Welcome to the LTLF Forest Forum.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: PVH on 5 Live

      

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,134

    Default PVH on 5 Live

    Talking about Dick Eggnog at Sunderland.


    Hope he does a phone in, I may have a question or two for him...


  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Posts
    Many

  3. #2
    Best served cold
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Cliftonia
    Posts
    24,478

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Probably gone on strike, before claiming he has done it for 5 Lives fans...

    "I've been blessed with many things in this life: an arm like a damn rocket, a c**k like a burmese python, and the mind of a f**king scientist" - Kenny Powers

  4. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Stratford Upon Avon
    Posts
    2,541

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Scholar sold Campbell behind Bassett's back and then Bassett sold Cooper because he thought he was stronger than him in the dressing room........none of which is good but PVH should never have gone on strike.......he did a lot of damage to our club.


  5. #4
    The Clapham Crusader
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Pencey Prep
    Posts
    23,066

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Baker's Dog View Post
    Scholar sold Campbell behind Bassett's back and then Bassett sold Cooper because he thought he was stronger than him in the dressing room........none of which is good but PVH should never have gone on strike.......he did a lot of damage to our club.
    Agreed, but he did at least have a point, he just went about getting it across it in completely the wrong way.

    If we'd kept Campbell and PVH we might not have been relegated.


  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,858

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    If we had kept Campbell & Cooper, PVH wouldn't have gone on strike and if Geoff Thomas didn't get that severe injury. Just think how the last 18 years might have panned out.


  7. #6

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Still bitter memories of the summer of 1998. It could be a decent season with PVH, Campbell, Cooper and Wim Jonk (we should have sign him after World Cup). Dave Bassett was good manager. Our Dougie was signed as replacement of PVH and Big Kev. Impossible job...
    That consortium, Bridgford Group, almost destroyed the club.
    Forever on BLACK LIST: Phil Soar, Irving Scholar, Nigel Wray. Where are they now?
    BTW it is fair to say Soar - only Forest fan of that trio - has written nice book about Forest (published in 199. I wonder what would he say today. Does he feel some guilty conscience?


  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    1,615

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Quote Originally Posted by czechforest View Post
    Still bitter memories of the summer of 1998. It could be a decent season with PVH, Campbell, Cooper and Wim Jonk (we should have sign him after World Cup). Dave Bassett was good manager. Our Dougie was signed as replacement of PVH and Big Kev. Impossible job...
    That consortium, Bridgford Group, almost destroyed the club.
    Forever on BLACK LIST: Phil Soar, Irving Scholar, Nigel Wray. Where are they now?
    BTW it is fair to say Soar - only Forest fan of that trio - has written nice book about Forest (published in 199. I wonder what would he say today. Does he feel some guilty conscience?
    I know Phil Soar personally, and he was something of a pawn in the whole game. He is still a huge Forest fan (he was born in Bilborough and has been a Forest fan all his life). Scholar and Wray were the real bad guys of the whole piece, and if Phil Soar had been better supported, he would have ousted them.


  9. #8

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    We had no choice with Cooper. I'm sure he had a clause in his contract that allowed him to go if Middlesbrough came in with certain fee. He wanted to finish his playing career there.


  10. #9
    Senior Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    29,754

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Quote Originally Posted by Francis Benali (on loan) View Post
    We had no choice with Cooper. I'm sure he had a clause in his contract that allowed him to go if Middlesbrough came in with certain fee. He wanted to finish his playing career there.

    I thought that was the case.


  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Perthshire
    Posts
    115

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    ....it was


  12. #11

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Quote Originally Posted by Francis Benali (on loan) View Post
    We had no choice with Cooper. I'm sure he had a clause in his contract that allowed him to go if Middlesbrough came in with certain fee. He wanted to finish his playing career there.
    Supposedly gentleman agreement about his return to hometown club. But Cooper somewhere talked about it recently and he said it was not true and he wanted to stay. Ane he was only 31 at the time and played almost until his 40.
    OK, when they sold him, they should buy some replacement. For example they could buy Richar Gough that summer. He came at the end of the season under Atkinson on loan and played well. Then he went to Everton.


  13. #12

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Quote Originally Posted by czechforest View Post
    Supposedly gentleman agreement about his return to hometown club. But Cooper somewhere talked about it recently and he said it was not true and he wanted to stay. Ane he was only 31 at the time and played almost until his 40.
    Surprised at that. I was sure that thing about the agreement allowing him to leave for Boro came from the horses mouth at the time. I guess you have to say certain things about wanting to be there when you've just signed for a club


  14. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    23,940

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Cooper was on Radio Nottm before the last game, think he said he left because we weren't offering him a long term deal and Boro were, otherwise he'd have stayed. Also that Bassett was a tosser.


  15. #14

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Quote Originally Posted by adam09 View Post
    Cooper was on Radio Nottm before the last game, think he said he left because we weren't offering him a long term deal and Boro were, otherwise he'd have stayed. Also that Bassett was a tosser.
    Bassett was OK, problem was with these wankers Soar, Wray and Scholar. Thieves.


  16. #15
    Not that type of player
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Niche Club
    Posts
    33,262

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Indeed. And Markham.

    A quartet of qunts.

    Although tbf it was probably Scholar and Wray who were the main culprits.

    Even though I'm usually cynical about the Fit and Proper person test I doubt Scholar would have been deemed fit to own a football club these days.

    Champagne Super Over

  17. #16
    Left Winger
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Lufthansa Business Lounge
    Posts
    76,915

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Nigel Wray, especially, was only interested in money he could make out of Forest to prop up Saracens Rugby Club, his other venture.

    He was nothing more than an asset-stripper.

    „I believe in socialism because it seems more humanitarian, rather than every man for himself and 'I'm alright jack' and all those arsehole businessmen with all the loot. I made up my mind from viewing society from that angle. That's where I'm from and there's where I've made my decisions from. That's why I believe in socialism“

    — Joe Strummer

  18. #17

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Maybe it is pity that did not win Sandy Anderson. I think he was backed by Doughty.


  19. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Twitter: @Mark_Searby
    Posts
    13,011

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    I would love to hear from these people now about what was going on during those times.


  20. #19

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Stick Larry Lloyd on the list along with another 180 or so greedy self-serving twats who sold the club down the river and betrayed their responsibilities.


  21. #20
    Victor Meldrew
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    West Bridgford
    Posts
    14,808

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Quote Originally Posted by Calvin Plummer View Post
    Stick Larry Lloyd on the list along with another 180 or so greedy self-serving twats who sold the club down the river and betrayed their responsibilities.
    I don't think so. What's your evidence for this?


  22. #21

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatoli View Post
    I don't think so. What's your evidence for this?
    I'll give you a potted history:

    Firstly the structure of the club prior to the takeover - we had 209 shareholders who owned the club, when a position became vacant people were nominated and if approved paid £1 for the privilege of owning us.*

    By 96 we'd been relegated and were largely living off a 15m overdraft, when an add appeared in the FT offering "A unique opportunity for investors to assist the club in implementing its plans for the next millennium". There were two rival groups*(I'm going to try not to muddy the water with Bovey, Lewis etc) that headed by Anderson and another by fronted by Scholar and Soar and later Wray. Each needed 75% of the members to vote for them for there to be a change in the ownership structure.*

    Anderson tried to win, Scholar simply tried to block Anderson until he gave up. Anderson had the fans backing, Scholar didn't care and just worked on the shareholders. Scholar wined and dined the shareholders, Anderson had Price Waterhouse on his side who recommended the shareholders accept his bid.*

    Wray and Scholar had excellent media links*(Mail, Express and Sun) - I can remember the sun portraying Wray as a saving hero and Anderson as a disgruntled Scot, and a rangers fan who never made it as a player.*

    Anderson offered: 13m in cash instantly for players with more to follow. In return, they wanted to set up a board of paid directors initially working in tandem with the current board, with the club being floated on the stock market in two to five years’ time. They estimated that the current £1 shares will be worth around £34,500 each. They also guaranteed that the club will not move ground or change the colour of the home shirts, and that at least 89% of all transfer money received will be reinvested in players within a year.*

    Scholar on the other hand said 'screw this waiting business, here is 17k right now'.*

    It should be noted that was against the constitution of the club; Clause 6 of the ‘Articles and Associations of Nottingham Forest Football Club’ reads as follows: “No consideration of any kind shall be paid or given for or in respect of the transfer of any share in the capital of the Company.” Still for 17k you can vote to overturn the constitution.*

    So those brave shareholders including*Larry*our forest legend took the money and ran.*

    Down we went that year but in their infinite wisdom Scholar and co raised season ticket prices by about 30% and we went from 18.5k season ticket holders to 12k. Scholar was then advised against floating the club but promised it would raise us*(him) 20m - instead it raised 1.8m. Then that consortium started to fall apart.*

    Wray resigned as chairman and in came Barnes who promised to put the Nottingham back in Nottingham Forest. He invited ND*(who was part of the Anderson bid) to effectively rescue us from the carpet bagging*(a judges words not mine) consortium of Scholar et all. He agreed to put 12m in initially but wanted controlling interest - not so much for himself but to get rid of the previous consortium who were destroying out club and syphoning out money. Each time you see Saracens win a trophy know that our club paid for that. Scholar and Markham resigned from the board but attempted to block the investment.*

    They could stop ND investing in the PLC as this required 75% approval but they couldn't stop him investing in the football club which only required 51% approval.*

    Scholar and Mark*ham filed suit, claim*ing the in*vestment was in contravention of company law and prejudicial to them. They demanded that the club be forced to repay the money, which would effectively bankrupt Forest.*

    During the trial, several startling revelations highlighted just how bitterly divided the board of directors had become. Julian Mark*ham testified that he had secretly bugged board meetings out of fear that other directors were plotting against him. Markham droned on for hours about his in*tense dislike of Phil Soar. Mr Justice Hart, presiding, considered all of this irrelevant to the issue.*

    In a remarkable turnaround towards the end of the case, the litigants withdrew their de*mands for repayment of Doughty’s investment, acknowledging the damage it would do to the club, and instead sought compensation by forcing the individual directors to buy their shares. Their case was dismissed. The judg*ment in favour of upholding the Doughty investment and dismissing all the litigants’ claims*(as well as awarding costs of up to £3 million to the club) was just reward for the fans and shareholders who had long tired of speculative investors reaping personal glory and profit at the expense of the welfare of the club.*


    So yes those initial shareholders who took the money should take a long hard look at themselves and their greed has caused us 15+ years of pain and nearly cost us our club entirely.


  23. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Stratford Upon Avon
    Posts
    2,541

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Quote Originally Posted by Calvin Plummer View Post
    I'll give you a potted history:

    Firstly the structure of the club prior to the takeover - we had 209 shareholders who owned the club, when a position became vacant people were nominated and if approved paid £1 for the privilege of owning us.*

    By 96 we'd been relegated and were largely living off a 15m overdraft, when an add appeared in the FT offering "A unique opportunity for investors to assist the club in implementing its plans for the next millennium". There were two rival groups*(I'm going to try not to muddy the water with Bovey, Lewis etc) that headed by Anderson and another by fronted by Scholar and Soar and later Wray. Each needed 75% of the members to vote for them for there to be a change in the ownership structure.*

    Anderson tried to win, Scholar simply tried to block Anderson until he gave up. Anderson had the fans backing, Scholar didn't care and just worked on the shareholders. Scholar wined and dined the shareholders, Anderson had Price Waterhouse on his side who recommended the shareholders accept his bid.*

    Wray and Scholar had excellent media links*(Mail, Express and Sun) - I can remember the sun portraying Wray as a saving hero and Anderson as a disgruntled Scot, and a rangers fan who never made it as a player.*

    Anderson offered: 13m in cash instantly for players with more to follow. In return, they wanted to set up a board of paid directors initially working in tandem with the current board, with the club being floated on the stock market in two to five years’ time. They estimated that the current £1 shares will be worth around £34,500 each. They also guaranteed that the club will not move ground or change the colour of the home shirts, and that at least 89% of all transfer money received will be reinvested in players within a year.*

    Scholar on the other hand said 'screw this waiting business, here is 17k right now'.*

    It should be noted that was against the constitution of the club; Clause 6 of the ‘Articles and Associations of Nottingham Forest Football Club’ reads as follows: “No consideration of any kind shall be paid or given for or in respect of the transfer of any share in the capital of the Company.” Still for 17k you can vote to overturn the constitution.*

    So those brave shareholders including*Larry*our forest legend took the money and ran.*

    Down we went that year but in their infinite wisdom Scholar and co raised season ticket prices by about 30% and we went from 18.5k season ticket holders to 12k. Scholar was then advised against floating the club but promised it would raise us*(him) 20m - instead it raised 1.8m. Then that consortium started to fall apart.*

    Wray resigned as chairman and in came Barnes who promised to put the Nottingham back in Nottingham Forest. He invited ND*(who was part of the Anderson bid) to effectively rescue us from the carpet bagging*(a judges words not mine) consortium of Scholar et all. He agreed to put 12m in initially but wanted controlling interest - not so much for himself but to get rid of the previous consortium who were destroying out club and syphoning out money. Each time you see Saracens win a trophy know that our club paid for that. Scholar and Markham resigned from the board but attempted to block the investment.*

    They could stop ND investing in the PLC as this required 75% approval but they couldn't stop him investing in the football club which only required 51% approval.*

    Scholar and Mark*ham filed suit, claim*ing the in*vestment was in contravention of company law and prejudicial to them. They demanded that the club be forced to repay the money, which would effectively bankrupt Forest.*

    During the trial, several startling revelations highlighted just how bitterly divided the board of directors had become. Julian Mark*ham testified that he had secretly bugged board meetings out of fear that other directors were plotting against him. Markham droned on for hours about his in*tense dislike of Phil Soar. Mr Justice Hart, presiding, considered all of this irrelevant to the issue.*

    In a remarkable turnaround towards the end of the case, the litigants withdrew their de*mands for repayment of Doughty’s investment, acknowledging the damage it would do to the club, and instead sought compensation by forcing the individual directors to buy their shares. Their case was dismissed. The judg*ment in favour of upholding the Doughty investment and dismissing all the litigants’ claims*(as well as awarding costs of up to £3 million to the club) was just reward for the fans and shareholders who had long tired of speculative investors reaping personal glory and profit at the expense of the welfare of the club.*


    So yes those initial shareholders who took the money should take a long hard look at themselves and their greed has caused us 15+ years of pain and nearly cost us our club entirely.
    Excellent and accurate. I bought shares when Forest was floated and as you say it brought in very little. When Doughty bought the club all of our shares became worthless. But given how much he put in that was a small price to pay. The original 209 shareholders should look at themselves in the mirror every day and say "I contributed to the shambles we became."

    Colin Cooper was on Radio Nottingham recently and said Bassett forced him out. He was happy to go to Boro but did not ask for a move.


  24. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,134

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Baker's Dog View Post
    Colin Cooper was on Radio Nottingham recently and said Bassett forced him out. He was happy to go to Boro but did not ask for a move.

    Hmmm, I'd be interested to hear Bassett's take on the Cooper transfer. Seems odd that after so many years Cooper would suddenly come out and say he was forced out as opposed to wanting to go, and thus helping seal out fate.

    Though on reflection who needed Colin Cooper when we had the Croatian maestro Nikola Jerkan...

    Last edited by Frank Clarks Tash; 18-03-15 at 11:09.

  25. #24
    Where's me hammer?
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    46,135

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Quote Originally Posted by Calvin Plummer View Post
    I'll give you a potted history:

    Firstly the structure of the club prior to the takeover - we had 209 shareholders who owned the club, when a position became vacant people were nominated and if approved paid £1 for the privilege of owning us.*

    By 96 we'd been relegated and were largely living off a 15m overdraft, when an add appeared in the FT offering "A unique opportunity for investors to assist the club in implementing its plans for the next millennium". There were two rival groups*(I'm going to try not to muddy the water with Bovey, Lewis etc) that headed by Anderson and another by fronted by Scholar and Soar and later Wray. Each needed 75% of the members to vote for them for there to be a change in the ownership structure.*

    Anderson tried to win, Scholar simply tried to block Anderson until he gave up. Anderson had the fans backing, Scholar didn't care and just worked on the shareholders. Scholar wined and dined the shareholders, Anderson had Price Waterhouse on his side who recommended the shareholders accept his bid.*

    Wray and Scholar had excellent media links*(Mail, Express and Sun) - I can remember the sun portraying Wray as a saving hero and Anderson as a disgruntled Scot, and a rangers fan who never made it as a player.*

    Anderson offered: 13m in cash instantly for players with more to follow. In return, they wanted to set up a board of paid directors initially working in tandem with the current board, with the club being floated on the stock market in two to five years’ time. They estimated that the current £1 shares will be worth around £34,500 each. They also guaranteed that the club will not move ground or change the colour of the home shirts, and that at least 89% of all transfer money received will be reinvested in players within a year.*

    Scholar on the other hand said 'screw this waiting business, here is 17k right now'.*

    It should be noted that was against the constitution of the club; Clause 6 of the ‘Articles and Associations of Nottingham Forest Football Club’ reads as follows: “No consideration of any kind shall be paid or given for or in respect of the transfer of any share in the capital of the Company.” Still for 17k you can vote to overturn the constitution.*

    So those brave shareholders including*Larry*our forest legend took the money and ran.*

    Down we went that year but in their infinite wisdom Scholar and co raised season ticket prices by about 30% and we went from 18.5k season ticket holders to 12k. Scholar was then advised against floating the club but promised it would raise us*(him) 20m - instead it raised 1.8m. Then that consortium started to fall apart.*

    Wray resigned as chairman and in came Barnes who promised to put the Nottingham back in Nottingham Forest. He invited ND*(who was part of the Anderson bid) to effectively rescue us from the carpet bagging*(a judges words not mine) consortium of Scholar et all. He agreed to put 12m in initially but wanted controlling interest - not so much for himself but to get rid of the previous consortium who were destroying out club and syphoning out money. Each time you see Saracens win a trophy know that our club paid for that. Scholar and Markham resigned from the board but attempted to block the investment.*

    They could stop ND investing in the PLC as this required 75% approval but they couldn't stop him investing in the football club which only required 51% approval.*

    Scholar and Mark*ham filed suit, claim*ing the in*vestment was in contravention of company law and prejudicial to them. They demanded that the club be forced to repay the money, which would effectively bankrupt Forest.*

    During the trial, several startling revelations highlighted just how bitterly divided the board of directors had become. Julian Mark*ham testified that he had secretly bugged board meetings out of fear that other directors were plotting against him. Markham droned on for hours about his in*tense dislike of Phil Soar. Mr Justice Hart, presiding, considered all of this irrelevant to the issue.*

    In a remarkable turnaround towards the end of the case, the litigants withdrew their de*mands for repayment of Doughty’s investment, acknowledging the damage it would do to the club, and instead sought compensation by forcing the individual directors to buy their shares. Their case was dismissed. The judg*ment in favour of upholding the Doughty investment and dismissing all the litigants’ claims*(as well as awarding costs of up to £3 million to the club) was just reward for the fans and shareholders who had long tired of speculative investors reaping personal glory and profit at the expense of the welfare of the club.*


    So yes those initial shareholders who took the money should take a long hard look at themselves and their greed has caused us 15+ years of pain and nearly cost us our club entirely.
    Thats a good post.


  26. #25
    Best served cold
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Cliftonia
    Posts
    24,478

    Default Re: PVH on 5 Live

    Quote Originally Posted by Calvin Plummer View Post
    I'll give you a potted history:

    Firstly the structure of the club prior to the takeover - we had 209 shareholders who owned the club, when a position became vacant people were nominated and if approved paid £1 for the privilege of owning us.*

    By 96 we'd been relegated and were largely living off a 15m overdraft, when an add appeared in the FT offering "A unique opportunity for investors to assist the club in implementing its plans for the next millennium". There were two rival groups*(I'm going to try not to muddy the water with Bovey, Lewis etc) that headed by Anderson and another by fronted by Scholar and Soar and later Wray. Each needed 75% of the members to vote for them for there to be a change in the ownership structure.*

    Anderson tried to win, Scholar simply tried to block Anderson until he gave up. Anderson had the fans backing, Scholar didn't care and just worked on the shareholders. Scholar wined and dined the shareholders, Anderson had Price Waterhouse on his side who recommended the shareholders accept his bid.*

    Wray and Scholar had excellent media links*(Mail, Express and Sun) - I can remember the sun portraying Wray as a saving hero and Anderson as a disgruntled Scot, and a rangers fan who never made it as a player.*

    Anderson offered: 13m in cash instantly for players with more to follow. In return, they wanted to set up a board of paid directors initially working in tandem with the current board, with the club being floated on the stock market in two to five years’ time. They estimated that the current £1 shares will be worth around £34,500 each. They also guaranteed that the club will not move ground or change the colour of the home shirts, and that at least 89% of all transfer money received will be reinvested in players within a year.*

    Scholar on the other hand said 'screw this waiting business, here is 17k right now'.*

    It should be noted that was against the constitution of the club; Clause 6 of the ‘Articles and Associations of Nottingham Forest Football Club’ reads as follows: “No consideration of any kind shall be paid or given for or in respect of the transfer of any share in the capital of the Company.” Still for 17k you can vote to overturn the constitution.*

    So those brave shareholders including*Larry*our forest legend took the money and ran.*

    Down we went that year but in their infinite wisdom Scholar and co raised season ticket prices by about 30% and we went from 18.5k season ticket holders to 12k. Scholar was then advised against floating the club but promised it would raise us*(him) 20m - instead it raised 1.8m. Then that consortium started to fall apart.*

    Wray resigned as chairman and in came Barnes who promised to put the Nottingham back in Nottingham Forest. He invited ND*(who was part of the Anderson bid) to effectively rescue us from the carpet bagging*(a judges words not mine) consortium of Scholar et all. He agreed to put 12m in initially but wanted controlling interest - not so much for himself but to get rid of the previous consortium who were destroying out club and syphoning out money. Each time you see Saracens win a trophy know that our club paid for that. Scholar and Markham resigned from the board but attempted to block the investment.*

    They could stop ND investing in the PLC as this required 75% approval but they couldn't stop him investing in the football club which only required 51% approval.*

    Scholar and Mark*ham filed suit, claim*ing the in*vestment was in contravention of company law and prejudicial to them. They demanded that the club be forced to repay the money, which would effectively bankrupt Forest.*

    During the trial, several startling revelations highlighted just how bitterly divided the board of directors had become. Julian Mark*ham testified that he had secretly bugged board meetings out of fear that other directors were plotting against him. Markham droned on for hours about his in*tense dislike of Phil Soar. Mr Justice Hart, presiding, considered all of this irrelevant to the issue.*

    In a remarkable turnaround towards the end of the case, the litigants withdrew their de*mands for repayment of Doughty’s investment, acknowledging the damage it would do to the club, and instead sought compensation by forcing the individual directors to buy their shares. Their case was dismissed. The judg*ment in favour of upholding the Doughty investment and dismissing all the litigants’ claims*(as well as awarding costs of up to £3 million to the club) was just reward for the fans and shareholders who had long tired of speculative investors reaping personal glory and profit at the expense of the welfare of the club.*


    So yes those initial shareholders who took the money should take a long hard look at themselves and their greed has caused us 15+ years of pain and nearly cost us our club entirely.
    Fantastic post.

    What a horrendous time that was for our club.


 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •