I know there is already a post going about Murray needing to speak up but I thought I needed to start a slightly different one....
When Richard Murray sold to Michael Slater and Tony Jiminez I'm sure he still held a 10% stake in the club thus MS and TJ owned 90%. Then when they sold to RD I was under the impression that RD only bought the entirety of the stake owned by MS and TJ and that RM still maintained that 10%. I have since seen reports that RD alo bought RM's stake as well. But surely Murray surely would not have had any say on who MS and TJ sold their stake to as he no longer owns it.
I was wondering if somebody could clear up if Murray still has this 10% stake or not.
But whatever, Murray is still on the board and has come out in support of RD. Now I must admit I find it a tad strange that he would support him knowing how keen he was to sell to the right person. Now you would have thought he would feel seeing what the club has been through in the past surely you'd feel that deep down he must think that RD isn't right.
The question is; Is Murray only coming out in support of RD to keep his place on the board?
But another burning question is this. IF Murray was to stand down and leave the club and then to speak up and make a statement by speaking up by saying that he did not like the way RD was running the show and how his life was hell under him (just like the likes of SCP, Yann, Guy Luzon, etc...); How many fans' respect would he be able to win back by coming out with a statement like that? -Or- Is the damage too much done?
1
Comments
Richard Murray.
Why are you letting your legacie go rotten......If it can go any lower.
Bet he gets more than 14 chips with it .
This post is the most original by a mile - which is saying al lot!
But, and I hope I've got this right, the oft quoted 10% is mildly interesting. That's because when 90% of a company's shares have been acquired, the acquirer has the right to force the sale of the remaining 10%.
In other words, a minority shareholder would have no choice but to sell up.
But, and I hope I've got this right, the oft quoted 10% is mildly interesting. That's because when 90% of a company's shares have been acquired, the acquirer has the right to force the sale of the remaining 10%.
In other words, a minority shareholder would have no choice but to sell up.
And do not pass GO and do not collect £200.