BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 Youre distain for DK has been duly noted.(Again) At least I'm consistent and I do note many others coming to the same conclusion, some of whom are putting it in somewhat stronger terms. Surely most would agree that his actions in this case at least and his "disingenuous" evidence in the case brought by SDI do neither him nor the Club and favours. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
limeburner 0 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 The many others being on another forum that you use. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,462 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 Another case of Plan B being more of Plan A perhaps with a similar outcome? Now, that seems familiar. I just can't put my finger on where I have come across it before..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,462 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 (edited) I dont think DK is much of a fan of Red tape etc.Hes probably had years of practise riding roughshod over it. Sometimes you get away with it----sometimes you dont.At least hes not stealing from us. Only thing i dont understand is,why he is reluctant to hoover up as many 20 pence shares as he can? Maybe he has imported business practices from apartheid, and immediately post apartheid, South Africa. I don't know. I know that the Exciseman there very nearly had the breeks completely off him. Personally, I hate the whole 'We'll get away with it' approach to business; rarely is it premised on a coherent risk analysis; equally rarely is there a back up plan; and the approach is generally tactical, to deal with an immediate situation, rather than long, or even medium, term strategic, to say nothing of the fact that the difficulty in question could, perhaps, have been foreseen. For somebody who, I think, made his poke in insurance/re-insurance, he seems to have been somewhat cavalier in his assessment of the risk of taking on the takeover panel. (And I know how absurd the whole imposition of a 20p offer is.) There is, has been, a tendency to ascribe disingenuousness to some of DK's actions, activities, and declarations. It may be, however, that he actually is constrained by Law, by contract, or by family pressure to limit the financial exposure of the family trust(s), wherein lies the family gelt. Hence he may display a very reasonable, and explicable, reluctance to promote a faux takeover offer, and to hoover up as many 20p shares as shareholders are daft enough to sell him. Edited April 17, 2017 by Uilleam 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 The many others being on another forum that you use. No secret there Sir and no law against that of which I'm aware. However your research will have revealed that I have around 60 times more posts here than there. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 At least I'm consistent and I do note many others coming to the same conclusion, some of whom are putting it in somewhat stronger terms. Surely most would agree that his actions in this case at least and his "disingenuous" evidence in the case brought by SDI do neither him nor the Club and favours. Yet like the republicans who hate the Crown but love the half-crown you were quite prepared to take the King's shilling and serve under him, disingenuous indeed! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
limeburner 0 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 No secret there Sir and no law against that of which I'm aware. However your research will have revealed that I have around 60 times more posts here than there. I never implied that there was,just that its where the most (sometimes over the top ) criticism comes from. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 I never implied that there was,just that its where the most (sometimes over the top ) criticism comes from. Thanks. There appear to be many on here who are rapidly reaching the same conclusion. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 I'm not sure who Frankie could threaten that would actually be concerned. He's just a gentle giant 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 (edited) Thanks. There appear to be many on here who are rapidly reaching the same conclusion. Which of course doesn't make them correct. Just because the majority (which is NOT the case at present) believe that King is bad doesn't mean that they are right. Your history of anti-King bias effectively has people doubting you and your credentials to comment. The fact you also supported Llambias and Leach places further doubt on your ability to assess situations. I'm not casting those aspersions BH but am merely stating facts. The fact that many on RM agree with you is nigh on irrelevant. Why you may ask ? Because they were predominantly anti-King even before he took power. So they were biased against him before he had the chance to prove them right OR wrong. There aren't as many as you think on here coming to that conclusion. The majority on here, I would contend, thank asking for ridding us of the previous charlatans - but are, rightly, trying to hold him accountable for his failings. Doesn't mean they want him out.... yet. Edited April 17, 2017 by craig 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.