Mr. Bennett, Solicitor or henchman?

[Stone Valiant]

I have to question the motivations of Mr. Bennett in making such statements to the press as he has based on the report in the Sentinal this morning.

 

Is he speaking as a lawyer for Port Vale? If he is, then he is not being representative of all shareholders, e.g. myself. He must simply states the FACTS in an unbiased and pragmatic manner. His statement contains a lot of ambiguities such as "could" and "may". It also contains threatening terms such as "danger". As such, he is providing simply one side of the story, one that represents the propaganda views of potentially only 28% of the club shareholding, potentially even less than that as he is also a representative for Mr Jackson.

 

In his role as representative for both Mr Jackson AND the club, I most certainly see his position as being one in a conflict of interest. As such, he must surely withdraw from making such statements and remain nuetral.

 

In not doing so, Mr. Bennett has compromised that nuetrality and has shown himself to place his loyalty to Mr. Jackson before Port Vale football club, a seperate legal entity. He has therefore placed himself, where I, as a Shareholder of Port Vale football Club call into question whether he has the best interest of his client at heart.

 

If LB gets to read this, I wonder if he could give us his expert opinion on whether this conflict of interest and in performing his actions, potentially exposing his client (Port Vale Football Club) to a position of danger, is a matter for the regulatory body.

 

Certainly as a shareholder of the client, I would immediately call for Mr Bennett's resignation and/or removal as a respresentative of Port Vale Football Club

[Badgerspaws]

Excellent SV, I totally agree.

[Heatwave]

I would have thought that was on the cards already if Mo got in as he already has LB.

[Jacko51]

Mr Bennett is the Company solicitor and takes his instruction from the Board. He has no obligation to consult with the shareholders in general. He is paid to do as he's told.

[Fosse69]

SV, I think it will be dealt with at the proper time, in the proper way, we just have to have patience. The more evidence the better, thanks.

[TheLegalBeagle]

I have to question the motivations of Mr. Bennett in making such statements to the press as he has based on the report in the Sentinal this morning.

 

Is he speaking as a lawyer for Port Vale? If he is, then he is not being representative of all shareholders, e.g. myself. He must simply states the FACTS in an unbiased and pragmatic manner. His statement contains a lot of ambiguities such as "could" and "may". It also contains threatening terms such as "danger". As such, he is providing simply one side of the story, one that represents the propaganda views of potentially only 28% of the club shareholding, potentially even less than that as he is also a representative for Mr Jackson.

 

In his role as representative for both Mr Jackson AND the club, I most certainly see his position as being one in a conflict of interest. As such, he must surely withdraw from making such statements and remain nuetral.

 

In not doing so, Mr. Bennett has compromised that nuetrality and has shown himself to place his loyalty to Mr. Jackson before Port Vale football club, a seperate legal entity. He has therefore placed himself, where I, as a Shareholder of Port Vale football Club call into question whether he has the best interest of his client at heart.

 

If LB gets to read this, I wonder if he could give us his expert opinion on whether this conflict of interest and in performing his actions, potentially exposing his client (Port Vale Football Club) to a position of danger, is a matter for the regulatory body.

 

Certainly as a shareholder of the client, I would immediately call for Mr Bennett's resignation and/or removal as a respresentative of Port Vale Football Club

 

Thanks SV,

 

All noted and in hand. You will have to forgive me as I cannot divulge too much in advance of tomorrow. As I say there has been an enormous amount of work and effort behind the scenes, much of which we have had to keep in confidence. Rest assured we believe we have solutions for all eventualities.

 

That said, in truth, if the board are not going to accept the vote then they will seek to litigate come what may regardless of any solutions we present.

 

I must say the PVFC predicament with the out-going board is a 1st in my 18 years experience in litigation. I sincerely hope that despite the words of defiance, in the cold light of day BB & Co will reflect and put the interests of PVFC before their own interests - if they have any conscience or moral backbone whatsoever.

 

Regards

[JB78]

Thanks SV,

 

All noted and in hand. You will have to forgive me as I cannot divulge too much in advance of tomorrow. As I say there has been an enormous amount of work and effort behind the scenes, much of which we have had to keep in confidence. Rest assured we believe we have solutions for all eventualities.

 

That said, in truth, if the board are not going to accept the vote then they will seek to litigate come what may regardless of any solutions we present.

 

I must say the PVFC predicament with the out-going board is a 1st in my 18 years experience in litigation. I sincerely hope that despite the words of defiance, in the cold light of day BB & Co will reflect and put the interests of PVFC before their own interests - if they have any conscience or moral backbone whatsoever.

 

Regards

 

 

agreed fella, i just hope Mike and Billys ''we will walk way' ''if the vote goes against us then fair enough'' transpires into we will accept the decision and do the right thing for the club.

[Jimmy]

Let the legals boys from both sides sort it out tomorrow.

[Mr Football]

You can act for the Company and take day to day instructions on matters from its officers - i.e. the board of directors. You cannot then act for directors in their individual capacity or when it becomes apparent there is a conflict of interest. I don't think he's in a conflict situation (yet) as he's merely advising the Company and the board of the position. If the directors are voted out in the EGM, then he can't act for those individuals, I don't think.

[Yukon]

Somebody have a look at the CPR's!

[Trentham Lakes Valiant]

I have to question the motivations of Mr. Bennett in making such statements to the press as he has based on the report in the Sentinal this morning.

 

Is he speaking as a lawyer for Port Vale? If he is, then he is not being representative of all shareholders, e.g. myself. He must simply states the FACTS in an unbiased and pragmatic manner. His statement contains a lot of ambiguities such as "could" and "may". It also contains threatening terms such as "danger". As such, he is providing simply one side of the story, one that represents the propaganda views of potentially only 28% of the club shareholding, potentially even less than that as he is also a representative for Mr Jackson.

 

In his role as representative for both Mr Jackson AND the club, I most certainly see his position as being one in a conflict of interest. As such, he must surely withdraw from making such statements and remain nuetral.

 

In not doing so, Mr. Bennett has compromised that nuetrality and has shown himself to place his loyalty to Mr. Jackson before Port Vale football club, a seperate legal entity. He has therefore placed himself, where I, as a Shareholder of Port Vale football Club call into question whether he has the best interest of his client at heart.

 

If LB gets to read this, I wonder if he could give us his expert opinion on whether this conflict of interest and in performing his actions, potentially exposing his client (Port Vale Football Club) to a position of danger, is a matter for the regulatory body.

 

Certainly as a shareholder of the client, I would immediately call for Mr Bennett's resignation and/or removal as a respresentative of Port Vale Football Club

 

I have not seen today's article. Did Mr Bennet also mention that it was HIMSELF who put in the 60 day clause?

[bloggs]

Mr Bennet is certainly not working in the best interest of Port Vale. He should not be winding up the council no matter who is on the board.

[ValiantEffort]

Thanks SV,

 

All noted and in hand. You will have to forgive me as I cannot divulge too much in advance of tomorrow. As I say there has been an enormous amount of work and effort behind the scenes, much of which we have had to keep in confidence. Rest assured we believe we have solutions for all eventualities.

 

That said, in truth, if the board are not going to accept the vote then they will seek to litigate come what may regardless of any solutions we present.

 

I must say the PVFC predicament with the out-going board is a 1st in my 18 years experience in litigation. I sincerely hope that despite the words of defiance, in the cold light of day BB & Co will reflect and put the interests of PVFC before their own interests - if they have any conscience or moral backbone whatsoever.

 

Regards

 

 

TheLegalBeagle, every statement you make on this site fills me with confidence. You tell me what I want to hear (sucker eh?).

Your words are always done with confidence and a level of professionalism that we are not used to 'at the vale'.

 

Regardless of the outcome tomorrow I think you have made many friends and supporters on this site....thanks

 

TLB for Prime Minister =========

[WEMBLEY OF THE NORTH]

Let the legals boys from both sides sort it out tomorrow.

 

We are in more than capable hands.

[TheLegalBeagle]

TheLegalBeagle, every statement you make on this site fills me with confidence. You tell me what I want to hear (sucker eh?).

Your words are always done with confidence and a level of professionalism that we are not used to 'at the vale'.

 

Regardless of the outcome tomorrow I think you have made many friends and supporters on this site....thanks

 

TLB for Prime Minister =========

 

Dear VE,

 

I have indeed met some good people, engaged in healthy and honest debate with many, and hopefully answered all that has been asked of me. Everyone has an opinion and view, and whilst I may not always necessarily agree, I have always engaged and encouraged civil and constructive discussion.

 

I promise you if we ultimately succeed I will not change as it is in my nature and character. I have always operated an open door policy in my practice and I believe communication is always the key.

 

I have followed PVFC nearly every home game and some away games since November and so I can honestly say that I get it. I may not be a lifelong fan (being 3rd generation born and bred in West Bromwich) but I have taken Vale under my wing and find myself drawn to the results and the goings on.

 

Most importantly of all, as much as I want this protracted and painful bid process to come to a successful conclusion, that wish is incomparable to my wife who wants her husband back !!!!

 

Regards