buster. 4,808 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I think I'll decline your kind offer. You've been down this road many times before and don't need any further assistance from me. Everyone on Gersnet and perhaps beyond is fully aware of your views, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeat them ad nauseam. It happens that I don't recall being particularly vocal about Mr Green but if you have references and events proved me wrong then so be it. I do recall being vocal about my concerns about Mr Whyte, whose conduct has just been described by Lord Tyre as "a combination of dishonesty, disregard for the interests of companies to which he owed duties and of the creditors of those companies, use of Crown debts to finance trade, misappropriation of company funds (at least in the case of Tixway) for private purposes, and wilful breach of a director's administrative duties, the effect of all of which is that the case can be regarded as quite out of the ordinary!" Do I get any credit for that? This would be the same Mr Whyte BTW who was described by the RST spokesperson at the time as "the real deal". Pity, as we may have been able to put it to bed regards the reconciliation. As we appear to be getting closer to a possible 'stage change' in the ongoing process, it is certainly relevant to bring it up again so as to give any new posters a more informed background to what might appear to be 'learned posters' and their 'calls'. You now ask for proof of what you have previously admitted Guess you had to throw something back !! Regards CW, well done............ but I hope you didn't have to wait until Lord Tyre had his say. Fail to see what relevance an RST spokesman has to do with your view, or me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Not quite a white knight then. I think we're getting a bit pedantic (sic) here but for what it's worth my understanding is that there are two kinds of white knights in this situation: one might make a "friendly" bid to prevent an unwelcome takeover from elsewhere; the other might simply be taking advantage of financial difficulties to buy a company that may well be worth a lot more with his assistance in the future. Either way the white knight is not being entirely altruistic. I'm happy to bow to your knowledge of these things but as I say that wasn't the issue. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Lie down for a while, take a nap and don't worry about me so much; worry about the future of our Club. I have always been one for vigilance (allbeit from a distance) and have from the arrival of both CW and CG&Co tried to warn of the dangers, their general MO and that of others in and around them. I put the "Toxic" beside Jack as I pointed to him as a central figure years ago. I have also developed a nose for sniffing out messageboard agitators or their agents. I've spent far too much time on it really but what currently worries me amongst other things is that Ashely is sold to the support as something along the lines of a 'White Knight' when it's more a Trojan Horse. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I think we're getting a bit pedantic (sic) here but for what it's worth my understanding is that there are two kinds of white knights in this situation: one might make a "friendly" bid to prevent an unwelcome takeover from elsewhere; the other might simply be taking advantage of financial difficulties to buy a company that may well be worth a lot more with his assistance in the future. Either way the white knight is not being entirely altruistic. I'm happy to bow to your knowledge of these things but as I say that wasn't the issue. Some one who comes along with a shed load of cash and makes our financial woes vanish in a trice. That's at least three types of white knight then. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Pity, as we may have been able to put it to bed regards the reconciliation. As we appear to be getting closer to a possible 'stage change' in the ongoing process, it is certainly relevant to bring it up again so as to give any new posters a more informed background to what might appear to be 'learned posters' and their 'calls'. You now ask for proof of what you have previously admitted Guess you had to throw something back !! Regards CW, well done............ but I hope you didn't have to wait until Lord Tyre had his say. Fail to see what relevance an RST spokesman has to do with your view, or me. I have indeed admitted, as have a great many others, that I was taken in by Mr Green up to the time "the tapes" were revealed but I did not perform any analysis on him or his bid for the Club nor was there any reason for me as an individual to do so nor would I have had the right or the documents to perform such due diligence. It seems to me that all you are doing here is according me a status that I did not have and do not have in order to continue your innuendo. I called Mr Whyte's background into question at the time his name was first mentioned and I also repeatedly questioned how he was financing the purchase of the Club and the ticketus deal in particular. The reason I mentioned the RST spokesperson was as an example of someone who said at the time on behalf of an important organisation that they had done their research and were satisfied as to Mr Whyte's credentials. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I have always been one for vigilance (allbeit from a distance) and have from the arrival of both CW and CG&Co tried to warn of the dangers, their general MO and that of others in and around them. I put the "Toxic" beside Jack as I pointed to him as a central figure years ago. I have also developed a nose for sniffing out messageboard agitators or their agents. I've spent far too much time on it really but what currently worries me amongst other things is that Ashely is sold to the support as something along the lines of a 'White Knight' when it's more a Trojan Horse. I am sure we all applaud your efforts. Mr Ashley may not be a white knight by any of FS' definitions but neither do I see him as a Trojan horse, why would he want to buy the Club and then destroy it is beyond even my comprehension. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 The only thing you can be sure of it will certainly be to our absolute detriment. Hardly. It is merely the issuance of share certificates. Just as like a reason is that whomever issues our share certificates were using a previous batch of certificates. This one can easily be put in the "storm in a teacup" category. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 If you were betting on Ashley or King to be our white knight where would your money be? King all the way. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I don't recall saying he was doing it for anyone's benefit other than his own. The issue was not who might be better for the Club but rather who was most likely to buy the club and invest some money. IMHO right now that would appear to be Mr Ashley. If Ashley buys us it will be to make money not invest it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 King all the way. Shock news, gunslinger backs King to rescue Club with £50m 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.