|
el duque
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 12:37:13 » |
|
"Bill Power "definitely" owns 33% of the shares. SSW and Jame's Wills lawyer says the shares have gone through, BP's lawyer says they have not. BP has definitely asked for his money back"
So, the 'great' Bill Power gets all the plaudits for what happened over the summer, and some think he can do no wrong. What he's actually been doing if this is to be believed is sending the club down the toilet financially, whilst the much maligned Wills family foot the bill (no pun intended). THEN, the bludger demands his money back... What a cheek! No, agreements were made that any extra spend on the playing budget would be covered by Power (club said this last night). For a variety of reasons, he has since decided to pull the plug and ask for all his money back. The lack of official documentation to confirm details of the funding agreements may be the problem. If it was all written down that Power would cover X then we'd not have any problem with committed spending. I don't really see any inconsistency in the two posts... It does however seem fairly incompetent of the club not to get money from him up front, or at least to have legally binding documents to say that he should stump up the difference for any overspend instigated by him. And it might be claimed that the CEO should ultimately be blamed for allowing such a situation to arise... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Northern Red
|
|
« Reply #76 on: Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 13:29:08 » |
|
Woo-Hoo........ And the board come out fighting - about time too  Maybe we were wrong and our board does actually have balls after all (Sandy Gray included :shock: ) I see their point about personal attacks and pulling out. If you'd just spent £10 million over the years on the club you love and everyone was calling you, your mates and your employees complete cunts you wouldn't be happy either. On the boards notes about the internet crap, can we start some vigilante stylee attacks on forum monkeys who shit stir? :twisted: |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RobertT
 Offline
Posts: 11992
|
|
« Reply #77 on: Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 13:49:16 » |
|
The attacks they talk of are not the internet stuff. Sadly it seems 1 or 2 people have "allegedly" threatened them and their property. not something you like to hear if true.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
STFC Bart
Offline
Posts: 1114
|
|
« Reply #78 on: Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 13:51:20 » |
|
One question is precisely how have this board progressed the club on and off the pitch since they retookover in December 2001
What progress have they made? Answers on a postcard
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DV
Has also heard this
Offline
Posts: 32964
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #79 on: Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 14:00:55 » |
|
One question is precisely how have this board progressed the club on and off the pitch since they retookover in December 2001
What progress have they made? Answers on a postcard we are no longer in administration? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
janaage
People's Front of Alba
Offline
Posts: 14825
|
|
« Reply #80 on: Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 14:02:22 » |
|
The attacks they talk of are not the internet stuff. Sadly it seems 1 or 2 people have "allegedly" threatened them and their property. not something you like to hear if true. Well you can understand that, I for one would love to stab Bob Holt's house and I'd like to kick his car in the nuts. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Boeta
Offline
Posts: 3890
|
|
« Reply #81 on: Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 17:26:51 » |
|
Part of the cash crisis wouldn't happen to be STFC pumping money into DSM would it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Northern Red
|
|
« Reply #82 on: Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 21:42:44 » |
|
One question is precisely how have this board progressed the club on and off the pitch since they retookover in December 2001
What progress have they made? Answers on a postcard Reduced the debt from £14 million to something far more managable Like to see you do better yer fat cunt :x Next silly question..... :wanker: |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR
- FACT!
Offline
Posts: 14662
|
|
« Reply #83 on: Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 22:06:42 » |
|
Reduced it from 14 million to what exactly?  ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yeo
Offline
Posts: 3651
|
|
« Reply #84 on: Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 22:08:23 » |
|
I thought the only way they reduced the debt was going into Administration twice...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
/
W56196272
|
|
|
|
flammableBen
|
|
« Reply #85 on: Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 22:16:50 » |
|
The second adminitration jobby was cleverly timed to happen just before the FA/footy league or who ever it was bought in the stricter rules. Clever stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
STFC Bart
Offline
Posts: 1114
|
|
« Reply #86 on: Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 23:06:34 » |
|
Boeta very interesting observation that
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RobertT
Offline
Posts: 11992
|
|
« Reply #87 on: Wednesday, September 27, 2006, 08:39:55 » |
|
The CVA covers approx £8m from memory of debts. We only have to pay about £1.7m I think in repayments, although me struggle to pay the last one.
We have only 1 maybe 2 sets of public accounts since that date to see how the clubs finances have managed since. It's fair to assume they should be better because we are paying out less to cover historical debt.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frigby Daser
Offline
Posts: 3955
|
|
« Reply #89 on: Monday, October 2, 2006, 10:42:12 » |
|
James Wills' turn to give his view: http://www.swindontownfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/NewsDetail/0,,10341~905850,00.html?If true, I'd like to hear Mark D's side of it because it does raise a few issues. Most of all though it just highlights the complete lack of communication from top to bottom. It slags the Trust off, surprise surprise...and for that to be published on an official website is downright unprofessional and embarrassing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
