Its my ball and im taking home.

[Andyregs]

Plan A) 75% to remove the 24.9% rule

Plan B) Remove the directors with 51% of the votes, then the new board can allow Mo , mark or whoever to invest 24.9% to start with. The current board will not be able to veto this. THen when their share is diluted, change the articles if necessary, or have Mo and mark re introduce their combined bid.

Plan C) Starve the *******s out!

Plan D) Do something else on a saturday afternoon.

 

Whether Mo and mark waited to be ignored for another month or two or not is irrelevant. Apart from they have at least shown up the boards lies about the 24.9% rule, the investor must be a vale fan line etc etc, lie lie lie, etc etc.

[Smallthorne Dog]

Right, i just want to put a couple of things straight.

 

1. I, in no way support the board

 

2. I Fully supported the joint bid

 

3. I believe the board should have immediately accepted it, and were entirely wrong not to.

 

4. My initial post in this thread was made in anger and disappointment prior to knowing the EGM information. I apologised and retracted it.

 

5. I do not believe the joint bid to be farcical. To the contrary i think its excellent. However i do think given the EGM situation which was known to both Mark and Mo, its issue and subsequent withdrawal was an own goal and damaging to their/our cause. Given that they surely knew or strongly suspected the board would ignore it.

[Loggerheads Sage]

It washes with me, completely. As has been stated on here several times before, when you are conducting a business transaction, deadlines are put in place. Mo put a deadline in place for his original offer, when he had no reply, he withdrew his bid. Again, with the joint bid a deadline was put in place, which they also ignored. What credibility would anyone get if they set a deadline, then just kept extending it, it defeats the object.

 

Nothing, absolutely nothing, can excuse the Board's behavour on this one. You also cant excuse the fact that Mark has been trying to contact the club for weeks prior to the formal offer with the intention of investing and yet the board ignored him. So all this about it looking like a PR stunt is just ill thought through. Who in their right mind would splash an offer of £600k investment all over the media, if it wasn't genuine. Imagine if they'd have accepted the bid, if it wasn't genuine what would he have done then? Bit of a silly risk to his reputation dont you think? Once his offer was formalised through the only channel available, they ignored that too. Disgraceful on every level.

 

This board have now become nothing but vermin, I dont like saying that as it will come across as abuse, but I despise them. As individuals and as a collective. They have manipulated everyone, and are only in it for themselves. Hate them with a passion. Such a shame what they have now done to this club.

 

Fully agree with that last paragraph. I'm embarrassed to say that I supported Bratt until late last year - fooled by the nice man. Vale fan routine - makes you even angrier! ===

[lydiatevaliant]

5. I do not believe the joint bid to be farcical. To the contrary i think its excellent. However i do think given the EGM situation which was known to both Mark and Mo, its issue and subsequent withdrawal was an own goal and damaging to their/our cause. Given that they surely knew or strongly suspected the board would ignore it.

 

The joint bid and subsequent silence from V2001 shows the board in a bad light and exposes the 24.9% rule as a complete sham, completely removing that as an excuse for Bratt and co to hide behind. It's united more fans behind change and should help convert more doubters when they see exactly what the board are really about. I think this whole episode IS a pr disaster, but for V2001 not Mo and Mark.

[TheLegalBeagle]

Right, i just want to put a couple of things straight.

 

1. I, in no way support the board

 

2. I Fully supported the joint bid

 

3. I believe the board should have immediately accepted it, and were entirely wrong not to.

 

4. My initial post in this thread was made in anger and disappointment prior to knowing the EGM information. I apologised and retracted it.

 

5. I do not believe the joint bid to be farcical. To the contrary i think its excellent. However i do think given the EGM situation which was known to both Mark and Mo, its issue and subsequent withdrawal was an own goal and damaging to their/our cause. Given that they surely knew or strongly suspected the board would ignore it.

 

Dear SD,

 

All noted and thank you for clarification.

 

I was slightly concerned at the earlier use of the word "farcical" in your post but you have explained your position.

 

With respect, you are in a minority in your interpretation of the lapsed bid - an impression I gauge by the many calls, messages and conversations Mo, Mark and I have had with many fans and shareholders today.

 

The revised bid was genuine - please be in no doubt.

 

The board's failure to accept has exposed the hypocrisy of the 24.9% rule and that is evident to many who previously were board loyalist and/or undecided.

 

I am a lawyer and deadlines are common place in business in my experience.

 

The 51% bid has been the constant and that is the bid the EGM will consider.

 

The 24.9% bid was opportunist given BB's public invitation to Mo to buy - which Mo accepted and the board declined showing it to be a sham. Had BB not made the public statement we would not have changed our position.

 

The 24.9% bid thus lapsed and we continue as before. Mark has made his position patently clear given a number of factors, none more so that comments allegedly made by Stan Meigh to which Mark refers in his statement and upon which Mark is to take legal advice - but that is an aside.

 

Regards