I mean this is literally my point
All I am saying is that theoretically, they have done a deal that allows them to takeover the club at some point in the future if they want. Is that a 'takeover' deal? Some people would say yes, some people would say not until the right to buy is exercised. It's a slightly ambiguous deal in that regard because it could still end up in all 3 outcomes (buy us, walk away, hold position).
So I am asking (politely) whether one man's takeover is another man's convertible loan, whether one man's 'deal to buy us' is exactly what we ended up with, and that the insistence - against the express public opinion of a man bound to legally not lie about FPP - that they made a bid to buy the majority of the shares in October last year may in fact refer to the convertible loan that they could exercise in future. I'm simply asking whether that terminology has caused confusion.
If you actually read it, it's trying to help us all understand what has happened and whether the 'two sides' are actually just talking about the same thing.