|
Title: better off without BEST? Post by: DMR on Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 12:20:00 I think so, the whole thing seemed so ambiguous and murky that we never knew what we were getting- then again, whose this new investor?!
I'm totally confused by this though, either BEST have have been trying it on big time over money or they've been fucked by our board. I never got the impression Jim Little or the Portuguese chap could be trusted so I'm not going to lose sleep over them departing- just wondered if anyone really thought these guys were the real deal? Jesus wept I'm puzzled Title: better off without BEST? Post by: sonic youth on Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 12:26:21 they would have been better than the incumbent board, but no, i don't think they were entirely trustworthy but i was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt
Title: better off without BEST? Post by: yeo on Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 12:27:58 what he said ^
Title: better off without BEST? Post by: Iffy's Onion Bhaji on Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 12:28:13 They are gone and it's history. All i am concerned about is who the new investors are and getting this board out.
Title: better off without BEST? Post by: herthab on Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 12:28:52 Same as Sonic. They would have paid off the CVA and put the club on a secure financial footing, but then what?
Dodgy geezers :D Title: better off without BEST? Post by: Colin Todd on Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 12:29:51 It seemed a million miles better than the status quo, but not perfect. I at least had a bit of faith that the senior people involved (little and Veiga) had some business nous between them even if Veiga did seem a little dodgy. That coupled with the amount oif money they were putting in at least made me believe that they were serious.
Title: better off without BEST? Post by: Arriba on Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 12:29:54 the new investoirs are seen as a partnership.that aint good enough.i want a complete takeover and nothing less will do!
Title: better off without BEST? Post by: Spencer_White on Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 12:30:07 End of the day it would have been another partnership (anyone see the 50/50 pforit split on real estate clause?). Both parties would have been out to rip each other off. Unworkable in the long run.
Would have been a good crack seeing Mikey D and Jorge scrap it out in the Winners. Title: better off without BEST? Post by: Batch on Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 12:30:59 Whether we are better off than BEST very much depends if we get a new investor or not.
I certainly shared your reservations, however they were preferable to going tits up. Title: better off without BEST? Post by: Colin Todd on Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 12:32:33 Quote from: "Spencer_White" End of the day it would have been another partnership (anyone see the 50/50 pforit split on real estate clause?). Both parties would have been out to rip each other off. Unworkable in the long run. Would have been a good crack seeing Mikey D and Jorge scrap it out in the Winners. Not really. BEST would have had control via a majority shareholding so ultimatly could have done whatever they liked. I'd have loved to have been in on the board meeting: "shut the fuck up mike you cunt" (in portugese obviously) |