Chance meeting with the daughter of a former board member

[Phil.j.B]

Machin and Wakefield left their cash in. Dave Smith left his cash in. Mike Thompstone left his cash in. Paul Humphreys left his cash in. Jackson and Meigh left their cash in. They all seem to have found a way to leave their cash in. Why couldn't Mr Bratt??

 

because he knew what fatty and lemons would do (financially) to the club?

[Valiant Haze]

because he knew what fatty and lemons would do (financially) to the club?

 

Agreed.... Having secrets came with a cost, the club was to be syphoned by the replacements.

[MagicFlask]

I can't help thinking that the reason they got Bratt to sell his shares was to remove a potential future obstacle in terms of shareholding - they have obviously calculated between them that they can manage 50% of the total shares on almost any given occasion, which might explain the amounts involved, and that on that basis they can outvote any other bloc including Jackson, Meigh, RW and anyone else who opposes them. I'm not sure what the impact of the BSI withdrawal is, in voting terms, but maybe that was why they wanted Meigh on board and why they are obviously working with Oliver ( as far as we can tell) - to preserve their 50% plus control.

 

I'm not sure whether Bratt knew this, or whether he cared one way or the other - it depends on how cynically we view his involvement in the various turf deals that were going on in the USA.

 

What worries me is that they have set the precedent of using nil paid shares to support decision making - and there is absolutely nothing stopping them using the same ploy again should anyone threaten their control of the company. I'm not sure what impact an EGM would have in that situation, since they can just outvote us, no matter what.

 

Sorry to be so cheerful so early on a Sunday......

[boltonsno1]

Machin and Wakefield left their cash in. Dave Smith left his cash in. Mike Thompstone left his cash in. Paul Humphreys left his cash in. Jackson and Meigh left their cash in. They all seem to have found a way to leave their cash in. Why couldn't Mr Bratt??

 

Because he was the first of the vile, parasitic leeches.

 

The mans a club ********, nothing more, nothing less. And anyone who tries to defend him are aiding and abetting a ******** in my eyes.

[Mr Carter]

I can't help thinking that the reason they got Bratt to sell his shares was to remove a potential future obstacle in terms of shareholding - they have obviously calculated between them that they can manage 50% of the total shares on almost any given occasion, which might explain the amounts involved, and that on that basis they can outvote any other bloc including Jackson, Meigh, RW and anyone else who opposes them. I'm not sure what the impact of the BSI withdrawal is, in voting terms, but maybe that was why they wanted Meigh on board and why they are obviously working with Oliver ( as far as we can tell) - to preserve their 50% plus control.

 

I'm not sure whether Bratt knew this, or whether he cared one way or the other - it depends on how cynically we view his involvement in the various turf deals that were going on in the USA.

 

What worries me is that they have set the precedent of using nil paid shares to support decision making - and there is absolutely nothing stopping them using the same ploy again should anyone threaten their control of the company. I'm not sure what impact an EGM would have in that situation, since they can just outvote us, no matter what.

 

Sorry to be so cheerful so early on a Sunday......

 

Sadly......I can see that being the case.:(

[boltonsno1]

I can't help thinking that the reason they got Bratt to sell his shares was to remove a potential future obstacle in terms of shareholding - they have obviously calculated between them that they can manage 50% of the total shares on almost any given occasion, which might explain the amounts involved, and that on that basis they can outvote any other bloc including Jackson, Meigh, RW and anyone else who opposes them. I'm not sure what the impact of the BSI withdrawal is, in voting terms, but maybe that was why they wanted Meigh on board and why they are obviously working with Oliver ( as far as we can tell) - to preserve their 50% plus control.

 

I'm not sure whether Bratt knew this, or whether he cared one way or the other - it depends on how cynically we view his involvement in the various turf deals that were going on in the USA.

 

What worries me is that they have set the precedent of using nil paid shares to support decision making - and there is absolutely nothing stopping them using the same ploy again should anyone threaten their control of the company. I'm not sure what impact an EGM would have in that situation, since they can just outvote us, no matter what.

 

Sorry to be so cheerful so early on a Sunday......

 

With the shares that Deakin and Miller have aquired (i won't say brought) would Lord Bratts 6000 shares made that much of a difference in their attempts to reach 50% voting power? Honest question, which i don't know the answer to.

 

However, its fairly apparent that Bratt was demanding his money back. For someone who was so out of his depth in a businees sense, he played a blinder for himself with Vale. 50k a year, plus his money back when the majority of people realised he was clueless.

[Santa]

I think the stipulation for Bratt to resign came from Miller, not Blue Sky.

 

I don't think Blue Sky were that bothered as it was never anything other than sponsorship to them, yet it would be obvious that for Miller to get the chairman's position he would need Bratt out of the way.

 

Lloyd was persuaded to buy out Bratt (including the Robert Lee shares I think Bratt had around £50k at the end?) and Deakin was brought on to the board.

[Bluedevil]

.........and a box at Anfield.:rolleyes:

 

Courtesy of Harlequin Properties. ;)

[llcoolj]

Does anyone actually know categorically that he has been paid for his shares? I heard a " rumour" last night that he hasn't. Plus he's still being listed as a guarantor for the council loan, and isn't a happy bunny. Don't know if there's any validity in this or just pub gossip

[Santa]

I heard the same rumour as well a couple of weeks ago.

 

I've got no idea if it's true or not, but it's being put about by people close to him.

[zaza123]

I heard the same rumour as well a couple of weeks ago.

 

I've got no idea if it's true or not, but it's being put about by people close to him.

 

All that AND having Glenn Oliver living on your drive.

What a shame!

[Valiant Haze]

Have they bought his shares with a promissory note then?

[llcoolj]

Have they bought his shares with a promissory note then?

 

Fact is VH would you believe a word any of them said?

 

As I say it may be gossip but I tend to believe it's true

[Aussie Rules]

Exactly. One of the major reasons he didn't want Mo was no doubt the fact that Mo had categorically stated he would not repay the Jackson 5.

 

Bratt enjoyed the profile, the perks, the salary. Sold every saleable asset (Brooker, Jeff Smith etc), and when there was no one left he then remortgaged the club. When that cash ran out he arranged a capital repayment holiday. During this time he turned away every potential investor as evil asset strippers. When the cash ran out again he did a deal with Pezza and Fatty that saw him get his capital back as he skipped merrily to Anfield. They did not put 1p in, but Billy Liar said Mo was getting the club on the cheap at £1.21M!!! Not a penny in the club coffers, but he gets his cash back. Do you think this may have affected his judgement as to what was best for PVFC????

 

I really cannot believe that some idiots view 'Dear Uncle Bill' as Mr Port Vale. He leaves us a division and a half lower, with more debt than we've ever had (and more importantly more than we can afford), an abysmal squad, anarchy on the terraces and 2 leaches at the helm.

 

The man who saved The Vale? Quite possibly the man who killed Port Vale!!

 

Well said Bon Ami

 

===