Season Ticket Sales Shock

[Guest TommyMac]

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?

 

If this were the case the board would be able to sue everyone who has signed the SEO petition as we've all backed the same campaign. So I think that answers your question.

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

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

 

Ok but I am still unsure if they could wriggle away over it...

I guess we will only find out if it comes to that. Let's hope it doesn't.

[Koop]

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.

 

Mo has no impact on the fiduciary responsibility between the custodians, shareholders and creditors. Mo cannot bring an action against the board of directors so the courts wouldn't be bothered about a handful of public comments.

[Barcroft]

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.

 

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.

 

I think are they are ****ting it, personally.

 

That would explain why Bill Bratt has started (finally, too late) to invite supporters that have have been emailing questions for months now about their running of the club (or lack of), to meetings with him.

 

I get the impression they are desperate to sway favour back on their side as it seems they now realise they are stuck between selling the club and administration. They are desperately trying to do whatever it takes to get people to believe that they are doing a good job, because for some reason they don't seem to want to sell the club and will go to any measures to avoid it.

 

This is of course my opinion

 

 

As for SEO and Mo backing the campaign, I am not a lawyer but suspect the answer is no, they would not have a case because the campaign does not stand as a means of sending the club into administration. It's aim is to demonstrate that the fans are paying customers and shareholders who want change, and also to starve the board of money so that they are forced to sell.

 

The SEO could result in admin but only owing ultimately to the board's refusal to accept various bids which have been been on the table.

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

If this were the case the board would be able to sue everyone who has signed the SEO petition as we've all backed the same campaign. So I think that answers your question.

 

Not really, the basis of the legal action is the rejection of Mo's bid.

So unless all the people who have signed the SEO petition has also tabled a bid I don't think your comparison is correct.

Mo has a vested interest due to his bid, and is offering to undercut the board if people withdraw there custom. I don't know if this could be the boards get out of jail card or not, but it's worth consideration.

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

Cheers Barcroft. That all seems reasonable enough to me, so I will cross that off my worry list!

[Trentham Lakes Valiant]

Not really, the basis of the legal action is the rejection of Mo's bid.

So unless all the people who have signed the SEO petition has also tabled a bid I don't think your comparison is correct.

Mo has a vested interest due to his bid, and is offering to undercut the board if people withdraw there custom. I don't know if this could be the boards get out of jail card or not, but it's worth consideration.

 

If Mo's bid was not as generous and transparent as it is, perhaps you would have a point. However, as things stand, I can see no legal recourse for the Board.

[Barcroft]

Cheers Barcroft. That all seems reasonable enough to me' date=' so I will cross that off my worry list![/quote']

 

No worries

 

Like I say though I am no lawyer, I don't think any of us on here except for LB can answer that question with any certainty!

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

If Mo's bid was not as generous and transparent as it is, perhaps you would have a point. However, as things stand, I can see no legal recourse for the Board.

 

Fair point.

[Fosse69]

Ok but I am still unsure if they could wriggle away over it...

I guess we will only find out if it comes to that. Let's hope it doesn't.

 

It is the board`s choice to go for admin, there is investment available.

[Guest Billy]

I have every reason to believe that at close of business yesterday the total Season Ticket sales is ...

 

157

 

What a load of rubbish. We sold a lot more than 157.

[VantaaVale]

So how many is it then Billy that you know we've sold?

 

Dave F (andy jones) is well respected on here and he would not post anything if he didnt believe it to be correct.

[sheffield61]

''A lot more than 157''? Really? OK, so 300 [?] REALLY is going to save their bacon and ''Move the club forward on and off the pitch'' as a senile old man said recently isn't it Billy boy?......

[Phil.j.B]

What a load of rubbish. We sold a lot more than 157.

 

better use the money on some more 'just for men' then ,your roots are showing!

[Guest Sandyfordvalefan]

Can't be many - my dad hasn't even had one - defo thought he would tbf.