If RD wanted out (oh god please) and someone was paying him what he wanted he'd drop kick Murray quicker than you could say 'huh', he's not going to turn it down to look after RM. Why would he care if RM remainded or not after he went?
Unless RM knows something that RD needs to be kept quiet....
But what do I know !
I wonder what happens to RM's loans in the event of a takeover
Who knows. He and the fellow directors have a charge over sale of club assets but whether this is a sale by the holding company or is triggered by a change of ownership of the holding company is only something the parties to the agreement, their lawyers and advisers (and who they've told) would know?
Who knows. He and the fellow directors have a charge over sale of club assets but whether this is a sale by the holding company or is triggered by a change of ownership of the holding company is only something the parties to the agreement, their lawyers and advisers (and who they've told) would know?
They can insist on being paid on change of ownership or agree to roll it over, as twice before.
I was introduced to Paul before the match by a friend who, like him , is a Trustee of CACT.
He's totally aware & clued up about everything we're protesting about and ideally what needs to happen to secure our future.
He didn't mention any meeting with RD/KM of course and I didn't ask but he's a highly approachable guy who shook hands & greeted several fellow supporters whilst we were talking.
After the game, I was told that a meeting had taken place and £38m was "put on the table". Allegedly, RD was on the brink of signing on the dotted until it was made clear that a clause in the deal was that RM remained as Chairman....at which point, the "case of money" was firmly shut and Paul & co walked out.
Can't confirm this but if true, sounds as though we could be closer than we think to a resolution that would see Fanny more than 2 sheets to the wind.
I can't believe this is true. No way £38m would be put on the table (far too much) and the only way there would be such a clause regarding Murray being chairman would be if the new owners wanted him to be chairman or if he was part of the take over.
Fair enough and this was the first time I'd heard this scenario TBH.
No idea whether it has any legs in it but thought I'd pass it on regardless.
The biggest an most obvious stumbling block to any meaningful development seems to be pretty obvious, and that is the behaviour not of Richard Murray (which might be bad enough), but the behaviour of Latrine Merde. I also do not believe Latrien communicates the whole picture to Roland because she is (understandably) threatened by any sale. Latrien is the filter that does not clarify, but chite stirs.
Comments
I'm afraid to burst everyone's bubble, but I have it on good authority that he was only there to enquire about a small billboard opportunity.
No idea whether it has any legs in it but thought I'd pass it on regardless.
Can see that being an issue if you had no interest in RM being involved.
If not then maybe Murray is seeking an exit or a conversion of his stake in some way