singers_pore
Well-Known Member
Scenario #1
GH and the rest of the bidders are incompetent fools who had no idea about the conflict of interest arising from Sam Allardyce's directorship.
Scenario #2
GH and the rest of the bidders were intending to rectify the problem arising from Sam Allardyce's directorship in the event that the takeover bid got further down the road. In other words, there is no point in paying off Allardyce to get him off the board of the other company unless there is a real prospect that the takeover was going to happen.
What do you lot think? I find it hard to believe that Scenario #1 is the case. And the only other possible explanation I can think of is Scenario #2. That would possibly explain why GH was so keen on a confidentiality clause right from the beginning.
GH and the rest of the bidders are incompetent fools who had no idea about the conflict of interest arising from Sam Allardyce's directorship.
Scenario #2
GH and the rest of the bidders were intending to rectify the problem arising from Sam Allardyce's directorship in the event that the takeover bid got further down the road. In other words, there is no point in paying off Allardyce to get him off the board of the other company unless there is a real prospect that the takeover was going to happen.
What do you lot think? I find it hard to believe that Scenario #1 is the case. And the only other possible explanation I can think of is Scenario #2. That would possibly explain why GH was so keen on a confidentiality clause right from the beginning.