Jarhead
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2010
- 20,670
- 2,378
- 245
No..I understand ownership transfer pretty well.
What I don't understand is the nonsense you are spewing.
Because you had some kludgey private deal doesn't mean that traverses every industry.
And was your "service" company, public? I doubt it. Because you probably didn't file with the SEC.
And even with that..it still sounds like you were 100% responsible for what happened to your business.
my goal was not to prove what Mitt was doing in those meetings.
My goal was to refute your theory that the fact that he attended those meetings is prrof he lied when he said he had no role in the business.
SO I used my sale contract as an example where I, still majority owner of the company on paper has a contractual obligation to STAY OUT OF the day to day operations of the company I am a majority owner of yet the new owner has a contractual obligation to meet with me face to face no less than 10 times a year over the next 5 years..untiul all stock is transferred. This is becuase I, as 100% owner until recently have my name on every vendor and client contract still in effect...and whereas I can not intervene in any decision she (the new owner) makes, I have the right to know if it will have an adverse affect on my personal reputation, credibility and credit rating...and at that point I am permitted to have an independant auditor review the activities if there is evindience of her being in breach of contract.
And that is exactly what I did. I successfully refuted your theory that Mitt attending those meetings is proof he lied about playing a roile in Bain after his departure.
He may have played a role...he may not have. But meetings with the new ownership is by no means proof.
Stop.
You post falls apart right here.
Romney says..there were no meetings.
Romney says..there was no involvement with Bain..whatsoever.
He's lying.
And what this boils down to is this. Romney is running on his record at Bain. An examination into Bain finds the company was wildly successful at making it's investors a huge profit. But generally at a cost to the average joe and their jobs. This didn't only occur after 1999..mind you. Romney invested in Chinese companies prior to that who's interest it was to move American jobs to China.
I mean..that's fine. He made money doing it. It was nothing illegal.
And the whole focus of the GOP is not Labor..but entrepreneurs, owners and executives.
They say that constantly. I dunno why they run away from it when they are grilled about it.
No.
What Romeny said was he never met with Bain to discuss day to day operations.
He also said he was not involved with Bain....and he wasnt.
But only someone trying to prove him as a liar would think that he was ALSO referring to any meetings regarding his DEAL with Bain. I mean...no offense....but a business owner who sells a company but due to the contract still has ownership of stock for a period of time will ALWAYS meet with the new owners to ensure the terms of the deal are being met.
Look Sallow.....I read your posts...your goal on here is to prove Romney is a lying scum sucking piece of shit. I understand. Go for it.
But as a result, you take items such as this article and do yoru best to make them open and shut cases of Romney lying...and sadly it opens the door for you to come across naive.
You want to stick to your theory...fine......
But whereas I have no doubt you can talk circles around me on some topics....and you have......when it comes to starting, owning, running and selling a company...and the activities of a business owner AFTER the sale but BEFORE the transfer of stock....I have a leg up on you. I have sold 3 companies that I started in my time....and not one of them was I allowed to get involved in the day to day activities after the sale....and not one of them included the transfer of majority stock for less than 3 years...my most recent one being 5 years.
Time to move on. This thread has gotten silly at this point.