Statement breakdown

[Burslem Academicals]

So in effect they were asking NLV to give 50k to Bratt just as with Meakin....

and there was me thinking that the offer was a hollow sham when it now would seem to have been full of such moral bounty.For Us All.

[Shropshire_Valiant]

Good post geos. Agree with most of that.

 

I agree with Santa too, the statement is very wordy. Many average football fans may lose interest in reading it half way through.

 

I find it very sad it's come to this ultimately, the board find they have to critisise lifelong fans in such a manner in a public statement.

They'd do well to remember the boot was on the other foot when they were trying to oust Bell!

[Stone Valiant]

So in effect they were asking NLV to give 50k to Bratt just as with Meakin....

and there was me thinking that the offer was a hollow sham when it now would seem to have been full of such moral bounty.For Us All.

 

I'm not sure the 50k from NLV would have been for Bratty, but it is possible. More likely they would have used it to cover their losses for this year. Given everythig that has gone on, the last thing they need to show for this last financial year is posting yet another loss with more increased debt. To do so would be just to send a message to creditors, come and start knocking now.

 

The AGS deal may be their last opportunity to prevent that from happening, but it is surely only a stay of execution, as you would probably need an AGS like deal every year!

[Fosse69]

If Amer buy Bratts shares of him as well as some new shares that would reduce the 24.9%amount. With £1.2M issued, they could buy £400k new, total £1.6M, or £100k & £300k new total £1.5M which would then exceed the limit. Buying existing shares also gives them more control per £ as well. There is certainly a tangled web in that boardroom.

[Burslem Academicals]

Is it just about paying Bratt out because if the Bratt shareholding has gone from 40k to 110k then that extra 70k could be explained in terms of the Broxap and Machin shares......didn't the Directors collectively buy the Broxap shares at 10k a pop each to fix the EGM.....so how come the shares are now part of the Bratt portfolio and is Bratt the fall guy so that the others in the Buy Votes for the EGM Club can get their money back.

The sale of the Bratt shares could have more than one benefactor and the

club is clearly not on that list.

[VantaaVale]

I was also surprised to learn of Bratt's shareholding given that the Broxap shares were bought collectively and not by Bratt alone. How much of this is new shares?

 

For me, this is just another snippet of information which shows how the board of directors were attempting to fortify their position ahead of the EGM. Now it seems Mr Bratt has created a prison for himself.

[Burslem Academicals]

The horrible thought occurs that Nigel Meakin is offered a place on the Board of Directors for 50k investment only to find it will not go into the club as new shares but is in effect just covering the cost of the Broxap shares and that it

is just paying off the costs to fix the EGM.

[Santa]

Bratt has been telling people that Lloyd and Oliver have stabbed him in the back in order to secure new investment and preserve their own positions on the board.

 

He reluctantly agreed on the condition that he got his money back out of the club. I'm not sure who agreed to buy his shares off him but it seems the club believe that Meakin was one of them, and Lloyd indicated on Thursday night at the meeting that he would buy some of them as well.

 

A postal vote was to be sent out in the next couple of weeks to allow Meakin to join the boardwhich would have allowed Bratt to resign completely and keep the board quorate. However, the board's decision to reject Mark Sims seems to have changed Meakin's mind and thrown the board's plans completely to do away with Bill.

[ben_chadwick01]

Without the emotion and anger which usually follows statements by the board, I have tried to break down the various claims.....

 

 

 

 

 

Wasn’t MS progress delayed because the FL paperwork had not been completed, so wouldn’t it be prudent to complete before any further actions are taken?

 

 

 

Why was he asked? Is it a condition of joining the board? Why would the board need to know? Would he have stated this “out of the blue” It is not dishonest to “not state” something but it may be dishonest to not answer a “question” correctly.

If Mr Meakin was being dishonest in his application it suggests that the application includes questions about knowing MS and Mo, Why?

Why should Mr Sims part [whatever that may be] be considered? Its just a simple application to join the board, isn’t it? Or is it a screening process to eliminate possible dissenters by association?

 

 

It is always a vital time on and off the field. Don’t disrupt the pre season preparations? Don’t disrupt the season? Don’t disrupt the preparations for the pre season?

 

 

 

Why should he if he wasn’t at the final stages of joining? Whether he had met him or not he could have stated it at any time before joining. It may have been a difficult condition to apply but it would have been the board’s choice. Do you want my money or not? If so here are my conditions.

 

 

Again it’s an end game not an opening gambit.

 

 

It’s not a contradictory statement at all, it’s a generality, a shortened version of if I find the finances on the verge of collapse I will not invest. Assurances by whom? Was the opportunity to do further due diligence full and comprehensive or limited and restricted?

 

 

Why was he even asked? To do so negates the concept of investment. No money goes into the club only into the directors pocket.

 

 

Underwhelming statement, considering the business practices of asking potential investors if they know certain people as a condition of investing. Asking investors not to invest in the business but to buy existing shares as a condition of joining the board. Rejecting proposals without due consideration to the shareholders and other board members etc.

As for own agendas, isn’t that what the board practice by making it a condition to buy existing shares? Or by refusing to sell shares to people who could threaten their position? I don’t remember Mr Meakin being rejected at the EGM in june or Mr Sims

 

 

Are you actually saying that if people don’t support the board they are not Vale supporters and therefore should not attend games?

 

 

As the guy on the bombardier advert says " BANG ON" :clap:

[CAVALIER]

So if Bratt is not paid off then there's no investment. Lloyd and /Glenda can't pay him, so who? MEigh? Doubt it. Jacko? No way. Interesting times.

[PVTony]

Almost certainly, RW is now considered persona non grata by the board, which would include his representatives also. (Would be interesting if RW's lawyers asked to see the books and were denied, now there is one hell of a potential legal battle!)

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is R.Williams aware that his representative was not allowed to see the books?

 

Robbie must be maddened at the situation if he knows about it.

 

Emails might encourage him to take the appropiate action to get the books inspected.

[Santa]

If Bratt wants back the £50k he was alleged to have chucked into Grindco's £150k as well as his shareholding (now rumoured to be £65k since the EGM) then it could get very messy.

[fairportnick]

If Bratt wants back the £50k he was alleged to have chucked into Grindco's £150k

 

Where is this recorded at Companies House?

[VantaaVale]

If Bratt wants back the £50k he was alleged to have chucked into Grindco's £150k as well as his shareholding (now rumoured to be £65k since the EGM) then it could get very messy.

 

According to Nigel Meakin's statement, Mike Lloyd told him that Bill Bratt has £115K of shares. So 65 + 50 and you could well be right.

[Santa]

Where is this recorded at Companies House?

It isn't. Probably for a good reason.

 

Lloyd told us that Bratt has £65,000 of shares. Bratt has been telling people he has £115,000.

 

The £50,000 difference is interesting. The rumours that he put up one third of Jackson & Meigh's investment (ie £50,000) in December 2003 have never really gone away.