Just letting the deal to Pearman .
didnt happen. this was brought about democratically from memoury
proposed by Rodey Walker and from memoury seconded by Hinchcliff ? at a Agm then voted upon .As all the shares had equal voting as Ted allways said.
If these shares had been issued along the same lines how many more shares
would have been sold Salford. style
and not this bogus share issue

The same Salford that are now rumoured to be in dire financial straits ???

How can it be bogus?
The people handing their money over, knew exactly why (I hope) and so did the club accepting their hard earned. I'm sure that any shareholder who was not happy, would have been given their money back.

Of course it has. The stand doesn't belong to them so they couldn't be charging rent.
Try again.

Just to go off topic again, love their music.

Them were the days



trip down memory lane there.
But you do make a good point. I thought Salford did a great job and the amount they raised very impressive for a club no bigger, probably smaller than us.

And good due diligence like is happening now would have stopped that.

I thought the stand belonged to Spirit 1873, am I mistaken

Knowbody knows the truth in what is happening so dont get why people pretend to know,i personally got told that it had been finalised and gone through but i guess not.i would also say and i maybe totally wrong i dont know nothing in matters like this but wouldnt deals of a takeover have to be completed before due dilligence starts?

who owns the stand

ii guess that open shares not held on to by the current incombands would have brought in investment.

iwas it. the fear of losing control ?and indeed would i think made any takover easier.
who invests in something that then they have no control of the direction of their investment ?
point i make is different share issue would have diluted current owners.
motive has always got to be club first and this is always seen by actions