Mo Chaudry

[SuperValiant1876]

were you quite happy that we had a chairman who was told by a judge that he basically lied in court, and then he lied live on local radio??

 

 

 

lets be fair though, Bratt was never actually convicted of ANYTHING. He settled out of court, exactly what Mo did, however you try and dress it up.

 

 

This is not about Bratt anyway, no point raking up the past is there?

[j_grainger10]

You don't have to give your reasons but i would like to hear a reason off you or anybody.

 

Bratt and Co came up with every reason under the sun to knock back Mo and other investors who they didn't quite like the look of. Instead of actually giving well rounded reasons for rejecting the investments statements like 'he is trying get the club on the cheap', 'he's not a supporter of Port Vale', 'he will be bad for the club' and 'he's a chancer' were made without any evidence or foundation.

 

Ironic that Bratt has now sold his shares so all in all he has put all of zero pounds into the Vale and he has handed over the club on the cheap to some chancres who are bad for the club and don't even support the bleeding club.

 

How can people criticise Mo? Maybe he wouldn't have got us back into the Championship, maybe there was false hope, but i 'd bet my last pound that we would be in a better situation than where we are now.

 

i haven't criticised Mo.. I supported his initial bid.

[SuperValiant1876]

I would want it revealed so that we could see how much the councils mistake cost us, not so I can see what mud we can throw at Mo. If he was involved in corruption would all charges have been dropped? Or did he pay the police off as well :rolleyes:

 

Stranger things have happened. Or do you believe we live in a fairytale corruption free world where these things only happen in the sopranos etc

[Conrad]

It's tax payers money, we should know how much was spent.......or is it ok because it was Mo?

 

Mo Chaudry is in full agreement to the amount he was paid in compensation being made public, its the council refusing to disclose the figures.

[Santa]

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/City-council-settles-Mo-Chaudry-close-dispute/story-13372989-detail/story.html

 

 

this Mo?

 

 

I thought you craved honesty and openess. Which part of this story makes you think you would get that with Mo?

The part which happened a couple of weeks later, where they decided to disclose the settlement figure.

 

The part where Mo Chaudry published the figure on his own personal website shortly afterwards: link

[IDF]

lets be fair though, Bratt was never actually convicted of ANYTHING. He settled out of court, exactly what Mo did, however you try and dress it up.

 

 

This is not about Bratt anyway, no point raking up the past is there?

 

MC was awarded compensation/damages.....dont think Bratt was.

 

But you're right. Its a pointless argument that will just keep going round in circles for some people.

[Andyregs]

We dont have to?? I dont have to give you my reasons.. but because of that im racist?? and your not trying to provoke a reaction by doing that??

 

I never said you were racist. I said I can only think of one reason why at present, people would argue against Mo. I also asked for other reasons. You chose not to.

However this is a forum for debating these things, yet you choose to rage at people and give no argument to back your rants up, and you have the cheek to tell me I should not post on here!

[j_grainger10]

The part which happened a couple of weeks later, where they decided to disclose the settlement figure.

 

The part where Mo Chaudry published the figure on his own personal website shortly afterwards: link

 

prepare to be shot down...

[Chopper Harris]

I voted no! Only because I dont believe he wanted the club as much as he made out.

 

Why the change in heart now then? So what if it was for his ego? All i m concerned about is the Vale. If the club was well run and money was being put into the club then i wouldn't have a problem.

[Conrad]

Why are we going down this road again. Mo will never get in fact.

 

Mo will get in , fact.

[j_grainger10]

I never said you were racist. I said I can only think of one reason why at present, people would argue against Mo. I also asked for other reasons. You chose not to.

However this is a forum for debating these things, yet you choose to rage at people and give no argument to back your rants up, and you have the cheek to tell me I should not post on here!

 

I dont rage haha I actually think your posts are funny.. I think the fact that you want Micky Adams to leave says alot about your mentality.

 

I dont know why your even arguing the fact.. If Mo were to take over and we weren't top of the league after 3 games into reign you would be on here calling for protests and digging up dirt on him..

[SuperValiant1876]

Are you allowed not to like somebody these days without it being based on creed or colour?

 

What if you genuinely didn't believe his promises, are you automatically signed up for EDL?

[melv]

It's tax payers money, we should know how much was spent.......or is it ok because it was Mo?

 

I'm sure that Mo said that he would be happy for the details to be made public.

[valiantms]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL1jDcAHkc8

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbsM2HXuEH0&feature=related

 

I love these videos. Until I realise people like this are quite common.

 

The bit were the interviewer senses the gold he has found and asks 'What Iraqi law is this?' is genius! I also love 'We're more or less near London today.' Quite sure this protest was in Blackburn :D

[Santa]

Mo posted the following on his own website last month. Is this open and transparent enough for you, SuperValiant1876?

Following apology to Mo Chaudry, Stoke-on-Trent City Council agree to reveal settlement amount

 

October 14th, 2011

Following our announcement on the 20th September that Waterworld and Stoke-on-Trent City Council had reached a settlement concerning an alleged contract between the parties in 2008; we are now in agreement that it is in the public interest to reveal what that settlement was.

 

At the mediation, the Council apologised to Mr Chaudry and Waterworld for the considerable confusion around the process in 2008 and it agreed to conclude the matter with a settlement of £21,850 to Waterworld UK Holdings Limited for the legal costs it incurred.

 

Mr Chaudry Chairman of Waterworld and the newly resurrected MClub Spa and Fitness both on Festival Park commented: “I am pleased to make the settlement figure public today. As well as my integrity and reputation being restored I am keen for people to know the amount of money involved in this settlement. In order to reach a settlement I have written off considerable investment in time and money. I am reassured that Waterworld and the City Council can now move forward focussing on improving the future for our city’s sports and leisure facilities for the people of Stoke-on-Trent.”

 

John van de Laarschot, Chief Executive of the City Council added, “Following a variation in our agreement with Mr Chaudry we are now able to make public that the settlement costs were limited to £21,850 with the council’s legal costs amounting to approximately £22,500.”

 

The council looks forward to engaging with Waterworld as with all other businesses in pursuit of the City’s regeneration and transformation agenda to improve economic opportunities in the City.

 

Link: http://www.mochaudry.co.uk/?p=850