Watching With Interest

[7sisters]

"We" as in "We" the Board????

 

I think it's "we" as in the fight, sorry, I mean the "debate" organisers.

 

Far too entrepreneurial to be a board member?

[Jacko51]

I agree it was badly handled by the board.

 

I have no opinion on who in particular. Perhaps the whole of the current board minus Micky.

 

So are you saying that if the Board had behaved in a professional manner when the offer was first proposed, instead of dismissingit out of hand in a rather rude official statement, we could have avoided all the turmoil that has happened since then?

 

Do you agree that whatever the merits of Mo Chaudry's bid, to dismiss it in the manner they did makes the Board, and Mr Bratt in particular, responsible for Black and Gold, SEO and NLV calling an EGM which reportedly cost the club a fortune?

 

Do you agree that Mr Bratt, Mr Meigh, Mr Lloyd and Mr Oliver are now all a five figure sum out of pocket because of their refusal to engage with a propsective investor in a professional and reasonable manner?

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Conned more like.......

 

Rubbish if he had been conned it would have been illegal and there would have been grounds for further action.

[7sisters]

Rubbish if he had been conned it would have been illegal and there would have been grounds for further action.

 

Alas, REP, my experience with being conned, and the English judicial system render your statement incorrect.

[7sisters]

Rubbish if he had been conned it would have been illegal and there would have been grounds for further action.

 

Also, if I may say, your statement is incredibly naive. What the board did is what plenty of unscrupulous businesses do on a daily basis.

[Birches Head Fred]

Conned, duped, outwitted.....'

 

Whatever we call it the existing board remain in one form or another. Mo may be watching from the sidelines but his hands appear tied, for now.

The present board I am sure would rather resign en-masse than go cap in hand to Mo now and that may be extremely unfortunate.

I am sure that with the benefit of hindsight one or certainly more members of the board at the time of Mo's initial interest would have viewed things differently but hey-ho, that's water under the bridge now.

[Sonny]

So are you saying that if the Board had behaved in a professional manner when the offer was first proposed, instead of dismissingit out of hand in a rather rude official statement, we could have avoided all the turmoil that has happened since then?

 

Do you agree that whatever the merits of Mo Chaudry's bid, to dismiss it in the manner they did makes the Board, and Mr Bratt in particular, responsible for Black and Gold, SEO and NLV calling an EGM which reportedly cost the club a fortune?

 

Do you agree that Mr Bratt, Mr Meigh, Mr Lloyd and Mr Oliver are now all a five figure sum out of pocket because of their refusal to engage with a propsective investor in a professional and reasonable manner?

 

I wont hold my breath for an answer to that Jean

[AVIM]

If the board had played a cleaner game and put Mo's offer straight to a shareholder vote, as many here are suggesting, - would the end result really have been any different??

 

RW would have abstained (as he had upto that point). So the vote (based on the EGM) would have been (very roughly) 66-33 against, way short of the 75% Mo's bid required to change the 25% rule.

 

Mo would have been much better served spending as much time canvassing larger shareholder approval as he did getting the average (powerless) fan onside. The problem with Mo's bid was, well, Mo's bid.

[For Us All]

If the board had played a cleaner game and put Mo's offer straight to a shareholder vote, as many here are suggesting, - would the end result really have been any different??

 

RW would have abstained (as he had upto that point). So the vote (based on the EGM) would have been (very roughly) 66-33 against, way short of the 75% Mo's bid required to change the 25% rule.

 

Mo would have been much better served spending as much time canvassing larger shareholder approval as he did getting the average (powerless) fan onside. The problem with Mo's bid was, well, Mo's bid.

 

At least he did have a business plan to take us forward.

[cplowe1]

Rubbish if he had been conned it would have been illegal and there would have been grounds for further action.

 

This was threatened several times (including legal advice to Mo published on this website vis Rob Lee ). But nothing ever came of it. I'm not against Mo Chaudry, but as with most people involved around the Vale at the moment, I'm suspicious. And it has nothing to do with race or thinking he will build luxury appartments on Vale park.

[AVIM]

At least he did have a business plan to take us forward.

 

Sure, and thats my point. What he didnt have was a plan to actually get the approval of either the board or the major shareholders. Without one or the other, his bid was doomed - no matter how detailed his business plan.

[7sisters]

If the board had played a cleaner game and put Mo's offer straight to a shareholder vote, as many here are suggesting, - would the end result really have been any different??

 

RW would have abstained (as he had upto that point). So the vote (based on the EGM) would have been (very roughly) 66-33 against, way short of the 75% Mo's bid required to change the 25% rule.

 

Mo would have been much better served spending as much time canvassing larger shareholder approval as he did getting the average (powerless) fan onside. The problem with Mo's bid was, well, Mo's bid.

 

You really really haven't been following, have you.

 

What was your issue with the MC/MS proposal?

[AVIM]

You really really haven't been following, have you.

 

What was your issue with the MC/MS proposal?

 

I didnt have an issue with it, in fact I voted for it. But then I had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[RAF Vale]

The reason the board never allowed Mo anywhere near the club was they just did not like him (For what ever reasons, most of which are personal). I know this for a fact as I spent quite some time in Bill Bratts office after counting the proxy votes on behalf of NLV and asked him straight why he and the rest of the board could not work with both Mark & MO for the better good of Port Vale.

 

Needless to say it fell on deaf ears..

 

What ever happens in the coming months we could be up a creak with out the proverbial paddle if the American thing never happens.

 

If Mo and possibly Mark are waiting in the wings then that can only be a positive thing.

[7sisters]

I didnt have an issue with it, in fact I voted for it. But then I had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

Fair enough.

 

The overseas investors just worry me. Probably partly due to the secrecy. How do you know they won't just walk away? What if you were relegated this season? How much would they have actually committed by then? Enough to prevent them pulling out? What's their turnover, liquidity. How much say in the running of the club would they give to small shareholders?

 

Would Mo do the same? i.e. pull out if you guys headed south. I don't think so. That may just be my gut instinct, but that seems to be the ONLY thing the pro-boarders go by.