Legal action

[Darran]

Websites need hits. Lies generate debates, debates generate hits. If you don’t want to feed it, ignore it.

Fair point.

 

[3swan]

It's been a few months since I left so outside of various things that get asked as a "key" witness to events the obvious thing I would say is that the Trust said mediation was pointless as neither levien or kaplan would be attending

It would seem worthless trying to mediate with people not involved

I'd need to read previous public statements but I'm 99% certain we said any legal action would be against sellers and buyers, the Trust website would have details of all the forum addresses and I can look later on my laptop

Against buyers and sellers is how I understand it. Not the club. The outcome of a legal case if successful I guess would be down to the judge as to whether it's some sort of cash payment or purchase of shares.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Websites need hits. Lies generate debates, debates generate hits. If you don’t want to feed it, ignore it.

Yea point taken.

But what on the thread in question is specifically a lie?

 

[PSumbler]

It's been a few months since I left so outside of various things that get asked as a "key" witness to events the obvious thing I would say is that the Trust said mediation was pointless as neither levien or kaplan would be attending

It would seem worthless trying to mediate with people not involved

I'd need to read previous public statements but I'm 99% certain we said any legal action would be against sellers and buyers, the Trust website would have details of all the forum addresses and I can look later on my laptop

Is it your understanding that legal action would result in the trust selling their shares? (in the event of a trust win)

That was always presented as a likely outcome of winning a legal case through the courtrooms.

Had the mediation/negotiation worked then it may have presented a different outcome.

One thing is certain though, the action has never been nor never would be against the club. That is just something that suits a certain argument to try and deflect people away from legal action or at least pursuing it.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Is it your understanding that legal action would result in the trust selling their shares? (in the event of a trust win)

That was always presented as a likely outcome of winning a legal case through the courtrooms.

Had the mediation/negotiation worked then it may have presented a different outcome.

One thing is certain though, the action has never been nor never would be against the club. That is just something that suits a certain argument to try and deflect people away from legal action or at least pursuing it.

Ok thank you.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Assume this thread is in relation to the thread on the other site, which I’ve just had a quick look at.

Just an opinion piece rather than being based on any factual ‘inside’ knowledge to be honest.

Not quite sure the point of it, but whatever floats anyone’s boat.

 

[Darran]

Assume this thread is in relation to the thread on the other site, which I’ve just had a quick look at.

Just an opinion piece rather than being based on any factual ‘inside’ knowledge to be honest.

Not quite sure the point of it, but whatever floats anyone’s boat.

You’ve got to laugh haven’t you?
The Resloven chap who has absolutely no idea makes a post and Perch who has even less of an idea and doesn’t really know what day of the week it is replies “good post.” :lol:

 

[JackSomething]

Assume this thread is in relation to the thread on the other site, which I’ve just had a quick look at.

Just an opinion piece rather than being based on any factual ‘inside’ knowledge to be honest.

Not quite sure the point of it, but whatever floats anyone’s boat.

You’ve got to laugh haven’t you?
The Resloven chap who has absolutely no idea makes a post and Perch who has even less of an idea and doesn’t really know what day of the week it is replies “good post.” :lol:

I remember the good old days when you two were still friends and Perch hated it whenever anyone got a 'good post'. It obviously burned that he never got one himself the poor dab.

 

[Darran]

You’ve got to laugh haven’t you?
The Resloven chap who has absolutely no idea makes a post and Perch who has even less of an idea and doesn’t really know what day of the week it is replies “good post.” :lol:

I remember the good old days when you two were still friends and Perch hated it whenever anyone got a 'good post'. It obviously burned that he never got one himself the poor dab.

He’s not a well man. Seriously though he needs help. It’s so embarrassing to see someone have no idea what’s gone on at the football club he pretends to support.

 

[Darran]

The thread on the other site is so pitiful it’s embarrassing.
Fuck. Ing. Hell. Even Chief has lost the plot now.
Pitiful to see grown men like that.

I’ll say it again so try and read it slowly. The legal action is against the two American buyers and all the sellers.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

The thread on the other site is so pitiful it’s embarrassing.
Fuck. Ing. Hell. Even Chief has lost the plot now.
Pitiful to see grown men like that.

I’ll say it again so try and read it slowly. The legal action is against the two American buyers and all the sellers.

Care to elaborate on your comment about me?

 

[Darran]

The thread on the other site is so pitiful it’s embarrassing.
Fuck. Ing. Hell. Even Chief has lost the plot now.
Pitiful to see grown men like that.

I’ll say it again so try and read it slowly. The legal action is against the two American buyers and all the sellers.

Care to elaborate on your comment about me?

Yes of course. I’m not sure wtf is so difficult to understand.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Care to elaborate on your comment about me?

Yes of course. I’m not sure wtf is so difficult to understand.

How does that mean I've lost the plot? Point me to a trust publication which outlines who's subject to the legal proceedings&what the proposed outcome is.

Is it damages only? Is the aim to force the sale of shares?

I support legal action which results in the trust gathering more funds&for justice but i dont think im alone in saying that there are plenty of specifics that haven't been clarified. As seen by that thread. The OP usually seems quite clued up but there must be a reason for him having the perspective he has on the case.

 

[Darran]

Yes of course. I’m not sure wtf is so difficult to understand.

How does that mean I've lost the plot? Point me to a trust publication which outlines who's subject to the legal proceedings&what the proposed outcome is.

Is it damages only? Is the aim to force the sale of shares?

I support legal action which results in the trust gathering more funds&for justice but i dont think im alone in saying that there are plenty of specifics that haven't been clarified. As seen by that thread. The OP usually seems quite clued up but there must be a reason for him having the perspective he has on the case.

You don’t need a trust publication which outlines who’s subject to the legal proceedings it’s been mentioned often enough over the last few years.
The OP is not clued up about anything he’s making it up just to get hits.
He posted a thread about Borini a few weeks ago that was complete bollox too.

I’ll say it again,the legal proceedings are against Kaplan,Levien and all the sellers including Davies, Dineen,Jenkins,Katzen,Morgan,van Zweden.
I’m not sure what’s difficult to understand.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Yes of course. I’m not sure wtf is so difficult to understand.

How does that mean I've lost the plot? Point me to a trust publication which outlines who's subject to the legal proceedings&what the proposed outcome is.

Is it damages only? Is the aim to force the sale of shares?

I support legal action which results in the trust gathering more funds&for justice but i dont think im alone in saying that there are plenty of specifics that haven't been clarified. As seen by that thread. The OP usually seems quite clued up but there must be a reason for him having the perspective he has on the case.

“ The OP usually seems quite clued up but there must be a reason for him having the perspective he has on the case.”

Having read the thread in question, I’d state again that it’s not based on any inside knowledge of the situation. It’s a bunch of people arguing about nothing more than one person’s theory. It’s a shame to see the Trust being criticised on the back of it.