Blue Pitch & Margarita....

[Darthter 542]

Should any of the requisitioner's getting votted onto the board on Thursday,

At what time on Friday do we expect an announcement as to who is behind Blue Pitch & Margarita???

 

Personally, I ain't holding my breath. The identities of these 2 groups will only be published they the groups themselves consent to it.

 

If the board were to release the full names of those involved without consent, that could have SERIOUS consequences with future investors & trust issues.

[JTP 0]

Easdale said in his interview that MM knows who is behind them and spoke to them on several occasions.

 

I'd like to hear MM respond to that.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

mm has responded. he said he only knows their agents.

 

the issue with blue pitch and margarita is they are n total control of the club and have been since day one.

 

mm has said he thinks they are rich arabs.

[Frankie 8,136]

Fair point actually - if say, for example, PM does get on the board he'd look pretty daft if he was unable to divulge the identities for 'legal reasons'...

 

I think the BPH pursuit stuff was just another example of a poorly advised strategy.

[Darthter 542]

Easdale said in his interview that MM knows who is behind them and spoke to them on several occasions.

 

This is a very valid point...MM was chairman for a good while, yet claims no more information than anyone else.

Graham Wallace was also asked in his Daily Mail interview, and again would not divulge the names (if he knew them)

 

Quite simply, both groups don't want to be identified (which is their prerogative).

[Zappa 0]

mm has responded. he said he only knows their agents.

 

the issue with blue pitch and margarita is they are n total control of the club and have been since day one.

 

mm has said he thinks they are rich arabs.

 

Was it not the case that Malcolm Murray said he had been told they were rich arabs, but doesn't know who they are?

 

Anyway, regardless of market regulations or company laws, there's something completely unethical about anonymous investors requisitioning EGMs and forcing substantial and important boardroom changes without revealing their identities and that's what Blue Pitch and Margarita did when they forced out Malcolm Murray and Phil Cartmell and tried to replace them with James Easdale and Chris Morgan.

 

It's all fine and well for people to say that we technically have no right to know and that the investors technically have the right to their anonymity, but I'd suggest that very few people would take that stance if it was a company they had started themselves or a company their family had started.

[Darthter 542]

Anyway, regardless of market regulations or company laws, there's something completely unethical about anonymous investors requisitioning EGMs and forcing substantial and important boardroom changes without revealing their identities and that's what Blue Pitch and Margarita did when they forced out Malcolm Murray and Phil Cartmell and tried to replace them with James Easdale and Chris Morgan.

 

It's all fine and well for people to say that we technically have no right to know and that the investors technically have the right to their anonymity, but I'd suggest that very few people would take that stance if it was a company they had started themselves or a company their family had started.

 

That's the risk you take on the open market....

 

Given the choice, I'm sure there are many shareholders out there whom others would not want involved.

[SteveC 150]

mm has responded. he said he only knows their agents.

 

the issue with blue pitch and margarita is they are n total control of the club and have been since day one.

 

mm has said he thinks they are rich arabs.

 

 

I think he said that "I was told (at the beginning - in context of his quote) they were rich Arabs who wanted their names to be kept private". That is very different from him thinking they are, I am pretty sure he does not think they are, nor do I.

[der Berliner 3,219]

Question: should the current board decide to have a new share issue, who would be able to block this? Who has the power of decision about a share issue in the first place?

[SteveC 150]

who would buy? Why would they dilute the already diluted share value?

 

 

I ask because I have no knowledge of such things