This stinks (to me at least)

[herthab]

My theory is that the potential investors have demanded anonymity until they've gone through the books. That way, if they find a problem, they can walk away without any hassle.

The difference between ourselves and teams in the premiership is that they make money, there's also the cachet of being involved with a top-flight, famous club.

[Ardiles]

For this reason, I very much doubt that the used car salesmen lookalikes who have been attending pre-season games and pictured talking to Sturrock are the actual investors.  If you obsessed with keeping your identity secret, would you then turn up in person at games and allow your picture to be taken?  I wouldn't.

The characters pictured in the paper are either people associated with the investor (should he exist), players' agents...or they are actors employed by Diamond Mike.  And no, I wouldn't put the latter option past this lot.

[WorcesterRed]

My theory is that the potential investors have demanded anonymity until they've gone through the books. That way, if they find a problem, they can walk away without any hassle.

The difference between ourselves and teams in the premiership is that they make money, there's also the cachet of being involved with a top-flight, famous club.

Not sure that that answers the question - if they find a problem with the books and their identity WAS known, there is still nothing stopping them walking away without any hassle?

If they view the books and are  :shock: , they can still do a :run:

[herthab]

Apart from the media.

[WorcesterRed]

For this reason, I very much doubt that the used car salesmen lookalikes who have been attending pre-season games and pictured talking to Sturrock are the actual investors.  If you obsessed with keeping your identity secret, would you then turn up in person at games and allow your picture to be taken?  I wouldn't.

The characters pictured in the paper are either people associated with the investor (should he exist), players' agents...or they are actors employed by Diamond Mike.  And no, I wouldn't put the latter option past this lot.

Agreed - surely they should be inconspicous    with the deal being as shrouded in secrecy as it is.

[WorcesterRed]

Apart from the media.

What could the media do?

They might ask them for an interview to explain why they chose not to invest but they are hardly going to camp out overnight outside these peoples houses on a witch-hunt  :box:  because they didn't invest are they?

(Sorry, it's emoticon Friday and I'm getting a little carried away)

[herthab]

Maybe we're not the only club they're looking at?

[flammableBen]

My theory is that the potential investors have demanded anonymity until they've gone through the books. That way, if they find a problem, they can walk away without any hassle.

I was about to post this.

This sort of silence isn't like the Super PR Machine that the BOB HOLTAZOR 3000. Secrecy maybe, but I'm sure if they had there way then our current lot would be playing "We got INVESTORZ" statement tennis, especially with such provocation from the adver.

Points massively to them  being silenced while the new consortium have a butchers at Sandy's adding up. Which makes it unsurprising that there's going to be some rocky patches along the way - and not of the good montage variety. I think we've all got a good idea that some of our accounts may be a bit creative.

I think it's pretty clear that the investors to exist. I'm with Si on doubting it was them in those pictures though. Whether they stick around after getting a sniff of the real state of the club or not is I guess what we're really waiting to find out. That and if they are SUPER ACE I WANT TO BUY YOU MEGA L1 DREAM SQAUD INVESTORZ or EVIL I WANT TO BUILD HOUSES ON YOUR PITCH INVESTORZ.

[flammableBen]

Apart from the media.

What could the media do?

They might ask them for an interview to explain why they chose not to invest but they are hardly going to camp out overnight outside these peoples houses on a witch-hunt  :box:  because they didn't invest are they?

(Sorry, it's emoticon Friday and I'm getting a little carried away)

It just makes there life easier all round I guess. One less thing to worry about.

[stfctownenda]

My theory is that the potential investors have demanded anonymity until they've gone through the books. That way, if they find a problem, they can walk away without any hassle.

The difference between ourselves and teams in the premiership is that they make money, there's also the cachet of being involved with a top-flight, famous club.

To be honest this doesn't stick with me because I don't think theres a Swindon fan alive or the local media who would anyway hassle some investors who walked away as they refused to work with this bunch of crooks/imcompetent cunts.  

Yes they could discover a problem within the books (which would in no way surprise me) but because of the due dilligence they would never be able to reveal it due to the legal grounds.  

There is no real reason why they should want to remain anonymous, this is why people become suspicious and negative.  Just come out and give us some answers simple as that.

[TalkTalk]

So why the cloak and dagger stuff - something doesn't smell quite right to me. Don't forget, while most people are hoping for the 'miracle once in a lifetime investment/takeover', we could actually turn out to be in a WORSE situation that we are with the current muppets in charge. During the last 15 years or so, has there been one genuine board to run the club for the fans rather than seeing STFC as a vehicle in which to make their millions?
 :shock:

I have stated before that I have no issue with people who want a return on their money - nobody throws good money after bad - but it seems that through the greed of various individuals, we find ourselves where we are currently, through lack of investment in various parts of the business.

£1.5 million in 'admin expenses' should tell you what you need to know.

Spot on.

The way I look at this is:

1. There is no concrete proof that these investors are real or if they are that they are serious. I can't believe that after all these weeks there hasn't been a leak from somebody in the know. The board are staying completely schtum.

2. If they do exist, then Worcester makes a very valid point about their motives. What do investors invest for? Er yeah - a return. So in what form?

3. If they are foreign then how does that sit with a community club like STFC? I can't believe that they are just benevolent individuals who want the club to do well. Look at the Glazers and all of the other recent takeovers.

4. Given 3. then I would prefer the FC - it has publicly declared that it is in for the football and community aspect, not for financial gain (read rip off). Give me Bill Power over unknown foreign businessmen any day.

[red macca]

For this reason, I very much doubt that the used car salesmen lookalikes who have been attending pre-season games and pictured talking to Sturrock are the actual investors. If you obsessed with keeping your identity secret, would you then turn up in person at games and allow your picture to be taken?  I wouldn't.
The characters pictured in the paper are either people associated with the investor (should he exist), players' agents...or they are actors employed by Diamond Mike.  And no, I wouldn't put the latter option past this lot.

It does not matter about the pictures we are still no wiser to who they are.

Personal i have got to the stage where i dont give a fuck

[wokinghamred]

My theory is that the potential investors have demanded anonymity until they've gone through the books. That way, if they find a problem, they can walk away without any hassle.

The difference between ourselves and teams in the premiership is that they make money, there's also the cachet of being involved with a top-flight, famous club.

To be honest this doesn't stick with me because I don't think theres a Swindon fan alive or the local media who would anyway hassle some investors who walked away as they refused to work with this bunch of crooks/imcompetent cunts.  

Yes they could discover a problem within the books (which would in no way surprise me) but because of the due dilligence they would never be able to reveal it due to the legal grounds.  

There is no real reason why they should want to remain anonymous, this is why people become suspicious and negative.  Just come out and give us some answers simple as that.

How about Diamandis insisting on anonymity?
Maybe Swindon have demanded secrecy so that if the investors back out because they find something they are not happy with, the investors are unable to go public with what the problem is.

Much more likely scenario !

[stfctownenda]

So why the cloak and dagger stuff - something doesn't smell quite right to me. Don't forget, while most people are hoping for the 'miracle once in a lifetime investment/takeover', we could actually turn out to be in a WORSE situation that we are with the current muppets in charge. During the last 15 years or so, has there been one genuine board to run the club for the fans rather than seeing STFC as a vehicle in which to make their millions?
 :shock:

I have stated before that I have no issue with people who want a return on their money - nobody throws good money after bad - but it seems that through the greed of various individuals, we find ourselves where we are currently, through lack of investment in various parts of the business.

£1.5 million in 'admin expenses' should tell you what you need to know.

Spot on.

The way I look at this is:

1. There is no concrete proof that these investors are real or if they are that they are serious. I can't believe that after all these weeks there hasn't been a leak from somebody in the know. The board are staying completely schtum.

2. If they do exist, then Worcester makes a very valid point about their motives. What do investors invest for? Er yeah - a return. So in what form?

3. If they are foreign then how does that sit with a community club like STFC? I can't believe that they are just benevolent individuals who want the club to do well. Look at the Glazers and all of the other recent takeovers.

4. Given 3. then I would prefer the FC - it has publicly declared that it is in for the football and community aspect, not for financial gain (read rip off). Give me Bill Power over unknown foreign businessmen any day.

Alan with all due respect I agree with alot of what you say but I don't think we can be too closed or blinkered in the way we look at things.

1. There is no concrete proof that these investors are real or if they are that they are serious. I can't believe that after all these weeks there hasn't been a leak from somebody in the know. The board are staying completely schtum.

I think the fact Sturrock has said he has met them is proof that someone exists, plus the Brevitt appointment adds weight to the claims.

2. If they do exist, then Worcester makes a very valid point about their motives. What do investors invest for? Er yeah - a return. So in what form?

This is one of the main reasons they must come public with there intentions.  Most takeovers are done for personal gain rather than a love of the club they are buying, if it is something that is mutually beneficial to us and them then thats fine with me.

3. If they are foreign then how does that sit with a community club like STFC? I can't believe that they are just benevolent individuals who want the club to do well. Look at the Glazers and all of the other recent takeovers.

I think if there foreign that is irrelevent very few Man U fans have a bad word to say about the Glazers now, they have delivered major signings every summer and finally won the league after a few years last year.  Other success stories include Chelsea, Portsmouth so nationality is irrelent IMO.

4. Given 3. then I would prefer the FC - it has publicly declared that it is in for the football and community aspect, not for financial gain (read rip off). Give me Bill Power over unknown foreign businessmen any day.[/quote]

I agree I would prefer Bill and the fans consortium and I still hope in someway they can still against all the odds takeover.  I think Bill and the others have shown incredible patience and desire to still be here after all these months of frustration.  There honest and up front approach has always been a major plus, it is still my dream for them to takeover.

But until we have answers from this consortium I don't think we can hold too much negativity against them.  As I said keep the pressure up lets keep writing in demanding answers, lets hope the adver keep up the media pressure then sooner rather than later we will hopefully get to the bottom of all of it.

[TalkTalk]

3. If they are foreign then how does that sit with a community club like STFC? I can't believe that they are just benevolent individuals who want the club to do well. Look at the Glazers and all of the other recent takeovers.

I think if there foreign that is irrelevent very few Man U fans have a bad word to say about the Glazers now, they have delivered major signings every summer and finally won the league after a few years last year.  Other success stories include Chelsea, Portsmouth so nationality is irrelent IMO.

That's fair enough.

I think I'm just sceptical as to the motives of anybody who hasn't got direct connections to a football club (like living in the same country).