Season Ticket Sales Shock

[andy jones]

pcs

 

I don't have a habit of quoting mischevious posts on OVF.

 

I have been given the figure of 157 ST's sold from 2 reliable sources within the club.

 

BTW the date of the EGM has not yet been publicly announced but those same sources have given me June 1st.

 

Let's just see what happens. If my sources were incorrect then I lose a bit of face - if they are correct then Vale are effectively insolvent if Mr Bratt's 13K in the bank quote is to be taken as true.

[Sonny]

pcs

 

I don't have a habit of quoting mischevious posts on OVF.

 

I have been given the figure of 157 ST's sold from 2 reliable sources within the club.

 

BTW the date of the EGM has not yet been publicly announced but those same sources have given me June 1st.

 

Let's just see what happens. If my sources were incorrect then I lose a bit of face - if they are correct then Vale are effectively insolvent if Mr Bratt's 13K in the bank quote is to be taken as true.

 

Andy as a respected poster on here I trust your opinion........wait until Perry gets his hands on the figures, they will be unrecognisable, spun beyond all recognition ===

[gingerboy]

pcs i think you will find that most people will take andy jones at face value he is not from the village idiot fraternity!

[born_late58]

dont undermine get them out by quoting stupid figuers like 157 season tickets sold sources my ****

 

just a half for me of what he is drinking !!!!

[Guest We're all Vale aren't we?]

The figure someone else's "reliable source" was quoting was more than 157 a week ago wasn't it?

[Guest We're all Vale aren't we?]

Mo/LB have said this already I think? Send a business into admin whilst a VIABLE offer's on the table and as a group/individually there @sses will get dragged to court! Er, not sure Pratt quite realises this, perhaps someone should let him know!?... :D

 

What if the board can make a counter claim in court?

 

Mo has backed a campaign that effectively encourages the clubs customers to stop spending money. Genuinely asking now, but would the board have a case to sue Mo for loss of income?

It just seems to me that the board are not outwardly panicking as much as you would expect under the circumstances?

[NellyTheValiant]

What if the board can make a counter claim in court?

 

Mo has backed a campaign that effectively encourages the clubs customers to stop spending money. Genuinely asking now, but would the board have a case to sue Mo for loss of income?

It just seems to me that the board are not outwardly panicking as much as you would expect under the circumstances?

 

I'm not SEO because of MC I'm doing it because I don't feel that I'm getting value for money, V2001 couldn't run a bath and I'm sick of Bill Bratts lies, erm Your Honour.

[Timothius]

What if the board can make a counter claim in court?

 

Mo has backed a campaign that effectively encourages the clubs customers to stop spending money. Genuinely asking now, but would the board have a case to sue Mo for loss of income?

It just seems to me that the board are not outwardly panicking as much as you would expect under the circumstances?

 

And Mo could counterclaim the board have done a good enough job all on their own of discouraging season ticket sales by their handling of affairs over the last 8 years and the last 8 months in particular

[Fosse69]

What if the board can make a counter claim in court?

 

Mo has backed a campaign that effectively encourages the clubs customers to stop spending money. Genuinely asking now, but would the board have a case to sue Mo for loss of income?

It just seems to me that the board are not outwardly panicking as much as you would expect under the circumstances?

 

Customers make thier own minds up on how to spend thier money, the board mis-run our business and treat customers with contempt. MC is advertising a better product if we wait, what is wrong with that.

[Barcroft]

What if the board can make a counter claim in court?

 

Mo has backed a campaign that effectively encourages the clubs customers to stop spending money. Genuinely asking now, but would the board have a case to sue Mo for loss of income?

 

I'm certain that the answer is no. Individuals are well within their right to back what they like as long as that thing is legal. Last time I checked, refusal to renew your Port Vale season ticket was not a criminal offence!

 

I'm not quite so sure on whether or not the Vale board have something illegal hiding in the books, though. Time will tell. The fact that they are alleged to have told their solicitors "find a loophole so we can stop this [EGM] from happening" certainly makes you wonder what might be going on.

[dunnypvfc]

What if the board can make a counter claim in court?

 

Mo has backed a campaign that effectively encourages the clubs customers to stop spending money. Genuinely asking now, but would the board have a case to sue Mo for loss of income?

It just seems to me that the board are not outwardly panicking as much as you would expect under the circumstances?

 

I dont think they can as he is only backing it with support and not running the B&G & SEO fan lead campains, plus Mo`s put 4 offers is it now on the boards table and they still say no, so any administrator will have to take over any deals as they the board keep rejecting deals, which IMO could lead them to be taken to court by the FA, but thats how i see it.

[Valiant Haze]

What if the board can make a counter claim in court?

 

Mo has backed a campaign that effectively encourages the clubs customers to stop spending money. Genuinely asking now, but would the board have a case to sue Mo for loss of income?

It just seems to me that the board are not outwardly panicking as much as you would expect under the circumstances?

 

Me not buying a ST is nothing to do with MC, It's sole'y down to the current board that I am boycotting.

 

You talk of claims in court. Do not dismiss the real possibility and probability that shareholders will be taking legal action against the board members if the club was to go into administration.

[Guest We're all Vale aren't we?]

I see nobody is actually answering my question but are instead countering a perceived opinion.

The point is that Mo has publically backed, in fact he is on the home page of the website, a campaign to encourage customers to withdraw from spending. If you have done it to support SEO is not really relevant. If Mo tries to sue the board if they take the club into admin whilst his offer stands, then could the board counter it by arguing that Mo has played an active part in the club going into admin?

Don't forget, a judge will not care about who said what and when, they will simply see that ST sales caused admin and Mo backed a campaign that encouraged it.

 

Genuine question.

 

When Mo brought this up at his meeting in Baddley Green, I thought that should concentrate the minds of the board somewhat. However it does not seem to have phased them on the face of it, so I am trying to work out why, as I would **** a brick myself.

[Guest We're all Vale aren't we?]

Me not buying a ST is nothing to do with MC, It's sole'y down to the current board that I am boycotting.

 

You talk of claims in court. Do not dismiss the real possibility and probability that shareholders will be taking legal action against the board members if the club was to go into administration.

 

I am not. I am asking a question.

I just wonder if Mo backing SEO might just muddy the waters of an otherwise cut and dry case?

Probably wide of the Mark, but it just does not add up why the board don't seem bothered by the fact they could face charges if they go into admin, especially if the alleged ST figures are right.

[Fosse69]

I see nobody is actually answering my question but are instead countering a perceived opinion.

The point is that Mo has publically backed, in fact he is on the home page of the website, a campaign to encourage customers to withdraw from spending. If you have done it to support SEO is not really relevant. If Mo tries to sue the board if they take the club into admin whilst his offer stands, then could the board counter it by arguing that Mo has played an active part in the club going into admin?

Don't forget, a judge will not care about who said what and when, they will simply see that ST sales caused admin and Mo backed a campaign that encouraged it.

 

Genuine question.

 

When Mo brought this up at his meeting in Baddley Green, I thought that should concentrate the minds of the board somewhat. However it does not seem to have phased them on the face of it, so I am trying to work out why, as I would **** a brick myself.

 

Its up to MC if he sues, the shareholders definately will