Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:55 pm
Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:57 pm
nobby wrote:I am led to believe that they only own 47% of the shares or am i wrong.
If thats the case then my question is, why the hell are they taking advice of Sam Hammam, why not speak to the other 53% of shareholders first.
Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:58 pm
Tony Blue Williams wrote:nobby wrote:I am led to believe that they only own 47% of the shares or am i wrong.
If thats the case then my question is, why the hell are they taking advice of Sam Hammam, why not speak to the other 53% of shareholders first.
Because Sam is interested in the welfare of CCFC and the other 53% arn't......
Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:59 pm
Tony Blue Williams wrote:nobby wrote:I am led to believe that they only own 47% of the shares or am i wrong.
If thats the case then my question is, why the hell are they taking advice of Sam Hammam, why not speak to the other 53% of shareholders first.
Because Sam is interested in the welfare of CCFC and the other 53% arn't......
Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:02 pm
Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:03 pm
nobby wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:nobby wrote:I am led to believe that they only own 47% of the shares or am i wrong.
If thats the case then my question is, why the hell are they taking advice of Sam Hammam, why not speak to the other 53% of shareholders first.
Because Sam is interested in the welfare of CCFC and the other 53% arn't......
So why doesn't Sam come out publicly and say it then, i also find it hard to beleive that the full 53% are not interested, but thats just my opinion.
Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:21 pm
Tony Blue Williams wrote:nobby wrote:I am led to believe that they only own 47% of the shares or am i wrong.
If thats the case then my question is, why the hell are they taking advice of Sam Hammam, why not speak to the other 53% of shareholders first.
Because Sam is interested in the welfare of CCFC and the other 53% arn't......
Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:25 pm