It is clear that the Eurotunnel is paving the road to liquidation. Will reduction of the debt to 2billion guarantee a profit to shareholders? Not a bit. The subterfuge in creating the company Get is to distance the new company from the parent company. Another reason is to drop the "sitting tenants" with travel privileges who create a problem for takeover cherry pickers who make up FT insiders.

The reason why travel privileges was kept quiet by the executive until the 11th hour is perhaps an insider dealing. Odd is it not that the FT transport division is not interested in the problem.

Travel privilieges do not make a dent on the profitability of the company . We do not have statistics of trips to empty carriages to know that privilege travel holders have used the service over paying users. I have used the service less then 10 times and for my 21,000 shares not had a penny in return.

The executive have betrayed the trust put in them. The company should be liquidated.

rui, herts , uk

1. When markets crashed in 1987 we raised the money. It was hard.
2. Eurotunnels underestimated by 100% to other reputable companies. Gov. experts who almost always underestimate major projects by upto 300% offfered the contract to ET. Why.
3. Since inception I have used the tunnel under 10 times. For my 21,000 shares I have received not a penny back. To portray founder shareholders as free loaders is a cheek.
4. The CE suggested we were "crazy". We are to have gone along with the Gov. choice and management who have milked the company at shareholder expense. Crazy indeed.
5. The current move is paving the company for takeover on the inside track. Step 1 distance Get from ET parent company. Step 2 remove "sitting tenants" with travel privileges to clear the liquidation and sell off.
6. On takenover the company will be asset stripped and profits for a few FT supported insiders on the backs of shareholders.
7. At some point the gov. gets the taxpayer to pick the bill.

rui, herts, uk

Speaking as a shareholder , the only difference I can see since
M Gounon took the the chair , is a profligate showering of paperwork
arriving in my mail box.
Maybe if he had been serious about saving money, he could
have kept that to a minimum & posted most of the enclosed
information on the website only.
No doubt there has been lucrative contracts for the French stationers,
printers & La poste.

Maggie Millington, Brittany, France

Having seen my 1000 (which cost £3500) 1987 shares become virtually worthless I would not hesitate in voting against the Offer. The travel privileges were the only reason I kept the shares and I would not use Eurotunnel with only a 30% discount. So the new Offer is not viable for me - there is no point me exchanging my share for shares in GETS. Good luck with the court injunction and I look forward to retaining my privileges or the liquidation of Eurotunnel.

nigel stocks, coventry,

I feel betrayed by Eurotunnel. I have used my travel privileges sparingly over the years but I value them greatly. It is churlish in the extreme that the company should now renege on this agreement . The financial impact of the retention of privileges to a mere 4,000 ageing loyal shareholders would surely be minimal.

Maion Wrigley, Saffron Waldon Essex, UK

Eurotunnel have never treated we Founder Shareholders with anything other than contempt. Administration of the Travel card scheme was a shambles, and access to the Club Lane was denied to Founder Shareholders unless the full crossing price was paid (which was ridiculous if we were otherwise crossing for £1). Now having promised that full travel rights would be preserved (Jan 1007) they now bury in the small print of the final Offer Document not only the cancellation of the Founder Privileges but also the plan (described as a "Power") to cancel all privileges from 2010. Its all very well for M. Gounon to state that everyone "must bear the pain" but Founder Shareholders have already had their investment effectively wiped out and most would not have stuck with Eurotunnel all these years whilst the share price steadily dwindled were it not for the Travel Concessions provided in the initial investment "Contract". Join the fight - (www.grand-uk.com/eurotunnel.html still operates )

Roger Munday FCA, Bedford, Bedfordshire

To Henry PEEL below
The website www.grand-uk.com/eurotunnel.html is working, Ive just been on it.
Try ETAG on your search engine, if you still can't find the site.

David , Birmingham, UK

I agree. If we lose our original shareholdres' travel priveleges,which is the only benefit I have ever got, I would be prepared to let the Company go into receivership.

david sherman, london, uk

It is discraceful that current shareholders will be treated differently by the offer, founder members losing out. It is also a form of discrimination as most of the founder members who have retained their shares are British wereas the shareholders who will retain their privileges are mainly French. All share holders should be treated equally.

Daniel, London, UK

I have tried to access the web site posted by "Simon, London" i.e. "www.grand-uk.com/eurotunnel.html", without success, it seems to have been closed down. Can anyone help.

Henry T Peel, Tonbridge, Kent

I agree with the comments of Christopher Marley at Beverley. If we don't get the full unlimited travel priveleges which we invested for, let Eurotunnel go into receivership and be wound up.

David Webster, Walsall, England

As an investment, my Eurotunnel shares have not been a good investment; now worth 26.5p. If it wasn’t for the travel privileges, I would certainly have sold them at their peak in June 1989 when the share price reached £11.64

The boards safeguard plan promised to "preserve the rights of the holders of units " and "offer travel privileges equivalent to the current ones".

We have been misled and I too will vote against this deal unless the original travel privileges are reinstated.

You can join the action group at www.grand-uk.com/eurotunnel.html

Simon, London,

The founder shareholders' investment is worth so lttle that they might as well kiss goodbye to what's left and vote against this deal unless the original travel privileges are reinstated. The company's arguments for removing the privileges are piffle and the board should be ashamed for advancing them. Let it go bankrupt.

Christopher Marley, Beverley,

Foundation Shareholders (1987) such as me should enlist with the Action Group (ETAG). A non vote by us would perhaps sway any decision. Valuable privileges should be compensated for but we must fight for them.

Noel Bramley, Faversham, Kent

Cant believe the decision to scrap the travel perks even though assured by Mr Gounon that they would not be altered. Mr Gounon has done a marvelous job in getting debt cut, when I invested in 1987 we were urged to do so on inflated traffic forecasts and a budget far short of the actual figure, still the travel perks made up for that and I have taken my family to Europe on many occasions.
I do hope Mr Gounon re-thinks his decision and supports those people who have supported the company through thick and thin, mostly thin though!!

Chris Saunders, Reading, Berks

What is the benefit for the later shareholders, as we also stood through the desaster of the last years?

von Hubatius, Stuttgart, Germany