Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ryanair Board approves plan to commence TATL ops in 5 yrs

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    JCX BXC
    Registered Users Posts: 18,113 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    I love Ryanair and Aer Lingus' twitter battles !


  • Options
    #63
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,209 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    It's beyond a Twitter battle. I suspect their corporate broker has been hauled in. Arguably market abuse is in play as they have made statements and allowed specific stories to appear which they have had to refute entirely. This should have issued the same day as the attributed FT story.


  • Options
    #64
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,552 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Marcusm wrote: »
    It's beyond a Twitter battle. I suspect their corporate broker has been hauled in. Arguably market abuse is in play as they have made statements and allowed specific stories to appear which they have had to refute entirely. This should have issued the same day as the attributed FT story.



    I'd have to agree - as I said earlier in this thread:

    lxflyer wrote: »
    Given that Ryanair is a plc and this is a formal board decision, this should carry more weight than previous utterances from Michael O'Leary, which did not really have any grounding.

    The stock market would not take too kindly in being misled.


    Clearly the stock market was not taking too kindly in being misled.


  • Options
    #65
    billy few mates
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭billy few mates


    What would happen if someone came along and said that they'd been misled into buying shares in that company on the strength of the initial statement...?


  • Options
    #66
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,766 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    billy few mates wrote: »
    What would happen if someone came along and said that they'd been misled into buying shares in that company on the strength of the initial statement...?

    Their case would have to be against the FT I'd guess. As the actual firm made no announcement


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    billy few mates wrote: »
    What would happen if someone came along and said that they'd been misled into buying shares in that company on the strength of the initial statement...?

    As above, in addition I would tell them to stay away from the stock market until they hit puberty.


  • Options
    #68
    billy few mates
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭billy few mates


    It's not an unreasonable question....


  • Options
    #69
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    billy few mates wrote: »
    It's not an unreasonable question....
    Its not. Hence why companies ahve to very careful with their announcments, to pevent the situation you alluded. EG. the EI response to the IAG offer was given to the stock market first, and also included the phrase "IAG is aware of this statement" or someting to that effect.


  • Options
    #70
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,209 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    billy few mates wrote: »
    What would happen if someone came along and said that they'd been misled into buying shares in that company on the strength of the initial statement...?

    There isn't a general scheme of liability for restitution or compensation for investors who have acted or failed to act as a result of market abuse in Ireland/theUK. It's quite common to launch such actions against the company and officers in the US.
    L1011 wrote: »
    Their case would have to be against the FT I'd guess. As the actual firm made no announcement

    The FT wouldn't hold a duty of care towards readers or investors and thus would not be liable in law for losses or loss of profits. Also the FT would have the strongest defence as it is not contradicted that the FT acted directly on information provided by Ryanair - this is undisputed. There may not have been an announcement but there has been an official release of information to a news outlet which the board has, after an inexcusable delay, disowned.
    Tenger wrote: »
    Its not. Hence why companies ahve to very careful with their announcments, to pevent the situation you alluded. EG. the EI response to the IAG offer was given to the stock market first, and also included the phrase "IAG is aware of this statement" or someting to that effect.

    NOt only do they have to be careful with announcements but they also have to be careful with information given to news outlets. It's hard to see how it took them so long to issue such a categorical delay. Except to assume that there was much debate and dissension over the issuance of Thursday's disavowal of the information previously given to a reputable news outlet for publication.


  • Options
    #71
    highlydebased
    Registered Users Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭highlydebased


    In Irish Times/Indo today. APPARENTLY the plans are not off....but rather the sudden backtrack was basically because any T/A flights would be operated by a new company and not the current Ryanair, that's why they couldn't have approved any plans in the first place!

    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/ryanair-transatlantic-conundrum-explained-1.2147744

    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/rogue-text-message-to-blame-for-ryanairs-transatlantic-gaffe-31083759.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,802 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Setting up a 'new' company for the venture is just a way of being able to keep Ryanair at arms length should things go belly up, thus removing themselves from any financial liability to staff and other creditors.
    They will still need board approval to start the new venture.


Advertisement