I asked this on the main board: is it not against CP's fiduciary duty to be involved in such a scenario, and if he were could he not be sued for fraud or whatever?
As someone who's been actively involved in the campaign against the owners for bloody years now, it seems to me that we weaken our case by engaging in speculation that could be easily refuted (if it is untrue) and we should therefore be careful to get our facts right, particularly at the moment when there's a backlash against the campaign in tandem with feel-good pr engendered by the club. We should also source that article to see if someone credible is writing it.
Yes and yes. It's not coming from SoS but the speculation over MidOcean may not be helpful, unless it has a basis in some kind of fact beyond Purslow's business links.
Just wrote a post in the 'Join the Union' thread about pretty much this.
Key questions which need answering are really:
1) What links does Liverpool FC, via Kop Delaware, have with other businesses and holding companies of Tom Hicks and George Gillett?
2) Are the current board of directors currently acting as they are because of their legal duties to protect the interests of creditors?
3) What is the timeframe in which any potential sale of the club
must happen before the board must act to ensure that club will not have to enter administration?
4) Are the board determined to ensure the long term viability of the club by refusing any future attempts to buy it on the LBO model and to ensure that the existing ownership is locked out of retaining control of the club via the models we've seen demonstrated at Chelsea and Leeds and Chester?
5) At what stage would the club have to recognise that the 'New Anfield' project as it exists currently needs to be written off?
6) Are the board sure that we have received value for money on this project after their study of the costs?