Let's play spot the difference

[TalkTalk]

1.

Bob Holt

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/content/images/2005/06/01/bob_holt_203_203x152.jpg

Maverick

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/content/images/2005/06/01/bob_holt_203_203x152.jpg

2.

Paul Davis

http://www.mibsasquerido.com.ar/Assets/Personagens/che-habano.jpg

Che Guevara

http://www.mibsasquerido.com.ar/Assets/Personagens/che-habano.jpg

[pauld]

Bit harsh. Maverick may have a slightly one-sided view of who should be answering what questions, but the questions he initially posed were legitimate questions that needed answering. And to be fair, I hope we have done so with the Q&A, with the exception I noted on t'other thread about the "American backer" (which tbh we forgot about as no-one took it seriously). But for the record, no, no-one currently involved in backing the consortium is American, and I still fail to see what difference it would make if they were. And for the record, if any Americans were to approach the consortium wishing to invest, we'd take them on the same basis as anyone else - so long as they share the vision for the future of the club, have the wherewithal and acumen to back it, they would be very welcome.

[Reg Smeeton]

Nah

  Paul Davis

   http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/images/citizensmith.jpg


 You're right about Bob Holt mind.

[pauld]

And it's a bit harsh on Che as well, come to that

[yeo]

Citizen Smith

[Fred Elliot]

Fred Elliot

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n70/FredElliot_2006/Pic010.jpg


John Holmes

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n70/FredElliot_2006/john_holmes.jpg

[TalkTalk]

And it's a bit harsh on Che as well, come to that

True.

You only smoke roll ups.

[Maverick]

pauld it seems that although you seem to consider me tedious and 'one-sided' (my wife would probably agree with the tedious bit!) ..  at least you have the decency to reply to questions I (and others) ask.

The reason I asked about the "american" was to establish whether the allegation that an american was involved had any foundation.  You have answered that (it has no foundation) so thanks.

The % of the total proposed investment that Bill and Phil are personally putting forward is the other question I would love to know the answer to as well as who the other backers are and what their % stake is.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the QPR story and the details that came out in the subsequent trial may be, it is clear to me that nobody has come out of that saga with much credit.

Now, it may be that Bill and Phil are truly knights in shining armour, but also it may be that there is some substance to some of the revelations in court.  It certainly concerns me to read about the catering and building contracts as well as the circumstances surrounding the allegation that a £500,000 loan was secured without board knowledge and used to repay some directors.  If nothing else it does seem to warrant concern especially as "unauthorised expenditure" is an as yet unresolved issue with STFC.

Finally, as I said before - I do not need to question the current board, because you guys are already doing that on a regular basis and I for one am keen to see what answers are forthcoming.  Surely though it is also important to ask questions of the proposed consortium as well?

If people don't deal with questions and issues now, then sure as hell they will come back to haunt us all at some point in the future if the proposed consortium involvement happens.

[pauld]

Fair point Maverick but if you only ever ask questions of one side, it inevitably leads people to ask what you're agenda is. And I didn't call you tedious, and don't think you are. Equally if you believe these questions need asking of the board, it's not enough to say "Well you guys are asking them" because when we ask them they simply dismiss them - whereas an "independent" such as yourself wanting some hard answers on where the million and a half quid went over the summer, why they had to sack Linda then appoint a new load of consultants, what the hell is going on with the CVA, what five-year plan, what stadium plans etc may force them to answer some hard questions that do need answers - or that they can't answer them. I'd say if you drew up a similar list of questions for the board as you did for us, it would be a very useful exercise. Not least because it would be interesting to compare and contrast the fact that we've given detailed and open answers to questions, rather than relying on evasion, generalities and half-truths.

[arthurhorsfield]

You are clearly an intelligent and peceptive individual with the clubs interest at heart. I must ask however if you might not be tempted to treat with caution a poorly written and frankly libellous article in a little known local paper?  I cannot imagine that you believe all you read in the papers but that you form an opinion based on facts and your own common sense.

If allegations of wrongdoing and financial missapropriation had any basis do you not think that Mr Paladini would not have managed to get any of the relevant authorities to act?  Mr Paladini has shown himself to be an unreliable witness and frankly is in no position to criticise others with regard to their actions at QPR Football Club.

I have taken the time to investigate all claims made (there is only the Kilburn Times article and the court treanscript written by a fan not a journalist, in the public domain of note) and I have assured myself (as did the Police and the Football League) that there is simply no case to answer here.  If you wish to contact me via the Trust or privately here I will gladly provide further information.  Sadly some of these matters are sub judicae and of course off limits, however nobody (except perhaps the Board of STFC ) has any reason to be other than transparent.

Perhaps like me you would be prepared to identify yourself rather than hiding behind an internet personae?

Michael Wilks
Consortium Leader

[Mark D]

Maverick, you can pick and choose what you want to hear from the details of the QPR trial and make them suit your own beliefs or whatever. I'll tell you this though. The 'unauthorised' £500k loan was covered off in detail at a board meeting, and the board meeting minutes are there to confirm it. Likewise, the 'unauthorised' building contract was also covered off and approved at a board meeting. Some people decided it would be better to miss the board meetings and be elsewhere. The main purpose of the loan was to pay off a former Directors loan, which he was threatening to issue a winding up order over. As I understand it, Bill actually left a loan (over £100k) in QPR when he exited and did not ask for it to be repaid.

[magic8ball]

I don't have anything to say on this subject, I just wanted to appear on the same thread as Mark Devlin and Mike Wilks


Thanks

[juddie]

Hi Mark

[Summerof69]

Join the club !!!

[Maverick]

Paul / Mike / Mark D

Thank you for taking the time to all respond - that in itself says something.

It is my guess that the QPR business will never be known about in full, but I am sure you all fully understand that the matter needs to be aired.

As the club moves forward (hopefully!), somehow trust and communication need to be re-established.

For whatever reasons far too much of the current debacle has been publicly aired.  I don't care who was to blame - I am certain that neither "side" is without fault on this.  However it has been aired ... and we have to live with that and find a way forward.

Left to me I would probably choose to lock you all in a room (yes including Mike D because it seems he is necessary to this process whether we like it or not) and leave you there until a way has been sorted for everyone to work together.

Sooner or later SSW will no longer be around and nor at some point will his investment.  However for now he is and his investment both now and in the past has been so vital to our survival.

It has been stated many times that Bill/Phil are not looking to take over, but to invest.  Bill has said on the radio that whilst he and Mike D will never be friends (or words to that effect I think), he can still work with him.

This has to be a partnership if it is to work (no matter how awkward it may be) - if people cannot accept that then any potential deal will collapse and people should walk away today.

The club today is not out of business as far as we know (and let's face it none of us know the full picture except perhaps MarkD who will have a better insight than most).

So if nothing else, presumably there is still time to get this right, or indeed if they exist and are still interested, to broker alternative OR additional deals with any other interested parties?

Finally Mike, if you want to know who I am, then certainly people such as sonicyouth know who I am.  Nobody special just an ordinary fan who has followed Town for many years as a season ticket holder.  I have a 15 year old son and we also go to away games together (only missed the Mansfield game so far this season - good call on our part by all accounts!).  I have met with some of the Trust at a recent meeting but otherwise I would suggest I am fairly anonymous/unimportant.  By all means message me privately on here if you want to know any more, but I hope you will agree that with the abuse that flies around these forums at times, I am not about to rush into willingly subjecting myself to the possibility of more!