A wizard, A knight & A round table

[D'Artagnan 173]

Regarding McColl, Murray & co, it makes perfect sense for them to have been trying to make contact with ALL relevant parties, whether they be anonymous investors or not, so Jack & Bill trying to twist repeated contact from them into some sort of own goal is really stretching the imagination and comes over as pure spin and a bit desperate. It would be a lot more worrying if the requisitioners hadn't been trying to make contact with these parties.

 

But thats not what he is alleging - he is suggesting they have trying to recruit their support.

[Zappa 0]

But thats not what he is alleging - he is suggesting they have trying to recruit their support.

 

Why wouldn't they? By trying to recruit their support they might be able to kill two birds with one stone by getting their votes AND finding out who they're dealing with.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Why wouldn't they? By trying to recruit their support they might be able to kill two birds with one stone by getting their votes AND finding out who they're dealing with.

 

Because they appear to be expressing concerns, now, having had such offers rejected, as to who the identity of these investors are. The issue of identity appears not to have been a concern when they were doing their wooing.

[craig 5,199]

Because they appear to be expressing concerns' date=' now, having had such offers rejected, as to who the identity of these investors are. The issue of identity appears not to have been a concern when they were doing their wooing.[/quote']

 

Not necessarily. Had the won in the wooing contest one would have to believe that they would have found out who the beneficial owners were - at that point they (McCollco) could just as easily have said "Haud the bus, you are owned by WHO ? Craig Whyte/Charles Green/Imran Ahmad/SDM (delete as appropriate who you believe it is) in which case we dont want anything to do with you".

 

They may also have accepted that anonymous support as a means to an end - we hear constantly how Green "conned the conman" and "did what he had to in order to get rid of Whyte" - so why can the same not be expected of McCollco ? What if they DID get the support and DID get themselves voted onto the Board... what if that then ultimately meant they found out who the beneficial owners were ? Likely that McCollco would have outed them or worked to get rid of those bad apple beneficial owners.

 

Accepting the support doesnt necessarily mean that they like who they receive the support from, and if it is a means to a favourable end, then what is the problem ?

[amms 0]

Because they appear to be expressing concerns' date=' now, having had such offers rejected, as to who the identity of these investors are. The issue of identity appears not to have been a concern when they were doing their wooing.[/quote']

 

How do you know it wasn't? How do you know when they were approached and asked about this they weren't also asked 'oh, and by the way, who actually are you?'.

 

This distraction being run just now so reeks of professional PR. Why in the hell wouldn't someone who wants change canvas every shareholder? Of course they would, and if I, representing myself in a very public manner say 'no thank you' I'm sticking with the incumbents, then thats fine, everyone knows where I stand. But if I'm a faceless, unknown, unaccountable group and I'm making a perverse decision that to all intents and purposes looks like it'll damage the club, well I think wanting to know the identities of these people is just fine.

 

It's so ironic this post appears today, the day Frankie wrote about Dunfermline and how their support have rescued their club and now own it, we're once again, being told we're in the wrong because we'd like to know who owns ours.

[D'Artagnan 173]

How do you know it wasn't? How do you know when they were approached and asked about this they weren't also asked 'oh, and by the way, who actually are you?'.

 

This distraction being run just now so reeks of professional PR. Why in the hell wouldn't someone who wants change canvas every shareholder? Of course they would, and if I, representing myself in a very public manner say 'no thank you' I'm sticking with the incumbents, then thats fine, everyone knows where I stand. But if I'm a faceless, unknown, unaccountable group and I'm making a perverse decision that to all intents and purposes looks like it'll damage the club, well I think wanting to know the identities of these people is just fine.

 

It's so ironic this post appears today, the day Frankie wrote about Dunfermline and how their support have rescued their club and now own it, we're once again, being told we're in the wrong because we'd like to know who owns ours.

 

That last comment by you is as much spin as anything which has been printed - if you are referring to this article.

 

By whom and where are you being told it's wrong to seek the identity of those who have invested ?

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Quote "Morgan reckons he has had at least 50 calls from this Requisitioner I am informed, as has Richard Hughes of Zeus"

 

Call me rebellious but that sounds to me like someone has been stringing some else along here? If i phone someone on business and they tell me to "away and boil yir heid" they wouldn't get another single call from me ever, never mind fifty.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

of course they are phoning them and seeking support.

 

anything else would be utterly remiss.

[D'Artagnan 173]

of course they are phoning them and seeking support.

 

anything else would be utterly remiss.

 

So McMurdo is telling the truth ?

[Zappa 0]

Because they appear to be expressing concerns' date=' now, having had such offers rejected, as to who the identity of these investors are.[/quote']

 

The fact that they're not getting the support of these secret investors isn't even news though. We all knew that the Easdales were getting their support as early as May when one of the brothers was proposed as a director. That was 3 months before McColl & co lodged the second requisition (first requisition being the one lodged by Blue Pitch in May to have Easdale & Morgan appointed).

 

The issue of identity appears not to have been a concern when they were doing their wooing.

 

Says who? Bill McMurdo? Jack Irvine? Imran Ahmad? Charles Green?