Statement from Mike D

[pauld]

I'm going to employ dazza as my spokesman - he explains what I mean so much better than I do

[Dazzza]

My terms are a packet of nuts and a glass of orange juice a day.  Non negotiable.

What are the Trust's or if your thoughts on the above Paul?

[Reg Smeeton]

Don't be foooled fellas....the only reason Diamandis has been in the background, is because he was banned from company directorship, until Nov 04.

   I look at facts in the running of the club, and we've just had our lowest ever finish, in the 3rd Div since its formation in 58.

   The appointment of Wise and Poyet, as things stand is irrelevant until we see some signings then football, then we can judge.

 The verdict on the shadow in the background, is that he's been only slightly less than disastrous.

[DMR]

Isn't Diamandis supposed to be a shady bloke?

He's banned from running companies and stuff I believe?

Why's it all cropped up anyway, he has fuck all to do with the club publicly.

[DMR]

Sean-O/Kandiman, you're coming across as a bit stupid.

You're posting blatant libellous material, accusing MD of censorship and corruption, where's your proof?

Good thing you're not up against Davis or you'd be out of pocket  

[pauld]

My terms are a packet of nuts and a glass of orange juice a day.  Non negotiable.

What are the Trust's or if your thoughts on the above Paul?

On the packet of nuts? Well, I can't speak for the Trust, but personally ......

As for the statement (and this is solely my opinion, not an official Trust line) I think the statement's fair enough in so far as it goes. I can understand why Mike D would be annoyed at people having a pop at him in the way they have on the Adver board (especially if it's ex-employees or business partners with a grudge), but equally he has to understand (and we've told him this many times) that you can't expect to be involved in running a football club, especially not one that's been thru the kind of ups and downs (mainly downs) that our has over the past few years, and not come under public scrutiny. And that's particularly so when there seem to be unpaid bills and winding-up orders flying out of every nook and cranny. Inevitably having a "shadowy figure behind the scenes" is going to raise questions, and if people also feel they're not being told the whole truth by the "front-men", that's going to give rise to suspicion. So just as I can understand why he's peeved about some of the wilder stuff that was posted on the Adver forum (been there, got the writ) to some extent, it's self-inflicted. Football is not just any other business and you can't expect to have that degree of lack of scrutiny.

But a lot of this is to some extent looking to how the situation has been up until now. TBH, I'm more interested in how the situation moves on from here with Bill Power in the boardroom taking a more active interest from board level in the football side of things, Mark D confirmed as Chief Exec (which he has been in all but name for a while anyway, but nice to see it confirmed so we all know where we stand), and Wise/Poyet running things on the pitch. Looks like more grounds for optimism than we've had for some time from where I'm sat.

Oh, and one thing I would agree with Mike D wholeheartedly on is that a short-term injection of cash while very welcome and providing much-needed stability we haven't had for far too long doesn't "solve everything". For a viable long-term stability we need the CG redevelopment. And one thing I think I can say on behalf of the Trust is that we will continue to work with club, council and local residents to achieve that.

[pauld]

He's banned from running companies and stuff I believe?

Not any more  - his ban on being a Company Director expired in November.

[pauld]

Don't be foooled fellas....the only reason Diamandis has been in the background, is because he was banned from company directorship, until Nov 04.

It was Nov 05 actually - but it's not the only reason, he's shown no inclination to take a more public role since then either. I think his being publicity shy is genuine but as I said above he has to accept that if he wants to lurk in the shadows as it were, that's always going to be open to interpretations he may not like in an organisation under such intense public scrutiny as STFC

[ron dodgers]

very interesting......

as Paul says it'll be decided on the pitch next season.
 No-one invests in a small club and expects a profit especially when  they don't own the ground and the council is, how shall I put it, deep in the shit and never liable to get behind the club. If we achieve success next season it's a small step on the way to achieving a great community club that can be used by the whole town in the long term.
I am looking forward to our first match.

[Reg Smeeton]

It was Nov 05 actually -

   You sure about that?  Not that it really matters, other than trying to work out what year it is now.

[pauld]

It was Nov 05 actually -

   You sure about that?  Not that it really matters, other than trying to work out what year it is now.

Er, I was! But as you say, it's kind of immaterial really. He was disqualified he isn't now. Those who wish to put weight on the disqualification will do so irrespective of how long ago/recent it was, those who wish to brush it aside as one of those minor glitches that happen in business will do likewise.

[red macca]

anyone know why he was disqualified??

[RobertT]

Mr Diamandis was disqualified from being a company director in 1992 for trading while insolvent

this came from an article about Dunwoody thinking about suing to get the trading name back (which I think he decided not to do because of the costs if he lost).  Was in Jan 2005 and went on to say Diamandis was no longer disqualified, which suggests 2004 would be right.

[red macca]

thanks rob

[Amir]

As Paul has said, he should really have known the sort of public scrutiny his role will bring onto a person.  He doesn't seem to be exactly a rosey person if you take into account everything(his statement included) that has been written about him, yet if others involved trust him enough to be in a working relationship with him then what can we say ?  If most, as it seems, trust Mark Devlin, then do we not also trust Mark Devlin's opinions' on the people he chooses to work with ?


The disqualification means little to me.  Most likely an act of desperation 14 years ago is hardly something to chastise someone for.