Loans, where does this leave Wallace?

[Zappa 0]

So that leaves us with: Wallace deliberately lied; Wallace was misled by the other directors/staff; Wallace did proper investigations and made a mistake(s); Wallace assumed the sale of Wallace and/or the players taking a pay cut or both; the situation has changed in some way.

 

Wallace was only a few weeks in the job when he made the "short to medium term" comment, so my money goes on Stockbridge having told him almost those exact words and Wallace took his word for it before arranging his own investigation (ie - bringing in Nash).

[forlanssister 3,050]

If we were offered 900K (which we probably were not), it would have most likely been in monthly instalments and depending on certain circumstances.

 

You can't really praise the board without knowing the facts. All we know is a bid was rejected. The bid may just have made absolutely no business sense whatsoever, and with Bain not here to accept it, it was rejected.

 

£400k up front and the rest on the drip was the offer for Wallace turning I agree turning that down doesn't really merit much praise.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Wallace was only a few weeks in the job when he made the "short to medium term" comment, so my money goes on Stockbridge having told him almost those exact words and Wallace took his word for it before arranging his own investigation (ie - bringing in Nash).

 

Well if that's the case (a) the more fool him and (b) that certainly speaks volumes for his judgement or the lack of it because making such an important announcement without checking the facts yourself leaves you wide open to all the criticism you get.