Thanks for your view notdistant.....I was anticipating some comment from you being more your line. I expected some backlash on Wrathall reappearing....but not to the extent of what has been said on the other two sites.
Thank you Not Distant- that is what I was trying to say but couldn't remember the correct phrase, hence my point about trying to separate the business and emotional sides of the discussion/situation. I do have some reservations about the moral side of this (though obviously not as many as most) but I can't see any downside to having another investor on board regardless of whether this was a private sale or if there is some new money for the club (either now or in the future).
notdistant, it isn't the case that people don't understand that these people's private wealth is safe from the preditors. People see Company Directors get away with their own money time after time even if the great unwashed don't know what it's called officially. However, unofficially, which counts for diddly squat of course, ordinary folk think it's completely 100% immoral that people can just welch on their debts and then some time later get involved with the same thing all over again and of course potentially do the same thing. If you enter into a contract with somebody else then it has to contain an element of good faith that both you and the other party are genuine in being able to pay for or supply whatever is on offer. Neither side could possibly know the inside info of all people they do business with. It is generally true that the ones in trouble know they are in trouble and none of it just sneaks up out of nowhere. Despite this they continue to trade knowing that somebody else will foot a lot of the bill if things do colapse. That is where ordinary folk find it impossible to swallow. I realise I'm being naive of course. I'm not in business and personally would go hungry to pay a debt to somebody else if I'd run one up. It's why I live in my humble abode and not in the detatched mansion they live in. For Gat I'd say you can split the two things. I could not give up my football even if I think the people who run my club are the worst or bad. The actual football bit, what happens on the pitch, has nothing to do with the dealings and morals of the owners and associates. I can understand not wanting to give your money to that person and and using your entrance fee as your protest against them. But to just turn your back on it and walk away completly is not on my radar. I simply just could not ignore the results on a matchday and being chuffed if Argyle won a match no matter what the owner did.
If the division between private "private wealth" and share ownership didn't exist, we'd have no economy. And we definitely have no football. Who'd be stupid enough to buy a few shares in this, that or the other if in addition to losing the money they invested, the bailiffs could be knocking on the door seeking a share of losses run up by the company concerned? If people didn't buy a few shares in this, that or the other, where would we all get jobs? Who'd be stupid enough to put their money into a football club of all things if, despite your best efforts as a shareholder/director, keeping your family home was at risk based on whether 11 muddy oiks managed by an ex muddy oik could avoid relegation to the Blue Square? This stuff is important, if you start to say that shareholders and directors are liable for losses of a limited company, then the whole world as we know it starts to collapse. See you at Home Park on Saturday, if minor family ailments permit.
I'm not talking about some old lady who has 100 shares in the Co-op although I do appreciate she would be a beneficiary of a company as a share holder if there was money to hand out. I'm talking about the big people who not only own the company but do the business part of it as well. I don't know why I'm trying to explain what I mean because I'm sure you already knew what I was getting at anyway. It is the inviting back of one of these people in Argyle's case that sticks in the gullet after I and many others put money in buckets to pay staff who the Directors stuffed. He comes back as if nothing had happened at all. There is simply no morality in business at all. Whatever makes the world of business go round does not have to be liked or found acceptable.
No, and there should be no morality in business. It is the Government's job to enact laws which include morality and justice in a way that reflects society's wishes. It's then up to business to comply with the law. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about big investors or small. Lifting the Veil would expose both groups to unacceptable risks which would be proportionate to the size of their investment. That would destroy the capital markets, destroy companies' ability to raise funds and with it destroy lives & jobs. It's not exaggerating to say it would destroy the world as we know it.
Most of these Directors are not able to direct Traffic, let alone be a director on a board. Look at me a Director of a Plumbing & Heating company.. that says it all?/ please be polite!!
Does it give youn a sinking feeling then joe.........boom...boom....as basil would say.....can't do the laugh.
