Thetownend.com

I would urg everyone to join the trust and get behind the new consortium to get an investor(s) and give the fans a stake in the club.

This board clearly do not have the funds to take us forward, and it just appears to be a power thing for them. They state they welcome investment but when it happens the investors appear to soon leave, why? The club appears a closed shop for outsiders, with the current board desperate to hold onto power.

What are Diamandis and Dunwoody after? My guess is the money from any redevelopment, well with the current set up there in NO chance of this going ahead, the council for one know what the fans think of this current off field management team. It appears that outside investors/managers wont work with a certain person connected with the club- why is this person of a troublesome nature not removed?
 
As for Power/Devlin- i hope one day we hear the truth which i am sure we all will. Still have not had the £700k overspend explained either.

Dennis Wise- rumour is we offered to double his money- but how could we afford this if we had a £700k overspend, just does not make sense.

Total new broom needed- get behind the fans consortium

tell me something i dont know...

someone else said that yesterday - old news

Nice original post Bart.

I get tired of the same old shit being regurgitated ad infinitum. Without you this forum would make quite tiring reading. Well done.

Good sentiments Bart, but we all know about the Trust - we know how to join, and we know whats going on and why it needs to change. On the day before we're going to appoint a bloody good manager (hopefully) lets enjoy the moment for a bit though please.

Not sure if anyone is aware but according to companies house Diamandis has 14 liquidated/dissolved/insolvent companies behind him, obviously his reason for not being a director.

Dodgy indeed

That means nothing of the sort.

For those that care, Dunwoody sports Marketing changed its name to D421 Ltd on 1/12/04.

Accounts for the year ending 30/9/05 show a pre tax loss of £-23k with a net worth of £-160k. Our favorite accountant is the sole director.

Hardly consistant with a company that is creaming all the profis out of STFC is it?

he was also banned from being a director for 7 years which kinda says alot!!!

Piemonte you dont need to quote accounts to me- i am an accountant

Just because it shows a loss and negative net worth does not mean that he is not creaming money from us. That loss could have been 1-2m worse, and the negative net worth even higher.

Effectively they are trading whilst knowingly insolvent

Oh and also stinks of the usual Diamandis mismanagement.

This time however he has bods to direct for him, ala Gray, Holt so he has to take no accountability

Sifting through those 14 companies, around half appeared to have never traded ie they were incorporated, then several years later dissolved after nothing had happened. Most of this happened in the 1990's

I've no love for the bloke whatsoever, but I'd rather base my judgement on the truth rather than STFC barts anti-diamandis spin on the truth.

Being banned from being a director is dodgy.

Incorporating companies and doing nothing with them is not. Busineses being liquidated, even if it is because they are insolvent is not dodgy as such. It happens to hundreds of businesses a day. Failure rates are high.

Are you Sandy Gray ???

Oh no ........................ stupid question

I doubt it. He can spell AND string a sentence together.

Being banned for trading companies while knowingly insolvent is a tad on the dodgy side, as is having your accounts not properly signed off by and auditor (like ours were).

I still don't think he's making a fortune out of the club though, we don't spend enough on Marketing to make it that worthwhile, better money to be had from all the programme deals they have.  The lack of liability he holds is my main concern, as his ability to fall out with people  - especially those who he has previously trusted and got on with  - Devlin, Prescott for example.

That means fuck all Bart. Within my immediate family around 10+ companies have been lost through various means. Like Piemonte says, you just put some anti-diamandis Spin on it.

Liquidation is not always anything to do with mismanagement or bad business. As a business, with you being an accountant you should know this, your credit is very often extended to others.

They don't pay you, you go down. That's not the company directors fault, that's the fault of the wankers which fail to pay their bills to you.

In construction it's common place, massive building work takes place, invoices are issued, payments are not made. Company then has difficultly meeting it's own payments, company is privately limited, therefore company gets liquidated.

I do not know what his 14 businesses were or what they did, but sure as hell he wouldn't put himself through the hell that is liquidation 14 times. I suspect they just ceased trading or were wound up for various other reasons.

Agree with the sentiment that it's normally not "dodgy", it's just a business hitting bad times or having bad decisions made for it.  However I do believe it's why he was banned from being a Director.

Perhaps you're right, but on the flip side one of my family members was once banned and threatened with jail for fraudulent activities.

They were straight and down the line and took years to clear their name because of the under handed acts of others. I've seen it and i've experienced it first hand. If someone is going to commit fraud through a company, they go for it in a big and blatant way and hope to get the fuck out with everything they can.

That doesn't look like Diamandis to me, and i can't see why he'd be so trusted by SSW.

Tbf though, i know little about him, and i love playing devils advocate.  :D

Actually if you have a look the loss is entirely made up of depreciation. This is just a way of writing off a capital expenditure into the accounts as revenue expenditure in line with the use you get from the asset(s).

In other words it is an accounting figure and is not an actual loss of any money or expense that you would have to pay for.

The company has made losses in prior years that have resulted from the activities of the business though.

What money would he be creaming off the club? As it stands I believe we are running at a loss due to operating costs being higher than revenue.
The club have no money of their own.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise that last season, with our crap gates, we ran at a deficit.

Maybe he's nicking the money from the coffee machine, or the Christmas club money, like Arthur Fowler.

If he was a criminal mastermind, surely he'd be trying to pinch money from a club thats got some..........................

I think the claim often banded about relates to the volume of contracts the club has through Dunwoody, such as Marketing, Programmes and staff that we pay for (but I think we don't actually pay for the staff).

Not commenting on the details as I don't know them and aside from the auditor nobody ever will.

The "dodgy" issue for us is that our accounts were not signed off properly by the auditor - insufficient evidence to confirm a trua and fair reflection I think was the jist of the wording.