redbullzeye
 Offline
Posts: 1319
|
 |
« Reply #90 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:06:21 » |
|
Just had a thought
While Jim Little won't say who is behind the investment co, at the next Trust meeting, can someone not ask him directly :
'We understand that you cannot let us know the identities of the investors Jim Bob but can you answer Yes or No whether or not any Board member/Mike Diamandis has involvement with Best Holdings?'
....then no doubt we'll see him squirm.
:shock: Yes - that's a thought "I know you said you're not going to tell us, but will you please tell us ?" - I doubt he'll see through that one. I wasn't at the meeting but the letter from the Trust makes it clear that they repeatedly pressed Jim Little on the point of who the investors/new owners were but were told we were unlikely to ever know. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WorcesterRed
Offline
Posts: 186
|
|
« Reply #91 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:07:42 » |
|
Just had a thought
While Jim Little won't say who is behind the investment co, at the next Trust meeting, can someone not ask him directly :
'We understand that you cannot let us know the identities of the investors Jim Bob but can you answer Yes or No whether or not any Board member/Mike Diamandis has involvement with Best Holdings?'
....then no doubt we'll see him squirm.
:shock: Yes - that's a thought "I know you said you're not going to tell us, but will you please tell us ?" - I doubt he'll see through that one. Please re-read the post so that you understand it. Question One - can you please tell me who is behind Best Holdings? Answer One - No I can't Question Two - can you please tell me if Board Member One/Board Member Two/Board Member Three are involved in Best Holdings? Two different questions. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TalkTalk
|
|
« Reply #92 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:08:22 » |
|
One thing is definitely true and fact.
This is a PR disaster as far as the fans are concerned.
Not a very auspicious start, Mr Little.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The_Plagiarist
|
|
« Reply #93 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:08:57 » |
|
Behave herthab....sams making his point like the next man, and has to rely
on rumour and conjecture just like us all. It wasn't aimed at Sam, it was aimed at Worcs. It just amazes me that hardly anyone will believe something that is possibly good for the club, yet be actually eager to believe something that may be bad. Good rumour= Bollocks/don't believe it/ spin. Bad rumours= Must be true! Do you see what I'm getting at? I see what you're getting at, and you may have a bit of a point. But to be fair this isn't negativity for the sake of being negative as some would have it, this is a studious caution built up over many years of lies deceit lies insults disrespect and lies. From the same people who under this earth shattering takeover, have now gone absofuckinglutely nowhere. Thats why I'm uber sceptical on the whole matter, and currently I 100% think it is bollocks/don't believe it/spin. Precisely what has changed from D-Day june 30th? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
red macca
|
|
« Reply #94 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:10:17 » |
|
They could of told us all the names and people would still be on here moaning like fuck
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WorcesterRed
Offline
Posts: 186
|
|
« Reply #95 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:10:22 » |
|
Behave herthab....sams making his point like the next man, and has to rely
on rumour and conjecture just like us all. It wasn't aimed at Sam, it was aimed at Worcs. It just amazes me that hardly anyone will believe something that is possibly good for the club, yet be actually eager to believe something that may be bad. Good rumour= Bollocks/don't believe it/ spin. Bad rumours= Must be true! Do you see what I'm getting at? That is genuinely not my stance. I really hope that all works out well and we can see progression. My comments are not because we have had some good news so therefore I must question it. My comments are because of inconsistences between the good news that we were advised and what actually transpires. I could bat that back to you and say : Good rumours - great, I don't need to ask any questions then. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WorcesterRed
Offline
Posts: 186
|
|
« Reply #96 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:11:17 » |
|
Behave herthab....sams making his point like the next man, and has to rely
on rumour and conjecture just like us all. It wasn't aimed at Sam, it was aimed at Worcs. It just amazes me that hardly anyone will believe something that is possibly good for the club, yet be actually eager to believe something that may be bad. Good rumour= Bollocks/don't believe it/ spin. Bad rumours= Must be true! Do you see what I'm getting at? I see what you're getting at, and you may have a bit of a point. But to be fair this isn't negativity for the sake of being negative as some would have it, this is a studious caution built up over many years of lies deceit lies insults disrespect and lies. From the same people who under this earth shattering takeover, have now gone absofuckinglutely nowhere. Thats why I'm uber sceptical on the whole matter, and currently I 100% think it is bollocks/don't believe it/spin. Precisely what has changed from D-Day june 30th? Thank you The_Plagiarist, excellently put. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #97 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:12:07 » |
|
My take on this is that Little really doesn't know anything about the current board, so he's not had any time to make judgements and say who we wants on the board and who he doesn't.
What's to say that a month or so down the line Little may come to his senses and bring in some fresh faces?
Little already said in his meeting with the Trust and SC on Friday that Best holdings (and ultimately himself) will hold the whip hand. I really can't see how Diamandis, the devious creature that he is, can get away with what he's supposedly done before when he no longer at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, Diamandis might be one of the investors in Best holdings but he's certainly not got the £10 million that's been touted. If anything he'll be a minority shareholder. And I really can't see that Wills will be one of the people behind Best holdings, he's got no money left and the money he would've got as part of the takeover will be going straight to pay off his mortgages.
My money says Diamandis will be gone within 6 months. He's got nothing left to hang around for, his shares in the original holding company are now effectively worthless. And if he is part of Best holdings, he's not going to be making any money out of that in a hurry. Good post Sam Its all conjecture and speculation about a situation that is 4 days old. I for one will wait and see what develops based on fact and fact alone In which case you might be waiting a very long time....surely the key fact is the names behind Best....we've been told as fact we wont be told. Why? Straight away this has led to potentially damaging speculation that its because its Diamandis and Wills + Portugezer agents. It certainly fits the bill rather than a white knight or entrepreneurs hoping to make a fast buck. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WorcesterRed
Offline
Posts: 186
|
|
« Reply #98 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:12:52 » |
|
They could of told us all the names and people would still be on here moaning like fuck No, they could BE HONEST AND UPFRONT WITH THE FANS FOR ONCE and not gloss over everything with spin. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The_Plagiarist
|
|
« Reply #99 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:13:03 » |
|
They could of told us all the names and people would still be on here moaning like fuck just watch this space on that one red macca |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
red macca
|
|
« Reply #100 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:17:23 » |
|
They could of told us all the names and people would still be on here moaning like fuck No, they could BE HONEST AND UPFRONT WITH THE FANS FOR ONCE and not gloss over everything with spin. yes because every club in football operate in a fully honest way dont they.If your not happy protest again and do it properly this time round i wont be protesting i have had enough of hearing a 100 different versions of what is going on.Im going to watch the football and get pissed and let the people who "Know" what is happening carry on and sort out the problem that we dont actually know anything about |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
thepeoplesgame
Offline
Posts: 666
|
|
« Reply #101 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:21:14 » |
|
Good rumour= Bollocks/don't believe it/ spin.
Bad rumours= Must be true!
Do you see what I'm getting at? Unfortunately this has been the way of things for so long at STFC that it takes time to start changing mindsets. And the more of the old brigade that stick around, the more likely it seems that the situation will not change. I'm still hoping for the best though... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
redbullzeye
Offline
Posts: 1319
|
|
« Reply #102 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:21:26 » |
|
Just had a thought
While Jim Little won't say who is behind the investment co, at the next Trust meeting, can someone not ask him directly :
'We understand that you cannot let us know the identities of the investors Jim Bob but can you answer Yes or No whether or not any Board member/Mike Diamandis has involvement with Best Holdings?'
....then no doubt we'll see him squirm.
:shock: Yes - that's a thought "I know you said you're not going to tell us, but will you please tell us ?" - I doubt he'll see through that one. Please re-read the post so that you understand it. Question One - can you please tell me who is behind Best Holdings? Answer One - No I can't Question Two - can you please tell me if Board Member One/Board Member Two/Board Member Three are involved in Best Holdings? Two different questions. Worcester, Little was clearly briefed not to reveal any names (rather like I've just been reading Patrick Murrin wouldn't reveal who was behind Swan Management in the Leeds debacle). So whether you ask him for a list or specifically about Holt, Diamandis etc he would still refuse. I think this totally stinks but is fairly common practice and only a change in the Football League rules to force transparency of ownership will solve it. At the moment I'm struggling to see where the great financial gains for the "new" board will come but that's probably for another thread |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sheepshagger
Suburban Capitalist........
Offline
Posts: 920
|
|
« Reply #103 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:23:23 » |
|
Behave herthab....sams making his point like the next man, and has to rely
on rumour and conjecture just like us all. It wasn't aimed at Sam, it was aimed at Worcs. It just amazes me that hardly anyone will believe something that is possibly good for the club, yet be actually eager to believe something that may be bad. Good rumour= Bollocks/don't believe it/ spin. Bad rumours= Must be true! Do you see what I'm getting at? I see what you are getting at Herta - but I can also see the other side... On the face of it - Big investment, Debts paid and money to spend on strengthening the squad all equal GREAT news... On the bad news side you may also be able to see No information (secrecy), old board members who have shown a complete distain for the supporters being asked to stay on, and the (current) refusal to say who is involved with the takeover.... There are two sides to this - and clearly nothing is black and white.... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Wise men say........
|
|
|
millom red
Offline
Posts: 1588
|
|
« Reply #104 on: Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:25:32 » |
|
Macca...what Is a proper protest?
Seems to me that nowt us lot do has any bearing on things. I did the back of the Arkells thing and that got us where?
Legit question like, and not a dig.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
f it dont need fixing....dont fuckin break it
Await The Day
|
|
|
|
