TOPIC: Cumb News - Jenkins/Investor

Apparently the Billionaire was interested in an unnamed Italian team but walked away when someone let it out the bag...

Says "There is someone" but admits "Might not happen"...

Main article is in the Life section, where there's mention of the agent, conference calls, confidentiality, all the usual, and that if falls through he'll tell people...

Nothing new really...

CCU wrote:

What a load of Josh! The buyer in that case will never buy as he would be found out at sometime, more like people are getting close with Steve Bellis etc and they are trying to delay.

CCU wrote:
Told you.

This is the announcement where talks are becoming difficult. Very soon we'll have him pulling out.

Looks like a complete PR stunt to later apportion blame for what everyone feels is a complete red-herring..........

I thought in his speech at the recent awards ceremony, he said the Club would be best served staying in local hands ??

He said he was looking for local investment, you're right (obviously another lie, since they showed Laffy the door). I suspect that speech was sort of paving the way for this, soon they'll be telling us that they had to give the billionaire a go, they had to follow up on it, the talks were good, but the investor was not right for the club, and we won't be going back to the Lapping bid.

They really do think all of us are absolute idiots.

Can't believe the CN deem this garbage worthy of print.

I couldn't agree more mate. It is 4 months since the 5 to 10 days statement. So far they've said nothing more than they said in the first one. Everyone has known it was a ploy to get Lapping's bid out of the door, nothing more, nothing less. The Cumberland News should be taking Jenkins to task over his behaviour on this, some really difficult questions should have been asked about the nature of business investments and the time they take. They should also be trying to find the real reasons why the Lapping bid was binned, why Nixon lied about standing down, what the crack was with Pattison's phone, what's gan on with Blue Wonder and a host of other things.

If he wouldn't answer then they should just have published a blank page headlined these are the answers to our questions to Andrew Jenkins.

The local media treat Jenkins as some sort of hero. They'd never disrespect him by giving him any kind of 'grilling'. Pathetic journalism all round.

Yet he and his mate are disrespecting them, and all the fans by constantly telling the most obvious and blatant lies possible. Do you think they're frightened of being locked out and given nothing at all?

Moorlad wrote:
Yes Moorlad I agree. I feel the N&S; have published as much as they can and asked as much as they can.

They can't over pressurise or ask too many controversial questions as they will likely get banned, its happened before.

If they do though Mullen, they're then free to say exactly what they like. I think I might be inclined to take that risk.

Isn't there some law whereby Company Directors are obliged to tell the truth about the Company to the shareholders? In effect by telling lies about future investment, are they not effectively changing the value of those shares whether they are for sale or not? In fact some of those shares may be for sale if one of the small shareholders wants to sell.

The directors are responsible for maximising shareholders wealth. The shareholders are themselves and the trust, you could possibly argue that by keeping the discussions from the trust they aren't being entirely decent. But there is no trust representation on the Holding Company board (yet), and the shareholders have appointed the directors, so the directors themselves don't necessarily have to report everything to all shareholders, so no, they are not acting against the law.

Also there are no small shareholders, we are only talking about the Holding Company, the shares are owned by Jenkins, Nixon, Pattison and the trust. That company holds the vast majority of the shares in the football club.

The sale of the club, which we keep going on about, is effectively the sale of the holding company, or some of the shares in that company.

Point taken Moorlad, but there's a big difference between not keeping the other shareholders fully informed, and telling them blatant lies.

Agreed, but it isn't against the law. It isn't even in contravention of the Companies Act, unless it affects the value of the shares owned by the trust and they have deliberately acted to reduce the value of those shares. I think they could easily prove that not to be the case.

CCU wrote:
So naming the italian club would deffo give the billionaire away then? Or not, if no-one can find any evidence online of this actually happening, which would prove another theory.

Can someone possibly post this article please?

Lie after lie after lie. Nothing but smoke and mirrors on everything from Blue yonder upwards.

Would we in fact want an owner who chooses to hide behind confidentiality clauses and does a runner if his name gets out.

Might be better than one who invents billionaires, confidentiality clauses and everything else, then stays.

its complete and utter codswallop.

But take it at face value. With all the secrets, lies and conspiracy theories would we want anyone anyway that's so secretive he doesn't even want his name announced otherwise he takes the pap and pulls out. We can forget about fan involvement and anything else, its all hypothetical anyway but the question needs asked from the official statement.

Mullen103 wrote:
They won't get banned Mullen - Comical Andy is far from stupid - he's done a good job painting Jenkins as some kind of local hero as others have said - and knows that N&S; would go after him and his mates full throttle....also; how does it fit in with the narrative that they are trying to spin.

If I was editing the N&S; and Comical (that great defender of free speech), doing his masters bidding unthinkingly as always, said "stop or I'll ban you" I'd simply call his bluff...

Oldhamblue wrote:
If the local press went at them with reasoned and pertinent questions and their reaction was to say nothing and ban them from BP, what message would that in itself send out?

"we've got something to hide, fook off asking questions"

Good grief! What a load of absolute twaddle.

Or "we know everyone knows, and we don't care about anybody else, so leave us alone and let us get on with fleecing the people of Cumbria".

Moorlad wrote:
They've not had talks! No firm offer or anything!

Mr Quint wrote:
That aimed at me Quint?

I think maybe at Jenkins.

Hmm
www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/02...lan-chinese-takeover

There's someone but "it might not happen"

Bruntonpasty wrote:
Just so that there is zero confusion it was totally and utterly aimed at Jenkins!!!!!!!!! I am so done in by all this, just when KC is doing his bit on the pitch, those who run the club let it down so badly in my opinion!

Rsblue wrote:
Christ, Silvio Berlusconi looks like a corpse with make up on

CCU wrote:
Utter rubbish. He just can't help himself can he? Just keeps digging the hole deeper. Time his family stepped in. Or at least, someone who cares about him.

People are laughing at him and Nixon. People who aren't even CUFC fans. It's embarrassing.

His family are not interested in CUFC, but I bet they have tickets for Anfield!