Letter to shareholders...

[Ayamonteblade]

Thanks aya I'll have to dig them out no idea what the investor code is. This s the 3rd time in a month she's been admitted sailed a bit too close to the wind last time but I think we're heading for safer waters now

neither did I Bully - so I failed their security tests.....and have now written to them indicating change of address which should generate the all important investor code

[helmut_rooster]

If they're the SUT ones traded on the London Stock Exchange, they're worth 6.5p each so £65.

Get em flogged quick!

[bulmer1889]

Get em flogged quick!

They'd sell quicker than your strikers !

[tomytony]

neither did I Bully - so I failed their security tests.....and have now written to them indicating change of address which should generate the all important investor code

Just been dealing with my mum's estate and been charged £60.00 for a lost share certificate when selling them so ypu'd be lucky to break even , with the sales commission, if you did get rid Aya.

I'd hang on to them, like the Titanic shares, someone might want one some day.

[Carpe_diem]

Ok then this was quite a long winded story originally which is probably why I couldn't remember it all anyway the shortened version of it is that a deal was agreed for the prince to buy Kev out however this triggered a clause stating the prince then had to purchase the ground shirecliffe and abbéydale etc,this is when things got tricky cos unbeknown to Kev the prince had sold a % of his shares and reckons cos he had done that it didn't trigger the clause as he wasn't holding all the shares,obviously Kev thinks HRH is trying it on and HRH thinks he's done nowt wrong either way to me it sounds like kevs been worked one . All this of course is alleged (to cover myself) but I know where it's come from and how it's come to me

Thanks Bully - intriguing to say the least. Other than a difference in valuation I can't see what anyone would gain from owning the team but not the assets, though. That's why I can't imagine that the Prince is in this to asset-strip.

[Holden_C]

And the saddest part of it all is that they could have achieved so much more with a bit more vision, patience and work. I have no doubt that we could have spent a modest amount this season and got promoted. As it is, they've both chucked their toys out of the pram and jeopardised not just the future of the best manager we've had in a long time, but the future of the club itself.

Spot on.

[Holden_C]

We need to be careful what we say or how we word things, and I know it’s easy to be wise after the event, but my gut feeling for years has been that things aren’t right behind the scenes and that feeling certainly increasesed over the last season. The signs were there if we think back. It’s a bit like the comedians’ running our country and their abject opposition party. They tell us what they want us to hear when it suits them and kick the bad news down the road. Just like our politicians, it’s more about the individuals and their egos than the whole. It’s a bloody mess that needn’t have happened.

The court documents state the problems arose over Van Winkels appointment, as I and others said at the time. Nothing good was ever going to come out of that.

I would like to see how anyone suggesting McCabe should have seen this coming when the deal was signed arrive at that view.

[Holden_C]

Do you think he has legal counsel advising him here? Because I'd be surprised if any lawyer worth his salt was telling him that being so open when the matter is ongoing is anything but a dangerous idea. But equally he obviously has a lawyer present at the meetings. It's very odd.

Without a doubt. His comments in the SA's would have been approved by his legal team and will no doubt be revisited during the main case. In more detail I'd expect.

[Carpe_diem]

The court documents state the problems arose over Van Winkels appointment, as I and others said at the time. Nothing good was ever going to come out of that.

I would like to see how anyone suggesting McCabe should have seen this coming when the deal was signed arrive at that view.

Is it not reasonable to assume that a contractual stipulation that the appointment of any key staff would have to be ratified by both parties should have been in place? If KMc (and Wilder) were unhappy about Van Winkel's appointment, KMc could then just have vetoed it (and vice versa, if McC tried to bring in anyone the Prince was unhappy with).

[Carpe_diem]

Without a doubt. His comments in the SA's would have been approved by his legal team and will no doubt be revisited during the main case. In more detail I'd expect.

I'm surprised that his counsel are advising him to release statements that are potentially damaging to the club. There again, there's a lot about law that continues to surprise me.

Has anyone asked McNulty for his opinions? A man of his experience and knowledge must have lots to tell us.