Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

He must explain why his CEO, Mr Wallace, misled shareholders

 

Well there goes presumption of innocence.

 

Which is particularly disappointing given what our club was subjected to as a consequence of the failings of such presumption.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really know nothing about corporate crime etc but would find it hard to see a judge finding wallace guilty of misleading shareholders over a couple of mill shortfall on projected funds when it us quite clear they were unravelling mismanagement in the tens of mill. Im not supporting wallace but does anyone with first hand knowledge of this type of alleged crime think this will fly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there goes presumption of innocence.

 

Which is particularly disappointing given what our club was subjected to as a consequence of the failings of such presumption.

 

Are you saying that Wallace did not mislead shareholders?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the general sentiment and most of the points in the statement, but it's disappointing to see any mistakes or typos in it, especially when the writer mocks Wallace's review contents by likening them to a wishlist from a fan forum.

 

That might seem overly fussy and pedantic, but if we intend to criticise the CEO and boardroom in such a strong manner, then it would help our case immensely if the statements were absolutely flawless, at least in a technical sense.

 

It's also a bit disappointing that it doesn't suggest or insinuate that the review contents have a likeness to a wishlist from a fan forum specifically because it's extremely likely that the "Ready to Listen" fan survey had a major influence on the content of the review.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that Wallace did not mislead shareholders?

 

The guy is under criminal investigation for allegedly misleading shareholders - dont you think it is appropriate and right that the due process of law to which he has been subjected to is allowed to run its course before demands are made of others to pre-empt it ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there goes presumption of innocence.

 

Which is particularly disappointing given what our club was subjected to as a consequence of the failings of such presumption.

 

He'd did mislead them though. It's only in question whether it was knowingly or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The board" is not "Sandy Easdale" or vice versa, no personal attacks by individuals either. So why suspect legal action? Of course, it makes for a healthy discussion - if any - in the weeks ahead.

 

Never a truer word spoken. But you would not think it going by Sandy Easdale. Then again, he just likes to divulge share sensitive, boardroom discussion even though he is not even on the board. Strange, eh?

 

Btw, I do not suspect legal action at all. The truth is hard to condemn. Sarcasm is not my strongest point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see much point chasing out Wallace he's a symptom not the disease.

 

He won't do us any good though and if he's convicted of this obviously he has to be sacked.

 

He almost certainly should be suspended while he's investigated but we perhaps should let that slide for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.