Thetownend.com

Swindon Town FC => The Boardroom => Topic started by: tans on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 19:51:06



Title: Court cases
Post by: tans on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 19:51:06
Gareth Barry involved in STFC


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2020/1171.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2020/1173.html


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JoeMezz on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 19:55:30
No idea what this means. Any clue?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: skiptotheLouMacari on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 19:59:44
Right, and this means??  :hmmm:


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:01:31
Gareth Barry involved in STFC


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2020/1171.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2020/1173.html

No idea so how an earth did you find this :eek:


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:02:03
Read it, apparently it is claimed we had a £1.8m sell on for Matt Ritchie

Any legal eagles have any idea?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:02:22
No idea so how an earth did you find this :eek:

Was posted on facebook


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:08:11
Clem is chasing the 15% too then.

Hagen Barry rumours were around quite some time ago iirc


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:11:35
Was posted on facebook
[/quote

Cheers  :)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:12:22
Right, and this means??  :hmmm:

Power was/is flogging the club to an American company, Able. £7.5m was the price pre-Covid - not sure now. Clem (Axis) paid Power for 15% of the club which he didn’t incorporate as being part owner of the club and was negotiating a sale without Axis’ knowledge which would mean their £1,5m investment would disappear.

My novice view, could be wrong, but whatever it doesn’t sound at all good.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:14:06
Read it, apparently it is claimed we had a £1.8m sell on for Matt Ritchie

Any legal eagles have any idea?

Who are the 'legal eagles' on this forum?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:15:18
Steve Murrall was but he is now otherwise engaged soapy tit wank

Nah, dont know if we have any on here tbh


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: 4D on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:20:14
I thought this was going to be about another tefer in the dock  :)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Richie Wellen-Dowd on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:25:25
Power was/is flogging the club to an American company, Able. £7.5m was the price pre-Covid - not sure now. Clem (Axis) paid Power for 15% of the club which he didn’t incorporate as being part owner of the club and was negotiating a sale without Axis’ knowledge which would mean their £1,5m investment would disappear.

My novice view, could be wrong, but whatever it doesn’t sound at all good.

I don't think their investment would have disappeared, they just wouldn't have to be consulted about the sale so Power could have just forced it through.

I haven't read the stuff about Standing yet, although presumably he feels he should be consulted as he would be entitled to 50% of the proceeds(although Power says the 50% is Gareth Barry's), something I don't think Axis were made aware of.

An unholy mess for sure.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:27:03
Quote
The Andrew Black Incident

Mr Matt Richie is a Scottish international footballer and played for the Club until he was sold in January 2013 (before the acquisition) to AFC Bournemouth. He was then sold on in July 2016 to Newcastle United FC and this triggered a payment to the Club of £1.85 million under the terms upon which he had been sold to AFC Bournemouth. On Mr Standing's version of the agreement, the £1.85 million was "surplus" funds and should have been split equally between him and Mr Power.
However, Mr Standing says that he was told by Mr Power that the former owner, Mr Black, who had the debenture covering his £2 million loan to the Club, was seeking repayment of the loan from the monies received in respect of the transfer of Mr Richie. This was a surprise to Mr Standing as he thought that Mr Black would only be repaid on a sale of the Club. Nevertheless, he accepted Mr Power's explanation and he even provided a further £75,000 in order to clear completely, as he was led to believe, Mr Black's loan (that was half the difference between £2m and £1.85m). That meant that rather than receiving c.£925,000 from the on-sale of Mr Richie, he paid £75,000 more to the Club to repay Mr Black's loan.
In mid-2019 however, Mr Standing discovered that Mr Black had not been repaid his loan and the debenture still existed. This was confirmed by Mr Black's accountant and does not appear to be disputed by Mr Power. No explanation has been provided by Mr Power as to why he said one thing and did another and the strong suspicion is that those monies were paid to Mr Power not the Club. That would be consistent with what Mr Power says in paragraph 48 of his Defence that he:
"…agreed a compromise under which he offered to give credit to Gareth Barry for half of the 'sell-on' fee in respect of Matt Richie when it came to discharging the debenture with Black/Arbib[2] which Gareth Barry [sic] against the amount for which Gareth Barry would otherwise have been liable as set out in paragraph 11(ii) above."
The discovery that Mr Power had not paid Mr Black out of the proceeds of the on-sale of Mr Richie was of serious concern to Mr Standing.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:33:28
All good reading and lots to interest any bar room lawyer or law student. 

You will have noted, amongst other things, that LP's witness statement evidence included "If Able does withdraw, there is a very strong possibility that I will not be able to continue funding the ongoing losses the Club is incurring as set out in paragraph 28 of my first witness statement".


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:35:00
typical Town, promoted tomorrow, bust Thursday?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:46:42
***fingers in ears***

Championeessss


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:48:27
Seems to be a lot of arguing about who owns the club and therefore gets a say in any sale. The Standing one seems to say that he doesn’t own 50% of the club, it is actually Gareth Barry & he will get 50% from any sale.  The other one is the ongoing argument between Clem and Power.

The Matt Ritchie sell on is the the elephant in the room as he was sold by Black was he not?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:49:54
They are on about sell on fee received when he was sold to Newcastle  i think.

I didnt think we had one to be honest


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:50:15
I think they mean a sell on from a subsequent sale?

Was there such as sell on? If not then something doesn't add up. 


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:52:25
They are on about sell on fee received when he was sold to Bournemouth i think.

I didnt think we had one to be honest
What I mean is it was Patey/Black that sold Ritchie so Standing/Barry/Power negotiating a sell on seems odd.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:54:47
The reports concern applications for interim relief and cross undertakings to cover LP's loss if the substantive claim fails.

In the Standing matter, some doubt was cast on LP's position on the club's financial position and the risk of administration-

"I also have my doubts about Mr Power's evidence that if the deal with Able falls through the Club would be likely to have to go into administration because of his inability to fund its ongoing losses. His evidence stated that the Club would "require in the region of £700,000 to £750,000 between May 2020 and August 2020 in order to continue operating" and that he was unable to provide this. He said that this is exacerbated further by the present pandemic and the loss of the rest of the home game receipts for this season.
However, there is no evidential support for these figures and it is mere assertion by Mr Power. No up-to-date accounts or any financial information for the Club have been provided. It seems to me that it would be much more likely that either a sale of the Club to another purchaser would be pursued or that the money would be found to fund the ongoing losses than for the Club to go into some form of insolvency. Mr Standing has always said that, if he had been provided with full current financial information in relation to the Club, then he would resume funding his half share of the Club's working capital requirements. He has also said that he does not accept that Mr Power is himself unable to fund these. It would not be in either of their interests to allow the Club to go into administration and I do not consider that Mr Power has proved that this is a likely outcome from the loss of the sale to Able."


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RobertT on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 20:58:26
What I mean is it was Patey/Black that sold Ritchie so Standing/Barry/Power negotiating a sell on seems odd.

The Club sold the player, and as such were entitled to the sell on.  It seem all parties confirmed a sell on was triggered and received by the club.  Power has claimed he agrees Barry is owed 50% of that but he is holding it against the 2m owed to Black when they sell the club.  Standing is claiming it's him and not Barry, Barry just shoved him some money to pay for all this.

Clem is claiming 15% of the Shares and is worried Power is selling without his knowledge.

Power is claiming to Clem there isn;t an offer, and to Standing that there is an offer but his mate Barry is due the money not Standing.

Clear as mud.

Looks likely Power has a financial problem somewhere and is muddying the ownership grounds to get some relief via the asset he has in the club.  It's not at all clear if the bid for the club is real or not!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RobertT on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 21:01:37
Oh, and Power thinks Barry is due 50% of any increase in value from the original investment.  Standing says he is the person and he in fact owns 50% of the Holding Co.

It's entirely possible, given they both agree it was a verbal agreement between mates, and an Agent, nor footballer, can invest, that Power may win the way they classify that investment.  The rest looks like Power is running fast on quick sand, legally speaking.

The plus side, Standing (probably using Barry's bank account) seems willing to prop the club up even if Power implodes.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Richie Wellen-Dowd on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 21:02:02
Seems to be a lot of arguing about who owns the club and therefore gets a say in any sale. The Standing one seems to say that he doesn’t own 50% of the club, it is actually Gareth Barry & he will get 50% from any sale.  The other one is the ongoing argument between Clem and Power.


Power seems to have lied to Standing about money from the Ritchie sell on.
Not told Standing about Axis, then lied about the money they invested.
Not told Axis about the agreement with Standing or Barry.
Tried to keep both parties out of any sale of the club(so he can push it through or skew it in his favour presumably.

He doesn't seem to be disputing much of it. Whether he had a legal obligation to inform Standing of sale discussions, I don't know.

I think they mean a sell on from a subsequent sale?

Was there such as sell on? If not then something doesn't add up.  


It was definitely thought at the time that there was no sell on, which is why it seemed such an incredibly terrible deal. I think we can see now that there was one.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 21:08:35
It all strikes me as more a case of power struggles (no pun intended) than an immediate threat to the club itself.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 21:11:07
But what about the prospect that the club could fall into the hands of our friends from across the pond?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JoeMezz on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 21:17:20
Harry Redknapp was in talks with a League 1 / 2 club recently to buy them...


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: suttonred on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 21:27:14
It all strikes me as more a case of power struggles (no pun intended) than an immediate threat to the club itself.

Small pie too many fingers


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 21:28:41
But what about the prospect that the club could fall into the hands of our friends from across the pond?

We know nothing about them do we?

Or even if they exist.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Lash_sumthin on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 21:33:12
All pretty shady

(1) Mr Standing says that there was an oral agreement on or around 20 March 2013 between him and Mr Power whereby they would purchase the Club on a 50/50 basis on these terms:
(e) Mr Standing's beneficial interest in the Club would be kept confidential.

(2) Mr Power says that there was a meeting in March 2013 at Mr Barry's house attended by him and Mr Standing. At that meeting, Mr Power says he reached an oral agreement with Mr Barry in the following terms:
(b) Mr Barry would not own any shares in the Club whether directly or indirectly but he would be entitled to 50% of the profits arising from any increase in value of the Club, including 50% of net profits arising from sales of certain players.

Even though the terms are similar the crucial term that is not is in relation to whether the investor, whether that is Mr Standing or Mr Barry, owns beneficially 50% of the shares in Swinton. The reason why there had to be confidentiality about the beneficial interest, if there was one, or the fact of Mr Standing's or Mr Barry's involvement, was because of the Football Association's rules concerning the ownership of football clubs. Mr Standing has an interest in a company called First Touch Professional Management Ltd (FTPM) which is involved in the football agency business. Its main client is Mr Barry. The FA's regulations are now contained in the FA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries and they prohibit football intermediaries/agents from owning or having interests in football clubs. Mr Barry remains as a professional footballer, currently playing for West Bromwich Albion FC, and he too was unable to hold shares in any football club.



Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 21:39:10
We know nothing about them do we?

Or even if they exist.

LP says that there is an offer from one or more entities. If he says it they must exist surely?

There is usually a healthy level of mistrust when our American friends express an interest in a 'sahker' franchise, regardless of what we may or may not know.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 21:54:44
All pretty shady

(1) Mr Standing says that there was an oral agreement on or around 20 March 2013 between him and Mr Power whereby they would purchase the Club on a 50/50 basis on these terms:
(e) Mr Standing's beneficial interest in the Club would be kept confidential.

(2) Mr Power says that there was a meeting in March 2013 at Mr Barry's house attended by him and Mr Standing. At that meeting, Mr Power says he reached an oral agreement with Mr Barry in the following terms:
(b) Mr Barry would not own any shares in the Club whether directly or indirectly but he would be entitled to 50% of the profits arising from any increase in value of the Club, including 50% of net profits arising from sales of certain players.

Even though the terms are similar the crucial term that is not is in relation to whether the investor, whether that is Mr Standing or Mr Barry, owns beneficially 50% of the shares in Swinton. The reason why there had to be confidentiality about the beneficial interest, if there was one, or the fact of Mr Standing's or Mr Barry's involvement, was because of the Football Association's rules concerning the ownership of football clubs. Mr Standing has an interest in a company called First Touch Professional Management Ltd (FTPM) which is involved in the football agency business. Its main client is Mr Barry. The FA's regulations are now contained in the FA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries and they prohibit football intermediaries/agents from owning or having interests in football clubs. Mr Barry remains as a professional footballer, currently playing for West Bromwich Albion FC, and he too was unable to hold shares in any football club.


Most immediate concern is are we in breach of FA ownership laws and therefore in the shit?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: REDBUCK on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 21:59:49
Points deduction incoming


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Panda Paws on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:13:19
Very early for any conclusion but my instinct is that Power’s not a fool and there’s too much money here for it not have been legalled beforehand.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:20:45
Noticing that all the trolls are saying this shows they were right and they knew this all along.... despite never having said anything other than about the Clem fall out.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:22:16
Noticing that all the trolls are saying this shows they were right and they knew this all along.... despite never having said anything other than about the Clem fall out.

I bet a lot of them are delighted.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Cheltred on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:23:31
Very early for any conclusion but my instinct is that Power’s not a fool and there’s too much money here for it not have been legalled beforehand.
Well it does seem that whatever his faults he's not a fool


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JoeMezz on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:24:48
From what I've read seems like the club itself is quite well protected, in terms of Power using club to pay for his debts. Power wants to sell but Standing/Barry (who own 50% of the club) want to view finances of the club before they agree to a sell. Power not willing to let them do this so we have a stand off.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:27:18
Wonder what the trust have to say?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Ardiles on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:32:31
Wonder what the trust have to say?

'Oh fuck.'  Or something similar, I'd imagine.  Just like the rest of us.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: SuggWillSugg MBE on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:32:38
I bet a lot of them are delighted.

Saw my first 'Power Out' in a while earlier. It was like welcoming back an old friend.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:45:36
it also means .. no... it...
the Adver...

were
..

right


https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/sport/17973711.documents-show-able-company-swindon-llcs-interest-purchasing-swindon-town-club-continues-deny-approach-made/


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Costanza on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:47:22
....and the Adver Sports Desk alumni from that time are lapping it up accordingly.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Quagmire on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 23:02:17
I deleted my Twitter and Facebook accounts yesterday - seems like I timed it to perfection.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 23:27:42
Has Kostiuk fapped himself into a coma yet?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: STFC_Manc on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 23:37:07
Gareth Barry involved in STFC


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2020/1171.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2020/1173.html

My thoughts from reading this

Link 1 - Axis

An injunction has been put on to stop a sale without constent from Axis and the issue as a whole will go to the courts to be decided and the club can't be put into insolvency by Power or a third party.

Point 64 in the link
For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting an injunction to Axis preventing a sale of the shares or assets of the Club without Axis' prior written consent. Accordingly, I grant that injunction.

Point 66 in the link
Mr Slade QC, in his skeleton argument, suggested a new paragraph (3) to the draft Terms of Order in the following terms:

    "(3) Until trial or further Order, without the prior written consent of Axis none of Mr Power, [Swinton] nor Seebeck shall do, permit or suffer to be done any act whereby [Swinton], Seebeck or [STFC] may be wound up, or enter into any compromise or arrangement under the Insolvency Act 1986."

Link 2 - Standing V Power

This relates to Power taking legal action to claim losses due to the Mr Standing injunction in Nov 19.  The case was dismissed as the sale could of still gone ahead if Power would have included Mr Standing in the potential sale.

I've not seen the injunction details and whether that is going to court again.

Point 63 in the link

For the reasons set out above, I dismiss Mr Power's application for fortification. He has not been able to satisfy me that there is a sufficient level of risk of loss such as to require fortification. Even if I had found that he was entitled to fortification, I would have been unlikely to conclude, based on the only remaining contentious issues before me, that there is any material shortfall between Mr Standing's available assets and an intelligent estimate of the likely amount of the losses that would be suffered by Mr Power as a result of the injunction.

 


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RedRag on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 23:40:12
Oh for happy days of PPG and the Pandemic fallout.

Have I noted that Power is wanting 40% of any sell on in relation to Jayden Bogle from Derby Co?  What would the likes of 50% Barry/Standing (football agent) on the one hand and 15% Morfuni/Axis on the other have to say about that?  It seems there are so many ways to "bend" the outcome of a FC sale.  We so often debate sell-on clauses but STFC do not appear to benefit anyway.

Clem the builder, with his 15%, seems to me to be the straight guy in all of this.

Barry/Standing and Power seem to have been circumventing the no player/no agent ownership rule.  Once again, a la Jed, we therefore have a lot of he said/she said the makes the exact nature of the agreement made difficult to pin down.  Clearly it was a form of 50:50.  Power certainly appears to have shafted or at least lied to Standing/Barry over the Ritchie sale, quite badly imo.

I think Power may well be getting the bulk of any costs order against him this time.

At least under Andrew Black's ownership we had pretty straight (and wealthy) owners.  This seems to be the exception for us and in football generally.



Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Dr Pierre Chang on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 23:44:16
Has Kostiuk fapped himself into a coma yet?
Understatement of the year!

Sadly, a lot of goodwill Power has built up this season with the fan base will be well and truly gone for good now.

I’m with RedRag on the Ritchie business, that is inexcusable.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 23:53:35
My thoughts from reading this

Link 1 - Axis

An injunction has been put on to stop a sale without constent from Axis and the issue as a whole will go to the courts to be decided and the club can't be put into insolvency by Power or a third party.

Point 64 in the link
For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting an injunction to Axis preventing a sale of the shares or assets of the Club without Axis' prior written consent. Accordingly, I grant that injunction.

Point 66 in the link
Mr Slade QC, in his skeleton argument, suggested a new paragraph (3) to the draft Terms of Order in the following terms:

    "(3) Until trial or further Order, without the prior written consent of Axis none of Mr Power, [Swinton] nor Seebeck shall do, permit or suffer to be done any act whereby [Swinton], Seebeck or [STFC] may be wound up, or enter into any compromise or arrangement under the Insolvency Act 1986."

Link 2 - Standing V Power

This relates to Power taking legal action to claim losses due to the Mr Standing injunction in Nov 19.  The case was dismissed as the sale could of still gone ahead if Power would have included Mr Standing in the potential sale.

I've not seen the injunction details and whether that is going to court again.

Point 63 in the link

For the reasons set out above, I dismiss Mr Power's application for fortification. He has not been able to satisfy me that there is a sufficient level of risk of loss such as to require fortification. Even if I had found that he was entitled to fortification, I would have been unlikely to conclude, based on the only remaining contentious issues before me, that there is any material shortfall between Mr Standing's available assets and an intelligent estimate of the likely amount of the losses that would be suffered by Mr Power as a result of the injunction.

 


Without looking back at the documents, I recall that Standing has given a cross undertaking to LP in damages. If you seek an interim injunction (to stop something happening before the substantive dispute comes to trial) you will usually have to undertake to cover your opponent's losses if you ultimately lose at trial. Those losses arise from the fact that your opponent has been prevented from doing something by the injunction which they were in fact entitled to do. LP was asking for some security to back up Standing's cross undertaking.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: STFC_Manc on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 23:58:47
Without looking back at the documents, I recall that Standing has given a cross undertaking to LP in damages. If you seek an interim injunction (to stop something happening before the substantive dispute comes to trial) you will usually have to undertake to cover your opponent's losses if you ultimately lose at trial. Those losses arise from the fact that your opponent has been prevented from doing something by the injunction which they were in fact entitled to do. LP was asking for some security to back up Standing's cross undertaking.

I stand corrected, but i think my point still stands and is the main reason it wasn't granted.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RedRag on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 00:27:17
Power's alleged lie having been that the near £2m. profit from the Ritchie Newcastle sell-on, instead of being shared 50:50 between Power and Standing/Barry, had had to be used to discharge the Andrew Black debenture of roughly that amount.  Black's debenture wasn't discharged at all and Power seems to have taken sole control of the near £2m. sum.

Obviously the above may be wrong or possibly incomplete in important respects.

As a complete outsider to the business of football, it seems that football people have an "honour amongst thieves" that is prone to break down.  Little old me finds it strange that sums in excess of high end house purchases can change hands with little or no written agreement. We see it alleged in this case, that Power has been seeking years later to have a verbal agreement recorded in writing in such a way that less tax will be payable, seemingly even though the written record might not reflect the original verbal agreement.

I may have misread this but I must say that I personally felt much more comfortable about the manner in which Andrew Black conducted himself.  I do credit Power with a certain know how and acumen for the world of football.  The more patient of us have always said that the time to judge Power would be when he passed on STFC's ownership.  Judgement day seems a little closer.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 00:28:17
I’m struggling to give a shit at the moment, no one knows what’s happening with football full stop at the moment.

Ultimately the courts will decide on any ownership issues. My main concern is we’ve breached FA ownership rules in which case I’m sure we’ll have an example made of us.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RedRag on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 00:34:28
There is a history of us being made an example of whilst the big boys get a fine they can easily manage.  Whatever the future holds, I would be confident that STFC, even STFC 2021, would rise once again.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 02:06:55
Without stating the bleedin’ obvious, apart from the club itself, how is this going down with Wellens? Can we also kiss goodbye to the CG sale? Was/is the fabled training ground just smoke blown up our collective arses?

Admin seems unlikely as everybody involved would lose their money.

The recent question as to where Power gets his money from is half solved - Standing.

Now what possible reason could there be for a football agent to secretly own half a football club - tough one, that!

Power is just as slippery as Squiddly Diddly.

What makes supposed experienced businessmen to fork out large amounts of money on a purely verbal basis.

Anybody who may have been interested in purchasing the club will now be circling like vultures to pick it up on the cheap.

Is Able still interested or has some deadline date been and gone? Power can kiss £7.5m goodbye.

It was always going to end like this. Deep down we all knew it.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RobertT on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 03:53:22
I am not sure we can be confident that the offer to buy us is even real. 

I don’t think we are exposed on the ownership front with Standing or Barry.  Their insistence was that it was held in trust, and certainly at arms length.  Given that is verbal, Power may well win that argument, especially given they were all mates at the time.  Either way I think Standing would not be seen as having a direct interest in the ownership of the club.

Nobody seems to be against selling, it looks like a battle for the profits should we be sold.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 04:50:25
It all seems a repeat of Bill Power vs Wills/Diamandis in terms of whether it's a loan or a share sale.

Clem seems to have the strongest case as the share sale agreement was signed but the stock transfer form not signed.

What was shocking was the actions of Power's solicitors in this with information not passed on to Standings solicitors. Power seemed to have backed down on the £5million at the last minute.

The Andrew Black £2M debenture has sat in the accounts as a contingent liability for years so not sure how Standing thought it was repaid.

I doubt the EFL would do much given ownership disputes at other clubs recently e.g. Bolton. The FA might be interested in the individuals for breaking rules.

Power might look to cut his losses in the short term by releasing players if he has to fund all by himself. Can't see Doyle or Grant retained with no gate money coming in and this hanging over. The plan was clearly to get up this season and for Power to sell up.

The Trust might have to resort to plan A and buy 100% of the ground. Presumably the ground purchase is what made the club worth £7.5M.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 05:31:29
After reading both of them in full with my very limited, knowledgeably lite and melty (it was warm in the UK tonight) view, I conclude;

(1) Clem rightfully owns 15% but for some strange reason Power is delaying/doesn't want to legally register/transfer the shares; even though he and his solicitors do admit that Axis are entitled to own them...It's also fucking sneaky tactics not writing down the correct name of the company the shares are for "Axis SPORTS Investment Ltd" when the name is "Axis FOOTBALL Investments Ltd". Naughty naughty Mr P. Was he hoping that Clem's solicitors wouldn't notice the 'error'. Even if Clem does also own the sports one too, for this purpose, that's terrible form. This is why Clem (Axis) has served an injunction to stop Power selling the club to Able (if that even is a deal that exists/is pending but as a businessman Clem is surely making sure he isn't shafted) under his nose. A deal that Power says isn't happening, yet elsewhere is saying it is. Surely any shareholder (hence not registering them) would want to see details to agree to this?

(2) Standing/Barry (who the fuck knows, even the QC seemed confused but concluded that it must be Standing, yet is unclear due to only being verbal) have a verbal agreement to 50% of any potential sale, on condition that they put up 50% of the ongoing costs of the running of the club for as long as Power owns the club.

Standing is happy for the club to be sold to Able (a deal that Power has told him about, yet for some reason not Clem), so long as he can see the details of the proposed takeover by them. Seems quite reasonable and transparent thing to request, regardless if that is Standing or Barry. Even more so considering he is pumping in 50% of the funds to the club.

~~~~

It appears to me that Mr. Power (for all the good he is/has done) is getting undone a little. I'm not saying he would do anything the put the club in jeopardy - the QC has even stated this as virtually impossible. More so with the injunction added.

Now I don't know much but if the deal with Standing has only been verbal, Power may get away with that one on a technicality but there has to be a footprint of transactions of monies paid (Barry>Standing>Power) so I'd say it would have to be a very favourable judge to lean in favour of Power. What seems very odd is that Power seems to want his cake and eat it, quite literally. He's already seemingly shafted Standing/Barry for £975k (half of £1.8m Ritchie + £75k for 50% Debenture coverage/top up). That's a fucking hustle and a half. We basically are understanding how Power makes his dollar or at least funding the club. Imagine you invested in a club thinking you were due a payment £900k only to be told (lied to) that "nahh mate, thats for the debentcha manney. U need 2 put in £75k fella". Even then, Standing is still willing to keep funding the club!

From what we can see, so far Power has managed to extract;
£1.1m from Clem (Axis)
£6m from Standing/Barry (since 2013)

Retain all of;
£1.8m Ritchie sell-on (there could be others we don't know about yet)
Plus an additional £75k

Potentially willing to sell the club for;
£7.5m (to Able)

Yet doesn't want any invested parties (listed above) to have any say in the sale. Even though they are entitled to (well OTR Standing does, legally though it seems Clem has more entitlement). It looks like Power has tried to negotiate his exit strategy, in somehow wanting to keep all of the £7.5m from the Able sale (if that were to have gone through) by hoping that Standing doesn't have a leg to stand on (no pun. Smells a bit like the whole Jed affair with a battle of everything being based on verbal and nothing in writing) and thinking that he can withhold the 15% of shares that are rightfully Clem's (Axis') until after the sale.

Fortunately the clubs future existence seems pretty nailed on. Like I say, I don't think Power would jeopardise that (he'd end up losing out what "he" has put in, hence trying to claim a Fortification) and it is now pretty much impossible due to Clem's insertion of the injunction stopping any potentially dodgy sale. At least until Clem receives his shares. Publicly, Standing seems very happy to step in and fund the club if Power did somehow have to file the club for insolvency (very unlikely) and/or walk away. Clem definitely is entitled to 15% (as stated by QC) so he, with Power out of the picture, may buy up the 35% and continue an agreement with Standing. Failing all that. All parties come to a legally binding agreement and they sell it to the Yanks or all parties come to a legally binding agreement and continue working together for the foreseeable (Standing said he was happy to look for other potential suitors aside from Able).

One thing; it's all far too dodgy and messy to be comfortable with. It's quite clear that both Standing and Power are shady fuckers. Who would think an ex-agent and an agent would like to keep things off the record and verbal only? "Wire Transfer only please. Western Union will do." It's just one brown paper bag away from some kind of exchange, akin to midnight under the arches.

Power. He's one hustling motherfucker.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 05:36:34
My main concern is we’ve breached FA ownership rules in which case I’m sure we’ll have an example made of us.

Unlikely, seeing as "legally" Standing/Barry have nothing concrete (which is why in my above post I mention Power getting one over on Standing due to it being verbal only) in terms of ownership. They may be seen as investors by the courts, where as Clem is definitely seen as a shareholder at 15%. The club should be ok in this respect.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 05:45:21
So, does Clem own 15% of STFC or just 15% of Power’s 50%?

If Clem does own 15% of the whole and Standing 50% then Power only owns 35% of the club.

Any future sale of the club surely can’t be to Standing as it isn’t allowed by the FA.

I suppose those rules have been circumvented by Standing/Barry not legally being involved - hence their problem getting anything out of Power.

With Power’s previous, why in God’s name did supposedly sane people chuck so much money at him with no legal cover?

Generally, I think ownership of clubs is very shady. That fella at the piss stains is only a front and nobody really knows where the actual money comes from.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 06:15:41
So, does Clem own 15% of STFC or just 15% of Power’s 50%?

If Clem does own 15% of the whole and Standing 50% then Power only owns 35% of the club.

Clem could own 27.75% if the court were to interpret the initial SSA. But that has seemingly been clarified and it is 15% of the Club.

As for Power 50%, well legally he owns 100%. Standing can't legally own his 50%. That's just a verbal/gentlemans/agents agreement between Power and he.

So in a legal sense, Clem 15% - Power 85%.

But behind the legalities, it's quite obviously a different percentage. What's a little concerning is that by Standing making this legal claim, he's revealing that he is a major investor of STFC. Again, I couldn't tell you the answer but that technically may be allowed; to be an investor but not an owner (at least not legally).

Very uncomfortable.

Quote
(2)   In these proceedings (the Axis proceedings), Axis's application dated 21 April 2020 seeks a similar injunction to that of Mr Standing so as to protect Axis' claimed (and admitted) 15% interest in the Club, through the holding companies' shares.

Quote
Both Swinton and Seebeck have an issued share capital of £100 divided into 100 ordinary shares of £1 each. Therefore, under the SSA, Axis was acquiring 15% of each of Swinton and Seebeck. That would mean that Axis would own 27.75% of the Club (15% of 85% plus 15%) rather than the 15% that appears to have been intended. As will be seen, while a claim to 15% of both Swinton and Seebeck is made in the Particulars of Claim, it is fairly clear that both parties were proceeding on the basis that Axis had acquired only 15% of the Club.



Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 06:45:31
So, apart from Power being a complete cunt, the fact Standing/Barry’s secretive involvement in STFC has allowed Power’s cuntishness to shaft them?

Nothing he has done is illegal but trust is a no no as far as he’s concerned.

No wonder the sketchiest of annual accounts was only ever published.

If this is the way he does business then, for me, the sooner he fucks off the better. Fucking stinks.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 07:12:28
Power had some front to go on Talksport on Sunday when all this was about to blow up and talk about needing to find money to keep clubs going.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Costanza on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 07:36:39
Lee Power isn't exactly a media whore so would have had an agenda going in.

Now we know part of that reason why.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 07:59:16
I am not sure we can be confident that the offer to buy us is even real.
Indeed. The ruling seemed quietly sceptical about that, noting several times the paucity of written evidence of a firm offer.

I don’t think we are exposed on the ownership front with Standing or Barry.  Their insistence was that it was held in trust, and certainly at arms length.  Given that is verbal, Power may well win that argument, especially given they were all mates at the time.  Either way I think Standing would not be seen as having a direct interest in the ownership of the club.

Nobody seems to be against selling, it looks like a battle for the profits should we be sold.
Think Mr Tuck has, as ever, got to the nub of it here. This looks like a threat to Power's ownership, not an existential threat to the club. The existential threat to the club remains the fallout from Covid, as for all Football League clubs. This is unhelpful and worrying in the short term, but it's a sideshow.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 08:00:25
No wonder the sketchiest of annual accounts was only ever published.
As Reg would be pointing out if he was still around, the change to publishing short form accounts dates back to Andrew Black.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 08:16:32
So, apart from Power being a complete cunt, the fact Standing/Barry’s secretive involvement in STFC has allowed Power’s cuntishness to shaft them?

Nothing he has done is illegal but trust is a no no as far as he’s concerned.

If you think about it, he has managed to get two other parties to fund nearly 2/3rds of the clubs working capital (50% Standing/Barry - 15% Morfuni), all while leaving them both in limbo in regards to their status on ownership/investment. Morfuni has owned 15% for nearly 2yrs but Power has deferred the transfer/registration all that time. I'd be truly pissed if I was Clem.

Power has always claimed "I've put £xm of my own money into this club..." yet if we look over the last 7yrs (since Standing/Barry involvement), we could quite easily bring into question whether Power has actually put any or very much of his own money into the club, at all? Since there has been at least £7.1m put in by Standing & Clem. Not counting for competition awards and player sales (sits at about £4m up thanks to L Thompson, Byrne, Gladwin & Luongo). Can't say for sure but it could be less than £500k (of his own actual cash). Strange how, if we say it was £400k.....that figure between the three parties adds up to...£7.5m...hmmm now where is that figure mooted?  :hmmm:


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 08:48:13
Hopefully, if there is any sort of bail out in the horizon, it is independently administered and not just ‘given’ to clubs as a lump sum.

Power must have known that operating the club in such a shady, secretive manner would come back to bite him on the arse when he came to sell the club. Nobody in this whole, sorry saga has set eyes on any detailed financial information. Not even the judge in these cases, although he is more than sceptical about Power’s insistence of impending doom.

What is it about football clubs - and us in particular - that attracts all these fuckwits?

You’ve also got to assume that if he pulled the wool over the eyes of his ‘partners’ he wouldn’t have thought twice about fucking the fans over


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 08:58:11
You’ve also got to assume that if he pulled the wool over the eyes of his ‘partners’ he wouldn’t have thought twice about fucking the fans over
And again chanelling Reg once more, you've got to assume that about any owner of a football club.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:05:18
Not bothered about other clubs - just ours.

Missed this bit, mind

‘Mr Morfuni had also heard from others at the Club that a consortium from the Middle East had been in discussions with Mr Power in relation to the sale of the Club.
At the end of February 2020, Mr Ben Walmsley of Peregrine Law spoke with Mr Standing's solicitors and they told him that Mr Terrell had said that a sale to Able or another third party may proceed with some urgency and could be completed by April 2020. Mr Power apparently considered that Axis' 15% shareholding was no obstacle to any such sale and that he would "take care" of any interest Axis had.’

Obviously all this shit has nothing to do with actual footballing side of things, but can we now expect new owners any time soon. Covid was well established before the dates mentioned in the court cases, so maybe that hasn’t thrown a spanner in the works. But, I presume, this shit show might well have put any interested parties off.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Wobbly Bob on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:07:33
Well, not the bedtime reading that I was planning on.
Welcome to the murky world of football club ownership, like some script for a low budget film noir written on the back of a fag packet that didn’t get anywhere near the in tray of Guy Ritchie’s agent.

Don’t like to see the words STFC, administration and insolvency in the same document, regardless of the likelihood of the worst case scenario happening.

Is two ‘undred faazend a month for the club to survive a realistic figure?
Could be if Lee Power said so.
Must come a tipping point (possibly hastened by the pandemic) when the continued funding becomes problematic and it’s time to cut the losses?

Still hopeful that the next footballing visit to Bristol will be to Horfield and not Mangotsfield.

At least the obligatory consortium from the Middle East could be waiting in the wings to save the day.  ???

Right, I’m off to navigate a way through the smoke and mirrors to the kitchen for a cuppa.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Nemo on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:08:41
I'm actually reading through the documents in full because I have fuck all else to do.

Power does not come across especially well. When you have the judge describing the facts of the case using words like "Extraordinarily" it doesn't seem like he was terribly impressed.

God knows what happens next though. The thing that doesn't seem to have come across yet (maybe later, I'm not finished) is what the relationship between Standing and Barry is.

Amused that both parties seemed to fuck up the maths and therefore Axis might actually own 27.5% rather than the intended 15%.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:08:58
But, I presume, this shit show might well have put any interested parties off.
Or made them more interested as they know the club's for sale and now think they might be able to get it cheaper by leveraging one or more of the interested parties off against each other? Come on Audrey, you've been a Town fan long enough to know you can't presume anything where boardroom shenanningans are concerned :)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:11:30
God knows what happens next though. The thing that doesn't seem to have come across yet (maybe later, I'm not finished) is what the relationship between Standing and Barry is.
Standing is Barry's agent and friend. Barry's contention in the docs is that he doesn't own the 50% but that if the court finds he does, then he will sell it to Standing for £1 so that Standing would remain the claimant


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:11:47
Hopefully, if there is any sort of bail out in the horizon, it is independently administered and not just ‘given’ to clubs as a lump sum.

Power must have known that operating the club in such a shady, secretive manner would come back to bite him on the arse when he came to sell the club. Nobody in this whole, sorry saga has set eyes on any detailed financial information. Not even the judge in these cases, although he is more than sceptical about Power’s insistence of impending doom.

What is it about football clubs - and us in particular - that attracts all these fuckwits?

You’ve also got to assume that if he pulled the wool over the eyes of his ‘partners’ he wouldn’t have thought twice about fucking the fans over

‘You’ve also got to assume that if he pulled the wool over the eyes of his ‘partners’ he wouldn’t have thought twice about fucking the fans over‘

Or The Trust in relation to the ground purchase presumably? Which then leads me onto other aspects of this footballing manage a trios. 1) The Club, 2) The Ground, 3) The Training Facility. Who owns what, who has invested what, where has the money come from?

One thing I would suggest in all of this that there is asset protection in regards to any sanctions which may or could be applied by the football authorities. If the club (forget the ground or the training facility) was to get hammered by the FA or EFL then presumably everything else goes tits up too. No point in buying a ground when the club for arguement sake end up in the national League or worse and the training ground becomes a white elephant.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:12:08
Yeah, I know. But it’s gone from Hillier et al trousering coinage from the turnstiles to this shit.

I thought we’d got over the ‘where’s the money gone, Lee?’ and were just a club that’s had a bit of success. Going to fuck Wellens right off I’d imagine.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:13:36
No point in buying a ground when the club for arguement sake end up in the national League or worse
Still need a ground to play at no matter which League we're in. And it still needs protecting against asset-stripping owners. This shitshow only intensifies the argument for the Trust owning a stake in the ground, not diminishes it


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Nemo on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:15:07
Still need a ground to play at no matter which League we're in. And it still needs protecting against asset-stripping owners. This shitshow only intensifies the argument for the Trust owning a stake in the ground, not diminishes it

Although it also intensifies the argument for them hiring some fucking good lawyers to draft the exact wording of the contracts!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:15:58
You’ve also got to think that if Standing/Barry have ‘invested’ £6m since 2013 what have they had in return for that so far? No wonder clubs struggle financially when any kind of windfall disappears out the back door quicker than you can say ‘Stay Alert!’


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:18:34
You’ve also got to think that if Standing/Barry have ‘invested’ £6m since 2013 what have they had in return for that so far? No wonder clubs struggle financially when any kind of windfall disappears out the back door quicker than you can say ‘Stay Alert!’

Directors dividends and interest on loans. The latter can be extortionate compared to what banks charge business loan rates at.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Panda Paws on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:18:40
Quote from: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey link=topic=58223.msg1549222#msg15
What is it about football clubs - and us in particular - that attracts all these fuckwits?

It's not us in particular.

Football economics don't work outside the PL. So, you have to either fund/structure it in a very complex way and take any margin you can at any point (player sales, selling burger contracts), be a romantic sugar daddy or borrow, borrow, borrow on the basis there's a big windfall at some point (PL, land).

I've no doubt our club is no more or less "shady" in its corporate structure and financial engineering than most other clubs.

I do find it interesting it's within our instinct as a fan base to immediately assume whoever Power is up against is in the right, and Power is in the wrong. Let's see how this plays out.

It's in my nature to be in the "better the devil you know camp" - anonymous US or Middle Eastern investment with unknown motives worry me more than Power operating in legal grey areas.

And on the Wellens point - I can't imagine he cares so long as he's left to do his job, has a competitive budget and has a good relationship with people in charge on a day-to-day. Why would he care about the source of finance and corporate structure? He's an employee.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:20:05
Still need a ground to play at no matter which League we're in. And it still needs protecting against asset-stripping owners. This shitshow only intensifies the argument for the Trust owning a stake in the ground, not diminishes it

Yes, however, in the national league or lower are you going to generate the cash to make it work?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Panda Paws on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:22:07
Yes, however, in the national league or lower are you going to generate the cash to make it work?

Explain how we're at risk of being in the NL, or lower?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:23:31
It's not us in particular.

Football economics don't work outside the PL. So, you have to either fund/structure it in a very complex way and take any margin you can at any point (player sales, selling burger contracts), be a romantic sugar daddy or borrow, borrow, borrow on the basis there's a big windfall at some point (PL, land).

I've no doubt our club is no more or less "shady" in its corporate structure and financial engineering than most other clubs.

I do find it interesting it's within our instinct as a fan base to immediately assume whoever Power is up against is in the right, and Power is in the wrong. Let's see how this plays out.

It's in my nature to be in the "better the devil you know camp" - anonymous US or Middle Eastern investment with unknown motives worry me more than Power operating in legal grey areas.
That’s all fine and dandy and quite true. But it seems pretty conclusive to me that Power was/is actively looking to offload the club - and I doubt he’s much bothered who to.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:25:27
Explain how we're at risk of being in the NL, or lower?

If, if there are any sanctions regarding ownership or admin etc. Now I hope there isn’t I’m creating a scenario to consider.

No further statements will be issued until I have contacted my lawyers 😉


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:26:51
That’s all fine and dandy and quite true. But it seems pretty conclusive to me that Power was/is actively looking to offload the club - and I doubt he’s much bothered who to.

It’s all about the money, money, money, money, money makes the world go round.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Panda Paws on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:27:38
Yep the one thing that seems for sure is that Power wants out, and all current interested parties are posturing to maximise their slice of the pie.

I don't know if this Twitter user posts here but a good summation: https://twitter.com/loose_as/status/1263025206496559104

And by good, I mean it matches my opinion and narrative.





Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:29:24
So once again, millions changing hands and nothing written down. I see Standing played 6 games for that yellow lot up the road!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Bob's Orange on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:32:11
There is a history of us being made an example of whilst the big boys get a fine they can easily manage.  Whatever the future holds, I would be confident that STFC, even STFC 2021, would rise once again.

Whilst what you are saying is true of bigger clubs, (and this is based on the assumption that we have broken some rules of course) what is massively irritating is that owners of STFC continue to go down this route of trying to flaunt/bend the rules with the arrogance that they can get away with it.

Football club ownership is such a horribly murky business isn't it?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:34:28
It’s all about the money, money, money, money, money makes the world go round.

You don't invest in any business, football clubs included unless you are a life long supporter, without expecting a return, when are football supporters going to understand that!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 09:48:04
You don't invest in any business, football clubs included unless you are a life long supporter, without expecting a return, when are football supporters going to understand that!

And to think all this time....


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RedRag on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 10:17:56
As has been noted, I'm not sure how much this all affects STFC over and above the problems of the Pandemic.  

It does indicate that Power has thus far been quite adept at taking advantage of UNWRITTEN arrangements.  I wouldn't give him a tenner to run down to the corner shop to get me a packet of fags without it being nailed down in writing and passed by my lawyers.

There seems so much in football to suggest that if you control the shares and the money, you can slip quite decent wedges to yourself unknown to business partners or possibly even HMRC.  Eg Power apparently wanting to cut a deal for 40% of any sell on from Jayden Bogle to go to him following a sale of the club - how would that impact on Morfuni's 15%?

Power will not be liable to CGT on any gain from the sale of Swinton Red shares, ie STFC, whether held by him as trustee for Standing or beneficially on his own account.  Standing, or his company, being UK resident would be liable and God knows how you report any gains to HMRC on the back of these sorts of arrangements.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 10:24:13
But Standing/Barry are up shit creek. If they want their money back they have to legally be joint owners of STFC, yet if they are declared as such they would run foul of the FA - as would, presumably, the club.

If the club is sanctioned in any way, it’s sale value diminishes as does everybody’s ‘investment’.

There could be yet another shark circling to pick us up on the cheap.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 10:28:49

It does indicate that Power has thus far been quite adept at taking advantage of UNWRITTEN arrangements.  

He won against Jed because he (or his lawyers) were brighter than Jeds, seems to have come up against a bit more in the case of Clem.

Interestingly the termination of the appointment of Crouch (standings representative on earth) as a Director (14th August 2019) came the day before a revised confirmation statement was submitted to Companies House confirming that Clems Co owned 15% of the shares in Swinton Reds 20 Ltd*, that cannot be a coincidence.

I get the impression, as with many precarious businesses, Power has managed to keep the plates spinning for so long due to the informality with Standing, but when Clem started to exert pressure for some security against his investment the plates began to fall.

* I cannot be bothered to read back, has Power incriminated himself now regarding this?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 10:29:34
There could be yet another shark circling to pick us up on the cheap.
Indeed. Which is the big worry. I'm not in the "Better the Devil You Know" camp, but firmly "Be Very Careful What You Wish For". if you find yourself thinking "Anything's got to be better than this", then things can, and often do, get worse. We only have to look at our national life over the past few years, or even months, to see that.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 10:31:03
But Standing/Barry are up shit creek. If they want their money back they have to legally be joint owners of STFC, yet if they are declared as such they would run foul of the FA - as would, presumably, the club.

If the club is sanctioned in any way, it’s sale value diminishes as does everybody’s ‘investment’.

There could be yet another shark circling to pick us up on the cheap.

Be interesting to know what (if any) relationship there is between Standing/Barry/Clem?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 10:31:41
Going thirds on a hitman, you mean?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 10:34:21
He won against Jed because he (or his lawyers) were brighter than Jeds, seems to have come up against a bit more in the case of Clem.

Interestingly the termination of the appointment of Crouch (standings representative on earth) as a Director (14th August 2019) came the day before a revised confirmation statement was submitted to Companies House confirming that Clems Co owned 15% of the shares in Swinton Reds 20 Ltd*, that cannot be a coincidence.

I get the impression, as with many precarious businesses, Power has managed to keep the plates spinning for so long due to the informality with Standing, but when Clem started to exert pressure for some security against his investment the plates began to fall.

* I cannot be bothered to read back, has Power incriminated himself now regarding this?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IRkZN27Hp_k


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 10:34:44
Going thirds on a hitman, you mean?

No, more thinking, he is trying to screw us both over lets have a little chat over a glass of red as to how we can protect both our positions and get rid of him, especially if there is a return on our investments in the offing.

Another elephant in the room is the training ground, the only way that works in planning terms is with the club involved, yet the land appears to be owned by Power, without the club I suspect no stables and no houses, fairly worthless.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 10:39:58
Stupid question alert.

So what was the actual outcome of the 2 cases?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RedRag on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 10:42:31
I don't think it makes any direct difference to STFC whether a new buyer gets us on the cheap or not.  That is Power & Co's business.  

However, the cheaper the shares, the wider the net for potential buyers, opening up opportunities for penniless chancers who want to drive around in company Mercs, a la Jed.

The proposed ground share, never mind a new training facility and running the club will require an owner with ready access to some cash, ideally invested rather than borrowed.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 10:46:49
In reality this news makes little difference and I can't be bothered to get myself worked up about it with the current situation in the EFL and the world as a whole in fact.

We all knew Powers end game was selling the club, his source of funds has now become clearer but that's about it. I'm not sure any party is coming out well from this; Power comes out looking like he will use any loophole going to ensure he doesn't lose out, Standing/Barry just very naïve or just plain stupid for just relying on a verbal contract and very dodgy wanting to hide their involvement. As for Clem for a supposed owner of a company worth over £200 he doesn't seem to have done much due diligence before making his investment and although it does seem like he's the one sure thing in terms of he owns 15% its not a great reflection on his business acumen.

I'm sure more will come out in the wash but unless the FA start investigating then not a lot has really changed, it is strange that none of this Power/Standing info ever came out in the Power vs Jed ownership court case but hey ho.

Football at our level is going to materially change in the coming months so impossible to know what is going to happen, you certainly wouldn't want to be buying a club at the moment unless massively on the cheap but with the current players all claiming significant sums I can't see that happening. The club getting out the other side of the COVID19 crisis is still the immediate concern.....

As for all the trolls like Kostiuk patting themselves on the back saying this proves them right, a stopped clock is right twice a day. Lets not forget their accusations included that we deliberately threw the play-off final, Reading U23's using the CG etc so I think its safe to says they know fuck all.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 11:00:11
In reality this news makes little difference and I can't be bothered to get myself worked up about it with the current situation in the EFL and the world as a whole in fact.

We all knew Powers end game was selling the club, his source of funds has now become clearer but that's about it. I'm not sure any party is coming out well from this; Power comes out looking like he will use any loophole going to ensure he doesn't lose out, Standing/Barry just very naïve or just plain stupid for just relying on a verbal contract and very dodgy wanting to hide their involvement. As for Clem for a supposed owner of a company worth over £200 he doesn't seem to have done much due diligence before making his investment and although it does seem like he's the one sure thing in terms of he owns 15% its not a great reflection on his business acumen.

I'm sure more will come out in the wash but unless the FA start investigating then not a lot has really changed, it is strange that none of this Power/Standing info ever came out in the Power vs Jed ownership court case but hey ho.

Football at our level is going to materially change in the coming months so impossible to know what is going to happen, you certainly wouldn't want to be buying a club at the moment unless massively on the cheap but with the current players all claiming significant sums I can't see that happening. The club getting out the other side of the COVID19 crisis is still the immediate concern.....

As for all the trolls like Kostiuk patting themselves on the back saying this proves them right, a stopped clock is right twice a day. Lets not forget their accusations included that we deliberately threw the play-off final, Reading U23's using the CG etc so I think its safe to says they know fuck all.
I agree 100%.

The only real concern for me is that the EFL do not take kindly to players/agents having shares in clubs and could possibly deduct points or other measures to deter any other club doing similar, as far as I know we could well be the first to be in this situation?

This sounds like "he said she said" usual owndership battles at clubs but we as fans, specifically of Swindon, have seen the clubs name dragged through the mud so many times its natural to be on edge about how it will affect the club as a whole.

The timing is also not great after Promotion*/Championship* season, but then there is never good time for legal battles.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 11:03:57
Stupid question alert.

So what was the actual outcome of the 2 cases?

They concern interim applications.  The main legal claims will be determined in due course.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RedRag on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 11:31:29
Stupid question alert.

So what was the actual outcome of the 2 cases?

So far as Clem/Axis is concerned, they succeeded in obtaining an injunction, pending trial or further interim order, that

 1.  no sale could be made without their consent,
 2.  any prospective purchaser be notified of Clem/Axis's 15% interest and
 3.  Power be prevented from taking any active steps to have the club/Swinton Reds wound up.

Costs will be determinable according to the outcome of any final trial (or agreement)

So far as Standing/FTPM are concerned, they already had an interim injunction requiring Power to obtain their consent and involve them in a sale.  

In this interim hearing, Power had requested they put up more money (fortification) to cover Power's potential losses were this consent and involvement later be found to have wrongly caused him loss, ie because Able's offer did not proceed or because STFC became insolvent*.  Power's claim for fortification was dismissed and he has incurred a costs liability to Standing/FTPM for the failed application.

*The judge was not satisfied as to the evidence regarding any likely insolvency or indeed of any real prospect of any sale to Able, let alone for any particular amount.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 11:37:28
So Power is well fucked. Likely to end with an (un)gentleman’s agreement rather than incurring any more legal fees.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RedRag on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 11:38:14
They concern interim applications.  The main legal claims will be determined in due course.
Indeed.  

The hearings have been more interesting for the incidental light cast on Power and the funding of STFC.  

Even then, such are Power's methods, the hearings have been interesting because of the lack of light Power is able to bring to a contentious legal hearing.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 11:38:57
So Power is well fucked. Likely to end with an (un)gentleman’s agreement rather than incurring any more legal fees.

A case of the real winners likely to be the lawyers.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RedRag on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 11:42:00
So Power is well fucked. Likely to end with an (un)gentleman’s agreement rather than incurring any more legal fees.
A buyer is the out for Power and his unholy alliance.  There is little evidence there will be one but I can't see any of them being too choosy about the suitability of any new buyer for STFC

'twas ever thus, of course, although I believe the hapless Sir Seton was a gent and did care.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 11:45:02
Extra line on the lottery this week, guys!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 11:53:57
Indeed.  

The hearings have been more interesting for the incidental light cast on Power and the funding of STFC.  

Even then, such are Power's methods, the hearings have been interesting because of the lack of light Power is able to bring to a contentious legal hearing.

I know a few lawyers and have picked up some knowledge of litigation practice/ procedure. I understood the reference to the American Cyanamid principles...


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 11:56:49
Extra line on the lottery this week, guys!

Fridays Euromillions is only 24m not much left to buy the club after you have spent on family etc.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 12:00:49
The only real concern for me is that the EFL do not take kindly to players/agents having shares in clubs and could possibly deduct points or other measures to deter any other club doing similar, as far as I know we could well be the first to be in this situation?

Quite.

Well that and us going under even before Covid financial shitstorm gets us


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 12:08:20
Quite.

Well that and us going under even before Covid financial shitstorm gets us

It can't be anything to worry about as the Adver haven't jumped on it and as we know they literally have no news stories of any note!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 12:11:07
It can't be anything to worry about as the Adver haven't jumped on it and as we know they literally have no news stories of any note!
They also don't have any sports journalists any more, they laid off the sports desk when the lockdown started. So they have no-one to cover this


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 12:21:10
bbc wilts is slow on 'understanding' too


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 12:53:54
bbc wilts is slow on 'understanding' too
tbf they're probably trying to check WTF is going on before putting anything out. It's a delicate area and misreporting it could cause unnecessary panic (see FB) so no problem with them taking a few hours to get it right


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 12:54:47
yeah, I guess so


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RedRag on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 13:36:29
I know a few lawyers and have picked up some knowledge of litigation practice/ procedure. I understood the reference to the American Cyanamid principles...
You've just encouraged me to look that up.  I had glossed over it, so appreciated!

They say a good lawyer should never go onto the next page until he has fully understood the page he has just read.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 16:42:07
I'm actually reading through the documents in full because I have fuck all else to do.

Power does not come across especially well. When you have the judge describing the facts of the case using words like "Extraordinarily" it doesn't seem like he was terribly impressed.

Amused that both parties seemed to fuck up the maths and therefore Axis might actually own 27.5% rather than the intended 15%.

Not sure if you misread it but the initial SSA read as 15% of 85% (Swinton), and 15% of Seebeck. Meaning it was interpreted as 27.75% but they have been clarified in the proceedings and it is intended to be 15% of the club. However, if Power plays hardball or pushes a little too much with Clem (Axis), then in theory Clem could revert back and lay claim to 27.75%. It seems though that Clem is not wanting to pursue this avenue at present. He just wants Power to giver him his 15% and not sell the club sans consultation.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 17:37:01
It looks like the Adver have woken up :clap:
https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/18463343.lee-power-says-swindon-town-go-administration-sale-fails/


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 17:39:54
I see they've gone for the most dramatic headline possible. As per usual.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 17:42:55
I see they've gone for the most dramatic headline possible. As per usual.


yes I thought that too :eek:
Either way it's a mess now we don't know if the club is going up, training next Tuesday, potentially going into administration or a combination of all three :hmmm:

Damn now it's on BBC Points West!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 17:43:51
like almost every newspaper and news channel.

it's annoying, but not unique.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 17:45:46
Conveniently omitting that the injunction specifically prevents any administration or folding of the club.

For some reason I like Clem.

I notice the comments section is not available.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 17:56:43
ah yeah, good point


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 17:59:53
like almost every newspaper and news channel.

it's annoying, but not unique.

Yep.

And I hold them all in contempt.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RedRag on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 18:19:41
Conveniently omitting that the injunction specifically prevents any administration or folding of the club.

For some reason I like Clem.

I notice the comments section is not available. :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:
I think Clem is decent too.

Someone stated he has been naive but he does seem the wealthiest of the individuals concerned, so relatively small beer for him.  There was paperwork but it was not completed.  A little trust not unreasonable.

With Power's nous, they could perhaps have made a decent team.  I'm sure Power has his reasons but it appears his dishonesty can only now presage a change of funding and ownership


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 18:27:04
Conveniently omitting that the injunction specifically prevents any administration or folding of the club.

For some reason I like Clem.

I notice the comments section is not available.
I’m not so sure, for a businessman he doesn’t seem to have shown much acumen with his investment in us and latching on to a couple of easily swayed & vocal fans to effectively be his spokesman and promote him seems a bit manipulative.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 19:02:23
https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/18463345.swindon-towns-lee-power-taken-court-club-sale/?ref=fbshr

Adver article


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 19:25:12
Quote from: tans
https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/18463345.swindon-towns-lee-power-taken-court-club-sale/?ref=fbshr (https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/18463345.swindon-towns-lee-power-taken-court-club-sale/?ref=fbshr)

Adver article

reasonable article.

good grief.

£6m in loans from Standing. hope that's to power, though the adver say the club


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Cheltred on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 19:32:43
I think Clem is decent too.

Someone stated he has been naive but he does seem the wealthiest of the individuals concerned, so relatively small beer for him.  There was paperwork but it was not completed.  A little trust not unreasonable.

With Power's nous, they could perhaps have made a decent team.  I'm sure Power has his reasons but it appears his dishonesty can only now presage a change of funding and ownership
Clem seems fine to me


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 19:34:19

yes I thought that too :eek:
Either way it's a mess now we don't know if the club is going up, training next Tuesday, potentially going into administration or a combination of all three :hmmm:

Damn now it's on BBC Points West!

Of course it is, they all network, buy & sell ‘news’ articles from each other.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 19:38:23
He might be a top bloke. Some liken him to Jed, but I don't see it myself. Not that I know much about him.

I still think he's using certain sections of the fan base, though. Which might even be a smart move on his part.

How rich is he? Is he 'Don't worry because we have a minted beneficiary ready to step in and settle everything if needed' rich?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Dr Pierre Chang on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 20:11:30
Wellens has said this evening that the squad are gutted because Power promised them a trip to Vegas if they won the league...paid for by the Ritchie money no doubt  ;)


Title: Re: Re: Court cases
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 22:06:18
reasonable article.

good grief.

£6m in loans from Standing. hope that's to power, though the adver say the club

The court papers link said the loans were £6M but some had been repaid and about £3.7M outstanding.

Last accounts had around £7M of creditors with Power's directors loans at £2.4M.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 23:13:56
Only taken 2 days to reach the Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/11671476/gareth-barry-broke-strict-fa-rules-invest-800k-swindon/amp/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=sunfootballtwitter&utm_source=Twitter


Title: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 23:18:15
soapy tit wank the Cheltenham dipshit is off on one


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 23:49:33
IF they have broken rules, why deliberatley make it all open in court? Would the money mean that much to them? Especially somebody like Barry who will still likely have a career in football in one way or another.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 23:52:06
Quote
GARETH BARRY “broke strict FA rules” to pump £800,000 into Swindon, it was alleged in court.

I'm quite sure the judge did not say Barry or anybody else broke FA rules. That's just the Sun adding on to whip things up a bit.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 23:59:40
soapy tit wank the Cheltenham dipshit is off on one
Just ask him for evidence that we deliberately threw the playoff final, that’s another of his claims.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 00:08:07
Seems to me that once Standing found out about Power not being truthful, over the Ritchie money he's decided to basically fuck him back over.

Two football agents (one an ex) doing the dirty on each other...well you play with fire you get burnt. It's certainly a case of who can be the biggest cunt. With STFC and partially Clem (Axis) stuck in the middle.

I'm not a "Power Out" type but for some reason, when all the dust settles on this, I can see Clem becoming majority owner of the club.

I can only see his initial naive attitude being on having struck up a decent relationship with Power and entrusting him from a far. I suppose if someone you'd known a while said they'd give you your share of the cake in six months instead of three then a lot of us would give the benefit of the doubt.

Two years does take the piss though. No excuses for that. You wouldn't pay off part of your house for two years only for them to turn round and say that percentage still belongs to the previous.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 00:10:49
I'm quite sure the judge did not say Barry or anybody else broke FA rules. That's just the Sun adding on to whip things up a bit.

Red top in sensational shocker. Technically Standing, may not have a leg to stand on. If they were claiming ownership (legally) that'd be suicide. Investing might (I dont know for certain) be a different matter.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Robinz on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 00:11:45
This is what you get when someone is fighting above their their weight.
Lee Power was obviously under capitalised when he took over from Jed and needed to share the "load" with the take over. Desperate times calls for desperate decisions !!!
He was / is cunning and obviously inexperienced in business. He is in denial that people would hold him to account for his actions and promises.
This would explain many of his actions and especially why he was against others including the Advertiser from poking their noses in the day to day running of the club and why he kept a low profile for a long while.
Possibly, just possibly he would have been genuine and paid his dues if and when a proposed sale went through... nobody will ever now.
Just remember, he has keep the club going against all odds and under his stewardship has helped create a very good team that on merit has won promotion (we hope).
This Corvid 19 virus could easily have been the tipping point and WILL catch out hundreds and thousands of punters living on a wing and a prayer.
Living far away from the action, I suggest Lee Power has been caught out and will be seen as a confidence trickster who was taking advantage of a situation.
I see Power as a person who saved our football club in 2013 and has helped it into the next phase of a success period that hopefully with the involvement of our Australian friend and Swindon Town Trust board.
Stay safe :)
COYMR's
    
    
    


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: otanswell on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 00:23:30
Seems to me that once Standing found out about Power not being truthful, over the Ritchie money he's decided to basically fuck him back over.

Two football agents (one an ex) doing the dirty on each other...well you play with fire you get burnt. It's certainly a case of who can be the biggest cunt. With STFC and partially Clem (Axis) stuck in the middle.

I'm not a "Power Out" type but for some reason, when all the dust settles on this, I can see Clem becoming majority owner of the club.


Clem wants the club 100%


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: otanswell on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 00:25:53
He might be a top bloke. Some liken him to Jed, but I don't see it myself. Not that I know much about him.

I still think he's using certain sections of the fan base, though. Which might even be a smart move on his part.

How rich is he? Is he 'Don't worry because we have a minted beneficiary ready to step in and settle everything if needed' rich?
He might be a top bloke. Some liken him to Jed, but I don't see it myself. Not that I know much about him.

I still think he's using certain sections of the fan base, though. Which might even be a smart move on his part.

How rich is he? Is he 'Don't worry because we have a minted beneficiary ready to step in and settle everything if needed' rich?

He’s a genuine bloke, had a decent chat with him yesterday, certainly the most clever out of the bunch


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Robinz on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 00:28:50
Much has changed with Covid 19 and especially with the Construction industry.
New Zealand and Australia are making large scale redundancies and many projects are being mothballed.
That said, who know and hopefully someone with passion for the club will come forward.
COYMR's
      


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Robinz on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 00:37:52
Interesting times and suggest time for once is on "our" side.

Court ruling states no major change on the Financial situation until a trial. Admin out of the question !!!
Standing / Barry are not shareholders.
Club can't be sold without ageement of others
Power, I suggest is out of money

Wonder how and where the cards will drop.

Great opportunity for the Trust to stand up and have a say.

 


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: swindonmaniac on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 08:37:42
Just ask him for evidence that we deliberately threw the playoff final, that’s another of his claims.
We certainly played as though we weren't interested in winning it.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: suttonred on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 08:47:52
*awaits triad betting conspiracy claims*


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Wobbly Bob on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 09:27:32
Cue FA investigation that trundles on for months.

Would any potential sanctions be aimed at individuals or the club?

Putting us back in the same division as in 2013 would be ok.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 09:35:17
Interesting times and suggest time for once is on "our" side.

Court ruling states no major change on the Financial situation until a trial. Admin out of the question !!!
Standing / Barry are not shareholders.
Club can't be sold without ageement of others
Power, I suggest is out of money

Wonder how and where the cards will drop.

Great opportunity for the Trust to stand up and have a say.

 

I haven't read the court papers in full, but if Power is out of cash who is going to pay the bills whilst this shit show is sorted out?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Private Fraser on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 09:38:37
BBC Radio Wiltshire piece this morning, including Rob Angus of Trust STFC view. Starts at 08:07 (only about 10 minutes in total)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_wiltshire



Title: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 09:39:41
thanks Fraser.

@horlock who the fuck knows! probably nobody. they'll have some season ticket money trickling in I guess*, but it'll be absolutely miniscule

* it used to be the case I think that some finance sources paid the club pro rata across the term.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 09:50:04
I haven't read the court papers in full, but if Power is out of cash who is going to pay the bills whilst this shit show is sorted out?
Power says he can’t fund it - the judge doesn’t believe him.

Standing said he is still willing to fund the club.

If the club folds or put into admin then they all lose everything.

Power is good at playing the poor card, that’s for sure.

I still can’t work out if this Able company are or are not still interested. The sole director of a newly formed company Able Company Swindon LLC has one director - a Boston property developer. Now, I wonder what his interest could be now that the CG is going to be sold.

Be good to hear from the Trust on this.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 09:50:48
Be good to hear from anyone!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:00:49
Be good to hear from anyone!


What I don't get is why did he do the interview on Talksport last weekend knowing this court case was happening as apart from stating all clubs were worried about their finances with no income coming in he seemed upbeat


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: suttonred on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:05:41
Either denial, or he's not bothered by it, and all the armchair experts are mis reading everything?  Not a dig, but none of us can really understand the 2 docs. Neither can the media.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:06:42
Nobody has ever fully trusted Power, not ever and never will. There has always been a provisio when fans say his name, I trust him to a point etc.

Thats not to say he hasn't done a decent job at Swindon and learnt from his many mistakes, until now he has not dragged the clubs name through the mud at all unlike many other previous owners have done, we all know hes not "minted" as is the new term for a heavily wealthy man but hes made some money and invested (at a cost) in the club. I think hes done quite well in most cases.

I know a fair few people who have fallen out with him on a personal level and would not piss on him if he were on fire but hes never shown any of that to the rest of us fans, hes always as eloquent as any East Ender with money is and comes accross like he is trying to get the best he can for the least money all the time, like any East Ender with or without money!

He talks a good game but will never win over a large proprtion of the fan base for whatever reason historically, the Cheltnumb twat, Jaybox and several others have not ever given any reason for not trusting him other than, hes a cunt, hes not trustworthy etc etc based upon exactly what? a fuck up in ownership/management of Cambridge and Rushden? yet he is the devil incarnate for many yet nobody ever gives the reasons behind the absolute hatred.

I personally have never met and and never will so cannot make a judgement on him based upon hearsay and Chinese whispers unlike some.

As for Clem, I know pretty much fuck all about the bloke, I know hes in the building trade in Australia which says to me hes in it to redevelop the ground and increase his own wealth, something the Power haters have accused him of millions of times, yet they seem open to Clems advances.

Hes not a Town fan, he appears to have no huge amount of wealth, he appears to have few connections with wealth (that we know of), yet he is idolized by the Power haters it seems.

Why? what has he done to deserve this fandom? nothing is out in the public, he seems to pop up now and again in the Adver with a quote which means absolutely nothing if he has no say at board level at the club.

I ask myself all the time why would a moderately wealthy property developer from the other side of the planet be interested in a Division 4 football club who are in the process of buying their own home and developing it?

The outcome is always the same....money, not for the love of the club, not for footballing reasons....purely financial, similar to Power yet Power is fucking vilified for doing EXACTLY this constantly, the only difference is that Clem seems to have contacts in the building business to actually get the job done.

Prospective owners of football clubs are usually in it forone of these 4 reasons (that I can think of).

1. They have a huge amount of wealth to spend as a play thing and can afford to waste in owning a football club and will do whatever they can to acheive footballing glory.

2. They love the club they are owning and want to give something back to the community and supporters of the club they love.

3. They want to make a quick buck by pumping some money into a club at playing level, getting them promoted and becoming a more viable selling option for profit.

4. They are in it to basically get hold of any development rights at clubs, building hotels etc on site or selling prime land and building a new ground outside of the city centre site of the current ground for massive profit.

I think that Power is obviously option 3, which is the most precarious option as it relies upon improvements on the pitch to improve future club sales, he has stated he is not hugely wealthy (so is not a 1) and is not a fan of Swindon (not a 2) he would like to be a 4 but doesn't have the funding or experience to do that even though he has tried with the traing ground etc.

As for Clem, he is obviously a number 4. Is Clem a better option than Power? at least Power has footballing connections, even if he has pissed off a lot of them over the years, Clem has none at all.

You have to ask yourself...what is Clem in it for?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Panda Paws on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:14:30
Bang on the money PV.

I'd rather Power ran us in the way he is than anyone else buys us primarily as a vehicle for property development.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Private Fraser on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:15:57


Be good to hear from the Trust on this.

Be good to hear from anyone!

See my post above at 09:38


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:24:59
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08cfqkl

1:07

I think Fraser's link has moved time period?

"the fa are aware ..."


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:28:43
All I got was a load of inane twaddle from a highly strung woman.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:35:10
Had a look on the EFL site regarding the do’s and don’ts of who can and who cannot be involved, directly or indirectly, with a football club. The sanction for breaking these rules

‘111 Powers of The Board in Event of Default

111.1 The Board shall be empowered, upon learning, whether pursuant to Regulations 107, 109 or 113 or otherwise, of any breach of Regulations 78 and 104 to 107 inclusive to require the Club and/or person in question to take such action as is necessary to rectify the breach forthwith or within such period as the Board shall determine.

111.2 Any breach of any of the foregoing Regulations 104 to 107 inclusive, including without limitation knowingly rendering incorrect or incomplete information pursuant to Regulations 107 and 109, shall constitute misconduct. Without prejudice to the range of other sanctions that may be imposed in respect of such breach, any Club in breach of any of the aforesaid Regulations may with the sanction of a special resolution passed at an Annual or Extraordinary General Meeting of The League, be expelled from The League. There shall be no right of appeal against such expulsion.’


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:38:57
Had a look on the EFL site regarding the do’s and don’ts of who can and who cannot be involved, directly or indirectly, with a football club. The sanction for breaking these rules

‘111 Powers of The Board in Event of Default

111.1 The Board shall be empowered, upon learning, whether pursuant to Regulations 107, 109 or 113 or otherwise, of any breach of Regulations 78 and 104 to 107 inclusive to require the Club and/or person in question to take such action as is necessary to rectify the breach forthwith or within such period as the Board shall determine.

111.2 Any breach of any of the foregoing Regulations 104 to 107 inclusive, including without limitation knowingly rendering incorrect or incomplete information pursuant to Regulations 107 and 109, shall constitute misconduct. Without prejudice to the range of other sanctions that may be imposed in respect of such breach, any Club in breach of any of the aforesaid Regulations may with the sanction of a special resolution passed at an Annual or Extraordinary General Meeting of The League, be expelled from The League. There shall be no right of appeal against such expulsion.’

I cannot for the life of me believe that LP would not have all the T’s crossed and I’s dotted in relation to any transgressions of ownership rules and regs. It’s one thing to lose other people’s money it is another to lose yours too.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:39:15
Just imagine, if everything was all proven and we got expelled from the league.

Doesnt bear thinking about


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:40:13
He talks a good game but will never win over a large proprtion of the fan base for whatever reason historically, the Cheltnumb twat, Jaybox and several others have not ever given any reason for not trusting him other than, hes a cunt, hes not trustworthy etc etc based upon exactly what? a fuck up in ownership/management of Cambridge and Rushden? yet he is the devil incarnate for many yet nobody ever gives the reasons behind the absolute hatred.

I personally have never met and and never will so cannot make a judgement on him based upon hearsay and Chinese whispers unlike some.


Part of the issue seems to be that Clem has attached himself to the more conspiracy theory arm of our supporter base, it would probably aid his cause if he wasn't associated with self proclaimed voices of the fans who the majority seem to think are actually numbnuts! Its actually rather Jed like.


The outcome is always the same....money, not for the love of the club, not for footballing reasons....purely financial, similar to Power yet Power is fucking vilified for doing EXACTLY this constantly, the only difference is that Clem seems to have contacts in the building business to actually get the job done.


Its all a nonsense really, FWIU Axis are a contractor (mainly plumbing!), and to be honest getting a contractor on board is one of the easiest parts of any development project, they are literally begging for work, just being a contractor doesn't mean that they have a clue about delivering development projects. On something like the ground anyone delivering the project would just employ a professional team led by a PM, so unless Clem has suggested he can deliver at a cheap rate not sure what he brings.


Prospective owners of football clubs are usually in it forone of these 4 reasons (that I can think of).

1. They have a huge amount of wealth to spend as a play thing and can afford to waste in owning a football club and will do whatever they can to acheive footballing glory.

2. They love the club they are owning and want to give something back to the community and supporters of the club they love.

3. They want to make a quick buck by pumping some money into a club at playing level, getting them promoted and becoming a more viable selling option for profit.

4. They are in it to basically get hold of any development rights at clubs, building hotels etc on site or selling prime land and building a new ground outside of the city centre site of the current ground for massive profit.


Indeed they do, examples

1. Chelsea
2. Bristol City
3. Power
4. Bury/Oxford etc.

As for Clem, he is obviously a number 4. Is Clem a better option than Power? at least Power has footballing connections, even if he has pissed off a lot of them over the years, Clem has none at all.

You have to ask yourself...what is Clem in it for?


He has previously suggested it was a platform to bring Aussie players through, although not sure that holds much water. The jury is still out as to whether he is a 1 or a 4 on your list, or somewhere in between, however the septics in the wings would appear definitely to be 4's!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Private Fraser on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:41:23
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08cfqkl

1:07

I think Fraser's link has moved time period?

"the fa are aware ..."

Yeah, it keeps reverting to the live broadcast. I'm trying to track down a link to Rob Angus' piece from earler.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:43:05
I cannot for the life of me believe that LP would not have all the T’s crossed and I’s dotted in relation to any transgressions of ownership rules and regs. It’s one thing to lose other people’s money it is another to lose yours too.
The EFL would have to expel themselves as well then as they did the FAPP test on him and checked his proof of funds....
Seeing as Harry Kane is allowed to sponsor Orient for the season it would appear that a player giving money to a club is allowed as long as they have no influence over the running of it, in which case we look to be ok.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: 4D on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:45:03
Will things ever be normal at STFC?  ::)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Tails on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:45:27
I'm in two minds really.

I do usually subscribe to the "better the devil you know".... but under Power, we are going nowhere. He doesn't really even pretend to have any ambition other than keeping us going. This frustrates me a bit, and I know he's tried with the training ground and with buying the stadium but I feel like that was more so he'd have something to sell. But having said that, you know what you're getting. Provided we end up in League One without any kind of punishment and with most of the squad / Wellens he would have left us more or less how he found us.

It's a shame really that the positive work the club has done (particularly in the media department)  this season to engage with the fan base has been slightly undone. I think in future we'll still look back at the season with a big smile at what we achieved and all the content we had. It seems some fans are absolutely loving this, and that also doesn't sit right with me. Everyone knows Power is a dodgy as, but I didn't get the whole supervillain narrative. Some people very proud of themselves because of the masses of shit they threw, 2 or 3% of it has stuck.

I will be happy if Power leaves but with almighty concern about the next lot of people (lets face it, crooks) that will take hold of us. A new set of owners could see a difference in the set up of the club too, which is also a shame as I think we could have some real momentum going into next season. Maybe the virus had seen to that anyway? Who knows.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:46:14
The EFL would have to expel themselves as well then as they did the FAPP test on him and checked his proof of funds....
Seeing as Harry Kane is allowed to sponsor Orient for the season it would appear that a player giving money to a club is allowed as long as they have no influence over the running of it, in which case we look to be ok.

So, on that basis, the bun fight over who owns what, who gave what to who, how much everyone owns % wise or think they think they own, when they are getting anything back agreed verbally or not, etc, etc, etc, is just a personal financial sideshow.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:47:15
So, on that basis, the bun fight over who owns what, who gave what to who, how much everyone owns % wise or think they think they own, when they are getting anything back agreed verbally or not, etc, etc, etc, is just a personal financial sideshow.
Pretty much yeah, each party wants as much money as they possibly can out of any sale.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:48:26
I will be happy if Power leaves but with almighty concern about the next lot of people (lets face it, crooks) that will take hold of us. A new set of owners could see a difference in the set up of the club too, which is also a shame as I think we could have some real momentum going into next season.
I think every Town fan will agree with that.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:50:59
Will things ever be normal at STFC?  ::)

Only when someone owns the ground lock, stock and barrel and has made a fuck load out of developing it. Which brings me back to the trust. I wonder if all powers issues with the other ‘investors’ kicked off when he found out the trust were in negotiations with the council and needed to act quickly and guarantee funds for 50% of the JV to buy. If as is suggested and suspected he does not have APTPI then then that would have alerted the others as to where there money is or when they were going to get it.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: flammableBen on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:52:29
Being able to get around conflict of interest rules by just not putting investors on any of the relevent documents, despite the interest being identical in terms of having a leaglly binding agreement of an investment later paid back based on future performance, sounds like the most football league thing ever. So I think we'll probably be fine.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 10:57:58
Had a look on the EFL site regarding the do’s and don’ts of who can and who cannot be involved, directly or indirectly, with a football club. The sanction for breaking these rules

‘111 Powers of The Board in Event of Default

111.1 The Board shall be empowered, upon learning, whether pursuant to Regulations 107, 109 or 113 or otherwise, of any breach of Regulations 78 and 104 to 107 inclusive to require the Club and/or person in question to take such action as is necessary to rectify the breach forthwith or within such period as the Board shall determine.

111.2 Any breach of any of the foregoing Regulations 104 to 107 inclusive, including without limitation knowingly rendering incorrect or incomplete information pursuant to Regulations 107 and 109, shall constitute misconduct. Without prejudice to the range of other sanctions that may be imposed in respect of such breach, any Club in breach of any of the aforesaid Regulations may with the sanction of a special resolution passed at an Annual or Extraordinary General Meeting of The League, be expelled from The League. There shall be no right of appeal against such expulsion.’
Bear in mind that we were also in breach of those regulations during the Diamandis era, as he was a disqualified director acting as a shadow director. There is a difference between the ultimate sanction available to the League and whether or not they choose to even investigate breaches, much less apply the sanction.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 11:00:28
Bear in mind that we were also in breach of those regulations during the Diamandis era, as he was a disqualified director acting as a shadow director. There is a difference between the ultimate sanction available to the League and whether or not they choose to even investigate breaches, much less apply the sanction.
Only concern I would have is that Gareth Barry is a 'name' and such gets media coverage unlike a troll from Cyprus.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 11:01:03
He has previously suggested it was a platform to bring Aussie players through, although not sure that holds much water.
He has indeed mentioned about Aussie players but that depends on work permit issues pre and post full Brexit anyway, unless these players have no european/British direct ancestry(Grandparents) then they will probably fail, but thats all up in the air anyway as we do not know the full criteria as yet.

The jury is still out as to whether he is a 1 or a 4 on your list, or somewhere in between, however the septics in the wings would appear definitely to be 4's!
Genuine question, what makes you think he is a multi millionaire that is loaded?

He may have some wealth (compaired to the average man) but hes certainly no Andrew Black, Roman Abramovich or even a Shiekh Mythingy who have a metric shit ton of money to waste.

What makes you think he has finances or backers with that sort of cash to burn on a Div 4 team?

Or do you know something I am not privvy to? ;)



Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 11:05:49
Power was/is a football agent. If there is no problem with any old Tom, Dick or Harry pumping money into a club why are there specific EFL rules on the subject?

It’s been admitted Standing/Barry have put in around £6m and have received £2.3m back. Also that they are entitled to 50% of any increase in the value of STFC, if sold. Also 50% of transfer sales of certain players. If that isn’t ‘involvement’ I don’t know what is.

What I’m finding strange is that Power insists the money came from Barry, not Standing, which is admitting the offence. It’s almost as if the carving up of the spoils is more important than any sanctions the EFL might impose.

Who is going to buy a club when there is a chance they might get booted out in the future?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 11:08:05
Only concern I would have is that Gareth Barry is a 'name' and such gets media coverage unlike a troll from Cyprus.
Absolutely although I am inclined to think that the issue lies more so with Standing using a current footballers income to invest in a club. So the FA I feel is more likely to apply sanctions to Standing and Barry as they are the people who actually put the money in. Of course it could just as likely be applied to Power for breaking the rules as it is to Standing and Barry.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 11:41:15
Only concern I would have is that Gareth Barry is a 'name' and such gets media coverage unlike a troll from Cyprus.
And it's a valid concern tbf, which is probably why they will investigate this when they couldn't have been less interested in Diamandis. Still think it highly unlikely the club would get the ultimate punishment or anywhere near it.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 11:44:28
Power was/is a football agent. If there is no problem with any old Tom, Dick or Harry pumping money into a club why are there specific EFL rules on the subject?
If you're asking why are there rules about agents and players having involvement in running of clubs, it's to prevent conflicts of interest. So if an agent owned or had a major interest in a club, he could use that club to sign all his clients, to benefit the players and his agency even if it's not in the best interests of the club; or conversely sign players on poor contracts to benefit the club even if it's not in the best interests of his clients. Of course, I'm sure if the League and FA do look at this in relation to us, they'll be all over Mendes' involvement at Wolves and will be going over that with a fine tooth comb. Chinny reckon.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: REDBUCK on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 11:52:54

Its all a nonsense really, FWIU Axis are a contractor (mainly plumbing!), and to be honest getting a contractor on board is one of the easiest parts of any development project, they are literally begging for work, just being a contractor doesn't mean that they have a clue about delivering development projects. On something like the ground anyone delivering the project would just employ a professional team led by a PM, so unless Clem has suggested he can deliver at a cheap rate not sure what he brings.

Indeed they do, examples

1. Chelsea
2. Bristol City
3. Power
4. Bury/Oxford etc.


Not convinced that Lansdown Senior  was ever in love with City but rather used them as a vehicle to give back to the city and then only selectively to those areas that would benefit him. Apparently He was sniffing around Rovers in the early days, when rugby was still played at the mem, until they refused his advances and pissed him off.

Lansdown Jnr who is now in charge is a fan




Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 11:52:59
Genuine question, what makes you think he is a multi millionaire that is loaded?

He may have some wealth (compaired to the average man) but hes certainly no Andrew Black, Roman Abramovich or even a Shiekh Mythingy who have a metric shit ton of money to waste.

What makes you think he has finances or backers with that sort of cash to burn on a Div 4 team?

Or do you know something I am not privvy to? ;)



He told me when he rang me the other night....  ;) :girlgiggle:

TBH I  kind of ignored the wealth bit of your classification and was more depending on the plaything/ego trip element!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 12:13:26
Not convinced that Lansdown Senior  was ever in love with City but rather used them as a vehicle to give back to the city and then only selectively to those areas that would benefit him. Apparently He was sniffing around Rovers in the early days, when rugby was still played at the mem, until they refused his advances and pissed him off.
Looking at the relative trajectories of the two clubs since, Rovers dodged a bullet there then :)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 13:23:52
When's the next court date anyway? Anybody know?

Are we going to be left in limbo for weeks/months?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 13:33:53
Might be wrong, but I got the feeling the judge has said ‘grow up and sort it out between yourselves’

It’s a civil matter and nobody has come out of it smelling of roses. The stumbling block could well be Standing/Barry still being owed £3.7m. Who’s going to pay that? Power looks like he only owns 35% of the club anyway - £2.45m if sold for £7m. Clem @ £1.05m which leaves £3.5 for Standing.

All less any other debts, creditors of course. No good relying on the Bogle sale now.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 13:58:09
ah, but it seems no bugger has got their shares, so technically power owns 100% of the club.

maybe not legally, certainly not morally, but....

oh I don't know.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 14:00:07
And it's a valid concern tbf, which is probably why they will investigate this when they couldn't have been less interested in Diamandis. Still think it highly unlikely the club would get the ultimate punishment or anywhere near it.
True, also seeing as this dates back to 2013 I'm not sure how any punishment could be put on the club as we're now 7 years down the line.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 14:15:41
ah, but it seems no bugger has got their shares, so technically power owns 100% of the club.

maybe not legally, certainly not morally, but....

oh I don't know.

If that's the case Power needs to get the Companies House return for Swinton Reds 20 sorted sharpish. Confirmation Statement on 15th August last year confirms Clem owns 15%.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08462753/filing-history



Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 14:23:34
True, also seeing as this dates back to 2013 I'm not sure how any punishment could be put on the club as we're now 7 years down the line.
In 1990 some of the financial irregularities were from 6 years previously, that didn't stop the league demoting us back then.

I don't think this will happen now though.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 14:26:10
In 1990 some of the financial irregularities were from 6 years previously, that didn't stop the league demoting us back then.

I don't think this will happen now though.
If they were to take harsh action against us for agent/player having an interest in the club, that would revive the furore among Championship clubs about the role Mendes played in Wolves' rise to the Prem. That's not a scab the League are keen to have scratched at


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 14:28:24
If they were to take harsh action against us for agent/player having an interest in the club, that would revive the furore among Championship clubs about the role Mendes played in Wolves' rise to the Prem. That's not a scab the League are keen to have scratched at
Absolutely.

I can see nothing more than Power, Standing and Barry given slaps on the wrist at most, no club sanctions despite many (so called) Town fans actively desiring that.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 14:30:20
If that's the case Power needs to get the Companies House return for Swinton Reds 20 sorted sharpish. Confirmation Statement on 15th August last year confirms Clem owns 15%.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08462753/filing-history


I think that’s what Power ‘forgot’ to sign and/or slightly changed the Axis name


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RobertT on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 14:31:05
When push comes to shove, I reckon Standing doesn't really want the ownership aspect of the club.

The Matt Ritchie sell on aspect tells me that he was in it as an opportunity to roll some dice with Power, and Barry.  Power explained the model he would use and they all thought it was a decent gamble.  I think the ownership question is being thrown around because Power renaged and also got another investor without including them.  Standing is just trying to ensure he gets his cut of the sale of the business, he'd likely take the deal Power agreed they made, but he's just making sure Power is reminded of that with a bit of a threat.

Therefore, I don't think there would be much the League could look into.  They'll arrange it to be whatever it needs to be to fit the League's rules and not damage their future business interests in being Agents.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: REDBUCK on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 14:59:09
Looking at the relative trajectories of the two clubs since, Rovers dodged a bullet there then :)

Indeed, they've lurched from the local milkman via the local double glazed salesman to an Egyptian half Prince plusa trip to Non League.

A billionaire from Jersey would have neen easier :D


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Private Fraser on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 15:03:22
If anyone still wants to hear the Trust's initial thoughts on the subject, Rob Angus's bit on this morning's BBC Radio Wiltshire Breakfast Show is at 2:08 - 2:17 here (the link should be OK this time):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08cfqkl


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Power to people on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:21:37
Someone went to great lengths to get this out into the public domain, this was buried in court papers that nobody knew about other than the 4 amigos, and you would need to dig to find it if the link wasn't provided, and it is not really in their interest for it to be public knowledge, other than Clem....

I cant see any of them releasing a statement about this, although Power as chairman / owner could and should say something...but of course he wont though.

A couple of things I took from the judgements (I think):

At no time was Power willing to give Standing back access to the accounts and cash flow models and bank statements

Power did not produce any up to date or legal documentation from this US company with their offer, the only letter he had was the one printed in the adver and then later from some sports company that wasn't a legal letter either

Standing suggested he would look for new owners willing the buy the FC

We now know that the selling price is around £7.5m if someone wants to buy the club (potentially debt free)

If power wants to play hardball and standing is not putting any money in due to not seeing accounts, what is to stop power not putting anything in (from the money he has squirted away) and the club racking up serious short term debt (although not in their interest)

We don't know when one or both the injunctions expire, or when Clem's next court case is.

Not sure if Power can push his legal bill onto the FC

I read somewhere it was said that the tax man had caught up with Power and that is why he wanted to sell - but I cant find it now

Obviously we are hoping due to Covid that the prem fire some money down to lower leagues (consider Man U have given £240,000 to their supporters clubs worldwide) I hope this comes with conditions so someone like Power can't take it to pay of debts to himself from the FC and not inject it into the FC to keep it going until football resumes.

Anyone know any staff at the club to find out if wages are being paid on time (as I believe even though furloughed are being paid up to 100%)



The question is though if Standing is now not putting money in as he cannot see the account


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:23:42
https://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/news/2020/may/wellens-issues-message-to-supporters/


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:26:29
Great message. Only wish it had come from Power.

Come on, own up. We all thought it would end up with something like this.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:27:17
https://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/news/2020/may/wellens-issues-message-to-supporters/
So Wellens has know about this for a year then and isn't bothered by it, that's something then.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:27:53
Someone went to great lengths to get this out into the public domain, this was buried in court papers that nobody knew about other than the 4 amigos, and you would need to dig to find it if the link wasn't provided, and it is not really in their interest for it to be public knowledge, other than Clem....
They really didn't. It's in the proceedings of the court that are regularly published as part of an open court system i.e. the documents are by their very nature in the public domain.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:34:21
Out of interest where did Tansmedia get this from in the first place, no disrespect Tans  ;) :D but you don't strike me as they type to spend hours trawling through the open court system to find them?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:34:56
Sad thing is if this hasn't bought Reg back I fear we have lost him forever.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:39:34
So Wellens has know about this for a year then and isn't bothered by it, that's something then.

Interesting that this has been going on since last April, yet the confirmation Statement confirming the Clem shares only went to Companies House in August and the US story came out much after that didn't it?


Title: Re: Re: Court cases
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:40:01
Absolutely.

I can see nothing more than Power, Standing and Barry given slaps on the wrist at most, no club sanctions despite many (so called) Town fans actively desiring that.
Agree, we have mostly gone backwards over the last 7 years apart from 14/15 and getting promoted back to league two this season so any money put in the club has been to keep our heads above water.

I can't see that we have gained an unfair advantage over other teams which was the arguement in 1990. We have not gained players we wouldn't otherwise have got (Brad Barry apart but he didn't improve our team).

The Standing/Crouch involvement was mentioned in 2013 in vague terms when Power got involved. If Crouch had access to the bank account details then surely he would see the monies in and out and whether Black was repaid.

You could see Gareth Barry choosing to retire at the end of this season (he is 39) and maybe Standing stopping as his agent to dodge sanctions.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:42:24
Football’s first player/owner!

Would that be true?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: donkey on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:44:40
Football’s first player/owner!

Would that be true?

I thought that would be Doughty.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:45:09
Wasn't Graeme Souness a Director and Player Manager at Rangers?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:46:53
You could see Gareth Barry choosing to retire at the end of this season (he is 39) and maybe Standing stopping as his agent to dodge sanctions.

Boring Gareth Barry in being devious little bastard shocker!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:48:09
Out of interest where did Tansmedia get this from in the first place, no disrespect Tans  ;) :D but you don't strike me as they type to spend hours trawling through the open court system to find them?

Someone posted them in a facebook group


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:52:39
They really didn't. It's in the proceedings of the court that are regularly published as part of an open court system i.e. the documents are by their very nature in the public domain.
Can only imagine Clem or Standing have tipped someone off though. The Cheltenham fan and his band of fuckwits don’t have the intelligence to go checking for this sort of thing.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 16:56:38
Can only imagine Clem or Standing have tipped someone off though. The Cheltenham fan and his band of fuckwits don’t have the intelligence to go checking for this sort of thing.
Fair point and if thats what Power2p meant, then he does have a point. Seen a lot of people talking about documents being "leaked" etc when they were simply published into the public domain in the normal way. But you're right that that doesn't mean they'd ordinarily have gained the kind of circulation they have and it does seem as though there may have been a helping hand in bringing them to people's attention on social media. Makes no odds to the underlying situation though.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 17:00:47
Can only imagine Clem or Standing have tipped someone off though. The Cheltenham fan and his band of fuckwits don’t have the intelligence to go checking for this sort of thing.

If my memory serves me right, it was first posted in a general football fans group on facebook or sumfink.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 17:25:15
If my memory serves me right, it was first posted in a general football fans group on facebook or sumfink.

This was the first I saw of it....

https://twitter.com/SwindonTownFans/status/1262833326894788608 But that uses an image which has obviously been lifted from elsewhere?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RobertT on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 17:26:45
Wasn't Graeme Souness a Director and Player Manager at Rangers?

Not sure using Rangers ownership is a great example.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 17:29:21
https://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/news/2020/may/wellens-issues-message-to-supporters/

Quote
“He told me that he would be funding the promotion push for next season

But - didn't Power say the club would be going into administration if the sale doesn't go through?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Nemo on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 17:42:07
The next season he was talking about there is in fact this season I believe, that conversation was at the end of last year.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 17:51:05
The next season he was talking about there is in fact this season I believe, that conversation was at the end of last year.
Yep.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 17:53:21
https://twitter.com/alidurdenbbc/status/1263496820510072835?s=21


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Samdy Gray on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 18:10:19
I go months without checking on STFC related stuff, finally check in and find out about all this.

Same old Swindon.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 18:40:33
Quote from: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey
Great message. Only wish it had come from Power.
.

If power was a crook fleecing everyone in sight he's hardly going to say "Richie, I'm a bit of a cunt who'd sell his own gran, and if this goes Pete Tong we are proper fucked guvna, apples and pairs"
---
don't really matter what we think of the current situation does it. it'll be out our hands.
 Bit this is Swindon, of course will worry


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 18:49:08
If power was a crook fleecing everyone in sight he's hardly going to say "Richie, I'm a bit of a cunt who'd sell his own gran, and if this goes Pete Tong we are proper fucked guvna, apples and pairs"
---
don't really matter what we think of the current situation does it. it'll be out our hands.
 Bit this is Swindon, of course will worry


In Wellens we trust!
https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/18467148.swindon-town-boss-richie-wellens-backing-owner-lee-power-ownership-row-reaches-high-court/


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: ronnie21 on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 20:20:14
What I find amusing is that today the Adver are claiming as an "exclusive!" when Tans was on the case much earlier


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:02:02
What I find amusing is that today the Adver are claiming as an "exclusive!" when Tans was on the case much earlier

I notice the Adver still haven't opened the comments so clearly have been told not to by Powers management or they don't want to risk another ban from the county ground


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Nemo on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:04:15
I notice the Adver still haven't opened the comments so clearly have been told not to by Powers management or they don't want to risk another ban from the county ground

I imagine they've been told not to by their own legal department, and that seems like a fairly sensible decision to be honest.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:06:16
And the report was written by ‘advertiser reporter’


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: flammableBen on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:09:25
I notice the Adver still haven't opened the comments so clearly have been told not to by Powers management or they don't want to risk another ban from the county ground

Pretty sure it's not worth the furloughed staff to have to moderate the inevitable libellous fun times.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:16:20
FA involved now.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:20:39
FA involved now.
In moderating the Adver's comments section? Fucking hell.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:23:16


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52763312


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Panda Paws on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:27:38

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52763312

Am I missing something? Nothing in that article apart from the headline mentions the FA. 


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: flammableBen on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:28:19
Am I missing something? Nothing in that article apart from the headline mentions the FA. 

Just came to post the same thing. There's no statement from the FA or indication that it's happening apart from in the headline.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:29:04
Just came to post the same thing. There's no statement from the FA or indication that it's happening apart from in the headline.
There’s literally no quotes from the FA or anything.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:31:07
Am I missing something? Nothing in that article apart from the headline mentions the FA.  

Only in the title then later on saying it's against the FA regs that a player can't hold more than 5% ownership also isn't Barry the one in the wrong trying to disguise his investment


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:40:40
I am finding it amusing conversing with some on Twitter who put all the negativity that exists at the club just at the door of Power. We’ve had a small negative but toxic element to our fanbase for as long as I remember, Power is responsible for a lot of things but not the behaviour of some ‘fans’.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: come on you redssss on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:51:03
I think we’ve always had that negative element to our fanbase, and while I understand why some are fearful under Lee Power at the moment, correct me if I’m wrong but the club has been stated as “unlikely” to go into admin and we’re relatively safe at the minute - more than what we can say for other clubs. Considering Wellens has known since the end of last season, if it was a big enough deal surely he would’ve walked when offers came in.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Costanza on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:55:22
Am I missing something? Nothing in that article apart from the headline mentions the FA. 

BBC Radio Wilts news bulletin stated that the FA were monitoring the situation. Probably forgot to stick that in the article.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 21:57:30
BBC Radio Wilts news bulletin stated that the FA were monitoring the situation. Probably forgot to stick that in the article.

How would they know? We’re all monitoring the situation too.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 22:14:59
"We're monitoring it" makes me feel more comfortable.

It's the sort of answer you'd give if you're not that bothered but have to say something after being asked about it.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Quagmire on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 22:16:25
I would be amazed if the FA haven’t known about all of this for weeks, if not months.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: suttonred on Thursday, May 21, 2020, 22:31:33
I don't really care much. Old world bollocks.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Friday, May 22, 2020, 06:15:21
There’s literally no quotes from the FA or anything.

Written by Alistair Magowan....maybe he's impersonating being a journo now?  :soapy tit wank:  :hmmm:


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Friday, May 22, 2020, 07:04:11
I imagine they've been told not to by their own legal department, and that seems like a fairly sensible decision to be honest.

This 100%


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Friday, May 22, 2020, 08:33:34
How would they know? We’re all monitoring the situation too.


The Adver are updating them :nod:


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Friday, May 22, 2020, 09:03:00

The Adver are updating them :nod:

Of course, how remiss of me.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:05:34
Plymuff fans loving our problems, thinking that we will go into admin and Exeter get promoted in our place going by some of the comments.

https://www.pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=111295&start=0


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:06:12
Some journo just tweeted this, he has over 30k followers and is followed by Ollie Holt, Dan Roan, Sky Sports and EFL

(https://i.ibb.co/phhdrwG/A826-F8-DF-EB4-D-4-EEF-9989-12-F43-CD47-FCD.png) (https://ibb.co/fDDHGFB)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:09:57
That sounds good news!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:13:23
How much are Supermarine season tickets?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:20:07
I won't take the word of one journo, I will wait and see what actually happens before I am too worried.

He may be right, he may not be, but its dragging the clubs name further through the dirt either way.

Lets not all abandon ship just yet.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:22:21
Just how do you get £5 notes out of a washing machine? Stick to the sides, I reckon.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JoeMezz on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:24:57
One good thing is there are enough people who care about the club to get us to an even keel regardless of what happens.
The FA really need to take a look at their fit and proper tests (even if Power has been clean). Each club should have at least 2 fans on the board, at the end of the day it’s the fans that get shafted and not really anyone else.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:26:36
Hopefully, whatever these allegations are fall at Power’s feet and not the club.

Personally - I reckon we’re toast.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:27:37
Quote from: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey
Just how do you get £5 notes out of a washing machine? Stick to the sides, I reckon.

laundry is a dirty business.

as long as the tax man doesn't get his hands on our money.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:28:51
What fucking money?

Whatever there is/was is well gone now. Winging its way to The Alps, no doubt.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JoeMezz on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:46:44
I see a certain Swindon / Cheltenham fan has suggested Power has bet on us to lose and we’ve thrown games


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Abrahammer on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:47:23
Personally - I reckon we’re toast.

Blimey, step away from the computer young man, have a beer. Things are nowhere near that bad


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Abrahammer on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:48:09
I see a certain Swindon / Cheltenham fan has suggested Power has bet on us to lose and we’ve thrown games

Ask him for proof? You won’t get a straight answer


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:48:42
Blimey, step away from the computer young man, have a beer. Things are nowhere near that bad
I’m on my second beer as it is. Just got a bad, bad feeling about this.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JoeMezz on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:50:20
Ask him for proof? You won’t get a straight answer

No point he’ll just say it’ll come out soon, which to be fair... it did with Clem


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:51:03
I see a certain Swindon / Cheltenham fan has suggested Power has bet on us to lose and we’ve thrown games
He's been doing that for years, he says we deliberately threw the 2015 play-off final.

These journos are just searching for a story IMO rather than having any information.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:51:14
I see a certain Swindon / Cheltenham fan has suggested Power has bet on us to lose and we’ve thrown games
Well, that worked well seeing as we won the fucking league. Fans aren't  stupid - unlike owners - I’ve watched every game this season and nothing stands out. Apart from which, Wellens and the players wouldn’t have that. One thing m 100% sure of.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Abrahammer on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:52:46
I’m on my second beer as it is. Just got a bad, bad feeling about this.

Honestly I’ve take a lot of comfort from RW’s video yesterday.

If he isn’t overly concerned then that’s enough for me to feel fairly relaxed about the situation.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:54:57
Who says he knows what else has gone on. Power is hardly likely to broadcast any ‘breaches’.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:58:14
I see a certain Swindon / Cheltenham fan has suggested Power has bet on us to lose and we’ve thrown games

He's done this before.

The 'evidence' he provided was claims by some people. He said/she said. Not the sort of thing that would stand up in court. At least not on that alone anyway.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:01:27
For all we know this journo has just had a chat with the Cheltenham fan or one of his disciples and that's where any allegations have come from, he's not exactly a big name journo.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:01:42
@audrey - the "threw game" claim is historic, not this season I think.

I can't see how enough members of a team could be bought off myself..


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:04:10
Latest from said journo

Paul Smith
@Smudge1962
I can assure you there are a lot of people extremely worried about this at both the
@FA and @EFL.  If you’d like some transparency I suggest you talk to them about it


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:05:31
I can't take much more put us out of our misery :cry: :cry: :cry:


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Swindon Please Win on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:08:05
What a great get out line from actually saying anything, ask them for transparency, sure, they're clearly going to tell us everything right now...


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:08:31
@audrey - the "threw game" claim is historic, not this season I think.

I can't see how enough members of a team could be bought off myself..
Ah, the old play off chestnut. Twas dreadful, though. Coops will out him.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:20:34
The thing is with Kostiuk is the he *might* be right. We all know football (and Power) is shady so I don't think it would come as a massive surprise to anybody.

He's such a massive fucking cock to people, though, and persistently negative, meaning a lot of people wil just switch off. He accuses Power et al of this and that without providing a shred of evidence, then acts a gobby prick when people say they aren't just going to take his word for it.

And even if (IF) it does turn out that he was right all along - that would not make him any less off a prick. Maybe even worse. It might mean he was sat on information that was really important for the club, yet chose to be a fucking bellend about it.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Costanza on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:22:18
Latest from said journo

Paul Smith
@Smudge1962
I can assure you there are a lot of people extremely worried about this at both the
@FA and @EFL.  If you’d like some transparency I suggest you talk to them about it

"Hi FA and EFL! I'm a worried Swindon fan. Do you mind answering the following questions about the current events surrounding the club? Hello? Hello? No? Okay."


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:23:22
How did the Hillier/Macari scandal come to light. Can’t remember.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:25:50
How did the Hillier/Macari scandal come to light. Can’t remember.

I think that was an internal snitch.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:29:49
So who’s going to blow the whistle on something that may - or may not - have happened 4 years ago?

I know one juicy Power story from that time but it’s a personal thing - nothing to do with football.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:30:14
The thing is with Kostiuk is the he *might* be right. We all know football (and Power) is shady so I don't think it would come as a massive surprise to anybody.

He's such a massive fucking cock to people, though, and persistently negative, meaning a lot of people wil just switch off. He accuses Power et al of this and that without providing a shred of evidence, then acts a gobby prick when people say they aren't just going to take his word for it.

And even if (IF) it does turn out that he was right all along - that would not make him any less off a prick. Maybe even worse. It might mean he was sat on information that was really important for the club, yet chose to be a fucking bellend about it.
I think you are giving him too much credit, I've known of him outside of the footballing circles when he was a landlord of a pub in Tewkesbury, he's always been a prick. I don't think he knows anything and has just been throwing mud hoping for an 'I told you so' moment, the same guy is banned from the Cheltenham Town forum for acting like a prick on there as well. I think he holds a lot of bitterness towards the club for a number of reasons including his failed relationship with the former club shop manager, he thinks we should be as big a Leicester as we once beat them in a play-off final, he has massive delusions about the size of club we are.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:32:19
The thing is with Kostiuk is the he *might* be right. We all know football (and Power) is shady so I don't think it would come as a massive surprise to anybody.

He's such a massive fucking cock to people, though, and persistently negative, meaning a lot of people wil just switch off. He accuses Power et al of this and that without providing a shred of evidence, then acts a gobby prick when people say they aren't just going to take his word for it.

And even if (IF) it does turn out that he was right all along - that would not make him any less off a prick. Maybe even worse. It might mean he was sat on information that was really important for the club, yet chose to be a fucking bellend about it.


He woud be a perfect match for his beloved Millwall


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:32:28
How did the Hillier/Macari scandal come to light. Can’t remember.

I posted this 9 years ago....

Quote
There was a lady from Calne....Carol Embrey, who fell out with Brian Hillier, and a director, Somerset farmer Lionel Smart, who was also on the FA Council, a typical old fart.

Seems like a life time ago to me.  I had been told by a very good sauce that the result of the Sunderland match wouldn't stand, and always felt Sunderland knew too as they were so shit on the day.

Remember going down my local about 6 or soon hearing the news to be greeted by some Town fans already drowning their sorrows....these fellas still go. Everyone just seemed to have their heads in their hands and chins on the bar.

Now coming up for a 30th anniversary.... I'd like to think we'll see our way to celebrating our centenary as a FL club, but that must be debatable.  Anything can happen from here.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Valid Pint on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:32:55
Well, posters on here might be getting some exposure from visitors. So, if you have anything to advertise?

I will just tell the story of the Plymuff that I took up the wrong 'un on Mutley Plain.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:34:45
I posted this 9 years ago....

Now coming up for a 30th anniversary.... I'd like to think we'll see our way to celebrating our centenary as a FL club, but that must be debatable.  Anything can happen from here.
Howdy doody, Reg!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Quagmire on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:36:09
Haha, Reg is back. What a coincidence.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:39:33
Haha, Reg is back. What a coincidence.

Been busy writing a historical tome on how China & Communism bought down the capitalist west.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:41:23
I posted this 9 years ago....

Now coming up for a 30th anniversary.... I'd like to think we'll see our way to celebrating our centenary as a FL club, but that must be debatable.  Anything can happen from here.
Welcome back, Reg. Christ, we must be in the shit :)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:42:18
Latest from said journo

Paul Smith
@Smudge1962
I can assure you there are a lot of people extremely worried about this at both the
@FA and @EFL.  If you’d like some transparency I suggest you talk to them about it

I'd like to think the FA would have more things to be extremely worried about, they are going to have no bloody competition if this goes on for much longer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52680375


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:46:10
I'd like to think the FA would have more things to be extremely worried about, they are going to have no bloody competition if this goes on for much longer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52680375
Yeah, but they aren’t going to ignore ‘catastrophic stuff’ - if it exists.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:46:23
yay Reg!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:46:26
So who’s going to blow the whistle on something that may - or may not - have happened 4 years ago?

I know one juicy Power story from that time but it’s a personal thing - nothing to do with football.

Send us a dm, could do with a laugh


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:50:33
Yeah, but they aren’t going to ignore ‘catastrophic stuff’ - if it exists.
Depends on what you count as "catastrophic". Good job journos aren't known for overblowing the importance of their stories/contacts/selves are they? The guy may be on to a major story, he may be trying to puff himself up by trying to turn a minor bit of gossip into a scandal, he may have fuck all and just be trying to boost his Twitter presence (it's working by at least 1, I've followed him on the back of this). If it's something major, it will come out and will come out shortly because they'll want to get it sorted out before they award the leagues. If it's overblown bollocks, well meh. Either way, nowt you can do about it, so not worth getting worried about until we do see the colour of his money.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:50:40
Yeah, but they aren’t going to ignore ‘catastrophic stuff’ - if it exists.

What catastrophic stuff, yes it appears that we may have broken ownership rules and that needs to be investigated and action taken as per appropriate based upon the facts of the case, but compared with a load of clubs in danger of vanishing?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:53:06
I think whatever is happening regards the ownership is nothing to do with these extra revelations.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:53:57
I think whatever is happening regards the ownership is nothing to do with these extra revelations.

What extra revelations?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:54:31
I think whatever is happening regards the ownership is nothing to do with these extra revelations.

That's the impression that I get as well.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Panda Paws on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:54:52
This knobhead journalist....

If he had a story with sources he'd run the story. That's how it works. He wouldn't spend his time trolling on Twitter.

Unless it's to do with open court proceedings of course, in which case he shouldn't be saying anything.

Either way, his word holds as much credibility as anyone else jumping to conclusions and spreading shite. I'll choose to wait for a source I trust, or an official source, before I think we're done for.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:55:38
I think whatever is happening regards the ownership is nothing to do with these extra revelations.
But you are assuming there are extra revelations and he hasn't just spoken to some ranting fan about how evil Power is.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:55:49
What extra revelations?
Sorry. Alleged extra revelations.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Bob's Orange on Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:59:20
Welcome back Reg!  :bye:


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Friday, May 22, 2020, 12:02:05
Welcome back, Reg. Christ, we must be in the shit :)

Difficult to know. 

2 clubs have been expelled from the FL for dodgy director/owner dealings, Leeds City a hundred years ago and Bury.   Leeds City, disappeared and after a year United, were granted a league slot. Bury as yet don't seem to have reformed.

You'd like to think we can avoid that...


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Friday, May 22, 2020, 12:03:52
This knobhead journalist....

If he had a story with sources he'd run the story. That's how it works. He wouldn't spend his time trolling on Twitter.

Unless it's to do with open court proceedings of course, in which case he shouldn't be saying anything.

Either way, his word holds as much credibility as anyone else jumping to conclusions and spreading shite. I'll choose to wait for a source I trust, or an official source, before I think we're done for.
Wise words and well said.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Saxondale on Friday, May 22, 2020, 12:06:11
I suspect that given a host of clubs potentially going under the EFL / FA are going to be very busy anyway.  Ill start worrying about all this when there is a potential for resumption of football.  All the rest is speculation and ITK pretence that anyone knows any facts.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Friday, May 22, 2020, 12:16:10
I suspect that given a host of clubs potentially going under the EFL / FA are going to be very busy anyway.  Ill start worrying about all this when there is a potential for resumption of football.  All the rest is speculation and ITK pretence that anyone knows any facts.

The problem is we don't know the "facts"  A lot of this stuff like about Standing/Barry etc has leaked out, and hence become unofficial knowledge.  But things like the Ritchie sell on, seems to have passed under everybody's radar.



Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Friday, May 22, 2020, 12:30:07
Trousering that was the act of a cunt, not a criminal.

But how are fans supposed to know anything about THEIR club when there is a total, complete lack of transparency.

It’s got to stop. Not just here - Christ knows, we aren’t the only ones - but generally there must be a way of filtering out these chancers. Annual, independent audit?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Friday, May 22, 2020, 12:38:17
If 'their club' means the club they elected to support, why do we assume there is any entitlement to information?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Friday, May 22, 2020, 12:45:15
If 'their club' means the club they elected to support, why do we assume there is any entitlement to information?

Chairman are happy to take the fans money each week so asking for transparency to any allegations once it's in the press is the least they can as without the fans money there is no club


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Friday, May 22, 2020, 12:54:41
Of course, if you step back, it's apparent that we purchase goods and services from all manner of businesses without knowing how they operate.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 12:56:34
I did not 'elect' to be a Swindon fan. It just happened.

If I could choose, I would not have chosen Swindon.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Wobbly Bob on Friday, May 22, 2020, 12:58:08
With a bit of luck Power will be head hunted by FIFA to head up the World Cup 2030 bidding process.

That will open the door for the next shyster to fill the better the devil we know role.

Just tired of the club’s name being dragged through the mud. Again.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Private Fraser on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:01:17

Just tired of the club’s name being dragged through the mud. Again.


This!



Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Ginginho on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:03:06

I will just tell the story of the Plymuff that I took up the wrong 'un on Mutley Plain.

Ooh, I bet he was sore the next morning!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:10:26
I did not 'elect' to be a Swindon fan. It just happened.

If I could choose, I would not have chosen Swindon.
Very fucking much this.

I have actually encouraged both my sons to not support Swindon as I don't wish for them to suffer as I have, although both look out for Town results and have both been to a handful of Swindon games neither are Swindon supporters.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:12:40
Just tired of the club’s name being dragged through the mud. Again.

He may be right, he may not be, but its dragging the clubs name further through the dirt either way.
As I wrote earlier, I think we all agree with that 100%.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:19:46
I did not 'elect' to be a Swindon fan. It just happened.

If I could choose, I would not have chosen Swindon.

I suspect that there could be some form of philosophical debate around that.  That said, it must be common ground that you elect to continue being a supporter.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RobertT on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:28:58
The problem is we don't know the "facts"  A lot of this stuff like about Standing/Barry etc has leaked out, and hence become unofficial knowledge.  But things like the Ritchie sell on, seems to have passed under everybody's radar.



Welcome back.

Regards the Facts, there are NO Facts, not for that bit that could put us in trouble.  Two mates having a chat isn't worth the paper it wasn't written down on. 

They all agree it was informal.  I'd put good money on the FA having a word and pointing out any issues with ownership before they all agree to taking the best course of action to save their own skin (which in this case is likely agreeing Power owns those shares and Standing gets a wedge of cash for loaning the club money).

The bigger issue, if Covid-19 hadn't reared it's head, was probably Power seemingly being out of cash/in trouble somewhere to do with tax liabilities.  In that event, this becomes much more interesting for us as fans to see how the ownership battle plays out.  Reckon Covid gave Power some breathing space on the operating costs.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:31:14
That said, it must be common ground that you elect to continue being a supporter.

Nope.

It's innate. It's involuntary. At times like this I wish I could just switch off and ignore it all completely. But here I am...


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:32:19
A chat can result in property being held in trust. The notion that there was nothing in writing means that they can be no legal consequences is just wrong.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:34:08
Reckon Covid gave Power some breathing space on the operating costs.

Oh FFS  ;) :D

Give it 10 mins and on the Facebook Page the Cheltenham Fan will be spreading this as gospel that Power created and unleashed Covid to cut costs!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Ardiles on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:39:39
Who is this Cheltenham fan, and why is what they're saying important?  Maybe being a bit naive here, but I'm lost.


Title: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:47:45
Quote
Who is this Cheltenham fan, and why is what they're saying important?  Maybe being a bit naive here, but I'm lost.
Christian kostuik.

he's both a town and Cheltenham fan (no, nor me).

he's very vocal on social media with allogations, light on evidence,  and gets a bit defensive when you suggest just saying 'power out' a lot does fuck all.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Ardiles on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:50:24
kostuik.

he's both a town and Cheltenham fan (no, nor me).

he's very vocal on social media with allogations and gets a bit defensive when you suggest just saying 'power out' a lot does fuck all

Fuck me, that's priceless.   :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Thanks.  I'll look him up.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Quagmire on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:51:57
Fuck me, that's priceless.   :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Thanks.  I'll look him up.

I wouldn’t bother, his name is next to ‘cunt’ in the dictionary.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Valid Pint on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:53:42
Ooh, I bet he was sore the next morning!
He? There were just shouts of "Argyle, Argyle!". Or maybe they were just screams.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:55:32
It's only a matter of time before he's on youtube, being filmed begging for forgiveness after getting gobby with the wrong person.

Or the right person, depending on your perspective.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:57:49
I have screenshots of Kostiuk making allegations against Power and, perhaps more pertinently, threatening to inform the EFL.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Friday, May 22, 2020, 13:58:21
It's only a matter of time before he's on youtube, being filmed begging for forgiveness after getting gobby with the wrong person.

Or the right person, depending on your perspective.
Best thing is him deliberately getting thrown out of a game and banned so that he can make out he's some kind of Martyr and Power was punishing him.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Friday, May 22, 2020, 14:04:01
Best thing is him deliberately getting thrown out of a game and banned so that he can make out he's some kind of Martyr and Power was punishing him.

He's our own Waxy-Lemon really.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Matchworn Shirts on Friday, May 22, 2020, 14:08:29
He doesn’t have any links to Mr Rooaarr does he?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Dr Pierre Chang on Friday, May 22, 2020, 14:08:43
Anyone read the replies on the FB post from the town fan with a somewhat colourful criminal past, which has been well documented by the Adver?

If you haven’t, then I suggest looking on the FB group. Comedy gold  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: suttonred on Friday, May 22, 2020, 14:10:49
Fuck me, that's priceless.   :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Thanks.  I'll look him up.

Just Google "Uk's biggest Bellend" He'll be on the front search page.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Friday, May 22, 2020, 14:15:22
He doesn’t have any links to Mr Rooaarr does he?
Don't think so, on a side note Jed's house is for sale on Rightmove and is completely empty in the photo's, almost looks like it's been repossessed...…….not that that would be a shock!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: smalltowngypsymassacre on Friday, May 22, 2020, 14:16:22
Anyone read the replies on the FB post from the town fan with a somewhat colourful criminal past, which has been well documented by the Adver?

If you haven’t, then I suggest looking on the FB group. Comedy gold  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

He's in no place to talk about anything when it comes to money. Guy is a complete cunt


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Friday, May 22, 2020, 14:37:56
Anyone read the replies on the FB post from the town fan with a somewhat colourful criminal past, which has been well documented by the Adver?

If you haven’t, then I suggest looking on the FB group. Comedy gold  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Gold isnt it. Loads of people mocking him posting adver articles of his crimes :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Cheltred on Friday, May 22, 2020, 14:54:43
Ah, the old play off chestnut. Twas dreadful, though. Coops will out him.
Even if it's true that we threw the play off final and Power bet on it (and I don't believe it) I don't see how the Club can be punished, though certainly Power and the players involved would be. Macari and the Chairman bet on us to lose at Newcastle, and were either fined or banned from football for a certain time but the club didn't suffer for that (except that it was a stepping stone towards the illegal payments which was much more serious). I also remember the scandal of the mid 1960s when a large number of players were actually jailed for match fixing and betting on scores, but no club was punished for that?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Friday, May 22, 2020, 15:14:17
Even if it's true that we threw the play off final and Power bet on it (and I don't believe it) I don't see how the Club can be punished, though certainly Power and the players involved would be. Macari and the Chairman bet on us to lose at Newcastle, and were either fined or banned from football for a certain time but the club didn't suffer for that (except that it was a stepping stone towards the illegal payments which was much more serious). I also remember the scandal of the mid 1960s when a large number of players were actually jailed for match fixing and betting on scores, but no club was punished for that?
Juventus


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Friday, May 22, 2020, 15:20:51
Even if it's true that we threw the play off final and Power bet on it (and I don't believe it) I don't see how the Club can be punished, though certainly Power and the players involved would be. Macari and the Chairman bet on us to lose at Newcastle, and were either fined or banned from football for a certain time but the club didn't suffer for that (except that it was a stepping stone towards the illegal payments which was much more serious). I also remember the scandal of the mid 1960s when a large number of players were actually jailed for match fixing and betting on scores, but no club was punished for that?
The one with ex Town players Jimmy Gauld and Bronco Layne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_British_football_match-fixing_scandal

Very different times back then than now TBH, but every time there is a scandal Swindon will be involved! :D


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Cheltred on Friday, May 22, 2020, 15:59:12
The one with ex Town players Jimmy Gauld and Bronco Layne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_British_football_match-fixing_scandal

Very different times back then than now TBH, but every time there is a scandal Swindon will be involved! :D
Thanks. Gauld sounds a nice guy (not!) Your last point is, unfortunately, true.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 16:28:34
Who does Paul Smith, that journo on twitter, write for? Is it the Sunday Mirror?


Title: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Friday, May 22, 2020, 16:30:12
looks that way

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Smith_(journalist (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Smith_(journalist))

edit: actually seems he's freelance now according to his LinkedIn

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/paul-smith-7a9b66b


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 16:34:41
I'm just trying to figure out how reputable he is. Just because he's acted a bit lame so far, it doesn't mean he doesn't really know something. Somebody in his position likely would have the right contacts to know stuff.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 16:35:36
He's been a freelancer for 8 years accroding to linkedin.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Ardiles on Friday, May 22, 2020, 16:42:39
As a freelancer, you could understand why he might want to whip up a bit of a storm (I know this is STFC we're talking about...so a small storm) before selling the story.  My worry is that he'll look a bit of an idiot now if it does turn out to be a non-story, so I have a nagging feeling that there could be something in this.  Horrible echoes of 1990.


Title: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Friday, May 22, 2020, 16:44:16
he's not going to repeat an allegation without hard evidence through fear of litigation.

he's not at the sun/mirror now

though yes, whipping up a bidding war may also be the reason he wants to mention it...


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 16:46:03
My hunch is that there is something in it.

As a freelancer, he'd surely have looked to sell the story to a rag. In which case, he'd surley be expected to hold back on details so they have the exclusive.

I would be delighted if I am wrong, but I think we might see something rather unpleasant in the news in the next few days or so.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Friday, May 22, 2020, 16:47:02
Welcome back.

Regards the Facts, there are NO Facts, not for that bit that could put us in trouble.  Two mates having a chat isn't worth the paper it wasn't written down on. 

They all agree it was informal.  I'd put good money on the FA having a word and pointing out any issues with ownership before they all agree to taking the best course of action to save their own skin (which in this case is likely agreeing Power owns those shares and Standing gets a wedge of cash for loaning the club money).

The bigger issue, if Covid-19 hadn't reared it's head, was probably Power seemingly being out of cash/in trouble somewhere to do with tax liabilities.  In that event, this becomes much more interesting for us as fans to see how the ownership battle plays out.  Reckon Covid gave Power some breathing space on the operating costs.

Who knows.

Given the present circumsatnces I don't think anything can be ruled out or in for that matter


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Friday, May 22, 2020, 16:50:32
Back page of the sun on sunday ;)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: swindonmaniac on Friday, May 22, 2020, 16:55:27
Back page of the sun on sunday ;)
And yesterday,  and today,  and sounds like it definitely will be tomorrow.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 16:59:14
Back page of the sun on sunday ;)

Which is why I asked if he works for the Mirror on Sunday.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:05:39
But then...

If a freelancer that sold the story started gobbing off on social media, it might alert other publications that the story is out there. Thus encouraging them to print it to avoid others getting the scoop?

In which case the freelancer that sold the story would be instructed to say fuck all?

Am I clutching at straws?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:06:34
And yesterday,  and today,  and sounds like it definitely will be tomorrow.

What was todays headline?

Yesterdays was ‘Bazman and Robins’

:Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Ardiles on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:08:08
My hunch is that there is something in it.

As a freelancer, he'd surely have looked to sell the story to a rag. In which case, he'd surley be expected to hold back on details so they have the exclusive.

I would be delighted if I am wrong, but I think we might see something rather unpleasant in the news in the next few days or so.

Agreed.

That said, the irony of having your club's financial irregularities (if that's what it is again) unmasked by a Portsmouth fan is going to be difficult to deal with.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:08:25
What was todays headline?

Yesterdays was ‘Bazman and Robins’

:Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:
Baz ‘Deal’ Probed.

With quotes from a ‘Pal of Jed McCrory’.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:12:10

Yesterdays was ‘Bazman and Robins’


Really?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: swindonmaniac on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:13:26
What was todays headline?

Yesterdays was ‘Bazman and Robins’

:Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:
FA look at Baz 'Deal'.   Goes on to say FA investigating and vowed to   'consider its outcome'.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:14:03
I'm really hoping for somebody to point out the flaws in my reasoning and tell me that I'm worrying about nothing.

Anybody?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:15:39
I'm really hoping for somebody to point out the flaws in my reasoning and tell me that I'm worrying about nothing.

Anybody?
Sorry but I suspect you're right. Although I also suspect it's not the massive deal he's making out. It's in his interests to overhype it, especially if it's a story he's looking to sell but hasn't yet.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:19:19
Here


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:19:26
Sorry but I suspect you're right.

Useless.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:21:18
Here

Oh my.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:27:29
Sorry but I suspect you're right. Although I also suspect it's not the massive deal he's making out. It's in his interests to overhype it, especially if it's a story he's looking to sell but hasn't yet.

Wonder if it is a rehash of the McCrory claims when they went to caught. They have obviously been talking to a mate of McCrory as its in todays article


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/11681826/fa-gareth-barry-swindon-claims-investigatedgareth-barry-secretly-paid-800000-for-stake-in-swindon/amp/


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:31:40
Isn't this journo a Pompey fan so maybe bitter about the 1993 playoffs.

Obviously someone close to the other parties is feeding him something a la 1990 there is an axe to grind. Maybe if it breaks in the press that might force Power's hand to compromise.

The throwing the 2015 play off final is laughable. Good way to hide it would be to have a team out of form since February, mentally and defensively shot by the Sheff Utd games, an injured captain and the manager sidelined in the build up.

What's more likely is the players were promised their big moves to the Championship so there was not as much riding on it as for Preston.

As for betting against your own team. The bookies are far to wise these days to suspicious betting and report footballers betting on games. Power as a racehorse owner and punter would be relatively high profile than your average coupon punter.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:33:11
Theakston2k just sent me this on twitter, McCrory on a football podcast waxing lyrical.

WTF

https://m.soundcloud.com/user-15573188/soccer-fellas-podcast-with-ian-holloway-and-jed-mccrory


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:35:25
Isn't this journo a Pompey fan so maybe bitter about the 1993 playoffs.

Obviously someone close to the other parties is feeding him something a la 1990 there is an axe to grind. Maybe if it breaks in the press that might force Power's hand to compromise.

The throwing the 2015 play off final is laughable. Good way to hide it would be to have a team out of form since February, mentally and defensively shot by the Sheff Utd games, an injured captain and the manager sidelined in the build up.

What's more likely is the players were promised their big moves to the Championship so there was not as much riding on it as for Preston.

As for betting against your own team. The bookies are far to wise these days to suspicious betting and report footballers betting on games. Power as a racehorse owner and punter would be relatively high profile than your average coupon punter.
[/quote

I'm surprised Charlie Austen isn't under investigation for missing a sitter when the ball bobbled!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:39:39
Isn't this journo a Pompey fan so maybe bitter about the 1993 playoffs.

Obviously someone close to the other parties is feeding him something a la 1990 there is an axe to grind. Maybe if it breaks in the press that might force Power's hand to compromise.

The throwing the 2015 play off final is laughable. Good way to hide it would be to have a team out of form since February, mentally and defensively shot by the Sheff Utd games, an injured captain and the manager sidelined in the build up.

What's more likely is the players were promised their big moves to the Championship so there was not as much riding on it as for Preston.

As for betting against your own team. The bookies are far to wise these days to suspicious betting and report footballers betting on games. Power as a racehorse owner and punter would be relatively high profile than your average coupon punter.
I wouldn’t use horse racing as something to reassure you, it’s one of the most rigged and immoral sports going. Some of the stuff I’ve heard about the grandson of our very own ex poison dwarf is enough for me to never bet on horse racing. I’ve even heard second hand from the girlfriend of said jockey about Power but taken it just as hearsay and is irrelevant to his ownership of us.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:44:16
Theakston2k just sent me this on twitter, McCrory on a football podcast waxing lyrical.

WTF

https://m.soundcloud.com/user-15573188/soccer-fellas-podcast-with-ian-holloway-and-jed-mccrory

Posted end of April/start of May...before this came out and before the court case(s).

Can't believe I listened to that prick gobbing off. Rooooooaaarrrrr! Cunt.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: suttonred on Friday, May 22, 2020, 17:50:24
Either Wellens is completely in the dark, or as I keep thinking this is (expensive)handbags got a little out of hand.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52773797


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Friday, May 22, 2020, 18:00:45
Quote
I'm surprised Charlie Austen isn't under investigation for missing a sitter when the ball bobbled!

That was the previous PO final.

The sight of Harry Agombar playing v Orient made some people question if everything was being done properly at STFC.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Friday, May 22, 2020, 18:07:54
A lot of people have missed you Reg, openly or discreetly. I hope you're well and have just been lurking? I was out walking the lower edges of the Howardian Hills a few days back and for whatever reason, I thought of you for a short moment. Must've been shared enjoyment of hiking.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: brocklesby red on Friday, May 22, 2020, 18:08:48


The sight of Harry Agombar playing v Orient made some people question if everything was being done properly at STFC.
[/quote]
And his dad in the directors box


Title: Re: Re: Court cases
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Friday, May 22, 2020, 18:09:05
I wouldn’t use horse racing as something to reassure you, it’s one of the most rigged and immoral sports going. Some of the stuff I’ve heard about the grandson of our very own ex poison dwarf is enough for me to never bet on horse racing. I’ve even heard second hand from the girlfriend of said jockey about Power but taken it just as hearsay and is irrelevant to his ownership of us.
I was making the point that the bookies get wind of this type of thing and betting patterns. So a punter backing Swindon to loose or unusual score predictions and winning on a regular basis would get spotted.

If you walked into Ladbrokes and put £1000 cash on Swindon to lose 4-0 say at 20-1 would start ringing alarm bells. It would stand out with the size of the market. The bigger the bets the harder it is to play the system.

League One or Two football is quite unpredictable in terms of players making silly mistakes or fluke goals to fix an outcome. Like the Grimsby keeper chucking in goals in both games this year.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Friday, May 22, 2020, 18:10:29

The sight of Harry Agombar playing v Orient made some people question if everything was being done properly at STFC.

And his dad in the directors box

While holding a .45 towards Power's kneecaps  :eek:


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Private Fraser on Friday, May 22, 2020, 18:10:47


The sight of Harry Agombar playing v Orient made some people question if everything was being done properly at STFC.

I know a lot of people shrugged their shoulders when that happened and said “it doesn’t matter” but, for me, it was just plain wrong.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Friday, May 22, 2020, 18:14:30
While holding a .45 towards Power's kneecaps  :eek:

Didnt he have previous for armed robbery or something

EDIT: was lorry theft

http://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/26th-november-1987/22/lorry-theft-gang-jailed


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Friday, May 22, 2020, 18:16:43
I know a lot of people shrugged their shoulders when that happened and said “it doesn’t matter” but, for me, it was just plain wrong.

Yep absolute piss take that was


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Friday, May 22, 2020, 18:29:18
A lot of people have missed you Reg, openly or discreetly. I hope you're well and have just been lurking? I was out walking the lower edges of the Howardian Hills a few days back and for whatever reason, I thought of you for a short moment. Must've been shared enjoyment of hiking.

An obscure part of the country.... good that there are some walking routes.

You might be interested in this

https://sootallures.wixsite.com/topographersarms/post/rites-of-property


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Friday, May 22, 2020, 23:36:33
Didnt he have previous for armed robbery or something

EDIT: was lorry theft

http://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/26th-november-1987/22/lorry-theft-gang-jailed

I had no idea but it wouldn't surprise me if the odd firearm was involved somewhere in the Agombar lifestyle.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 00:08:31
An obscure part of the country.... good that there are some walking routes.

You might be interested in this

https://sootallures.wixsite.com/topographersarms/post/rites-of-property

An interesting read although I was wondering how it was going to conclude. Yes it is somewhat obscure, in the sense that it is a fairly uniquely combined landscape. The only limestone in the area too I believe?

Back on the article; I've personally always been a purveyor of the freedom to roam. The trouble, as many of us have read/witnessed/already knew, a lot of humans tend to not have a respect for their surroundings. A case of "someone else will pick it up (littering et al) so no bother". If this attitude is replicated in a freedom to roam sense, the countryside could become littered with all manner of shit. In some cases it unfortunately already is.

But I dream of the concept, a freedom to roam but with a condition of respect for the environment. A condition that should certainly always be without question.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 02:03:24
So is Barry investing in STFC against FA rules for him, or the club, or both?

From that article it appears it’s Barry. If it was to impact the club why would Power fess up to it? If he is intent on selling up this would surely devalue the club.

Unless he doesn’t care and just wants his slice before pissing off.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Bogus Dave on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 02:17:06
Barry will be being dragged in unnecessarily. His agent will have said can you lend me £x for something, and he’d have given it up with little qualms

The guy drunk stole a taxi, hes not smart


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Valid Pint on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 04:39:15
Does anyone have footage to share of the 1990 celebrations at night? Or the subsequent "counter-celebrations"?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 06:00:37
So is Barry investing in STFC against FA rules for him, or the club, or both?

From that article it appears it’s Barry. If it was to impact the club why would Power fess up to it? If he is intent on selling up this would surely devalue the club.

Unless he doesn’t care and just wants his slice before pissing off.

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I do not see myself that Power would have done anything (against EFL or FA rules) so as to undermine the money that Power thinks is his, could be his, should be his or will be his. If it was to impact the club why would Power fess up to it? If he is intent on selling up this would surely devalue the club. Very much this!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 06:22:27
Also, does it seem feasible that when Barry got involved the club was only valued at £1.6m?

If so, what’s changed to make it worth £7.5m now?

‘In this case I can assure you I do. The Barry revelations don’t even come close to what will emerge and that’s a fact’



Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 07:47:40
Wasn't Barry/Standing contribution £300K to pay off Jed and Co and £500K working capital. We assume Power put the same in if it was a 50/50 split.

The £7.5M is what Power and Co would want to walk away breaking even after the money lent to the club over the years. It's only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it though.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: REDBUCK on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 08:00:31
Anyone know how many players from the Standing stable have we signed since 2013.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 08:08:49
Wasn't Barry/Standing contribution £300K to pay off Jed and Co and £500K working capital. We assume Power put the same in if it was a 50/50 split.

The £7.5M is what Power and Co would want to walk away breaking even after the money lent to the club over the years. It's only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it though.
Which is why I asked what has changed that makes the club worth£7.5m now - and it appears the Able we’re willing to pay that.

Obviously the CG purchase may have some bearing but that’s not been finalised and the Trust own half anyway.

I fear the Barry problem may pale into insignificance with what’s about to come out. Did somebody say it’s in tomorrow’s Sun on Sunday?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Leggett on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 08:26:56
Don't know if this has been brought up earlier, but looks like Luongo and Gladwin were represented by Standing's agency at some point.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 08:38:50
So was Luke Norris

Not sure there are any rules on whether you can sign players from an agents stable though?

Also, Standing headed recruitment for a time at STFC didnt he?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 08:48:37
Can anybody explain why it makes any difference to Power, and any legal difference, that Barry gave him the money (which Power claims he did) or whether Standing gave him the money.

I thought the Luongo deal was a Tactics Tim deal. Could be something in those deals that didn’t sound right at the time - especially the subsequent sale to QPR where it seemed the fees were mucked around with to minimise the sell on to Spurs.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 09:09:21
Barry will be being dragged in unnecessarily. His agent will have said can you lend me £x for something, and he’d have given it up with little qualms

The guy drunk stole a taxi, hes not smart

Barry's a name. A target.

People don't know Standing so that won't sell, but a former England international will. The poor cunt (Barry) is likely to be a target for the rest of his life now. It won't be long before the love rat articles start coming out. Or articles abour whatever minor infractions that make him an atrocious human being and a threat to scoiety.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Quagmire on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 09:11:03
Morning all, have we gone bust yet?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 09:16:44
Morning all, have we gone bust yet?

In one of the court case summaries, it said STFC had about 80 grands worth of assets..... that won't last much longer.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 09:33:19
So was Luke Norris

Not sure there are any rules on whether you can sign players from an agents stable though?

Also, Standing headed recruitment for a time at STFC didnt he?
Remember the astonishment with the reported fee we paid for him. Maybe the transfers are coming back to bite people in the arse.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 09:37:21
Those are the fixed assets of £88K in the 2019 accounts. At the same time we had current assets of £359K including £170K cash.

Bigger question will be how many season tickets we sold before lockdown and how long that cash will last. Power said on Talksport they usually sell the bulk in March and April.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 09:46:05
Remember the astonishment with the reported fee we paid for him. Maybe the transfers are coming back to bite people in the arse.

Not much on standings website here : https://firsttouchpro.co.uk/

Theres a show reel of some players i presume he represents, Louis Thompson is on there


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 09:52:07
That was the previous PO final.

The sight of Harry Agombar playing v Orient made some people question if everything was being done properly at STFC.

Apologies I was getting Millwall mixed up with Preston who bullied us on the day


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 09:57:51
Scrap the Luke Norris, dont think he was judging by the FA list of transactions


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 09:59:09
Two such posts accusing axis of wanting to develop the CG. The crooks FB post has been removed, but this seems to be very similar

https://redrobinuk426348995.wordpress.com/2020/05/22/red-robin/comment-page-1/?unapproved=2&moderation-hash=88b597bc59af09f19c96ed5c029712da#comment-2

Suspect this is the start of a play to divide and conquer and push Clem out? or maybe a pal of power thinking he's helping?

still not as good as when Bob Holt gave the trust backer "American and not a fan of the club," line before selling to Jim little and the the amigos


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:02:09
Morning all, have we gone bust yet?
For many of the extremely negative Town fanbase that appears to still be the currently elusive and inevitable goal they seem to wish for.

And the only possible outcome for them, they all know who they are on here.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:04:27
Genuine question:

Why are people so quick to dismiss the allegations against Clem?

I know one source of the allegations comes from a career criminal, but that does not automatically mean he is not being truthful


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:09:34
Mother Theresa could have bought the club and people would have slated her.

Tbf,after the continual shit show our club as gone through - from illegal payments, betting and various nefarious owners and would be owners - is it any surprise a lot people have lost faith in whoever is in charge of our club.

Remember Moosehead saying things would be OK at STFC until Power tries to sell up. He was spot on. It’s all unravelling.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Quagmire on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:11:22
For many of the extremely negative Town fanbase that appears to still be the currently elusive and inevitable goal they seem to wish for.

And the only possible outcome for them, they all know who they are on here.

Which is why a few of the ‘old heads’ have re-appeared.
The ‘I told you so’ brigade are out in force.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:12:11
Genuine question:

Why are people so quick to dismiss the allegations against Clem?

I know one source of the allegations comes from a career criminal, but that does not automatically mean he is not being truthful
I have similar thoughts too, as I posted earlier in the thread.

What makes Clem a perfect person to take us forward anyway?

I have heard little from him and know little of him, he could just be (and from what I see is) a property developer hoping to get his hands on prime real estate in Swindon. Thats may be simplifying things but thats all I see with Clem.

Hes making similar noises to Wael al-Qadi at Bristol Rovers who promised so much to the fans when he did speak and it turns out he has barely 2 pots to piss in and lost interest when he couldn't develop the Mem and wants a quick sale of the club now.

Why is Clem different?

If anyone has any positive evidence then please post it, I would be very interested to hear, all I have read is 1 Adver article where he states he wants to join to bring in Aussie players etc, thats it in 3+ years?

What has he got to offer us? that is a genuine question, he sounds a lot like the Brady bunch all those years ago but with less heavy financial backing and replace Portuguese with Americans.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:14:53
Which is why a few of the ‘old heads’ have re-appeared.
The ‘I told you so’ brigade are out in force.
Yep, keeping it on the back burner when things are going really well, as they have been, only to be revealed again when the shit starts to fly, even if its somebody flicking a few peices of shit around with a tentative finger.


Title: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:20:27
Quote
Genuine question:

Why are people so quick to dismiss the allegations against Clem?

I know one source of the allegations comes from a career criminal, but that does not automatically mean he is not being truthful
it's perfectly possible Clem is not what he seems. I've no idea of he's got enough cash to run the club anyway

it's perfectly possible power would do the same if he got the CG.

that's where you have to hope and pray that the trust get 50% of the ground, and the trust's legals have got the framework of ownership right

it's the very nature and timing of the attack. that has my Spidey sense tingling. divide and conquer play to keep hold of the club?

but we'll see on the next few weeks.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:22:42
Barry's a name. A target.

People don't know Standing so that won't sell, but a former England international will. The poor cunt (Barry) is likely to be a target for the rest of his life now. It won't be long before the love rat articles start coming out. Or articles abour whatever minor infractions that make him an atrocious human being and a threat to scoiety.

This. Very unfortunately. As it is with much of our press. Not saying he hasn't been up to no good (or even naively pursuaded/ill advised/convinced) yet he should only be questioned on this alone. As you state, they will tear his life to bits no doubt (with social media on top). Then (heaven forbid) something tragic happens, they'll have the cheek to go about face and say how sad it is. Cunts.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:23:39
Genuine question:

Why are people so quick to dismiss the allegations against Clem?

I know one source of the allegations comes from a career criminal, but that does not automatically mean he is not being truthful
Simple answer. He’s not Power. That’s enough for some.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:26:33
that's where you have to hope and pray that the trust get 50% of the ground, and the trust's legals have got the framework of ownership right

it's the very nature and timing of the attack. that has my Spidey sense tingling. divide and conquer play to keep hold of the club?
I absolutely agree.


it's perfectly possible power would do the same if he got the CG.
Of course Power will do the same which is why IMO Clem appears no different to Power just that he has a bit more backing financially (it appears).

it's perfectly possible Clem is not what he seems.
Genuine question....what does Clem seem?

All I see is a property developer, have I missed other things?

I see nothing to suggest he is anything more, despite 1 solitary article as mentioned above about Aussie players coming in.



Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:28:34
I think of Clem as someone who would want a profit, but be more transparent about it.

but I don't know the guy. he could be worse than power.

that's all I mean


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:32:54
I think of Clem as someone who would want a profit, but be more transparent about it.

but I don't know the guy. he could be worse than power.

that's all I mean
Possibly mate, but until Clem actually comes out and states what are his version of preceedings then its all pure guesswork, he could be better, he could well be worse.

But as Aud says for many Town fans hes is just "not Power" and these fans will say the same thing about the next owner and the next owner, ad infinitum.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:35:08
Simple answer. He’s not Power. That’s enough for some.

Indeed.

One commentator on social media recently said they'd rather see us in the 7th tier than have power in charge.

Why?

I can only guess, but if that person was asked why, I think their response would likely have been something along the lines of the fear of Power taking us into non-league. So, they'd rather see us actually in non-league rather than have an owner who *might* take us there.

Or maybe they just don't like him as a person? OK, I have some empathy with the sentiment. But are they allowing their personal dislike of one individual take priority over the well-being of the club?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:44:14
Mother Theresa could have bought the club and people would have slated her.

Tbf,after the continual shit show our club as gone through - from illegal payments, betting and various nefarious owners and would be owners - is it any surprise a lot people have lost faith in whoever is in charge of our club.

Remember Moosehead saying things would be OK at STFC until Power tries to sell up. He was spot on. It’s all unravelling.

Dear Santa

I have been a good boy this year so here is my Christmas list.

I would dearly like. A dyed in the wool genuine lifetime supporter of Swindon Town who happens to be squeaky clean financially with 100’s of millions of £’s to buy out any vested interests in STFC and buy the ground with a fan shareholding. Develop the ground to at least championship standard with amenities we can all be proud of, invest on the pitch in decent players and have a training ground that is world beating.

Lots of love LL

PS. I will leave some extra treats for you and the reindeer crew to help you deliver all the presents. 😁


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 11:05:18
Possibly mate, but until Clem actually comes out and states what are his version of preceedings then its all pure guesswork, he could be better, he could well be worse.


But legally speaking, as it stands Clem doesn't own any stake in STFC yet. We know he does own 15% technically but those shares have still not been signed over. They will in due course, the judge pretty much said that they have to be (one of the few things that were clear in his assessment). The question for me is, and forgetting Standing/Barry/Able etc. Why is Power refusing to sign over the 15% to Clem? Not in a personal sense either because legally he hasn't done so for nearly 2 years. It's not the kind of thing that just slips your mind. It's an intentional withholding. But why?

So back to the highlighted part of your comment. Legally then, if Clem doesn't technically own anything yet, why does he have to come out and say what his plan is? What I mean is, it isn't his place to. He doesn't own or part own the club (yet) so surely he is just doing everything within a legal business framework. He's not required to say anything. Plus could you imagine, especially now we understand the status, if he came out and said "I'm going to do X Y Z, with STFC". People would say, "who's this bloke, he's not the owner or a majority stakeholder".

Btw, I'm neither a Power or Clem or whoever fan. So I hope you don't think I'm one of those rearing their head. Anything but  :) I'm a Swindon Town FC fan, I expect any board to behave within all legal capacities and act responsibly to maintain that STFC continues to be a professional club. Even if their personal priority is to make money (always a strange one in footy), that's just business.

It all sits uncomfortably for me, and likely others because we've been here so many times. The cusp of greatness, everything going hunky mcfuckin dory and then wallop! A great big salmon smacks us in the face; again.

We all know that Power is as straight as the famous Greek, Skolios. We'd be naive to think otherwise. Yet it does seem he has a genuine care about the existence of the club.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 11:09:10
No not at all I understand fully what you mean, I would like to hear what Clem has to say on it, that may not happen due to legal reasons anyway TBH.

I am neither Power or Clem but pro club in this, I want what is best and who can say what is best?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 11:11:34
Massive shame this season has soured in this way.

maybe it'll all blow over..

🤞


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 11:19:45
Which is why I asked what has changed that makes the club worth£7.5m now - and it appears the Able we’re willing to pay that.
We only have Power's word for that and a piece of evidence that the judge in his ruling was quite dismissive of. As the ruling said, even if they were willing to pay that in Feb, it may be very different now.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 11:22:47
Clem buying 15% for 1.1 million would value the club at approximately 7.5 million overall.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 11:23:54
clem invested pre-covid


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 11:28:27
This. Very unfortunately. As it is with much of our press. Not saying he hasn't been up to no good (or even naively pursuaded/ill advised/convinced) yet he should only be questioned on this alone. As you state, they will tear his life to bits no doubt (with social media on top). Then (heaven forbid) something tragic happens, they'll have the cheek to go about face and say how sad it is. Cunts.

Any ideas why Barry was involved as he would have known it was against football league rules


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 11:31:21
Clem buying 15% for 1.1 million would value the club at approximately 7.5 million overall.
That makes sense. But what made the club increase in value from £1.6m in 2013? We’ve been relegated and spent 3 seasons in the basement. We’ve obviously got ‘director’ debt as well, which I presume was zero when Power took over.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 11:31:40
Clem buying 15% for 1.1 million would value the club at approximately 7.5 million overall.
Yes, but that's Power and Morfuni's valuation. Doesn't mean a buyer was ever willing to pay that, it means that was the asking price with which Able (presumably) started negotiations. Sorry, I wasn't clear - my point was echoing Oaksey Moonraker that the club (or any business) is ultimately worth what a buyer is willing to pay, the £7.5m is Power and Morfuni's valuation. Which tbf, they may well have good reasoning for. It doesn't sound wildly unreasonable for a business of that size


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 11:45:48
The £7.5M is probably based on what Power and Standing have lent/invested in the club over the last few years so are simply looking to get their money back plus a bit of profit.

Any football club owner would look to get their money back but few manage to so that at this level. What were the Black/Fitton losses, the best part of £10M written off.

The court papers suggested Power tried to change the Clem deal to a loan because it created a capital gain tax liability for him. Clem wanted to stick to the share sale contract and Power kept trying to change it by altering the transfer forms.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: redjed on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 13:39:17
Just how much has Power really put into the club,? If Standing has put 6 mil in and Clem 1.1 mil , perhaps half a million, lby my reckoning, Power  has put in , but in the same time we know he has pocketed nearly 2 mil  with the Ritchie  sale ..... plus what other transfer fees that have occurred over the last few years..


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: michael on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 13:48:21
We have sold a lot of players for fairly big money these past few years... just off the top of my head, Flint, Collins, Caddis, Austin, Gladwin, Bodin, Luongo, Louis T, Byrne, Ritchie... couple of youngsters too... how much for all of that?!

(Bodin was sold by Wray/Black)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 13:52:14
For many of the extremely negative Town fanbase that appears to still be the currently elusive and inevitable goal they seem to wish for.

And the only possible outcome for them, they all know who they are on here.
I just don’t get what they get out of it? I couldn’t imagine living a life of a pure negativity just for the opportunity to say ‘I told you so’ at some point. Even in this thread there’s a couple of posters that haven’t posted since 2017 and only seem to pop up in Boardroom type topics.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 13:56:33
Mother Theresa could have bought the club and people would have slated her.
TBF Mother Theresa knew fuck all about football and would have diverted most of the transfer budget into feeding the poor and needy instead of paying money to agents as should be the case. She'd have been a fucking disaster


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 14:03:56
We have sold a lot of players for fairly big money these past few years... just off the top of my head, Flint, Collins, Caddis, Austin, Gladwin, Bodin, Luongo, Louis T, Byrne, Ritchie... couple of youngsters too... how much for all of that?!

(Bodin was sold by Wray/Black)

Ajose also


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 14:09:27
We have sold a lot of players for fairly big money these past few years... just off the top of my head, Flint, Collins, Caddis, Austin, Gladwin, Bodin, Luongo, Louis T, Byrne, Ritchie... couple of youngsters too... how much for all of that?!

(Bodin was sold by Wray/Black)
Austin was sold by Fitton, Ritchie money got us through to the end of the season under Jed. Collins and Caddis we pretty much forced out and couldn’t afford to keep so got next to nothing. But yeah there’s a fair amount in the rest.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 14:17:33
So, short of stuff that is actually illegal, what is the worst thing a club/owner can do in the eyes of the footballing authorities?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 14:23:13
So, short of stuff that is actually illegal, what is the worst thing a club/owner can do in the eyes of the footballing authorities?
Criticise the EFL officials (including refs) or not make players fulfil media commitments?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: michael on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 14:24:43
Austin was sold by Fitton, Ritchie money got us through to the end of the season under Jed. Collins and Caddis we pretty much forced out and couldn’t afford to keep so got next to nothing. But yeah there’s a fair amount in the rest.
Good point(s)!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Cheltred on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 14:56:09

But legally speaking, as it stands Clem doesn't own any stake in STFC yet. We know he does own 15% technically but those shares have still not been signed over. They will in due course, the judge pretty much said that they have to be (one of the few things that were clear in his assessment). The question for me is, and forgetting Standing/Barry/Able etc. Why is Power refusing to sign over the 15% to Clem? Not in a personal sense either because legally he hasn't done so for nearly 2 years. It's not the kind of thing that just slips your mind. It's an intentional withholding. But why?

So back to the highlighted part of your comment. Legally then, if Clem doesn't technically own anything yet, why does he have to come out and say what his plan is? What I mean is, it isn't his place to. He doesn't own or part own the club (yet) so surely he is just doing everything within a legal business framework. He's not required to say anything. Plus could you imagine, especially now we understand the status, if he came out and said "I'm going to do X Y Z, with STFC". People would say, "who's this bloke, he's not the owner or a majority stakeholder".

Btw, I'm neither a Power or Clem or whoever fan. So I hope you don't think I'm one of those rearing their head. Anything but  :) I'm a Swindon Town FC fan, I expect any board to behave within all legal capacities and act responsibly to maintain that STFC continues to be a professional club. Even if their personal priority is to make money (always a strange one in footy), that's just business.

It all sits uncomfortably for me, and likely others because we've been here so many times. The cusp of greatness, everything going hunky mcfuckin dory and then wallop! A great big salmon smacks us in the face; again.

We all know that Power is as straight as the famous Greek, Skolios. We'd be naive to think otherwise. Yet it does seem he has a genuine care about the existence of the club.
Never heard of Skolios but I see the point you make!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 16:59:22
I assume that the pleaded case is that they own the shares in equity


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 17:38:29
Just how much has Power really put into the club,? If Standing has put 6 mil in and Clem 1.1 mil , perhaps half a million, lby my reckoning, Power  has put in , but in the same time we know he has pocketed nearly 2 mil  with the Ritchie  sale ..... plus what other transfer fees that have occurred over the last few years..


These were my thoughts too. Like I say, he certainly knows how to hustle.


Power has always claimed "I've put £xm of my own money into this club..." yet if we look over the last 7yrs (since Standing/Barry involvement), we could quite easily bring into question whether Power has actually put any or very much of his own money into the club, at all? Since there has been at least £7.1m put in by Standing & Clem. Not counting for competition awards and player sales (sits at about £4m up thanks to L Thompson, Byrne, Gladwin & Luongo). Can't say for sure but it could be less than £500k (of his own actual cash). Strange how, if we say it was £400k.....that figure between the three parties adds up to...£7.5m...hmmm now where is that figure mooted?  :hmmm:

 


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Saturday, May 23, 2020, 17:42:53
No not at all I understand fully what you mean, I would like to hear what Clem has to say on it, that may not happen due to legal reasons anyway TBH.

I am neither Power or Clem but pro club in this, I want what is best and who can say what is best?

Indeed and I agree. I think most of us want what's best. Those that say things like "I'd prefer to see us go under than go out the league with LP" etc, just need ignoring. There's no reasoned debate and don't have any interest in Town really. Just trollish. Likely puts stuff on FB like "gettin' toold up tonite" then at 7.15pm recieves message "your tea's ready poppet"  :soapy tit wank:


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 08:43:55
I’m wondering, if Power actually has a 100% concrete buyer lined up for the club known or unknown. The sale to go through as soon as the ownership/cash squabble is settled. This may explain why Wellens is relaxed or appears to be relaxed about the clubs future and by association his and the players. Unless he knows that if it doesn’t then he will walk into another club the same day we go tits up.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 09:26:41
I’m wondering, if Power actually has a 100% concrete buyer lined up for the club known or unknown. The sale to go through as soon as the ownership/cash squabble is settled. This may explain why Wellens is relaxed or appears to be relaxed about the clubs future and by association his and the players. Unless he knows that if it doesn’t then he will walk into another club the same day we go tits up.

Wellens is in a strong position because of 3 year contract... he backs Power and if it blows over relatively trouble free, Power is beholding. If it's new owners, they might want to try and keep him, but if not his stock is high atm then should get a new job.. he can then clear himself with te fans who'll blame owners.

Similar happened with Sturrock.... he knew his trade, and but it always seemed a bit surprising that in the dark days of Diamandis he backed the ancien regime and jumped as soon as Fitton/Black/Arbib took over

All this of course assumes, that we get back to something like "normal"  and get a 20/21 season.   


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 11:11:35
Wasn’t something supposed to be in Sun on Sunday today?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 11:15:28
Wasn’t something supposed to be in Sun on Sunday today?
Yes I was thinking that too from the Smith rumours a few days ago.



Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 11:18:28
Wasn’t something supposed to be in Sun on Sunday today?

shhhh  :zipped:


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Nemo on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 12:06:06
The Trust are issuing a review of the court cases this afternoon. Could be interesting, to put it mildly.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Ardiles on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 12:17:14
Definitely.  I thought the Adver piece, by the way, was excellent.  Very clear and well laid out.  But will definitely make time to read the Trust's take when they publish.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JanAirplaneMan on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 12:28:52
Hi All
Having reviewed all the details of the court cases etc, this is the Trusts response to the current situation.
Thanks
https://truststfc.tv/court-cases-review


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Nemo on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 12:31:56
A good summary for the not legally inclined - unsurprising new information being the stadium purchase is on hold until we know who owns the club (and for a few other reasons besides, you'd imagine)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 12:44:43
thanks Jan. I take it from that the Trust is no longer engaging with Clem then.

I don't have a response to all this other than throwing my arms in the air  and saying for fucks sake.

(not at the trust, at the situation)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 12:45:46
Wasn’t something supposed to be in Sun on Sunday today?

Another rumour of multiple rumours it would seem.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 12:47:20
I’m baffled by the Standing/Barry scenario. If it was all done on a nod and a wink, all mates together, basis what it boils down to is Power being given a pile of cash for nothing in return. Neither Standing nor Barry legally own 50% of STFC so how can there be any repercussions from the EFL?

What does Power gain from claiming the money came from Barry and not Standing - what difference does that make?

At least it looks like Axis will get their shareholding formalised and Power will, indeed, end up with a CGT bill. Why he and/or his advisers didn’t think of that beforehand, God knows.

I presume all parties will want to avoid an expensive court case.

Hopefully there is a third party waiting the wings to take over yet another bollox of an ownership. Maybe in partnership with the Trust.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 12:49:02
I preface this comment by saying that I am not 'trolling' but, I have read the summary and I never really understand comments such as  "we ... will ensure we fight for the rights of Swindon Town supporters."  In reality, what rights are we talking about?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 12:50:55
Also, does the injunction preventing Power from selling assets apply to the players - seeing as Standing/Barry supposedly get 50% of any fee.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 12:52:52
I preface this comment by saying that I am not 'trolling' but, I have read the summary and I never really understand comments such as  "we ... will ensure we fight for the rights of Swindon Town supporters."  In reality, what rights are we talking about?

The right to blindly follow a football club irrespective of who the owners are good or bad and throw our hard earned cash to them.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 12:52:58
I’m baffled by the Standing/Barry scenario. If it was all done on a nod and a wink, all mates together, basis what it boils down to is Power being given a pile of cash for nothing in return. Neither Standing nor Barry legally own 50% of STFC so how can there be any repercussions from the EFL?

What does Power gain from claiming the money came from Barry and not Standing - what difference does that make?

At least it looks like Axis will get their shareholding formalised and Power will, indeed, end up with a CGT bill. Why he and/or his advisers didn’t think of that beforehand, God knows.

I presume all parties will want to avoid an expensive court case.

Hopefully there is a third party waiting the wings to take over yet another bollox of an ownership. Maybe in partnership with the Trust.

Doing things on the basis of oral agreements etc is regular occurrence.

They are the equitable or beneficial owners.  I assume that they will want the court to order that the legal interest in the shares (which they already beneficially own) are transferred to them.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 13:02:25
Good summary but didn't realise the training ground at Highworth was tied up in the injunction as well.

Maybe that could be the compromise as presumably Standing/Barry could invest in a training ground if it was leased to the club and not owned by the club.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Valid Pint on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 13:08:37
If reading anything online from a disreputable rag e.g. the Scum Or the Torygraph etc. please try to manage your cookies so that the rag gets as little benefit as possible through advertising etc


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Private Fraser on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 13:14:45
Thanks Jan. A clear summary of another complete shitshow. Do you know anything about Paul Smith’s claim that there is more/worse to come to light?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 13:41:31
Wasn’t something supposed to be in Sun on Sunday today?

If there was something you'd have thought it would have been published today. I'm just guessing though, of course.


Title: Re: Re: Court cases
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 13:58:29
If there was something you'd have thought it would have been published today. I'm just guessing though, of course.
Or it's been held back until the next court hearing? Could be legal reasons for not putting out in public domain before then?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 14:01:14
Trust reckons it could be a year before another court case. Hopefully, it’s sorted before then between them.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JBZ on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 14:07:56
It's the same case(s), it's just that the court process as a whole will take a year, if not longer.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 14:09:51
If there was something you'd have thought it would have been published today. I'm just guessing though, of course.

I still think he was fishing for a story, spoke to a couple of fans and their conspiracy theories/allegations, possibly even to Jed and is trying to find some evidence but struggling so nothing to print.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Saxondale on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 14:10:31
A whole year.  So it may be concluded around the time we are confirming our progress from league 1 into the championship.  

Swindon promotion without the fear of demotion because of dodgy owners is such a lovely old football tradition after all.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 14:17:02
A whole year.  So it may be concluded around the time we are confirming our progress from league 1 into the championship.  

Swindon promotion without the fear of demotion because of dodgy owners is such a lovely old football tradition after all.


Maybe Redknapp would have bought us by then🤣


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: singingiiiffy on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 15:08:36
if it takes a year but power is out of money now and needs to sell where does that leave it? does power only need authorisation from Clem to sell with him being the only other official shareholder


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JanAirplaneMan on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 15:34:39
Thanks Jan. A clear summary of another complete shitshow. Do you know anything about Paul Smith’s claim that there is more/worse to come to light?

We saw the twitter updates from him and were concerned like everyone else, he seems to be a journalist making the move from the tabloids to being freelance and  one view was he was potentially trying to make a name for himself by attempting to create a story to then sell. You would have thought if there was a story it would have potentially been in the press this weekend. The Trust are not aware though of anything further on this.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Private Fraser on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 15:49:07
OK, thanks.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 15:51:42
Hi All
Having reviewed all the details of the court cases etc, this is the Trusts response to the current situation.
Thanks
https://truststfc.tv/court-cases-review

That's a really good summary, calm and clear and just what is needed. Excellent work


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 15:54:00
if it takes a year but power is out of money now and needs to sell where does that leave it? does power only need authorisation from Clem to sell with him being the only other official shareholder
He needs permission from both Standing and Axis as both have injunctions to prevent him selling/putting the club into admin without their permission. He'd presumably also have to agree to give Standing 50% of the proceeds of any sale and Axis 15% and let them both have clear sight of any documents related to the sale as well as the club's bank accounts so they could be sure they were actually getting their %ages. Bottom line: he can sell before the case is settled but possibly not on terms he would like


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: redjed on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 16:46:47
So what if Power, in a few months time , states he cannot afford  to keep,  so  say, funding the c lub, who is willing and able to keep the club afloat, cannot see Standing or Barry putting money in until they have something in writing saying g they own 50% of the club, as for Clem .... well who knows .!
Power will have made a few pounds while  he's been at the helm ..... and there are still places in the world where you can bank in secret .
Strange and worrying  times still to come !


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Sunday, May 24, 2020, 16:48:34
If reading anything online from a disreputable rag e.g. the Scum Or the Torygraph etc. please try to manage your cookies so that the rag gets as little benefit as possible through advertising etc

Might want to manage your expectations of the truth, irrespective of the political leaning of the said rag.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Monday, May 25, 2020, 08:18:36
Remember happier times. Sky sport 3pm today. Our play off v Leicester is 5th on their list of the greatest play off games.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: 4D on Monday, May 25, 2020, 08:38:13
Remember happier times. Sky sport 3pm today. Our play off v Leicester is 5th on their list of the greatest play off games.

5th? How can there be 4 better play off games?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: swindonmaniac on Monday, May 25, 2020, 08:53:42
Remember happier times. Sky sport 3pm today. Our play off v Leicester is 5th on their list of the greatest play off games.
Surely that's got to be better than strolling around a garden centre,   thinking about it,  even the Preston play off would be better than going to a garden centre.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Monday, May 25, 2020, 09:55:22
5th? How can there be 4 better play off games?
This.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Monday, May 25, 2020, 11:02:13
These 4, according to Sky

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11688/11992437/countdown-of-the-efl-play-off-finals-greatest-games-5-1


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: DV Canio on Monday, May 25, 2020, 11:37:35
These 4, according to Sky

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11688/11992437/countdown-of-the-efl-play-off-finals-greatest-games-5-1

The Charlton and Manchester City ones were good to be fair, just as good as ours.

Can’t not understand why Blackpool Vs Cardiff and Derby Vs QPR are up there


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Monday, May 25, 2020, 11:53:58
The Charlton and Manchester City ones were good to be fair, just as good as ours.

Can’t not understand why Blackpool Vs Cardiff and Derby Vs QPR are up there
Viewing figures


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: 4D on Monday, May 25, 2020, 13:10:42
Hull v Bristol was great to be fair  :)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: swindonmaniac on Monday, May 25, 2020, 18:00:45
Hull v Bristol was great to be fair  :)
Dean Windass is my hero !!.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Nomoreheroes on Monday, May 25, 2020, 20:35:56
So where are we with this now?

- Power can't sell the club without agreement from Standing and Axis
- Power lost the case seeking money from Standing and Axis for not being able to sell

Are there more court battles or is it just a case that if Power wants to sell he has to work out an agreement with Standing and Axis first?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 03:12:36
If the different parties can’t sort it out between them they’ll be another court appearance in approx 12 months.

Looks like the Axis bit of it will be sorted as Power hasn’t a leg to stand(ing) on.

Don’t quite know what Standing/Barry actually want - their money back? They obviously can’t be any sort of bona fide owners with the FA rules - unless Barry retires, of course.

Probable outcome - Power rides off into the sunset to be replaced by another nefarious owner to keep the FB mob baying.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 09:29:05

rick rose
@rickrose4
 · 36m
@reluctantnicko Is there more to come on the Swindon ownership debacle? Gone all quiet.

Reply.


Media
Likes
Alan Nixon’s Tweets

Alan Nixon
@reluctantnicko
·
36m
As long as there’s money to run it next season it will stay quiet. Only flared up when there was a possible sale.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 09:55:02
As long as there’s money to run it next season it will stay quiet. Only flared up when there was a possible sale.
So basically he knows nothing more than what has come out in the court case then?

What happened to the EXPLOSIVE revelations and iceberg tip hinted at by that self-effacing Journo Paul Smith?

More storm in a tea cup with no actual basis of truth I am guessing or we would have heard by now surely? and don't call me Shirley :)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 10:04:24
So basically he knows nothing more than what has come out in the court case then?

What happened to the EXPLOSIVE revelations and iceberg tip hinted at by that self-effacing Journo Paul Smith?

More storm in a tea cup with no actual basis of truth I am guessing or we would have heard by now surely? and don't call me Shirley :)

Pretty much matches my assessment of the situation. I personally think as I have mentioned I’d be really surprised if there were any nailed on breaking of the governing bodies rules. Bending them like Beckham, absolutely. If there was any chance these wide boys and by that I mean all of them losing it all due to rule breaking they’d not have had any involvement with each other. What it really shows to me and confirms what some have said and others assumed is that Power is not the loaded saviour of STFC. In broader terms of football club ownership and financial backing our owner does not have a sizeable pot to piss in. Indeed his pot is bigger than mine but then so are millions of others.....


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 10:10:51
I agree totally with all of that.

Now lets see if Paul Smith puts his money where his mouth is, I would put money on him not backing it up with any facts, and if he does then they will not be the EXPLOSIVE revelations he claims.

Just a hunch I have, as Quasimodo said to Esmerelda.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Private Fraser on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 10:13:55
Pretty much what the Trust guy said the other day:


We saw the twitter updates from him and were concerned like everyone else, he seems to be a journalist making the move from the tabloids to being freelance and  one view was he was potentially trying to make a name for himself by attempting to create a story to then sell. You would have thought if there was a story it would have potentially been in the press this weekend. The Trust are not aware though of anything further on this.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 10:28:59
I agree totally with all of that.

Now lets see if Paul Smith puts his money where his mouth is, I would put money on him not backing it up with any facts, and if he does then they will not be the EXPLOSIVE revelations he claims.

Just a hunch I have, as Quasimodo said to Esmerelda.

On a similar vein there was a journo on Twitter over the weekend suggesting that something explosive was going to come out on Sunday which would help Johnson hugely and overshadow the whole Cummings story.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 10:34:30
On a similar vein there was a journo on Twitter over the weekend suggesting that something explosive was going to come out on Sunday which would help Johnson hugely and overshadow the whole Cummings story.
I know being a journo is difficult at the best of times, but this is just attention seeking shit (on both counts with Boris and the club).

Is there any wonder why our press have such a poor reputation for telling lies?

Look at me, I have a story, its amazing, never before revealed......Boris's cat likes to eat cat food....

Next....


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: DV Canio on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 11:01:11
Being a Journo isn’t difficult.

You make things up. It’s like a paid ITK internet troll.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 11:05:03
Just guessing here, but I presume the FA would have to prove that any investment came with any sort of influence.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Quagmire on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 11:06:52
Did Paul Scholes give up his Salford shares when he went to Oldham?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 11:11:14
Did Paul Scholes give up his Salford shares when he went to Oldham?

Quote
Salford City Football Club is delighted that Paul Scholes has accepted the role of Football Manager at Oldham Athletic AFC. Although Paul was never operational in Salford City he will resign as a director of the football club, allowing him to focus completely on his new role at Oldham.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Quagmire on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 11:15:12
Ah, cheers JJ


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 11:21:52
Salford City Football Club is delighted that Paul Scholes has accepted the role of Football Manager at Oldham Athletic AFC. Although Paul was never operational in Salford City he will resign as a director of the football club, allowing him to focus completely on his new role at Oldham.

Nothing to suggest he gave up his shares though.

A quick look at Companies house suggests that he still retains his shares in PROJECT 92 LIMITED who appear to be the overall parent of Salford City.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 11:24:31
Nothing to suggest he gave up his shares though.

Quote
Salford City have clarified their position after Paul Scholes was confirmed as Oldham Athletic's new manager. The club have released a statement announcing that the Manchester United legend will retain his stake in the National League club. But he will no longer be a director after taking the Oldham job.

Surely still a conflict of interests?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 11:27:00
Surely still a conflict of interests?

Looks that way to me, and I imagine they have better Lawyers than Power.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 11:32:09
Does it count if it's national league?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 11:38:52
I personally think as I have mentioned I’d be really surprised if there were any nailed on breaking of the governing bodies rules. Bending them like Beckham, absolutely. If there was any chance these wide boys and by that I mean all of them losing it all due to rule breaking they’d not have had any involvement with each other.

It's pretty clear that Power and co have been at best flouting the rules for some years..... see the charter requirement for fan's forums.

The situatioin is dependent on circumstances, as to how the authorities might react to this.... we can't tell. 

In 1990, our misdemeanours coincided with a need to make someone an example for dodgy payments, and it was never going to be a ManU or Spurs.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 12:00:13
It's pretty clear that Power and co have been at best flouting the rules for some years.....
Genuine question....why do you say this? do you have any ACTUAL proof? and when you say flouting, what level of flouting do you accuse him/them of? these are pretty serious accusations you make.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: swindonmaniac on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 12:19:11
It's pretty clear that Power and co have been at best flouting the rules for some years..... see the charter requirement for fan's forums.

The situatioin is dependent on circumstances, as to how the authorities might react to this.... we can't tell. 

In 1990, our misdemeanours coincided with a need to make someone an example for dodgy payments, and it was never going to be a ManU or Spurs.
...........or Chelsea............


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 12:32:38
Quote
It's pretty clear that Power and co have been at best flouting the rules for some years.....

Quote from: Peter Venkman
Genuine question....why do you say this? do you have any ACTUAL proof? and when you say flouting, what level of flouting do you accuse him/them of? these are pretty serious accusations you make.

he did say "see charter requirements for fans forum". He's right, they've not done one
for ages.

in terms of the court cases, I think it's pretty clear power has been shitting on people regarding money. Legal or illegal we'll not know until it's settled. Verbal contracts are still contracts, just hard to prove


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: michael on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 12:43:38
Genuine question....why do you say this? do you have any ACTUAL proof? and when you say flouting, what level of flouting do you accuse him/them of? these are pretty serious accusations you make.

Here's one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-36110359

This particular example was to the detriment of people who work at the club. It is hard to say whether it was intentional or just utter incompetence, he was warned about it though.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 12:52:59
Here's one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-36110359

This particular example was to the detriment of people who work at the club. It is hard to say whether it was intentional or just utter incompetence, he was warned about it though.
Cheers that passed me by, not sure its deliberately flouting the rules or accidental but yes it seems to have happened

As for the "see charter requirements for fans forum" I have no idea what that is and why it would be considered as flouting the rules?

Not defending Power at all but wondered why if he has flouted the rules so often as has been accused that he has not been brought to task previously for this by the law let alone the footballing authorities.



Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 12:59:59
Cheers that passed me by, not sure its deliberately flouting the rules or accidental but yes it seems to have happened

As for the "see charter requirements for fans forum" I have no idea what that is and why it would be considered as flouting the rules?


A fan's forum is where the fans or representatives thereof, get an oportunity to quiz the owner/ directors or CEO of the club on matters of interest.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Bogus Dave on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 13:26:46
Like a radio phone in?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 13:38:53
Does it count if it's national league?

McCrory couldnt run both Banbury and Us could he?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 13:42:34
McCrory couldnt run both Banbury and Us could he?

Or a piss up in a brewery?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: tans on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 13:45:23
Yeah, and that


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: theakston2k on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 13:49:29
Lets be honest, the press and so called 'journalists' don't know if any rules have actually been breached, they probably haven't even read the EFL rules yet alone understood them. Barry is a name, there are not many other stories around at the moment so they have thrown some mud based on some words in a judges transcript in the hope that a story materialises.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 14:17:31
Lets be honest, the press and so called 'journalists' don't know if any rules have actually been breached, they probably haven't even read the EFL rules yet alone understood them.
Add to that our numerous fans who seem certain that many many rules have been broken.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 14:30:49
Add to that our numerous fans who seem certain that many many rules have been broken.

Have you read carefully the details of the court cases.... have you read carefully the FL/FA rules about club ownership and conduct?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 14:30:54
Like a radio phone in?

Like one, but not actually one.

https://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/news/2017/apr-2017/stfc-customer-charter/
Quote
23.FANS FORUM

The Football league have introduced a new regulation where by clubs are committed to meeting regulation 111 Expert working group (EWG) supporter Ownership and Engagement discussion.

Swindon Town will be holding a minimum of two fans forum meetings per season with details of which being published on the official website and social media channels once dates for the forums have been agreed.

This will be an opportunity for fans to attend the ground and have their say on significant issues regarding the stadium. The meetings will be held by Club Directors and Senior Executives.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 14:34:31
 At least there's a good excuse for not meeting this commitment to the fans atm....


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: RobertT on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 15:13:04
Have you read carefully the details of the court cases.... have you read carefully the FL/FA rules about club ownership and conduct?

I don't think, think, we have a huge worry here, as a club.  Barry, Standing & Power will do whatever is necessary to protect their own self interests and it was all left this nice shade of grey to ensure that no doubt.  It's getting messy because Power seems to have dried up his own reserves and gone seeking extra help, freezing out the other two, so they are playing tough to ensure they get their cut.  That's what that bit will boil down to - each side applying pressure until they settle on an agreed payout they can all share.

The fun bit in all this is trying to understand how on earth Jed and gang got involved!  The Court Cases at least lay bare the facts of transfer of ownership from Black.  I guess the initial plan was the trio investing with some sort of hope on pushing players and getting sell ons, but not being that interested in running the show.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 15:22:21
I don’t think Power has suddenly run out of funds. Standing/Barry first put money in when he took over in 2013 - the initial £800,000 to pay off debts and the rest to cover running costs.

By the sound of the amount they say they’ve put in - £6m+ - it’s actually feasible Power hasn’t put much of his own money in at all. Maybe all he’s ever been is a figurehead with those 2 providing the finance in the shadows.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 15:25:06
I don't think, think, we have a huge worry here, as a club.  Barry, Standing & Power will do whatever is necessary to protect their own self interests and it was all left this nice shade of grey to ensure that no doubt.  It's getting messy because Power seems to have dried up his own reserves and gone seeking extra help, freezing out the other two, so they are playing tough to ensure they get their cut.  That's what that bit will boil down to - each side applying pressure until they settle on an agreed payout they can all share.

The fun bit in all this is trying to understand how on earth Jed and gang got involved!  The Court Cases at least lay bare the facts of transfer of ownership from Black.  I guess the initial plan was the trio investing with some sort of hope on pushing players and getting sell ons, but not being that interested in running the show.

I think you echo what I and other posters have contributed in various ways, it is nice to get another view saying similar. There are those, on this forum, FB, media and other platforms who have a vested interest in shit stirring, making money and or gloating with the hope of the latter of saying I told you so.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 15:27:15
I don’t think Power has suddenly run out of funds. Standing/Barry first put money in when he took over in 2013 - the initial £800,000 to pay off debts and the rest to cover running costs.

By the sound of the amount they say they’ve put in - £6m+ - it’s actually feasible Power hasn’t put much of his own money in at all. Maybe all he’s ever been is a figurehead with those 2 providing the finance in the shadows.

Round and round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows. Except it will stop, just no-one can be sure where or when.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 15:32:25
I think you echo what I and other posters have contributed in various ways, it is nice to get another view saying similar. There are those, on this forum, FB, media and other platforms who have a vested interest in shit stirring, making money and or gloating with the hope of the latter of saying I told you so.
Absolutely.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 16:00:51
Round and round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows. Except it will stop, just no-one can be sure where or when.
But there’s no disputing the fact that we’ve had secret backers since Power took over. The only question to be answered is whether that is enough of a breach of FA rules to incur their wrath.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 16:30:12
I don't think, think, we have a huge worry here, as a club.  

The point being made is we just don't know.... the current doubts as to what lower league football may look like in future makes for uncertainty.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: suttonred on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 16:38:17
Or a piss up in a brewery?

He could run a piss up in the town end though. Oh hang on


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 16:41:44
But there’s no disputing the fact that we’ve had secret backers since Power took over. The only question to be answered is whether that is enough of a breach of FA rules to incur their wrath.

And that we don't know.... Blackpool for example had all sorts of shit, but still managed to not get expelled. However, when their legal stuff was cleared Belokon was awarded  £31 mill of the club's money, despite not passing the FL FPP tests. What is legal in the sense of law of the land, and the rules and regs of a sporting body are not necessarily the same thing and the latter often don't stand up when put to the scrutiny of the former.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 10:16:36
Are we still waiting for these explosive revelations from Paul Smith to be made public then?

As the days go by it sounds more like attention seeking behaviour by an up and coming journo.

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/24/f0/81/24f081dbcdfad8d17f06fada1b55a299.jpg)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 11:45:58
Just been reading that Bolton have been/are being run by a couple of agents.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 11:51:55
Just been reading that Bolton have been/are being run by a couple of agents.
Yep and they as owners don't have a pot to piss in, apparently it was almost entirely funded by Pink Floyd drummer Nick Mason.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 11:55:19
Why so many posters blocked on here :no:


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 11:56:17
Why so many posters blocked on here :no:
Eh?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 11:57:11
Not a great example, for sure, but apart from being skint I don’t think the FA have made a fuss about it.

Also read that the Macclesfield Supporters Trust paid the club £10k for April’s wages and so avoid a further points deduction - and their owner pocketed it and paid nobody.

What a fucker


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 12:00:20
Not a great example, for sure, but apart from being skint I don’t think the FA have made a fuss about it.

Also read that the Macclesfield Supporters Trust paid the club £10k for April’s wages and so avoid a further points deduction - and their owner pocketed it and paid nobody.

What a fucker
Jesus, that's fucking awful. Surely they would have legal recourse, that's just outright theft.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 12:02:59
Jesus, that's fucking awful. Surely they would have legal recourse, that's just outright theft.
Now if Power did that can you imagine? he would have been hung by some Town fans.

As you rightly state thats just theft, nothing more nothing less.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 12:04:20
Here is what was said.

Quote
The Latest Update from the SST

26th May 2020

Dear all

Many of you will now be aware that the Silkmen Supporters Trust (SST) provided a loan of £10,000 to Macclesfield Town Football Club (MTFC) to help to support payment of wages for the month of April 2020.

We are of course aware of, and can understand the angst of a number of supporters on learning yesterday of the news via Talk Sport and the Star Lane End Facebook page, that the majority shareholder Amar AlKadhi appeared to be ‘bailed out’ by the SST.

I feel it of importance to add some additional context to how this occurred, and I sincerely hope that you will then appreciate if not agree to the rationale as to come to the incredibly difficult decision to loan the money came about so here goes. I would like tp clarify at this point that MTFC's Account Manager has since paid back £500 which was not required, confirming that the Club has accepted this as a loan.

On the afternoon of Thursday 14th May 2020, we were approached by a representative of MTFC (not Amar AlKadhi) who was desperately seeking ways of securing the sum of £10,000 to cover the 20% of the players and staff wages not covered by the furlough scheme. As the afternoon progressed, there appeared to be no evidence that Mr AlKadhi was able, willing or interested in paying this sum which was due by midnight on the 14th May 2020.

The club representative indicated that it was their understanding that if the monies were not paid by the deadline highlighted above, there was a significant risk that MTFC would be at significant risk of a further misconduct charge (with more points deducted) that would see the club go bottom of the English Football League (EFL) Two, and at real risk of relegation from the EFL as a consequence of mismanagement of the club off the field. The consequences of this going forward would almost certainly lead to liquidation of the Club and possession of parts of the Moss Rose by creditors.

I am sure you will all agree that this would have been a huge slap in the face to the playing staff who have performed wonders this season despite a plethora of obstacles. Please also be aware that at this time, we had no idea what the outcome of the meeting of League Two clubs which was subsequently held a day later on the 15th May 2020.

A board member of the SST had contacted Joe Sealey during the afternoon of 14th May 2020 to highlight the seriousness of the situation. Joe made clear his willingness to provide financial support to MTFC upon assurances from Mr AlKadhi that he would sell the club to Joe. We are of the understanding that this offer was rebuffed by Mr AlKadhi.

As the evening progressed there was still no sign that Mr AlKadhi was able or willing to pay the £10,000, and it was highlighted to the SST board that a number of the club’s employees were willing to put in significant sums of their own money to help to pay for the shortfall which goes to show the incredible dedication and loyalty of many of the staff to this wonderful football club of ours.

An emergency Zoom meeting was held with SST board members at 10p.m. on the 14th May 2020 where we were further advised that in order for players to be paid before the midnight deadline, the £10,000 had to be deposited in the account of MTFC by 11.15p.m, We were very heartened by the breaking news that Mr AlKadhi had indicated that he was actively looking to significantly reduce his grip on the operational / fiscal management of MTFC. The significant possibility of an operational board involving what was essentially a board of directors that included a Chair and vice-Chair.

When it became clear that the £10,000 was NOT forthcoming from the football club, there was a unanimous agreement by the SST board members present to transfer the money (as a loan) into the MTFC bank account, and help to negate the threats to safeguard our tenure in the EFL and help secure the club’s survival. This was a very painful decision that bought time for one last opportunity to change the management of the Club and save it in its present form. The decision was arrived at with 10 minutes to spare, and the Club's Account Manager was on hand to assist. We knew that we were damned if we did and damned if we didn't.

Please note that we have received NO sign of appreciation whatsoever from Mr. AlKadhi in respect of the above actions.

The next pay day is due in less than a week’s time and with this in mind, I sent an email to Mr. AlKadhi in the early hours of Sunday 24th May 2020 with a request for detailed responses to the following questions:

Do you have the financial means to ensure that wages of MTFC staff will be paid in full and on time at the end of May, June and July 2020?

Do you have the financial means to resource the other immediate costs of running a football club over the next few difficult months? It would be helpful to understand what they are and how they will be funded.

Do you have appropriate plans in place to reach mutually beneficial agreements with the creditors (football and non-football related) of MTFC? Information on the scale of this liability and how the club intend to fund these would be helpful.

Can you provide some information regarding the time frame you consider that MTFC would need to be be able to repay the £10,000 loan that the SST made to the club on Thursday 14th May 2020?

A response was requested by the time of the SST Board meeting (via Zoom) at 7.30p.m. on Monday 25th May 2020, but was not received by the time of the Zoom meeting .

We will of course keep you updated as to any further developments.

#OURTOWNOURCLUB

Yours Sincerely

Andy Worth

Chairperson of the Silkmen Supporters Trust


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 12:11:18
Blimey, the more you look the more you realise we are by no means the only club being possibly ‘influenced’ by agents.

‘What are your thoughts on that agent kit joorbchian or however its spelt? Seems to have our owners (Reading FC) wrapped around his finger.’


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 12:16:01
Blimey, the more you look the more you realise we are by no means the only club being possibly ‘influenced’ by agents.

‘What are your thoughts on that agent kit joorbchian or however its spelt? Seems to have our owners (Reading FC) wrapped around his finger.’
I think its far more prevalent than most fans realise.

Not heard of Kia Joorabchian, just googled him and going to have a read! seems to be a lot of stories about him and Arsenal from what I can see.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 12:17:50
Why so many posters blocked on here :no:

That would likely be becasue you have been clicking on the 'ignore' button under peoples' names. Click it again if you wish to unblock them.

This message will likely be a waste of bandwidth if you have me ignored as well, but ho hum.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 12:20:39
Well it does seem that he is part funding Reading as you state alongside the Chinese owner Dai Yongge (sounds like a Welsh joke about the dangers of smoking!).

If he is indeed backing them then there is definately a case to answer thats in a very similar boat to Towns relationship with Standing.



Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 12:21:19
Why so many posters blocked on here :no:

That would likely be becasue you have been clicking on the 'ignore' button under peoples' names. Click it again if you wish to unblock them.

This message will likely be a waste of bandwidth if you have me ignored as well, but ho hum.
Now it depends if Jimmy has me blocked also ;)


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 12:22:41
Blimey, the more you look the more you realise we are by no means the only club being possibly ‘influenced’ by agents.

‘What are your thoughts on that agent kit joorbchian or however its spelt? Seems to have our owners (Reading FC) wrapped around his finger.’
Audrey, it's great that you quote stuff you've found elsewhere on t'internet cos it means we all benefit from your wider reading but it would be really helpful if you also provided a link to where you saw it. e.g. that Bolton run by agents thing, where is that from?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 12:52:30
It’s only Twitter stuff but from Bolton fans who are likely to know - same as us


Philip Shortland
@PhilipShortland
·
2h
Replying to
@reluctantnicko
Wanderers are being controlled by two agents, Kenyon and Phoenix despite the damage caused by the previous two agents. No wonder Hill hasn’t been seen for weeks.
1
2

PaddyMurray
@PaddyBWFC78
·
2h
Also explains Hill's change in demeanour from January onwards
1
1

Philip Shortland
@PhilipShortland
·
2h
Thoroughly undermined. Given Phoenix has never coached or played and spent 6 months at Macc when the players weren’t paid, for Hill to be told he’s your boss, is a bitter pill for an experienced manager.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: pauld on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 12:57:12
It’s only Twitter stuff but from Bolton fans who are likely to know - same as us


Philip Shortland
@PhilipShortland
·
2h
Replying to
@reluctantnicko
Wanderers are being controlled by two agents, Kenyon and Phoenix despite the damage caused by the previous two agents. No wonder Hill hasn’t been seen for weeks.
1
2

PaddyMurray
@PaddyBWFC78
·
2h
Also explains Hill's change in demeanour from January onwards
1
1

Philip Shortland
@PhilipShortland
·
2h
Thoroughly undermined. Given Phoenix has never coached or played and spent 6 months at Macc when the players weren’t paid, for Hill to be told he’s your boss, is a bitter pill for an experienced manager.
Cheers Audrey!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 13:15:39
That would likely be becasue you have been clicking on the 'ignore' button under peoples' names. Click it again if you wish to unblock them.

This message will likely be a waste of bandwidth if you have me ignored as well, but ho hum.

Many thanks


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 13:18:47

Not heard of Kia Joorabchian, just googled him and going to have a read! seems to be a lot of stories about him and Arsenal from what I can see.

Joorabchian has been knocking around for years, first came to light with MSI and their ownership of Tevez and Mascherano and the subsequent fuss between West Ham and Sheff Utd. He also has/had links to  Pini Zahav.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 15:45:41
Horlock beat me to it. Was going to say I was certain he was the fella in love in the Tevez West Ham/Sheff Utd relegation debacle; surrounding player ownership I believe.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 09:56:41
With all this court case stuff going around, a timely reminder that it was 30 years ago today that we played Sunderland in that fateful play off game that eventually resulte din our demotion and reinstatement in Div 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gobMS5_6OGE

And a Sunderland view on that day.

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/nostalgia/30-years-inside-track-play-final-saw-sunderland-promoted-despite-defeat-2866461


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: suttonred on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 09:59:49
Blimey, the more you look the more you realise we are by no means the only club being possibly ‘influenced’ by agents.

‘What are your thoughts on that agent kit joorbchian or however its spelt? Seems to have our owners (Reading FC) wrapped around his finger.’

Google "crooked as gandalfs" finger and you'll find him easy


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Cheltred on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 11:44:11
With all this court case stuff going around, a timely reminder that it was 30 years ago today that we played Sunderland in that fateful play off game that eventually resulte din our demotion and reinstatement in Div 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gobMS5_6OGE

And a Sunderland view on that day.

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/nostalgia/30-years-inside-track-play-final-saw-sunderland-promoted-despite-defeat-2866461
And Sunderland keep moaning about being unlucky in play offs!


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 12:21:19
And Sunderland keep moaning about being unlucky in play offs!

Another victim team like Liverpool.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: flammableBen on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 12:39:59
Someones paying for sponsered facebook posts.

(https://i.imgur.com/Neu7ZIv.png)

https://redrobinuk426348995.wordpress.com/

Bit of a strange twist.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 12:52:37
Someones paying for sponsered facebook posts.

(https://i.imgur.com/Neu7ZIv.png)

https://redrobinuk426348995.wordpress.com/

Bit of a strange twist.

What flats & retail outlets is he talking about


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 13:00:00
Someones paying for sponsered facebook posts.

(https://i.imgur.com/Neu7ZIv.png)

https://redrobinuk426348995.wordpress.com/

Bit of a strange twist.
1st time I have actually seen anyone genuinely sticking up for Power and against Clem, although they could have used a spell checker on it ;)

Is Power behind it?

I have expressed several concerns about Clem but also have major concerns about Power too, better the devil you know? for me it could well be.

Lets wait and see these explosive revelations from journo Paul Smith before we decide, still awaiting them to be made public, which by the day seems less likely IMO.

It shouldnt be too difficult to find a person who consistantly spells supporters incorrectly.

Quote
Through my discussions with numerous supportors and staff I firmly believe that his motives are to advance his personal wealth by building Flats and Retail Outlets with the priorities of the club falling to the sidelines. I beleive he has befriended the loyal fans of the club to advance his own agenda and improve his financial gain through the acquasition of the County Ground from the Swindon Council.
Mr Power revoked from handing over shares to the club as he wasn’t happy with the push to secure the land in order to defraud the supportors trust in order to build Flats and Retail Outlets behind the backs of the supportors.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 13:00:23
What flats & retail outlets is he talking about
The ones Clem is planning on building I would guess at.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 13:04:01
this followed the day after the crook who used to run the Brunel Rooms (Radford) posted a similar and less literate version on the FB group.

He was mocked  and subsequently deleted it.

Seemed a bit suspect to me in timing coming the day after the court case was brought to light .

best to treat all sides as "chatting shit" until proven otherwise


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Jimmy Quinn on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 13:04:45
The ones Clem is planning on building I would guess at.

But if that's a separate project and funded by their own means is that a threat to STFC


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 13:05:45
But if that's a separate project and funded by their own means is that a threat to STFC
Whoever posted that blog seems to think so.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: horlock07 on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 13:07:25
Christ it reads like it has been translated from another language.

Only part I can comment upon from personal knowledge that its actually quite difficult to build Flats and Retail Outlets behind the backs of the supportors, people tend to notice such things being built.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: DV Canio on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 13:19:29
this followed the day after the crook who used to run the Brunel Rooms (Radford) posted a similar and less literate version on the FB group.

He was mocked  and subsequently deleted it.

Seemed a bit suspect to me in timing coming the day after the court case was brought to light .

best to treat all sides as "chatting shit" until proven otherwise

Well Ranford would know all about fraud and dodgy owners the odious cunt.
Shouldnt he be in prison right now for one of his many misdemeanours


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: JanAirplaneMan on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 13:40:14
Its quite obvious an attempted slur on Clem, given the covenant on the CG that it has to be used for sport there is no hope in hell of flats and houses so its a non story and from someone who knows very little IMO.


Title: Re: Re: Court cases
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 13:45:06
With all this court case stuff going around, a timely reminder that it was 30 years ago today that we played Sunderland in that fateful play off game that eventually resulte din our demotion and reinstatement in Div 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gobMS5_6OGE

And a Sunderland view on that day.

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/nostalgia/30-years-inside-track-play-final-saw-sunderland-promoted-despite-defeat-2866461
Watched the highlights earlier and the chances Chalky had that day especially in the first half and Dunc in the second.

What a team and all those players in their prime and that XI who played 20 odd games unchanged, never played as the same XI again after. What they could have done if we were promoted.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 13:53:02
What a team and all those players in their prime and that XI who played 20 odd games unchanged, never played as the same XI again after. What they could have done if we were promoted.
I know its all conjecture but I think that "team" would have been good enough to avoid relegation from the top division, it was much more of a solid unit that the Hoddle team, which was based more on flair and attacking prowess that playing as a team.

I also think we would have managed to keep that side together and added to it to strengthen it. There were very few weakensses.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Legends-Lounge on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 14:20:57
Christ it reads like it has been translated from another language.

Only part I can comment upon from personal knowledge that its actually quite difficult to build Flats and Retail Outlets behind the backs of the supportors, people tend to notice such things being built.

Not forgetting the spirting covenant.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Oaksey Moonraker on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 14:24:36
Absolutely, most of those players were in their mid 20s so the perfect age and had the fitness from the Macari years. I think Chic Bates did the hard yards in pre season with them before Ossie came in.

Those that were still there by 93 like Bodin and Ross McLaren were 29/30 and injuries starting catch up on them.

Also in 1990 before the Premier League money came in, promoted sides were usually a surprise package and stayed up in the first year. Millwall were an example from a couple of years before.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 15:46:25
Quote from: JanAirplaneMan
Its quite obvious an attempted slur on Clem, given the covenant on the CG that it has to be used for sport there is no hope in hell of flats and houses so its a non story and from someone who knows very little IMO.

that's my take too.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: donkey on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 16:18:38
Someones paying for sponsered facebook posts.

(https://i.imgur.com/Neu7ZIv.png)

https://redrobinuk426348995.wordpress.com/

Bit of a strange twist.

Swindon FC?? Not happy about that.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: NotHarryAgombar on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 16:31:28
It does read quite oddly.

I know nothing about Clem, other than that he is an Australian involved in property related activities. He is clearly not a lifelong STFC fan, so it is likely his interest in acquiring part of the Club is linked to the possible business opportunity of redevelopment of the CG - I am not an expert in that field, but other clubs have built new stands with other developments integrated within them (eg Palace - a supermarket, Chelsea - hotel etc). He isn’t necessarily a predator, but he could be.

I do however struggle with some of the anti Power stuff on here and elsewhere. He is guilty of some bad decisions in managerial appointments - Luke, Flitcroft, Brown, but got it right with Wellens, who he has backed by allowing him to handle recruitment of players (he did likewise with Flitcroft). He was unlucky with Martin Ling, but did the right thing when Ling’s health meant he had to stand down.
His communication with supporters has been poor, and he interfered in signings when Luke was manager, and the Tactics Tim fiasco needs no further comment.
It’s easy to list outgoing transfers and fees (allegedly) pocketed, but the other side is he has signed players, had to cover losses as player wages have exceeded ticket income at times, and had to pay off some of the above named managers when he sacked them (plus Cooper and some back room staff too).

Let’s have some balance in the discussion please.



Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: NotHarryAgombar on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 16:33:33
Re 1990, no doubt that side would have done ok in Div 1 - Calderwood and Kerslake would have been better at the back to start with, and we’d have had McLaughlin in midfield and Shearer up front too.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 16:36:13
It does read quite oddly.

I know nothing about Clem, other than that he is an Australian involved in property related activities. He is clearly not a lifelong STFC fan, so it is likely his interest in acquiring part of the Club is linked to the possible business opportunity of redevelopment of the CG - I am not an expert in that field, but other clubs have built new stands with other developments integrated within them (eg Palace - a supermarket, Chelsea - hotel etc). He isn’t necessarily a predator, but he could be.

I do however struggle with some of the anti Power stuff on here and elsewhere. He is guilty of some bad decisions in managerial appointments - Luke, Flitcroft, Brown, but got it right with Wellens, who he has backed by allowing him to handle recruitment of players (he did likewise with Flitcroft). He was unlucky with Martin Ling, but did the right thing when Ling’s health meant he had to stand down.
His communication with supporters has been poor, and he interfered in signings when Luke was manager, and the Tactics Tim fiasco needs no further comment.
It’s easy to list outgoing transfers and fees (allegedly) pocketed, but the other side is he has signed players, had to cover losses as player wages have exceeded ticket income at times, and had to pay off some of the above named managers when he sacked them (plus Cooper and some back room staff too).

Let’s have some balance in the discussion please.
Absolutely this 100%.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Ardiles on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 16:37:49
Absolutely this 100%.

Agree very much with this.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Flashheart on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 16:41:11
Let’s have some balance in the discussion please.

Fuck that. I want pitchforks.

Who are we angry about?


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 16:45:06
Fuck that. I want pitchforks.

Who are we angry about?
Everything and everyone.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: Batch on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 16:46:02
I can't remember. but I'm angry about something.

oh yeah, got to go to Supermarket later


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 16:48:15
but the other side is he has signed players, had to cover losses as player wages have exceeded ticket income at times, and had to pay off some of the above named managers when he sacked them (plus Cooper and some backroom staff too).


I agree with all of that except the above part. Because we're now pretty certain that Power (himself) has likely not been funding the club. Standing/Barry & Clem have. He was looking at Able to come in and do similar. None of that is against the law (finding investment) but if we're to have balance then we need accuracy too.

I've already mentioned, I'm no "Power Out" brigade. If he comes through this looking fairly ok and manages to attract further investment then he will be an even bigger hustler than he already his; and boy he definitely can hustle.


Title: Re: Court cases
Post by: bamboonoshop on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 16:49:12
Fuck that. I want pitchforks.

Who are we angry about?

Some cunt called <<Insert cabinet minister name>>