Originally Posted by
Allez Allez Allez
On the Isaacs case, it is incredible that someone purpotedly from a finance background has got this wrong. Isaacs owned more than 2% of the club before his shares were diluted. His claim is, surely, that his shares were worth £10m at the time that he owned 10% before Tan then diluted them to take control of the club. He isn't claiming the club is worth £500m. He is claiming that his shares were worth £10m before Tan devalued each and every share he owned by bringing out a new share ownership.
On the Sala case, the guy was on a plane ready to come to Wales to play a game within 48 hours. Are the club saying he wouldn't have played that game at the time? And didn't the club say that "once a bluebird, always a bluebird" at the time of huge media attention?