Bradford in need of a new beginning after sorry story of mismanagement

I was referring to Rahic services and directors providing them - apologies if the reply was not specific

 

Welcome to Bantam talk Dennis.

 

You can see how fake news spreads so easily.

Generally, anything that looks or sounds official (figures, costs, statistics) get shares and believers, even nonsensical stories if they back up nonsensical personal beliefs or opinions.

Brexit's a great example, either way.

 

Yes, unlike a Public limited or listed company the majority share holder is under no obligation to report anything to either the city or to other shareholders.A private limited company has to file accounts with company house once per year. A minority shareholder has zero input or rights. I’ve been in that position and it’s untennable. Just think about it, Rupp decides to change something strategic, he rings Edin, “Edin do yo agree?” Edin says “No” Rupp says 75 to 25 sorry my choice!!
That can be anything from employing a CEO to selling the business, Edin wouldn’t be able to influence anything, in fact he could own 25% and be banned from the ground if Rupp so wanted to.

 

Dennis,
I’ve been a board director, a share holder, a non exec ditector in the private sector and now sit as a divisional director of a PLC so thanks for informing me of my misunderstanding of company law!
Don’t want to start a row or anything.......just saying it as it is, if you don’t want to believe it then that’s your prerogative

 

We’ve got to ITKs and two conflicting stories. Some get the popcorn gif posted.

 

I don't think that is true. As far as I am aware if they own the same class of share, then if a dividend is declared it must be paid to all shareholders. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

 

I think we've only got one ITK

 

That's the same lad who knew about Colin Doyle before it happened isn't it? and leaked those Mason Tweets

 

Don't know about Doyle but he leaked the Paul Taylor news days earlier

 

It was a bit like @Offcomedun telling us that Bruenker played a part in both goals against Oxford and @Park bantam insisting he drew a load of men towards him prior to the goals.

Both statements were completely false yet received not far off double figures in 'likes' between them.

It just shows that people will believe owt if it backs up their particular viewpoint, even if they've seen different with their own eyes.

Bizarre really.

 

Made me chuckle

 

All about 'presence' m8.

 

aren't we still yet to hear from Park following Bruenker's 'performance' on Tuesday?

hoiked off at the half, and we fared better in the second half without him. strange that. I thought he was a difference maker.

 

haha - we've made this into another Bruenker thread

 

Yeah sorry Taylor that's it

 

Points well made and accepted BB but
even against his own objectives (aspirations as Park would say) he has failed miserably.