Quote Originally Posted by Allez Allez Allez View Post
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?
You are quite right about the Michael Isaac shareholding dilution- I was reporting on what was said by Mehmet Dalman at the meeting.
On checking the figures this evening, MI held approximately 11.4% of the shares in issue as at August 2011. As a result of new share issues and debt to equity conversions by Vincent Tan this has diluted greatly.As per an Annual Return in October 2020 there were just over 946m shares in issue of which nearly 930m were in the name of Vincent Tan (98%). Michael Isaac’s 11.2m shares now represent only just over 1% of the total.