Concern over Politics going on behind the scenes

[Nick]

Arguing for the sake of it at this point.

Tbf that was always going to happen on this thread.

[Hubble]

Arguing for the sake of it at this point.

No, it's not. And neither is this. It's in the interests of accuracy.

[surrey_hoop]

No, it's not. And neither is this. It's in the interests of accuracy.

No, it's a question of semantics. My points are all valid as well.

[Hubble]

No, it's a question of semantics. My points are all valid as well.

Actually it's not about semantics. You said 'fighting amongst themselves' was 'not stating or even insinuating' that the situation is a drama. Since you have no evidence that they are actually 'fighting amongst themselves', other than that Bhatia Snr. has filed a lawsuit against Fernandes, which is a standard business MO in this particular situation, and does not represent any kind of picture of the QPR boardroom situation, I submit sir, that you are dramatising the situation for rhetorical effect. If it was down to semantics, it would be about our personal interpretations, but in this case, I'd say it doesn't require such hair-splitting to discern the meaning.

At least we agree on the Rob Green #### up!

[theblackmafia.]

top post. finally bringing it back into reason. this article is exactly what Hubble's said: Amit's dad is only a 10% shareholder and is leaking to the media his anger that the low cost airline sector is not as profitable as he'd like. Not only is Air Asia Group Malaysia the majority SH at 49%, the 3rd and final shareholder is Tata Group - which is run by Mittal, aka Amit's father in law!
I don't know Amit Bhatia as well as ITK experts like those on this thread obviously. But I can't see Amit getting between his dad throwing his toys out the pram, and his wife's daddy who owns much more of the company!
And certainly this wouldn't impact QPR's goings on.

If Amit's dad had any sense, he would divest, or try some methods of hostile takeover for majority. Clearly no one else on that board agrees with his views.

Since when has Mittal "run" the Tata group? It's run by Cyrus Pallonji Mistry

[Martinmalta]

Seems we did a good thing by appointing JFH, however, there's always an anti climax at QPR.

[Bill]

Seems we did a good thing by appointing JFH, however, there's always an anti climax at QPR.

Stability at Rangers in your dreams

[A Man Without A Clue]

Since when has Mittal "run" the Tata group? It's run by Cyrus Pallonji Mistry

Sounds like a Bond villain!

[surrey_hoop]

Actually it's not about semantics. You said 'fighting amongst themselves' was 'not stating or even insinuating' that the situation is a drama. Since you have no evidence that they are actually 'fighting amongst themselves', other than that Bhatia Snr. has filed a lawsuit against Fernandes, which is a standard business MO in this particular situation, and does not represent any kind of picture of the QPR boardroom situation, I submit sir, that you are dramatising the situation for rhetorical effect. If it was down to semantics, it would be about our personal interpretations, but in this case, I'd say it doesn't require such hair-splitting to discern the meaning.

At least we agree on the Rob Green #### up!

Right, but 'fighting amongst themselves' was meant entirely on a legal level, which I thought was pretty obvious in the context of my other comments....the fact that you have construed them as me calling it a soap opera with the owners at each other's throats is a personal interpretation. So yes, it is semantics.

You're right on Rob Geen however.

[Hubble]

I don't think it was obvious that it was a rhetorical device.