What do you all think ?

I posted this  question to Justin on the spain forum ,,,,,,,,,,,,

http://www.eyeonspain.com/forums/posts-long-10342.aspx

What do you think should we take a vote like Justin suggests ? Cheers all  JA

Hi J.A,

i follow all of the threads on here and have to say at the end of the day we should all make our own mind up about what action we are taking as individuals. i joined sarc when it was first formed as they were the only ones that seemed to take any leed on the situation and tried to keep everyone informed as to what was going on.

i have also read a lot on here about people getting there money back but have yet to read how they have managed it, as no one seems to explain how this was achieved. I cant see any harm in what they have done or continue doing as i will make my own mind up as a individual.

contrary to what you think about all sarc members i do have a brain of my own and will, with my lawyer take the appropriate and necessary steps to ensure i can safeguard my financial deposit.

i cannot see what harm the advert is doing on here. this seems like a victimisation against them as no one seems to have proved anything else on here with solid evidence.

if anyone can send me solid evidence to why we should be voting no and guarantee me 100% of my deposit back when they go into liquidation then i am all ears and will listen, and i mean solid written evidence.

We follow this site on a daily basis, hearing all sides and opinions. It feels like we are all in the lap on the Gods, courts, banks. I initially was very grateful to Tony and Brian for taking their time and enormous efforts to do something on behalf of all of us at the time. Although I now wish to have my money back, i do not have a bank guarentee and at the moment feel that liquidation maybe the right answer, but my thoughts change daily. So i will await the advice from my solicitor and i see no reason why the SARC "side" should be removed for opposing the opinions of some people. They are wanting the best for themselves .......just like the rest of us.

Kay

JA, 

Contrary to what some people think, most of us on this forum are adults who can make our own minds up, so why should SARC´s link be removed just because a few people oppose their views?  Although I live in Spain, I still think of myself as being British, believing in such values as fair play, being polite to each other and the freedom to say what we think so long as we´re not being offensive.

Kay, I know what you you mean, as we too want our money back.   However although I have read arguments saying why we are more likely to get something if SADM goes ahead, I have not read any arguments saying why we are more likely to get something back if HdT go into liquidation.  It would be helpful if we could have a reasoned debate on both sides, without anybody slagging anybody else off.  How about it?

Sue

Sue,

Surely a contradition in terms.  Can you not see that  the fact that you want your money back should tell you that getting your money back with the proposal going ahead becomes less likely. 

To successfully get your 65% is on the basis that not only for SADM to go ahead and all their other optimistic predictions come to fruition but also that there are over a 1000 mug purchasers who will be dragged into this to support their financial needs by purchasing a property.  They certainly aren't going to sell that many to people in the know.

If you are voting yes it needs to be to purchase a property.  To vote yes and want your money back is one less person required to reach their target.  It stands to reason.

Nobody knows what will happen if they go into liquidation, all we know is that SJ won't be in control of where the money from the sale of the assets go, and this for me is a good thing.

My opinions of course.

Oh! and so as to not go off thread, couldn't give a toss about the link, just don't click on it.

Redman

Thank you for your helpful reply.  What I was hoping to achieve - apart from saying that as far as I am concerned the link should stay - was to back up what Dave R and Kay were saying about wanting to see reasons for saying "no", which we are now getting on other threads.  What was happening earlier was that SARC were putting their point of view and people were just slagging them off regardless.  Many people still seem unsure which way they should vote, however if they have confidence in their lawyer they will take whatever advice their lawyer gives them.  If they don´t fully trust their lawyer, then they need to have reasons to say "no" as well as reasons to say "yes" so that they can hopefully make an informed decision that is right for them and their circumstances.

Many people are also hoping for feedback from those who have succeeded in getting their money back without a bank guarantee (and without having to spend a fortune!)  If anybody on the forum is willing to either post advice/recommend a lawyer or offer to reply to PMs regarding this, I am sure there will be many grateful people!

Finally, as you say, if people want to click on SARC´s link they can do so otherwise they can ignore it, just as no doubt many people ignore other links on here!

Regards.

Sue