yes and they have been masterful at pegging the share price 10%gives power and can dictate no seat requested on board says everything cat and mouse the postman and G grocer only had Murdocks son to worry about not Goldman shorting
funny 150000 shares 14 years ago and holding you still would have made good money with specials selling out at high more but big hit in tax and you still own the stock by not selling but getting caught with LIBERTY stock on take over could be a headache
well done dallo spot on however the city boys do not like itv they think its a bit NAFF REMEMBER the company run by the grocer and the postman boy did they have the last laugh taking millions out in specials plus shares still long term holders did all right i know i did
funking Malone and GOLDMAN controlling share price have done for years and you can not escape it 10%is a leverage and will always win plus the shadow 10% of goldmen take on the chin and say no more
when Murdock owned 10% the FT did a write up that it was clearly a holding move to stop a VIRGIN takeover .LIBERTY brought the stake not a good deal for MURDOCK IT IS THE SAME MEAT DIFFERENT GRAVEY it is a holding stake which will backfire and after all who wants Liberty stock for it will not be a cash deal.Amazon is the player we want .
no thats not the point Liberty still want the company but when they decide its a holding stake and are entitled to a seat on the board which would be the correct thing to do but they do not call him the media cowboy for nothing
look dummies nothing will ever change with Malone holding 10% of the stock it blocks everything thats why years ago Murdock held the same as he did not want a rival takeover bid and he paid top dollar