As for leaving AZ's decisions unchecked -
by Extended-Phenotype » 18 Jul 2014 16:34
18 Jul 2014 16:34by melonhead » 18 Jul 2014 16:42
18 Jul 2014 16:42shut up then, you massive eggExtended-Phenotype wrote:Not really. Plenty of people who want to keep their integrity resign when their position is made untenable due to conflict of interest. Not saying I agree it would have been the best move but it's an understandable one when your ship is sailing in a direction you disagree with.
.
by Extended-Phenotype » 18 Jul 2014 16:48
18 Jul 2014 16:48Looks like I was right again. Just sayinggazzer, loyal royal wrote:Apparently there was a delay to the intended schedule with proof of funds and the first payment, so this may have pushed all the other formalities like fit and proper owners submission etcblythspartan wrote:Do we know if the takeover with Samrit is still happening?
I would have thought that if it was off CW and JF would have picked up on it.
I hope it's just a case of the money getting here from Thailand. Albeit that could take a while.
Due diligence was being done around 4 weeks a go, so guessing there are a few minor hiccups etc
Hiccups or just normal process? The latter I suspect.gazzer, loyal royal wrote:Apparently there was a delay to the intended schedule with proof of funds and the first payment, so this may have pushed all the other formalities like fit and proper owners submission etcblythspartan wrote:Do we know if the takeover with Samrit is still happening?
I would have thought that if it was off CW and JF would have picked up on it.
I hope it's just a case of the money getting here from Thailand. Albeit that could take a while.
Due diligence was being done around 4 weeks a go, so guessing there are a few minor hiccups etc
by From Despair To Where? » 18 Jul 2014 17:01
18 Jul 2014 17:01I didn't say he had no control, I said that had he resigned, he would have had no control over limiting the influence of Samuelson, Oblensky, Vibrac etc.Extended-Phenotype wrote:Not really. Plenty of people who want to keep their integrity resign when their position is made untenable due to conflict of interest. Not saying I agree it would have been the best move but it's an understandable one when your ship is sailing in a direction you disagree with.
As for leaving AZ's decisions unchecked -make up your mind! You were saying JM had no say or control just a minute ago.
by Royal Biscuitman » 18 Jul 2014 17:02
18 Jul 2014 17:02Most only have the loss of their income to worry about in those circumstances, not a 49% stake in the company supposedly worth £ Millions, He may not be able to stop if plummeting down to £Zero but at least he'll get a heads up by being there and can attempt to influence things, even if it proved futile.Extended-Phenotype wrote:Not really. Plenty of people who want to keep their integrity resign when their position is made untenable due to conflict of interest.
You're right. Must be the Reading way. The process has almost become farcical. How many more times are we going to see this sales process stop and go stop and go.Its really embarrassing now really, and boring!Royal Rother wrote:Indeed - it would absolutely NOT be normal process without hiccups along the way.
Daft to think everything just goes through smoothly in these transactions - both have to establish a mutual trust in initial discussions and then accept the fact that there will be challenges along the way but that the inherent trust established early on will see it through to a mutual conclusion where ground was given on both sides.
Anything else is tortuous.
Especially with all the prog you put on the "what the devil are you listening to?" thread.Royal Rother wrote:Indeed - it would absolutely NOT be normal process without hiccups along the way.
Daft to think everything just goes through smoothly in these transactions - both have to establish a mutual trust in initial discussions and then accept the fact that there will be challenges along the way but that the inherent trust established early on will see it through to a mutual conclusion where ground was given on both sides.
Anything else is tortuous.
Only Hot? You wuss. If you'd had Extra Hot Chicken Wings then I'd think about maybe believing you.Extended-Phenotype wrote:WokinghamPepe the Horseman wrote:Which Nando's? What did you have?
1/2 Chicken, fries, cob. Hot strength. Bottomless coke.
+1sandman wrote:Especially with all the prog you put on the "what the devil are you listening to?" thread.Royal Rother wrote:Indeed - it would absolutely NOT be normal process without hiccups along the way.
Daft to think everything just goes through smoothly in these transactions - both have to establish a mutual trust in initial discussions and then accept the fact that there will be challenges along the way but that the inherent trust established early on will see it through to a mutual conclusion where ground was given on both sides.
Anything else is tortuous.
Extra hot is only for misguided attempts to impress women on cheap dates.RG7Fan wrote:Only Hot? You wuss. If you'd had Extra Hot Chicken Wings then I'd think about maybe believing you.Extended-Phenotype wrote:WokinghamPepe the Horseman wrote:Which Nando's? What did you have?
1/2 Chicken, fries, cob. Hot strength. Bottomless coke.
yes. just couldn't be bothered to interpret the drift. just fed up generally with the whole saga.Ian Royal wrote:I think you may have misunderstood RR, paddy.
Stop the presses!Dave-Royal wrote:SB is our new onwer
Users browsing this forum: Astos, Crowbar6753, dave the magic moron, Google [Bot], Horsham Royal, Royalscot, The Cap, Vision, wolsey and 205 guests