[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Layering on Bullshit factor 50, if you ask me. Don't just watch the lips, follow the eyes. Its always a dead giveaway.
I expect the 'consortium' have some sort of objective in mind but what's the risk? Most of their 'investment' seems to be secured on assets paid for by Eddie, or to put it another way, Sue Davies.
Meanwhile another c.150 views on WW 'who paid for the Reebok' but NO COMMENTS since WW decided that you and I were persona non grata.
Having looked again at the FV file, I think that there are six shareholders not five. None of them own as much 25% of the total shares issued.
I don't have much time for Hill really as I can't understand what he's trying to achieve on or off the pitch and his interviews are just utter drivel to me, however I'll give him time to prove himself one way or the other yet.
The ten year plan stuff did indeed sound completely made up on the spur of the moment to my ears and my take on that was basically he wants the fans to stay with us for the next seven or eight years because we won't be investing to any extent on players during that period and probably banking that the academy starting now under Hill's reign will bear fruit about then and hence why he's been so critical of the ability of the training of the academy players under Phillips, Lee, etc, that he's inherited.
I also tried to work out when the new shares were 'printed' who our shareholders were which obviously included Sharon and Michael James but then gave it up as a bad job when the penny dropped with me that whoever they are that as long as no one held more than 25% that the shares could be sold multiple times onwards without us knowing who had ownership of them.
I assumed that those who had put money into the purchase and development would have looked to have some control over it in terms of share ownership but as so many various business people seemed to come and go during the period of the purchase and immediately afterwards that it wouldn't have surprised me much if one or two of the lesser known shareholders have since sold their shareholding to someone else and moved on also?
As for the thread on Wways, what I think happens on all forums including Nuts is that old threads are searched from time to time by 'bots' and hence why the viewing total goes up. So say you or I type into Google a key word say 'Eddie Davies' the Google bot will search the internet and return the post in that thread as one of the 'hits' it found.
Or something like that.
Wway is and always has been a core group of friends and acquaintances from the eighties and as such has a strong bond and culture. Fair play to them but they have little time or patience for anyone who is 'not one of them' and you and I clearly are not.
I've never been one for staying where I'm not wanted, so I'm not fussed that they don't want me to post on there. Their loss I view it as because I invariably try to help and inform with my contributions rather than abuse and troll.
Each to their own I guess and probably explains why a passionate but relatively small fan base club like ours can have at least three long established club forums thriving alongside each other rather than to naturally combine under one umbrella forum.
Things aren't ever going to change now though!