then they want in, their shares would have been snapped up first.
I don’t know how many more times I can repeat the same thing. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.