Its my ball and im taking home.

[Guest cheadle radio]

what i can't quite get my head round was why did the media refuse to publish marks letter?

 

it's as if they knew something??

 

i find the whole thing really quite baffaling, the whole process since mike newton came along has got me stumped

 

this last 5 months or so have been like a never ending spiral i just hope it ends soon

 

A friend of mine at the local media claimed they never got the letter and would not publish something that was posted on a website as the "source could not be trusted". I think this is why the media have all been very 3rd party in this.

[Santa]

Obviously, proper media such as the mighty Cheadle Radio > websites like OVF.

[WV]

Obviously, proper media such as the mighty Cheadle Radio > websites like OVF.

 

 

 

No need for this sort of attitude imo.

[Trentham Lakes Valiant]

A friend of mine at the local media claimed they never got the letter and would not publish something that was posted on a website as the "source could not be trusted". I think this is why the media have all been very 3rd party in this.

 

No need for this sort of attitude imo.

 

Agreed.......

[Smallthorne Dog]

At the end of the day, this joint bid had united nearly all Vale fans not only against the board but in favour of one takeover.

 

The fact that it was farcically put out despite Mo and Mark knowing it would have to be withdrawn due to the EGM paperwork, has been a massive PR gaff, a backwards step and a timely boost to the inept incumbents at our club!

[portvaleofbelvoir]

Have to take issue with the comments that 'a source could not be trusted'. The letter was published on here by the person who runs the website.

 

I'm sure Mr Sims would make his displeasure known if it wasn't him who wrote the letter.

 

Little logic or perhaps knowledge displayed by the media person quoted by Cheadle Radio. No criticism of that poster either as they are only stating what they were told.

[Lornelounger]

Thanks for the link Birdy - another blast from the past I had forgotten - good record.

And God knows, I need cheering up right now.

As Morrissey might have said - I was happy in the haze of a drunken hour - but heaven knows I'm miserable now. What a grim time to be a Vale fan.

[Howjy04]

At the end of the day, this joint bid had united nearly all Vale fans not only against the board but in favour of one takeover.

 

The fact that it was farcically put out despite Mo and Mark knowing it would have to be withdrawn due to the EGM paperwork, has been a massive PR gaff, a backwards step and a timely boost to the inept incumbents at our club!

 

I think it could get mixed views.Three people to whom I have spoken today and were fence sitters think Bratt and co are pig ignorant and wouldnt blame anyone for pulling out.These board ***** need to be showed up for what they are.===

[Birdy]

At the end of the day, this joint bid had united nearly all Vale fans not only against the board but in favour of one takeover.

 

The fact that it was farcically put out despite Mo and Mark knowing it would have to be withdrawn due to the EGM paperwork, has been a massive PR gaff, a backwards step and a timely boost to the inept incumbents at our club!

 

If the board had of accepted the joint bid, there wouldn't be the need for an GM and we could get back to normality.

 

As it was blindingly obvious to all that the board weren't even going to negotiate, communicate or accept the bid it was back to plan A and the GM route.

 

It is pointless trying to stick to one line of battle, these goons need prodding from every angle and that's exactly what is happening.

 

The longer this goes on the more I tend to think they have something massive to hide within the books.

[TheLegalBeagle]

A friend of mine at the local media claimed they never got the letter and would not publish something that was posted on a website as the "source could not be trusted". I think this is why the media have all been very 3rd party in this.

 

Dear Cheadle Radio,

 

Your "friend" is not very well informed and it is irresponsible for you to be posting suggesting otherwise based on 3rd hand information particularly given your media position. If you speak to The Sentinel and Radio Stoke you will be advised how wrong your "friend" is. Please stick to the facts, not supposition.

 

Regards

[Smallthorne Dog]

LB - given the extreme liklihood that the board were going to ignore the joint bid, why was it put out knowing that the EGM would make it redundant?

[saintvaliant]

LB - given the extreme liklihood that the board were going to ignore the joint bid, why was it put out knowing that the EGM would make it redundant?

 

SD.

 

Do you not think the board have just been completely shown up?

 

Bratt says invest 24.9%. Mo and Mark offer to do it and get treated with the exact same treatment.

 

The board's intransigence is now clear to see. They won't even talk to people on their terms and within the club's constitution.

 

They are now clearly acting with a flagrant disregarded to the club's best interests.

 

How anyone can back them now at an EGM is beyond me.

 

Why won't they even consider letting people invest? Why won't they allow a bidder to conduct due diligence?

[Guest TommyMac]

SD.

 

Do you not think the board have just been completely shown up?

 

Bratt says invest 24.9%. Mo and Mark offer to do it and get treated with the exact same treatment.

 

The board's intransigence is now clear to see. They won't even talk to people on their terms and within the club's constitution.

 

They are now clearly acting with a flagrant disregarded to the club's best interests.

 

How anyone can back them now at an EGM is beyond me.

 

Why won't they even consider letting people invest? Why won't they allow a bidder to conduct due diligence?

 

Exactly

[TheLegalBeagle]

LB - given the extreme liklihood that the board were going to ignore the joint bid, why was it put out knowing that the EGM would make it redundant?

 

Dear SD,

 

I commend you to read the post by 2ValiantB which really sums up the position succinctly and accurately. I have copied and pasted because I do not know how to do the link. This explains the position and with respect it is disingenuous that you should question Mo & Mark's sincerity and integrity describing the revised bid as "farcical". The "farce" is the manner in which the board have blatantly abused the V2001 Charter and the 24.9% rule. The revised bid was always to expire in 10 days - the board had their chance to uphold the charter they purport to embrace. The board chose not to putting self-interest first. I am astonished how you turn the board's failings as a criticism of Mo and Mark but you remain consistent in your criticism of Mo, and now Mark, which of course must be respected.

 

2ValiantB's post.

 

I can understand Mark’s frustration at all this. I had the pleasure of a few conversations with him a few weeks ago. At that time he was talking about trying to buy shares. I could see and hear the anguish and hurt he was feeling. The sense of betrayal from people he trusted must be immense. I find it hard to comprehend all that he must be going through.

 

It came as no surprise to me that he came forward with his offer to buy shares, once Bill Bratt had made this public offer. Was it genuine? Absolutely. Was it a publicity stunt, definitely not, he was on about it weeks ago, on his own and without Mo! Mark is passionate about Vale and will not walk away from this. To try and dissect his letter looking for fault is somewhat incredible. We all at times don’t put the essence of what we feel and know across in exactly the right way. Please take the letter on face value, after another rebuttal from board (or none communication should we say), ever wonder he doesn’t want anything to do with the current incumbents at Vale Park.

 

As for the General Meeting all is looking fine and on track. Once the board is removed then the rest of the Articles can be dealt with. The interim board can sell shares, to Mark, to Mo and future changes can be made in the best interest of Port Vale. We can then start to move to forward on and off the pitch. Without Robbie this will be tight but it is achievable, if it fails because Robbie sides with the board (silence being a vote for Bill Bratt), then I guess we know where his heart lies. This is risk for Robbie – he could get blamed either way. If he doesn’t vote and we make it anyway he might be criticised for not backing the fans. If it fails and he abstains then the likelihood is he will be blamed for supporting a board that continues to seek its own best interest and not that of Port Vale. The only win-win for Robbie is to back the fans, ensure we win and be part of the process of change rather than holding back ‘The Flood’ of fans wishing change.

 

Malcolm

[Stone Valiant]

LB - given the extreme liklihood that the board were going to ignore the joint bid, why was it put out knowing that the EGM would make it redundant?

 

Dog,

 

You are beginning to sound like a broken record. either you are not reading what people have stated on here or do not want to!

 

1. The joint bid exposed the 24.9% ruling to be a fraud, a lie, a fake regulation behind which the current board are hiding like their mother's skirts

 

2. The joint bid showed that the boards claims that any investor had to be a Port Vale supporter was a lie and a cover up

 

3. It shows that the boards claims that previous bids that did not comply with the ruleupset you!s could not be accepted, but if a bid was made that was, ity would be, was a lie.

 

Basiczally they called the boards bluff. It was not a PR stunt!

It was not a Mirage!

It was not a sham set up for your benefit to upset you!

 

It was a business tactic that called the boards bluff in this game of Poker called 'business strategy'

 

When the board go into the EGM, they can no longer defend the 24.9%, because they have shown it to be a sham

When the board go into the EGM they cannot state that the person must not be a Vale fan, it has been shown to be a sham

When the board go into the EGM, they cannot say any other investor does not have Port Vale at it's heart, it has been shown to be a sham

 

The arguments stand now, as evidence, not just to the shareholders, but legally in a court rom, a business court room, that this board have acted improperly in their own self-interest and against the interest of the business and the shareholders

 

If in the EGM thay now block the will of the shareholders, it is my belief that they will be in contravention of business law!!!

 

One more thing to consider - everyone says we won't get the 75% to change the regulations on the 24.9% ruling!! Well think of this "tactically"

 

We remove the board with the 51% ruling or at least enough that it means there are less than 4 as defined by the rules.

 

This means other directors would have to be put in place. The question is who? And could they not then change the decision whether or not to approve the MC bid, with MS or not!

 

Think chess! Think 3 steps ahead!