More than 40 separate estate agencies have agreed to join forces to fund litigation against Agents Mutual, the owner of OnTheMarket, it has been claimed.
A statement from Iain White which arrived just after 6am this morning says that the agents believe they were misled over promises made on joining that their subscription fees would always be equal to, or lower than, members who joined at a later date.
It has now been suggested, claims White, that instead Agents’ Mutual have in fact been offering subscriptions at a much lower price, disadvantaging earlier members.
White, consultant to the estate agency industry and whose clients include Choices owned by Simon Shinerock, created the action group.
He said: “The response to our call to action from estate agents has been astonishing. To achieve our target funding in less than a week is a remarkable testament to the widespread disenfranchisement felt by many Agents Mutual members.
“We are now instructing Tollers LLP to act for the action group.
“However, this is just the beginning of the process, not the end. Many agents remain undecided about how to proceed and their support will add strength to the action group’s position.”
A spokesperson for OnTheMarket said: “While we by no means take it lightly that some agents are feeling ‘disenfranchised’, the broader context remains that the apparent supporters of Mr White’s ‘Action Group’ represent just over 1% of our agents. The overwhelming majority of our member agents remain wholly supportive of OnTheMarket.com and of our shared long-term commitment to build the best portal for consumers and agents alike.
“As for the instigation of legal action against Agents’ Mutual Limited for alleged misrepresentations made in relation to pricing policy, we have no reason to believe that there are any grounds for legal action.
“The board and management team of Agents’ Mutual have at every stage of the company’s inception and development taken suitable legal advice.
“We continue to take appropriate legal action to ensure that agents meet their contractual obligations.”
Comments (69)
I am still at a loss as to what the group are looking to achieve, can anyone enlighten me?
Is it to get out their contract? Is it to recoup fees? Is it damages?
Also anyone else smell something? Agents are upset they may have paid an extra few quid but then happy to stump up 50k in legal fees? Smells like BullShut to me (credit Peebee).
The number of agents OTM compared to Zoopla is missing the point.
Zoopla has 40% of the overall users and OTM 2%
By using OTM agents are missing out on potential viewers.
No matter how many agents use OTM if the general public don’t use it it’s wasted investment.
Sense!
It is an irrelevance how many agents are on board – it’s a darkened room. Nobody’s looking at it.
If you want to buy a second hand car do you go to AutoTrader or Ebay? Ebay has vastly more stock, but 90% (approx) will only visit AutoTrader.
So if people are thinking that buy getting people on board the public will follow, then they’ve been mislead or are simply sticking their head in the sand. Many businesses fail because of this. To become a destination brand takes untold millions, consumer support and a innovation – and OTM will never have theses things because it’s for agents, not for the public.
Unless I am mistaken as to your identity, posting under an alias, given your interest and competitive connection to this story, seems both deceitful and disingenuous.
I am a firm believer that active service suppliers should be required to post under their own name so that their opinions and the services supplied can be linked in order that customers can assess the suitability of individuals and companies to supply services.
If you are genuinely and honestly an independent poster please carry on and forgive my assumption and rudeness. If you have skin in the game or a vested interest in the outcome of a fall out in the ranks of a competitor it is only right you are honest with yourself, the EYE audience and the groups’ customer base
This is an industry, internet forum whereupon 95% of all posters post under a pseudonym. I will confirm my name on the day that every other poster does the same, Robert. Why the truth should bother you so much, when there is so much misleading bias written on here – and with such confidence – amuses and confuses me.
I have objective views, which I share. I comment generally where I see hypocrisy or false statement of fact.
My comment above is rooted in fact, and truth. Does it bother you? Ask yourself why.
I’m an experienced marketeer – not an IT bod, which some claim. My job is to make independent agents money – and I do this very well and have done for many years. My name is an irrelevance.
I’m only ever honest. Life is far too short for me to spend it on here spreading lies. I just couldn’t be bothered. I’m a grown adult.
34 comments made by 14 pseudonyms and counting, btw.
I have no problem agents protecting their identity on here but service suppliers ought to be obliged to use their real identity. 7000 out of 15460 of independent agency branches are affiliated to Agents Mutual which means there is a fair chance of you taking cash from agents who would probably prefer you didn’t so actively campaign against a project they are supporting.
Testing your honesty;
Are any of your clients members of Agents Mutual? if they aren’t again I apologise for my challenge. If they are you really ought to understand that while you are entitled to your personal opinion your posts and campaigning put you at odds with some of your clients. Additionally it is unfair on other suppliers that your anti AM stance could easily be misconstrued as an employee of a firm likely to benefit from your lobbying.
If you think this is a platform solely for estate agents, then I’d suggest a great many of the posters on here are in the wrong place. It’s an ‘industry’ forum. Property INDUSTRY Eye.
I work with many different types of agents, some I have discouraged from using the portal for obvious reasons – it doesn’t suit their customer, and will be used against them. I would be disingenuous to do anything else. I advise agents on how and where to spend their money, and I’d never recommend an inferior product/spend.
And I’ve been proved right.
That’s all I’ll say on the matter.
I didn’t say this was a platform solely for agents. For the 3rd time, service suppliers have an obligation to allow their customers to see their [supplier’s] true colours. Advising agents against using OTM if you work for or are connected to a competitor product is not right without disclosure.
Nice simple closed probes; Do you receive income from a product that competes with OTM?
Do you/ your employers/ group have clients who are AM members?
My guesss is 2 Yes’s
Absolute nonsense Mr May. It may suit you to know who I am – and who other service suppliers are – but it doesn’t and wouldn’t add to the debate. There is no obligation on me or the agents who comment here.
This is why it’s an internet forum and not an old boys network meet up down the local. It’s a place for people to put their views across – anonymously if they wish – so as to be able to tell the truth without towing a party line or upsetting anyone, be that customers, colleagues, or employers. It isn’t a difficult concept. It’s accepted online etiquette.
In this case, the truth clearly upsets you and challenges what your vested interest wants to be true. Sometimes, no matter where it derives, the truth isn’t easy to take.
Closed questions aren’t usually answered by a whole bunch of text used designed not to answer the question. Yes or No? (old school binary)
Honest people don’t usually have a problem answering simple yes no questions, how about rolling out your claimed honesty and using it?
Because they’re intrusive and have no relevance to my points. It wouldn’t add to what I say, but you’re keen to know for your own personal reasons.
It’s called anonymity.
You asking a closed question does not mean I have to answer it.
You seem to be implying Digital Expert is honest
No, I want to put your agenda and posts in context for your customers.
You’re right you don’t have to answer the questions, but from your obvious moral dilema in not answering and evasive/defensive stance you effectively have.
He claimed he is Frown.
You want to put my posts in context for my customers? Why would you think a) they’d differ from what I tell them and b) what I post in a forum has any consequence for them?
I advise any agent to stay away from OTM – internally it’s divisive and currently poisonous and externally it’s anonymous. As will my identity remain.
You can call into question my honesty all you like – look deep into your heart, you know I’m right.
And my messaging has been utterly consistent.
What about you – Frown Please? Who are you, where do you work and will anything you’ve ever posted anonymously be frowned upon by your colleague/employer/employees? Hopefully no, but why should it ever come into the conversation.
I think you overestimate the importance of this forum, and possibly yourself, Robert. I’ll continue to post on things where I have a professional opinion, and if you want to debate the content then I’ll be polite as ever and willing to debate. If you feel like you have some kind of angle to discredit me, then argue my points – for in a debate this is all that matters.
This forum is important to the industry, it is one of the few uncensored hubs where agents and suppliers and vall stakeholders are free to discuss topics away from carefully crafted half truths of marketing departments, lies and deceptions un-masked.
I have enough respect for myself and a clean reputation that allows me to post without fear, allowing people to judge me on what I post. I can be respected or not for what I post, that’s a luxury you don’t have.
In best Vic & Bob tradition – You wouldn’t let it lie, Robert!
Paxman clearly has an able understudy should he decide to take over Judith Chalmers’ current role – in fact I’m now standing down as chief Jack Russell as no PeeBeeing in the world could hold a candle to the Roberting you’ve dished out to ‘Digital Expert’ today.
For someone who NOW professes to be a Marketing man, there are those who will argue he’s done a pretty p!$$-poor job of ‘selling’ himself to readers of this forum… but does appear to have been party to selling some of his clients down the river.
For good reason Peebee, look at the things that have been said in this dialogue
“I advise any agent to stay away from OTM”
“OTM will never have theses things because it’s for agents, not for the public.”
“I work with many different types of agents, some I have discouraged from using the portal”
This is a someone in marketing who because of the one other portal rule is likely to have 2 scenarios; clients that are using his firm and OTM and firms that are using his firm and the other Duopoly firm.
The clients who are using his firm and OTM ought to be aware that while taking their money and on one hand working with them he is telling other agents to steer well clear of OTM; an active lobbyist against a project they are supporting. In advising any agent to stay away from OTM there has to be the suspicion he will leave a meeting with an OTM agent where he is all smiles and supportive but then pops next door and actively discourages supporting OTM. It’s adulterous and good business practice shouldn’t be like that.
The delicious irony being, Robert, that those playing the ‘Troll’ card are in fact the Trolls.
Whoever heard of ‘EHenderson’, ‘Digital Expert’, ‘HarryN/NoName/Hood/Harree’ – or the raft of different posters that dob up ONLY when a Z/OTM story hits the screen and post the “tediously repetitive anti-OTM bile” that another poster referred to?
With the exception of DE – who I seem to remember once posted on a non totally-related thread (just don’t ask me to tell you what it was…) – they remain absent in respect of other, FAR more important industry matters than who’s using (or is it aBusing…?) which portal and why.
He’s ignoring the fact that ‘EHenderson’s favourite line of ‘debate’ is to insult the person or group of people she wished to interact with. There have been more business owners labelled ‘morons’ here on EYE in the past year or so that I’ve had hot dinners in over half a century – and believe me , that’s quite a few.
But… that’s fine. The only way to score points is apparently to cheat – as we see on a daily basis with our own kind (of sorts) re-listing and otherwise ‘gaming’ the portals they seem so desperate to protect and preserve.
Good luck with that, I say…
What IS a pity is when the likes of ‘Ric’ – a poster for as many years as I have been spreading my own flavor of tediously repetitive anti-this and anti-that bile – pretty much calls it a day, as seemingly have a great many superb, passionate about our industry, posters over the last year or so.
Truth WILL out – and when it does the 5h!t-storm will make Krakatoa seem like an zit being squeezed by a teenager.
By my reckoning, through his posts on here Digital Expert has burnt so many bridges for his firm that even if OTM implodes completely (it won’t) it will have a serious and negative affect on his business too; agents just won’t go back to a firm that has destroyed a worthwhile project because of a high level stag rut of egos.
@Farmer your only looking at England, Wales and Scotland.
AM/OTM have also entered N Ireland. The No. 1 portal there isn’t RM or Z. It’s Property Pal. As such N Irish people know P as No. 1.
As such collusion there in geographical districts where AM/OTM may have gained a prime footprint would create a very different legal case if centred around geographical cartel collusion to establish OTM as no. 1 and exclude online only agents from a new prime outlet.
N. Ireland comes under UK law. If agents in large numbers have aborted PP to compromise PP and its online only agents. This could bring another crack to AM/OTM
……..a dominant company has a special responsibility to ensure that its conduct does not distort competition.
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/procedures_102_en.html
TIME BOMB WAITING TO HAPPEN
AM/OTM wants to be No.1. They have done extremely well to reach 7,000 members (and hats off to them for that). But any agent supporting needs to remember that if it did one day become No.1 and fo the fact it bans ‘online only’ it would be the biggest dominant abuse of unfair trade to those ‘online only refused entry’
Call it what you want. But this simple equation = TIME BOMB. Its not if. BUT WHEN
Out of interest, how many online only agents are in INEA or TEAM or any of the other Agent affinity groupsTrevor?
I can see how your business has been adversly affected by the restrictive OOP rule why haven’t you litigated against AM?
We forwarded anti-competitive letters that had AM and OTM logo’s and their reps name to Trading Standards and to the CMA.
As for agents being online only – its only a fraction of our 200 agents. But even as a minority amount (poss 15-20%) under UK law they have a right to trade in a fair market place. And WHY?
Just this week I heard of examples where our members have jointly found buyers for sellers where good online only agents have worked with Hg St agents. As a B2B platform I see the future of agency is a chimera of both agent types and different digital platforms be they portals or MLS’s
Its wrong to create cartels that place embargoes on other lawful traders.
So INEA doesn’t restrict membership on any grounds, an agent who looks up values on a random number generator, adds good knows what to get the instruction, doesn’t have redress etc they are all good as long as the pay a sub? I know you have good standards and integrity Trevor so I know you don’t take just anyone; you have criteria just like anyone else does. It becomes very difficult to judge others criteria for membership just because theirs and your criteria don’t align.
I don’t see 200 INEA MLS members should have been considered a threat to OTM, what I suspect they didn’t like in your case was your EAT postings where you explained in detail (prior to AM forming) how you advised members how they could share listing across multiple portals and avoid paying subscriptions
Thanks Robert – so answering we expect agents to operate fairly, be a member of one of the three redress schemes and abide by AML as governed by HMRC/Treasury.
Agents then need to operate in line with NTSEAT, BIS and relevant regulations and guidance such as CPR’s, BPR’s and the 1979 estate Agents Act, deposit schemes etc etc etc..
As for sharing. Both HMRC and Trading Standards accept it is a way for agents to increase exposure for clients.
Although we can’t offer a client exposure on RM, Z or OTM, our agents can work B2B with other agents who show case their own listings on such platforms whihc at times no doubt brings sub agents redundant offerers or applicants that the agent on such portals can’t directly facilitate.
As for agents being online only – its only a fraction of our 200 agents
WHAT “fraction” precisely, Mr Mealham?
In the interests of fair play, and as numerics and statistics seem to be a weak point for many these days – allow me to help with the maths
1 Call-Centre Agent in your Club = 1/200th
2 Call-Centre Agents in t’Club = 1/100th
3 Call-Centre Agents Clubbing it up = 1/67th (to 2SF)
Can’t imagine you need any more ‘help’ than that.
Let’s be honest… the second and third fractional examples were just for padding – weren’t they?
And your name exactly PeeBee. Its a minority.
The demise of Agents Mutual will be: a. they charged different agents different subscriptions b. the created cartel like embargoes on other portals and digital platforms c. they created a membership ban on ‘online only’ agents d. they created anti-competitive arrangements in geographical areas e. they encouraged members in instances to offer consumers lessor visited portal presence than some consumers had enjoyed compromising clients best interest from their agents’ f. they wrote to some agents on with other platforms such as mls’s saying that they must take down their listings from said other platforms (anti-competitive) g. 9 AM directors colluded with 2 OTM directors (separate Companies under companies House) to create unfair trade rules as cartels do to restrict competition. Take your pick or select all of the above. Its now time that this anti-competitive collusion comes to an end. Lets hope the CMA Open letter of April 21st is the start sign that the CMA are now on the case in the interest of fair trade in the UK’s biggest market place and all agents, portals and CONSUMERS can not be unfairly restrained by a few who think restraints on others and restraints now in some dominant instances such as geographical soon come to an end EU Antitrust Law 101 and 102 prohibiting companies to collude for the purposes of exerting unfair trade pressure on others now needs to kick in. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html
surreyagent – not sure your right about White, isn’t a “tool” by definition useful ?!
So did 100 agents turn up or was that fabricated?
If they did and only 40 signed up then i guess the pitch was not too convincing.
What do these supposed 40 agents hope to get out of this?
Perhaps the other 60 signed Letters of Intent…
Really? I am a ‘gold’ member and I am aware some short term deals have been made to encourage the ‘fence sitters’ to get behind OTM. Am I bothered they pay less than me………..no. The main aim has to be to get the numbers up and over the 7500 target. Once OTM surpasses Zoopla as the number two portal, with good marketing, OTM can march forward and continue to build.
OTM has only been running less than 18 months and I suppose there will be some who bottle it.
I am fully behind OTM. If OTM was to fail, then get ready for the profit making portal reps to pop round every year and hike your fees to their hearts content. If you are an independent agent I struggle to see why you wouldn’t get behind OTM.
What a daft thing to say. You don’t mind paying more than your competitors for exactly the same thing.
As a fellow gold member totally agree with Noel. The aim is about toppling Zoopla. If it means that some members are incentivised to do so then so be it. It’s about far more than a couple of hundred quid. OTM is already way ahead of its aims after 18months. It’s a shame that some people can’t see the long game and are caught up in the petty Squabbling.
Toppling Zoopla? So it wasn’t to cause a disruption to the monopoly? This is like watching Chinese whispers pan out in the most costly way. At times, hilarious. Beyond that it’s like the 7 stages of grief where most don’t get beyond stage 2.
Duopoly.
We all know the Corps pay less than the indies on RM and Z – boo hoo hiss hiss….. ged over it.
Let another 5,000 agents on OTM for £5 a month….. get it recognised, get it used and make it work.
Honestly….. they pay less than me….. it’s not fair…… never known an industry pay more attention to what the next agent is doing than ensuring they make the right decisions for themselves.
****** babies.
So what’s the point of the whole thing then – to get at Zoopla? You’ve invested a significant sum, to finance Saville’s folly, to reduce marketing for your vendors just to get at Zoopla? Wow.
Wasn’t non-uniformity of pricing part of the gripe around Zoopla?
I find it bemusing, embarrassing and hilarious. How self-aggrandising.
Meanwhile RM rates UK wide grow larger by the day, unabated. Super work guys!
no no no Digi Expert – go back to the beginning……. and answer this question honestly. JUST YES or NO.
Would it make sense if the No. 1 property portal in the UK was owned and controlled by its “shelf fillers”, ie the people who make it work aka The Estate Agents.
FORGET everything else and just answer that one question.
Why should agents own the portal? Have you got time and budget to run it in the right way? OTM and the previously failing Prime Location suggest no.
Do estate agents own the newspapers they advertised in for decades?
Do advertisers own the radio stations?
Do car dealers own AutoTrader?
Does GlaxoSmithKline own commercial tv stations it plows multimillions into advertising their wares on?
No – they’re media for marketing products, managed in a way that those wishing to sell couldn’t afford to do properly on the right/correct scale necessary.
I give up. I am sure there are many agents busy like me who try and pop on here, have a read and have a little debate….. but some of the rubbish on here is laughable.
DE you were my final straw….. a simple question, which when I ask my 11 year old for a yes or no answer he actually manages to give it….. although similar to you, if he knows the answer will catch him out…. he waffles for a while.
I didn’t say “could we” or “should we” I asked “would it” make sense for EA’s to own the UK’s number one property portal. Forget the running of it, the cost of it or the likelihood of its success, just would it make sense and forget OTM I care not about them in this question, it was a simple question without the mention of which portal.
How you cannot say it would make sense staggers me…… I get you might not like OTM but I never said OTM.
Car Dealers owning Autotrader makes a lot of sense to me! as does EA’s owning RM! yes RM…… perhaps I should have asked, if all the advertising agents had a chance now to take control of RM with no RM staff changes or membership rates changes, each would have an equal share (not a single agent with any more of a share than the next) would it make sense? (The dividends at year end going back to the member agents) I suspect you DE would waffle “why would RM sell”, or “Agents couldn’t afford it”, rather than just say yes or no…. it would be a YES by the way to agents owning RM!
Anyway…. loads of great reads on here over the past year re the OTM debate, from both sides…. the agents for and against have all been right in their own way…. but DE you have broke me.
Over n Out until we have a HPC, as I preferred the “HPC nut brigade” trolls.
Ian white is a tool….
self promotion at the highest level
when these agents get taken out by RM and Zoopla in 5 years time lets see how smart he looks then!
Sums up the core of this project for me: silly, emotional and irrational.
Comments here about ‘anti-OTM bile’ when personal comments like this appear acceptable.
I will never visit or comment on this website again – which will no doubt delight the trolls who generally comment here.
Good luck boys (and I think it’s a fair assumption that you are all boys) – you’ll need it.
I may only be a casual observer but you have flounced out of PIE more times than Trevor Mealham has used the word ‘Cartel’.
Bye bye EHenderson. Seems Friday 13th is not all bad.
Have always said it was my favouritest day (credit: Del Boy)
Slow Clap to all those keyboard warriors:
it takes a big man to ignore trolling, and a tiny one to execute it.
Interesting…
‘EHenderson’ was referring to a comment made toward Mr White – not her.
Yet her announced wraps it up as if it was she that was being targeted.
Oh – it’s apparently a gender thing to boot.
And ‘Digital Expert’ gallantly trots into battle as the Knight on the white horse.
You simply couldn’t make it up.
Oh – they have.
And there’s you PeeBee, drooling and clapping from the sidelines. Standard.
‘your tediously repetitive anti-OTM bile…’ comment was aimed at him/her. As is there in black and white.
Yet again your input bears comparison with the standard of a primary school playground.
that wasn’t Peebee
In fairness, Robert – and much as it pains me to do so – DE didn’t actually say it was me… although I had to read it three times myself before the penny dropped.
I had a cracking response typed out as well – none of the ‘Tut-Tut’ shenanigans the lightweights would prefer instead of robust adult debate…
Digital Expert
Rightly or wrongly, I assume that everyone here is over school-leaving age.
I also assume (again, rightly or wrongly) that we are, in the main, senior employees or business owners in the industry.
I therefore give those who see fit to comment the credit that they are adult enough, and life-experienced enough, to capably handle themselves against those who see fit to disagree with them.
If I am wrong in those assumptions then maybe it is the people who do not fit the criteria above who should not expose themselves to the potential repercussions of being incapable to handle adult discussions in an adult environment, sit on the sidelines and watch and let those who are capable and happy to take or ride a few punches get on with it.
Perhaps EYE would be so good as to open a second, less turbulent, site for those who can’t hack the main arena.
There, I would imagine that nodding; the occasional shake of the head – and, as an absolute last resort a ‘Tut-Tut’ or ‘Tsk’ will be allowable – the latter however subject to Moderation until confirmation by the party the ‘Tut-Tut’ is cruelly launched at they are not permanently aggrieved, scarred or otherwise traumatised.
Sounds like a plan to me – and it will allow the rest of us to handbag it out in the virtual playground.
And there’s you PeeBee, drooling and clapping from the sidelines. Standard.
If there’s one place you will never find me – it’s on the sidelines.
Never walked away from a fight or argument before – don’t intend to change now.
I’m sure it is being put to OTM. Don’t want to upset your lead sponsor do you!
If they didn’t want to upset their ‘lead sponsor’ they wouldn’t have run this story at all. And they certainly wouldn’t let you post your tediously repetitive anti-OTM bile on this site.
The storm is self created by the AM/OTM cartel actions and restraints. All should see the CMA letter as a warning shot. And with warning shots all agents would be wise to check out: EU rules 101 and 102 as o dominant positions and cartel restraints. The fact 40 agents have piped up the £50k is a great stat. As the mentioned 200 agents wanting to take action would have more funds in the pot. At the meeting there was instances where singular agents present were representing 4-5 others. As such this rebel group could fast gain 1,000 agents. Those that swayed from RM and Z now appear to be the first of those wanting to sway out of AM/OTM
£50,000 Trevor? where was that mentioned?
Maybe at a recent meeting Robert as a start war chest. Whats interesting is if thats just from 40 agents. Iain said which is published that he has heard from a good 200. as such if from just 40 they have raised £50k to start legals. Then what would funds from 200 or 5 times that do??
For sure some agents couldn’t be there and a few agents I spoke with had come from a distance and were to update 4-5 others with what was said.
How much have Zoopla put in?
Iain was very clear at the meet that Zoopla were not part of this nor were they adding a single penny.
Those only to fund were the upset AM/OTM agent members
So you are saying 100% Trevor that Zoopla have in no way helped fund the case?
I just want to be clear on this point.
Sorry let me re-qualify that question, Zoopla OR any Zoopla owned affiliated company.
I can confirm that as I am aware there is NO zoopla funding whatsoever. At the Iain White meet Zoopla was mentioned by an agent who said would Zoopla help fund?
** Iain White clearly said he thought that was VERY doubtful and *** not *** an option.
The funding (as an observer) was clearly to come 100% from the agents who felt let down by the early and latter join up differences.
I also make it clear that INEA has not contributed a single penny to the legal funding pot as our complaint is a different issue in that several of our agents ere written to by AM/OTM being told they had to take their listings from us and come off INEA.
As such two very different concerns.
Mr Mealham states ‘I can confirm that as I am aware there is NO zoopla funding whatsoever.’
Then you can “confirm” nothing, Mr Mealham.
You are, at best, hazarding a guess or most likely repeating what you have been told, overheard – or otherwise gathered.
Not really the stuff that wins wars or saves lives or businesses – is it?
PeeBee, don’t you think that Zoopla being at the meet saying were throw wads at it would be fab. All that funding to hit AM/OTM. Well the fact is that they were not there. Bods from Z were not there and when Iain was asked. The answer was clearly that Z were not involved.
I think they have more grey cells than to be stupid enough to attack other portals.
I’m sorry to disappoint you and all the others trying to set a cobwebb. BUT for sure there was no trace and no indication of any Z involvement whatsoever.
Iain ran a fair meet and even I said to agents they must be takng their stance for the right reasons and not to just try and take a portal down for the sake of it.
I’m afraid AM/OTM’s biggest enemy is their own cartel like actions that Im sure now come back to bite them.
At the meeting there was instances where singular agents present were representing 4-5 others.
I’m gonna chuck a word in here on the basis of the above sentence – which Gerald Ratner would have cringed at, and will add copious iodine to the blinding pain that accompanies shooting oneself well and truly in BOTH lower extremities with an elephant gun.
CARTEL.
Thanks for the confirmation, Mr Mealham.
You’d better hope that none of those involved are in your club – otherwise you’ve probably just closed some of their offices for them…