Love your post
Point one, are you a lawyer? Dont Be to sure about the legality of their articles.
Point two, no retraction but no confirmation either, very timid performance, “the ceo openly announced the name change in the prospectus” is a 180 on the way he reported it!! Why so apologetic.
Point three, if they were going to be that nervous why do the video in the first place? They really should have hired Kevin Spacey, he’s out of work and Frank in house of cards is as devious as JS. And Thanks for confirming that they won’t be doing a video session again, but the damage has been done!! It’s also a shame, it was something to look forward to, like the office 2.0!! The bit were Johnny says “it wasn’t me” was so David Brent and the geezer with the glasses so Gareth Keenan. Comedy gold.
Point 4, thank you for falling into the honey trap!! It would have taken weeks of research etc etc, great point. But Johnny, stuttering nervously, says this “ I didn’t even think of writing an article until Tuesday” oh dear Johnny WTF did you say that for?? And the best bit, he actually mentions in the articles that it took weeks of investigating, which you would imagine is necessary? You have just assumed the same right?
Now we know he is lying, smoking gun.
I remember saying when the article came out that it looked rushed, full of simple mistakes, information he could have read in all the announcements?? I actually said “it’s as if someone has told him to get something out now because we were in the middle of the market correction and the GSW BUD affair, so the shorters wanted maximum damage”
So what is it?? A rushed unresearched article or he spent weeks researching, as he says in the article?? You tell me??
Point 5, are you deliberately being niaeve? This was planned since the first article in November, the article where johnny mentions the stock was so difficult to short??? WTF. Why would he be bringing that up??
He mentioned weeks of research in the article, then when people were all set they went for it, not on Tuesday, that would be too obvious!!
This deal was put together in the coffee shops of east sydney! Or on a boat??
Point 6, is true, they have sexed up the articles to sell newspapers using sick stories about dead fathers, hardly financial journalism, mind you looking at Dumb and dumber on the video I really didn’t pick up that they were financial journalists? Or were they pretending not to know the basics in finance? “What’s ownership matters Johnny? Erm I’m not sure, they erm I think, erm they are forensic erm” “it’s not me”!!
And again you mention they would have been warned by lawyers? I can’t understand why? Is BS in print legal but on video it’s illegal? BS is BS.
Your second point six which I presume is point seven depends on what the bid for the entire company is? people have valued the company based on the most expensive part of the business, the video production, but BIG own all the content, 200 terra bytes of premium content, I realize in Australia this is valued at zero, whilst a dust sample of nickel on the fraise range 50 miles south of Sirius is valued 200 million dollars, but in California it’s a little bit different, so let’s see eh!!
Wouldn’t it be ironic that the AFR get into bother because of this video! You couldn’t script it, a video!! They should have phone up BIG!!
Expand
