Official Statement - Taylor Steps Down

[Foxes_Trust]

I can understand anybody changing their mind about the deal, if the terms thereof have changed. You might agree to sell you house for £200,000 - but if the bloke came back and said he only wanted to give you £185,000, you might well change your mind.

Very interesting example that.

So everybody say £200k was the original agreed sale price of your treasured possession, individually how low would you agree to, before saying No Deal?

 

[bocadillo]

Now that the offer is for 10p a share now and 10p a share in 2008, I'm not at all surprised that people are resigning from the board rather than recommend it to shareholders.

 

[bocadillo]

Very interesting example that.

So everybody say £200k was the original agreed sale price of your treasured possession, individually how low would you agree to, before saying No Deal?

Apparently MM would want me to accept £40,000 but only pay half of it now!

 

[Hammond Organ]

Very interesting example that.

So everybody say £200k was the original agreed sale price of your treasured possession, individually how low would you agree to, before saying No Deal?

Not so sure you can compare the shares in the club to your house? The links are very tenuous...

 

[Dour]

Now that the offer is for 10p a share now and 10p a share in 2008, I'm not at all surprised that people are resigning from the board rather than recommend it to shareholders.

£650,000 up front? Can't we do better than that?

 

[Melton Fox]

Sorry, not been on again until now.

We do not know his logic for this latest change.

We don't want to speculate as this will be viewed as the FT being negative again

Cheers FT, I understand your situation

 

[Hammond Organ]

Now that the offer is for 10p a share now and 10p a share in 2008, I'm not at all surprised that people are resigning from the board rather than recommend it to shareholders.

Apparently MM would want me to accept £40,000 but only pay half of it now!

That is one hell of a move... question is, how desperate are we??? And how fundamental to the survival of LCFC is this deal?

 

[fox58]

That is one hell of a move... question is, how desperate are we??? And how fundamental to the survival of LCFC is this deal?

Very on both counts

 

[Foxes_Trust]

(not read thru this thread - at 369 - yet so this might backfire but....)

So, are you saying that even though the board have approved, you're not prepared to back their judgements...?????

It appears a majority of the original board will recommend it, but 3 of them resigned as they obviously don't.

We do not view that is a great recommendation.

We were going to back the previous version, now we will review that decision when we get the full detail of the latest bid.

 

[bocadillo]

Very interesting example that.

So everybody say £200k was the original agreed sale price of your treasured possession, individually how low would you agree to, before saying No Deal?

Not so sure you can compare the shares in the club to your house? The links are very tenuous...

The analogy is valid - the question is simple. It doesn;t matter what the product is.

If you were first offered 200 pennies for something, how low would you allow the bidder to go before saying 'NO DEAL'.

MM has got the board on the run and there seems to be no stopping him. This is clearly now an aggressive takeover, whatever the comments from those involved.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1966
AT wasn't trying to get more from the deal, he was simply trying to keep to the original deal.

You're splitting hairs. AT wanted more from the deal than is now being offered.

No it's a valid point, the original basis which got passed to explore further at the EGM was par value for shares, it's a million miles away from that now.

 

[drew]

What is the reason for the changing bid? Its easy to keep saying its lower and lower, but there must be a reason for it. After all your house could have dry rot, wet rot, subsidence and below the flood plain.

 

[bocadillo]

Cheers FT, I understand your situation

What situation? Are you suggesting that FT has been told to shut up by TNBD?

 

[drew]

No but you are

 

[newtonfox]

No but you are

:icon_bigg :icon_wink

 

[bocadillo]

No but you are

I was really just wondering why the FT had been so quiet recently. After an initial reticence they seemed to be indicating a bit more of what was going on, only to go quiet again relatively recently.

 

[Hammond Organ]

The analogy is valid - the question is simple. It doesn;t matter what the product is.

If you were first offered 200 pennies for something, how low would you allow the bidder to go before saying 'NO DEAL'.

MM has got the board on the run and there seems to be no stopping him. This is clearly now an aggressive takeover, whatever the comments from those involved.

I was thinking of the emotive factor of the one big investment that most people have vs an investment in which the paying public have a say in and the common good of the company. But you are correct in purest terms.

The final point seems to be the case. It can still be refused without enough backing, but what happens is 51% of shareholders feel that it is enough? All of a sudden we have a new controlling interest in the club...

 

[newtonfox]

FT how much is MM offering per share now ive heard its down to 15p is this true or very near :icon_wink
thank you

 

[bocadillo]

FT how much is MM offering per share now ive heard its down to 15p is this true or very near :icon_wink
thank you

So you didn't believe me when I said it was 10p now and 10p later?

I don't expect that the FT will feel able to verify that - but I don't see them disagreeing with that figure and so far I haven't had a pm from them about it.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxes_Trust

We don't want to speculate as this will be viewed as the FT being negative again

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxes_Trust
Those rumours were rubbish, we can only speculate who would have profited from putting them around the press association.......

Gold star Hammond, did that to see if someone would highlight the inconsistency.

Now can posters start applying the same level of examination on other parties who generate quotes about the takeover?