Mo Pulling out??

[Fosse69]

Who would make up the Interim board?

 

The people on the voting form, see EGM button

[saintvaliant]

Personally don't think you're correct. Hope you are but a) don't think he will win the EGM, b) If he did win the EGM I think he will pull out for some reason before he takes over the club.

 

Can I put this to bed.

 

The EGM has very little to do with Mo Chaudry. There is no motion in the EGM directly in support of Mo or recommending the bid proceed with shareholder approval.

 

The primary purpose of the EGM is the removal of the board and the appointment of an interim board to oversee the handover to any investor deemed suitable by the majority of shareholders.

 

If that person is Mo, fine. It however might not be Mo and could be the case that the interim board find another more suitable party so can we please halt the process of linking the motions next week with the bid by Mo because the two are different.

[philpvfc]

Can I put this to bed.

 

The EGM has very little to do with Mo Chaudry. There is no motion in the EGM directly in support of Mo or recommending the bid proceed with shareholder approval.

 

The primary purpose of the EGM is the removal of the board and the appointment of an interim board to oversee the handover to any investor deemed suitable by the majority of shareholders.

 

If that person is Mo, fine. It however might not be Mo and could be the case that the interim board find another more suitable party so can we please halt the process of linking the motions next week with the bid by Mo because the two are different.

 

Ok.....A) The board will win the vote at the EGM

........B) Mo will pull out before he takes over the club IF he is appointed or not by the Interim.

 

 

Better?

[1]

Ok.....A) The board will win the vote at the EGM

........B) Mo will pull out before he takes over the club IF he is appointed or not by the Interim.

 

 

Better?

 

maybe and unconfirmed

[j_grainger10]

Ok.....A) The board will win the vote at the EGM

........B) Mo will pull out before he takes over the club IF he is appointed or not by the Interim.

 

 

Better?

 

Where do you get this idea Mo will walk?

[Fosse69]

Ok.....A) The board will win the vote at the EGM

........B) Mo will pull out before he takes over the club IF he is appointed or not by the Interim.

 

 

Better?

 

One step at a time.

[Jacko51]

With regard to the Council Loan, two points worth mentioning:

 

1. The Council has already shown itself to be open to re-negotiation of the terms and conditions by allowing the capital re-payment holiday for the last two years.

 

2. The Board has breached the terms and conditions themselves because Clause 12.23 says "The Club shall not incur any financial indebtedness", yet since the Council Loan was taken on, they have added further loans from Harlequin and the Carbon Trust.

[valetillidye]

In simple terms - mo aint pulling out, he said so tonight

 

bratty - dont be afraid. Be VERY afraid

[Smallthorne Dog]

All this posturing and p:$$:ng about by Chaudry is doing him no favours whatsoever. Its like the bliddy hokey cokey the numbers of times bids are being submitted and withdrawn. "you put your mo bid in your mo bid out, in out in out shake it all about we do the Mokey Cokey and the Vale gets f ucked thats what its about..... Woah do the Mokey Cokey."

 

This clause in the loan agreement has been known for ages (i started a tbread on it months ago) for Chaudry to start threatening withdrawal (again) now is ridiculous. The bloke seems a bit schizo to me.

[Guest Tony Dyche]

Did you go last night SD?

[Smallthorne Dog]

Did you go last night SD?

 

 

I didnt Tony, as i had my youngests son's footy to attend. I have to admit my ignorance, i havent been keeping abreast, what was going on? I take it from your post you believe that if i had attended my tone and opinion would be different?

 

Do you believe, given that the loan agreement has been in the public domain for some time, Mr Chaudry's withdrawal threat was ill timed and yet another display of petulance?

[Smallthorne Dog]

Tony, i see you are referring to the NLV fans forum. That slipped under my radar, but i wouldnt have been able to attend anyway. I'll read the thread and see how it went.

[Guest Tony Dyche]

Mo has not made a withdrawl threat, that has been misreported by the Sentinel as was clarified last night.

 

Nothing has changed since the first day he approached either, he is looking to negotiate terms with the council and as the board have not allowed him to do due diligence, or agreed that he can explore the terms with the council then he is not 100% able to say what he can do. Had the board extended him this courtesy to try and help him devise a stratagy which is best for the club and therefore had a better understanding on both sides of what he is proposing then we would all now know what will happen.

 

Mo is looking to negotiate better terms with the council and at the very least, the same terms - is this unreasonable?

The clause was inserted by Paul Bennet (the clubs solicitor) and not the council. Despite what some will have you believe, this clause is NOT standard for deals where there are no personal guarantees in place. This loan is secured against the ground and nothing else. The current board do not take the ground with them when they go, so the security is still there. So what possible reason is there for the council to not at the least extend the same terms to the club under Mo at the very least? This clause exists for the sole purpose of making it next ti impossible for someone to remove the board, as on top of the £1.2M of shares required, they are also required to stump up £2M to pay off the council, so thats a bill of £3.2M just to get in, when in effect the club is worth nothing in its current state as a loss making business. However, becuase Mo has got a few quid, people seem to think it is ok for him to pour a few million away...

 

To all those who think that, why not go and throw 5% of your total worth (add up the value of all your assets, how much you have in the bank, pensions etc...) and chuck it into the club in one hit - thats what you are expecting Mo to do as though its nothing to him...

 

His bid has never changed either, despite your Mokey Cokey reference. He has amended it several times to try and work with the board to broker a deal to stop it coming to this point. However, his deal that sits in place prior to the EGM is the one he tabled back in November 2010, the one the board have refused on the basis of tittle tattle from Verity Hilton, Roger Ibbs and Joan Whalley (quoting Peter Jackson after the Barnet game) rather than investigate the value of the bid and what it could do for the club they pretend to love. Now, liking Mo is irrelevant, its the merits of his bid that should be judged, and quite frankly its the best bid this club has ever had.

 

If people want to sit on the fence then fine, but the club is at stake and indecision is no option. Many times we have asked the board to tell us what the criteria of a suiter would be, we have not been asnswered - ask yourself why?

 

Last night, I found out that the board are currently telling larger shareholders that Mark Sims is not a Vale Fan, but a Man Utd fan and should be run out of town as a result. All base don the fact that Mark had/has a box at Man Utd for corporate reasons. What about the hundereds of thousands he put in to the Vale through BGC sponsorship? This is because he refused to work with Bill Bratt who has repeatedly begged him to invest and join THEIR board...

 

Based on that, if Robbie came along and said right I want the lot, would they claim he no longer has Vale at heart as he has a box a Chelsea? In fact after making this comment, the retort was, "well he is probably more a Chelsea fan than a Vale fan these days"...

 

So I ask again, who would actually fit the bill of being right for the club?

 

Its a no brainer Rob, like Mo or not, if you are fed up o fthe "we have survived" business plan of the club and "the happy scraping through every year" policy to measure success then Mo has to be that leap of faith, becuase if he doesn't get it, who will?

[Timothius]

Mo has not made a withdrawl threat, that has been misreported by the Sentinel as was clarified last night.

 

Nothing has changed since the first day he approached either, he is looking to negotiate terms with the council and as the board have not allowed him to do due diligence, or agreed that he can explore the terms with the council then he is not 100% able to say what he can do. Had the board extended him this courtesy to try and help him devise a stratagy which is best for the club and therefore had a better understanding on both sides of what he is proposing then we would all now know what will happen.

 

Mo is looking to negotiate better terms with the council and at the very least, the same terms - is this unreasonable?

The clause was inserted by Paul Bennet (the clubs solicitor) and not the council. Despite what some will have you believe, this clause is NOT standard for deals where there are no personal guarantees in place. This loan is secured against the ground and nothing else. The current board do not take the ground with them when they go, so the security is still there. So what possible reason is there for the council to not at the least extend the same terms to the club under Mo at the very least? This clause exists for the sole purpose of making it next ti impossible for someone to remove the board, as on top of the £1.2M of shares required, they are also required to stump up £2M to pay off the council, so thats a bill of £3.2M just to get in, when in effect the club is worth nothing in its current state as a loss making business. However, becuase Mo has got a few quid, people seem to think it is ok for him to pour a few million away...

 

To all those who think that, why not go and throw 5% of your total worth (add up the value of all your assets, how much you have in the bank, pensions etc...) and chuck it into the club in one hit - thats what you are expecting Mo to do as though its nothing to him...

 

His bid has never changed either, despite your Mokey Cokey reference. He has amended it several times to try and work with the board to broker a deal to stop it coming to this point. However, his deal that sits in place prior to the EGM is the one he tabled back in November 2010, the one the board have refused on the basis of tittle tattle from Verity Hilton, Roger Ibbs and Joan Whalley (quoting Peter Jackson after the Barnet game) rather than investigate the value of the bid and what it could do for the club they pretend to love. Now, liking Mo is irrelevant, its the merits of his bid that should be judged, and quite frankly its the best bid this club has ever had.

 

If people want to sit on the fence then fine, but the club is at stake and indecision is no option. Many times we have asked the board to tell us what the criteria of a suiter would be, we have not been asnswered - ask yourself why?

 

Last night, I found out that the board are currently telling larger shareholders that Mark Sims is not a Vale Fan, but a Man Utd fan and should be run out of town as a result. All base don the fact that Mark had/has a box at Man Utd for corporate reasons. What about the hundereds of thousands he put in to the Vale through BGC sponsorship? This is because he refused to work with Bill Bratt who has repeatedly begged him to invest and join THEIR board...

 

Based on that, if Robbie came along and said right I want the lot, would they claim he no longer has Vale at heart as he has a box a Chelsea? In fact after making this comment, the retort was, "well he is probably more a Chelsea fan than a Vale fan these days"...

 

So I ask again, who would actually fit the bill of being right for the club?

 

Its a no brainer Rob, like Mo or not, if you are fed up o fthe "we have survived" business plan of the club and "the happy scraping through every year" policy to measure success then Mo has to be that leap of faith, becuase if he doesn't get it, who will?

 

Well put Tony couldn't agree more, a few spelling cliches but not a bad effort. 8.5/10 :D

[Smallthorne Dog]

Tony, my allegance isnt with the board, they are not fit to run tbe club and i welcome their removal at the EGM. i am also aware the Mo Chaudry is the only option. I dont trust the bloke 100% and i believe their is too much "tittle tattle" for it all to have no substance. But the man is on record committing himself to safeguarding the club, so he would have to be pretty reckless to go against that now. But i think the man is one big ego and PVFC will be a rich mans plaything that allows him to inflate that ego further and further. Ultimately that may well be to Vales benefit aswell as Mo's, i sincerely hope that is the case. We have no other option than to wait and find out.