Sandy and James Easdale are aiming to increase their shareholding

[Anchorman 0]

Dealing drugs? Rape? Knee capping? Murder? Rape? I mention rape twice 'cos I like it haha only kidding.

 

I wish you had kept that line to yourself.

[amms 0]

Dealing drugs? Rape? Knee capping? Murder? Rape? I mention rape twice 'cos I like it haha only kidding.

 

Computers should be fitted with breathalysers so people can't post when they're pissed because that's a fuckin shocking post.

[amms 0]

bd doesn't have to say anything if he can't or doesn't want to. i trust him.

 

Private taxis and independent bus routes tend to be cash businesses. This often makes them attractive to people to whom working with cash is desirable. There can be a number of reasons why working primarily in cash might be desirable, perhaps just a simple mistrust of banks, immediate payment and enhanced liquidity. Or there might be other reasons why barely regulated customer number unaccountable businesses might be attractive.

[forlanssister 3,062]

Am I alone in being far from convinced that the Easdale's actually own the oft claimed 6% stake?

 

Stakes of 3% or more need to be notified to the market and given what they said in the BBC interview they are undoubtedly working in concert so even if their individual holdings are less than 3% if their joint holdings exceed 3% the market has to be notified.

[Darthter 542]

Am I alone in being far from convinced that the Easdale's actually own the oft claimed 6% stake?

 

Stakes of 3% or more need to be notified to the market and given what they said in the BBC interview they are undoubtedly working in concert so even if their individual holdings are less than 3% if their joint holdings exceed 3% the market has to be notified.

 

If the 6% is right...they could either be behind Blue Pitch or Artemis Investment.....

[SteveC 150]

If the 6% is right...they could either be behind Blue Pitch or Artemis Investment.....

 

I have said before that, when the news about them buying from Green broke first time around, Artemis were mentioned as their "cover". I am not young (= I am an old git) and so my memory is poor but I really don't think I'd have falsely remembered that.

Edited May 10, 2013 by SteveC

[forlanssister 3,062]

I have said before that, when the news broke about them buying from Green broke first time around, Artemis were mentioned as their "cover". I am not young (= I am an old git) and so my memory is poor but I really don't think I'd have falsely remembered that.

 

Normal reasoning for going through a proxy/nominee is to conceal involvement, the Easdales are shouting their involvement from the rooftops and have Media House spinning for them.

[Darthter 542]

Normal reasoning for going through a proxy/nominee is to conceal involvement, the Easdales are shouting their involvement from the rooftops and have Media House spinning for them.

 

They are now....not 6 months ago. Maybe now that they have their foot in the door a bit more, they are starting to get more confident.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Am I alone in being far from convinced that the Easdale's actually own the oft claimed 6% stake?

 

Stakes of 3% or more need to be notified to the market and given what they said in the BBC interview they are undoubtedly working in concert so even if their individual holdings are less than 3% if their joint holdings exceed 3% the market has to be notified.

 

 

i said this on ff last night and on here before.

 

the don't seem to have the 2.6 million that buying 6% would have required either.

[SteveC 150]

i said this on ff last night and on here before.

 

the don't seem to have the 2.6 million that buying 6% would have required either.

 

Which would mean they are stalking horses with a bit of a football background, an interest and tons of publicity for their efforts? Sorry if this is naive...just assuming that is what is being hinted at