Final Bid from the board to shareholders?

[Fosse69]

As much as I loathe the letter you have to admit that to a certain section of 'shareholders' it's a perfect letter to send out.

There must be many many shareholders who do not use the internet, do not tweet/twitter? (whatever that is?) and simply believe what they read in the Stokinel or hear on 'Radio nothing else matters but the FA Cup Final'.

It's quite well written as an anti-Mo piece and I'm sure a lot of shareholders may read it and be swayed towards the board.

 

Also, the possible imminent appointment of 'the Messiah' will also help persuade yet more to back the Status Quo.

 

The only real 'spanner in the works' that I can see for the floating voters in the letter is the lack of real substance as to where the current encumbents are going to find funding for the future.

 

They can keep 'promising' investors are queueing up but the more they turn away, the less people are inclined to believe them.

 

Another 'ace' up their sleeve is that they possess the 'full list' of current shareholders, I'm not sure Mo or B&G do so even if we reply it may not get to all that it should.

 

Yes, I think we need a simple message(s) . "Where is the money coming from?" or "What are they Hiding"

[melv]

Not sure if this has been posted or not yet,sorry if it has.It was pointed out to me at work.

 

In the additional statement from the board of PVFC.

 

(4) an investigation of the ownership of waterworld shows that not only is Mr Chaudry not its owner,but Mr Chaudry does not own even a single share in the waterworld company.Waterworld UK Holdings Ltd.

 

The sole shareholder of Waterworld UK Holdings Ltd is listed as Mr G Qadir.

 

We would like to ask Mr Chaudry to clarify whether or not Mr Qadir is a participant in the bid for Port Vale,either directly or by proxy through Mr Chaudry?

 

 

So if as Vale are saying that Mr Chaudry is not the owner of WW,not even a shareholder.Then how can Mr Qadir be Mr Chaudry's proxy?

[Warren]

Just arrived in the Post, 6 pages of voting advice, and 4 pages of No to Mo. The usual stuff, easily refuted. Hopefully someone can load it on. Enjoy or not the read.

 

The thing that strikes me about this is that a serious person intent on true due diligence would employ a specialist agency or a forensic accounting firm to carry out an open source investigation of Mo Chaudry's complete background. Within a few days or even hours if they pay more they could have a very comprehensive knowledge of the guy.

 

But they haven't done that. They have done a little digging, reached uncertainty and then posted material which is dirty, accusing must prompt a response and therefore primarily designed to distract and detract for their own purposes rather than the interests of the club.===