moores does not need a public bashing, as that will not achieve this, what he does need is prompting and probing on the assurances supposedly provided by g&h to the shareholders in the share offer
I'm not disagreeing with any of your post, but I just want to comment on this bit.
Whereas some argue that it is counter-productive to analyse the letter, and say we should take it at face value, I dont agree. My main point is that debating Moores's letter will not take any steam out of the antiG&H campaign. Why should it? People can have a million different opinions about Moores's letter, and still be united in the opinion that G&H need to get out asap.
So I definitely am not trying to say that everyone must scrutinise Moores, or criticise Moores, or anything like that. I dont intend to stop, but I am not saying everyone else has to agree.
Having said all that, I think that there is a sense in which the lack of scrutiny of Moores could undermine the anti-G&H case if people are not careful. In his eagerness to deflect blame from himself, Moores has been keen to claim that G&H have broken the terms of their agreement with him. That is a claim which is easily refuted (and as I mentioned earlier, it seems likely that the Times lawyers insisted on it being toned down). So I dont think it is wise to hitch ourselves to Moores's deluded/false (delete as applicable) claim.
In terms of false promises, we already the press conference and the various interviews and photo shoots that they did at the time. We also have the announcement of offer. These things have all been in the public domain since the time of the purchase. G&H have definitely acted contrary to their public pronouncements at the time. IMHO, the campaign should continue to highlight that. We supporters were directly lied to by G&H.
I believe that further evidence, as it turns up, of GG's and TH's (in particular) financial situation as of Feb 2007 will show that they knew that they couldnt possibly get stadium finance, and thus had no intention of doing so.
Moores's letter has told us nothing that we didnt know already. And if we try to rely on any further promises made in private to Moores, then we run the risk that G&H will produce evidence of their own to undermine that claim.
BTW: There is one thing that Moores and Parry could announce, and which would undermine G&H, because the full details might shock people who arent aware of them. Moores and Parry should reveal exactly when Parry was offered the £500K bonus, and exactly what the terms of it were. Dont get me wrong. I am not suggesting that anything illegal happened. However, I am suggesting that the public at large has been given the impression that Parry's bonus had nothing to do with the G&H takeover in particular, and was just an entitlement that he had regardless of who bought LFC. I think that it more people realised that the bonus was DEFINITELY dependent solely on the G&H takeover then they would be interested in that. If it was offered (perfectly legally) while the DIC due diligence was still taking place, then I think a lot of people would think that a relevant factor in their opinion of G&H.
So if Moores is serious about wanting to influence public opinion about G&H, then let's hear from him about this issue.
On other hand, if he is only serious about trying to defend himself, then he will stay silent.