Fans Consortium Q&A

[pauld]

The "manifesto" (actually done in the form of a Q&A -inspired by Maverick!) is now online at:
http://www.truststfc.co.uk/fc_manifesto.php

Hopefully this will go a long way to answering some of the very valid questions raised recently.

[Summerof69]

Excellent read.

[SwindonTartanArmy]

Excellent. All we need now is a sea of orange at the CG over the upcomming games to show the board that we have no confidence in their ability to run the club!

[spacey]

I still feel there are some outstanding cheese issues. I'm not sure I can throw my full support behind a consortium that could potentially be overloaded with cottage cheese swilling nonces! Can you offer assurances that Mr Power and the other investers prefer a more muscular cheese that we can trust

[Reg Smeeton]

I still feel there are some outstanding cheese issues. I'm not sure I can throw my full support behind a consortium that could potentially be overloaded with cottage cheese swilling nonces! Can you offer assurances that Mr Power and the other investers prefer a more muscular cheese that we can trust

 I understand Bill is partial to Red Leicester....which always looks to me to be orange.

   http://www.webplay.org/images/cheese.gif

[pauld]

Bollocks. I knew we'd forgotten something. I'll check. He certainly doesn't come over as a cottage cheese sort, but as you say it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to judging a man on the basis of his dairy-based snack preferences.

[jayohaitchenn]

Bill Power is a brie man I think. a touch of class

[The_Plagiarist]

Jarlsberg wins the cheese war!!  :fu:

[Maverick]

Thanks for giving me the credit for the Q&A pauld ... however it would be nice to get the answers to the questions I asked about who else was involved in the consortium and whether Bill & Phil were the major backers or whether there was a larger investor(s) also involved (and whether any of them are american!!)?

I would also be a lot more comfortable to see some explanations surrounding the points raised in the following pieces: -

http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/content/camden/kilburntimes/sport/story.aspx?brand=KLBTOnline&category=sportfootball&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=sportklbt&itemid=WeED18%20Oct%202006%2011%3A29%3A46%3A040

The full piece it refers to can be found at:

http://www.alfretontownfc.com/qprcourttrial.pdf

I repeat once again (before accusations fly!) that I remain neither pro or anti any of the publicly warring factions ... merely trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff in all the "snippets" that hit the public domain.

I am merely cautious, as most of what I see/hear/read are the anti board pieces, I see little evidence of similar examination of the consortium credentials.

I am a Swindon Town fan first and foremost, and I would hate to think that we were being asked to blindly follow an "unknown quantity".

[pauld]

Hmm, Maverick, your protestations of impartiality would be a lot more convincing if you applied the same tests impartially.
Where is your extensive list of questions regarding the two interested parties the board claim to be speaking to?
Where are your demands to know the full backgrounds of our new chairman?
Where is your demand to see the full details of the "five-year plan" the board spoke of on Friday?

The consortium have been very open in establishing our credentials, demonstrably have the wherewithal and the business acumen to take the club forward, and have laid out a plan to do so, do not have a track record of deceiving the fans and are offering something more concrete than another five years of BS and misery. Can you say the same of the board? And if not, why aren't you asking these questions?

[Maverick]

pauld ... you miss my point .. I am not re-asking the questions that have been asked already of the board ... because they have been asked already!!

People will make their own judgements based on whether those questions are answered and how.

Please please don't tell me that what you are saying is that the points I raise in reference to the Consortium are also to remain unanswered?

[TalkTalk]

pauld ... you miss my point .. I am not re-asking the questions that have been asked already of the board ... because they have been asked already!!

People will make their own judgements based on whether those questions are answered and how.

Please please don't tell me that what you are saying is that the points I raise in reference to the Consortium are also to remain unanswered?

A personal post this one.

JESUS YOU ARE TEDIOUS.

[pauld]

They've been answered in the Q&A, other than the smear piece from the Kilburn Times which says precisely sod all other than smear by innuendo. And FWIW, yes I have read the QPR trial transcript. And had a long conversation with its author and several other people involved around QPR at that time.

And no those questions above have not been asked of the board re Friday's announcement, simply because most people don't believe it. So, I'll ask again, is it just one side that you subject to such forensic examination, Mav? Do you have an axe to grind perchance?

[Fred Elliot]

pauld ... you miss my point .. I am not re-asking the questions that have been asked already of the board ... because they have been asked already!!

People will make their own judgements based on whether those questions are answered and how.

Please please don't tell me that what you are saying is that the points I raise in reference to the Consortium are also to remain unanswered?

A personal post this one.

JESUS YOU ARE TEDIOUS.

Supported view Alan

 :boring:

[Maverick]

A personal response Talk Talk ....

JESUS THAT WAS A WELL CONSTRUCTED AND THOUGHT THROUGH RESPONSE!