Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: better off without BEST?  (Read 1681 times)
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
Logged
sonic youth

« Reply #1 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
Logged
yeo

Offline Offline

Posts: 3651





Ignore
« Reply #2 on: Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 12:27:58 »

what he said   ^
Logged

/
W56196272
Iffy's Onion Bhaji
petulant

Offline Offline

Posts: 15863




Ignore
« Reply #3 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.
Logged
herthab
TEF Travel

Offline Offline

Posts: 12020





Ignore
« Reply #4 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 Cheesy
Logged

It's All Good..............
Colin Todd

Offline Offline

Posts: 3318




Ignore
« Reply #5 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.
Logged
Arriba

Offline Offline

Posts: 21305





Ignore
« Reply #6 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!
Logged
Spencer_White

« Reply #7 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.
Logged
Batch
Not a Batch

Offline Offline

Posts: 57754





Ignore
« Reply #8 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.
Logged
Colin Todd

Offline Offline

Posts: 3318




Ignore
« Reply #9 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)
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: