Arriba
Offline
Posts: 21293
|
|
« Reply #615 on: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 16:50:28 » |
|
Poxford fans are in no position to say anything really. Maxwell, Kassam, Rix, banana man, non league, etc, etc. Won't stop the bitter twats though. Fucking mugs
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BruceChatwin
Offline
Posts: 1136
|
|
« Reply #617 on: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 17:11:57 » |
|
Annoyed as I am I thought I would join Bruce as well and send one in:
"Dear Mr. Emery,
I’m writing to you wishing to draw your attention to an article, dated Sunday 20th January 2013, in the Football League Paper headlined: “Swindon: the ‘cheats’ who really prospered”. The sub-heading continues in similar terms; “They [Swindon] bought promotion by not paying £13m bills”. As I’m sure you are acutely aware the use of the word ‘cheats’ is an emotive term that describes actions of deception, lying and dishonesty and thus accusations by your paper are of a very serious nature.
So it is with grave disappointment, and one that should deeply concern you, that the article written by Chris Dunlavy does not appear to have been based on any facts at all. Instead it relies simply on a quote by Swindon’s Chairman Sir William Patey who, when asked if he could guarantee the club could avoid administration for a third time, replied; "Not a single chairman in the country could that”. That does not mean Swindon is in trouble, just that administration can never be ruled out for any limited company - not just football clubs - as a cursory look on the high street shows.
So let us be clear, Swindon are not seeking administration, nor are they close to doing so. Swindon also does not owe money to HMRC, banks nor any other creditors who are knocking on their door. The main creditor is Swindon’s main shareholder Andrew Black and it exists in the form of soft debt of his own money. Swindon’s current situation is that Mr Black for personal reasons has decided to sell, and it’s been that position for many months. However this is a situation your paper has now called ‘cheating’ and ‘immoral’. I would suggest those terms come suspiciously close to libel.
I would expect these kinds of sensational headlines from national newspapers, but from a specialist paper with a relatively low circulation, I would like to think you would take pride in the accuracy of your paper’s journalism, if only for your own self preservation in a very competitive market if nothing else.
I look forward to your prompt reply.
Yours sincerely
Ghanimah"
Nice one Ghanimah and bullethead. At the very least we should get the editors attention when he opens his inbox Monday morning. Might make him think twice about giving this guy free rein again if he has to spend his morning sifting through a load of letters from us lot first thing.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #618 on: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 17:13:57 » |
|
The club appears to be pursuing it as well. Or at least considering it.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bassett boy
Offline
Posts: 689
we will overcome
|
|
« Reply #619 on: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 17:22:29 » |
|
I occasionally bought this paper think i will give it a miss from now
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36320
|
|
« Reply #620 on: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 17:42:00 » |
|
Personally I would rather let it blow over and have the last laugh if administration never happens.
However, having had a look at Oxford and Tranmere's latest accounts, both of these clubs are 'cheats' too:
Tranmere Rovers
Turnover £3.5m Loss of £197k for the year; accumulated losses of £5.9m. Shareholders' defecit of £5.3m (there are more liabilities than assets). Liabilities include £2.1m in bank loans/overdrafts and £5.1m in 'other loans', of which at least £4.2m is owed to the majority shareholder.
Oxford United
Turnover £3.2m Loss of £296k for the year; accumulated losses of £5.1m. Shareholders' defecit of £4.8m. Liabilities include £3.4m owed to the majority shareholder.
Pot, kettle, black.
|
|
« Last Edit: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 21:09:35 by Simon Pieman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LittleRed
Offline
Posts: 537
|
|
« Reply #621 on: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 17:55:06 » |
|
Personally I would rather let it blow over and have the last laugh if administration never happens.
However, having had a look at Oxford and Tranmere's latest accounts, both of these clubs are 'cheats' too:
Tranmere Rovers
Loss of £197k for the year; accumulated losses of £5.9m. Shareholders' defecit of £5.3m (there are more liabilities than assets). Liabilities include £2.1m in bank loans/overdrafts and £5.1m in 'other loans', of which at least £4.2m is owed to the majority shareholder.
Oxford United
Loss of £296k for the year; accumulated losses of £5.1m. Shareholders' defecit of £4.8m. Liabilities include £3.4m owed to the majority shareholder.
Pot, kettle, black.
Awesome.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #622 on: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 18:00:56 » |
|
Personally I would rather let it blow over and have the last laugh if administration never happens.
However, having had a look at Oxford and Tranmere's latest accounts, both of these clubs are 'cheats' too:
Tranmere Rovers
Loss of £197k for the year; accumulated losses of £5.9m. Shareholders' defecit of £5.3m (there are more liabilities than assets). Liabilities include £2.1m in bank loans/overdrafts and £5.1m in 'other loans', of which at least £4.2m is owed to the majority shareholder.
Oxford United
Loss of £296k for the year; accumulated losses of £5.1m. Shareholders' defecit of £4.8m. Liabilities include £3.4m owed to the majority shareholder.
Pot, kettle, black.
I don't know who the quagmire bloke is on the pox forum but he really is wasting his time. He's best off just leaving and come back with this when everything has settled. This sideshowrob guy is a tool. Here's his latest. Most of what he says is just a plain lie yet none of them question it. I wonder if he may really be a town fan trolling them to make them look stupid.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tans
You spin me right round baby right round
Offline
Posts: 25871
|
|
« Reply #623 on: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 18:04:59 » |
|
Haha good work Si
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Peter Gibbons
Offline
Posts: 1110
|
|
« Reply #624 on: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 18:07:20 » |
|
He is going to speak to clubs lawyers to see where they stand legally and reitretaed that the debt is only to black
|
|
|
Logged
|
It's not that I'm lazy. It's that I just don't care.
|
|
|
tans
You spin me right round baby right round
Offline
Posts: 25871
|
|
« Reply #625 on: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 18:10:13 » |
|
Why the popcorn?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Summerof69
Offline
Posts: 8598
|
|
« Reply #626 on: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 18:19:50 » |
|
He is going to speak to clubs lawyers to see where they stand legally and reitretaed that the debt is only to black
We sue who we want We sue who we want We are Swindon And we sue who we want !!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Stegenfreud
Offline
Posts: 486
Say what now?
|
|
« Reply #627 on: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 18:33:31 » |
|
I don't know too much about UK defamation laws and libel so i had a look (admittedly wiki *cringe*) but i found the following paragraph interesting.
"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them."
Some of Mr. Dunlavy's statements are pretty close to the bone and plain false. It goes on to say a reasonable defence could be 'fair comment'(i.e. whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), which may be his way out of it?
Maybe someone who knows more could clarify but it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Incredible levels of sloppy, amateur journalism, i hope folk at that paper are embarrased of Mr. Dunlavy's work (doubt it).
|
|
|
Logged
|
simon FERRY cross the avon... do do.
|
|
|
Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #628 on: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 18:38:30 » |
|
I imagine it will end with a complete printed retraction by them. Easiest thing for all concerned.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Peter Gibbons
Offline
Posts: 1110
|
|
« Reply #629 on: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 18:44:24 » |
|
Why the popcorn?
As in, I am going to sit back and enjoy watching what happens when the club lawyers get onto the FLP about this. In reality, I suspect a paper can get away with crap like this by saying "it's an opinion piece" but the fact remains there is not the remotest hint within the article that the "journalist" has bothered to properly research the story upon which he has decided to publish his opinion. It's pathetic that someone should be paid to spew such crap when there must be tens of thousands of young people out there that would walk through hot coal to get a gig like that.
|
|
|
Logged
|
It's not that I'm lazy. It's that I just don't care.
|
|
|
|