Thetownend.com

Firstly I would like to thank those who have offered support both financial and moral to the consortium efforts, at the right time I intend to do so personally.

The current CVA non payment fiasco came about following a routine discovery during due diligence and was a publicly available piece of information.

I do not believe that this issue would ever have been brought into the public domain without prompting, and would thereby have put the clubs survival at imminent and terminal risk.  Both creditors and shareholders (from a legal perspective) and fans (from a moral and customer care standpoint) have a right to know of financial or commercial factors which place the companies’ future viability at risk.  Shareholders are asked to elect or re-elect Directors on the basis of true and accurate statements at an AGM, this in my opinion has clearly not occurred.

The statements made by the CVA Supervisor regarding cash flow problems and management changes over the summer period require analysis:  If as stated the company was unable to make its CVA payment in June, why when over £1.2m was invested by Bill Power could this relatively small sum not be paid? At that stage no (alleged) serious overspend had been identified according to Club statements regarding Mark Devlin.

Furthermore significant income was received from the Bryan Adams concert and subsequently from compensation for Dennis Wise; increasing revenues from all areas has provided a significant boost to company turnover despite relegation.  The figures simply do not stack up and the failure of the Board to make CVA payments to The Revenue is an outrageous state of affairs given the seriousness of such an omission.

Turning to the consortium it is clear that urgent and substantial changes are required at the football club; it is no longer tenable for the Board to argue constantly that external factors beyond its control have produced the current financial plight. The implication of its statement is that somehow The Council is guilty of failing to allow a ground redevelopment, and whilst I have my own views regarding the Borough Council, it is both fatuous and incorrect to lay the blame at its door.  This Board has had over 6 years to produce a meaningful development plan and it has failed to do so, the only realistic attempt (after the Shaw Tip debacle) made so far has been undertaken by The Trust not the Board.  

The consortium has now secured significant financial backing and is in a position to commence realistic negotiations with the majority shareholder James Wills, attempts have been made over the past month to establish a basis for confidential negotiation and to date these have been frustrated by unknown parties. The consortium will continue to work towards such a meeting and will not allow unelected or unconnected parties to derail a solution to the clubs current plight.  Can I urge you to join the Trust and ensure that fans have a properly elected Board representative to ensure that never again do we have to endure recurring unmitigated financial crises every year.

Please continue to provide the fantastic support shown all season to the team and to Paul Sturrock, this club will come through this and emerge a stronger and much healthier body where fans and staff alike share a common purpose and open and honest relations.

Thank you.

Thanks AH, that's cleared alot of things up (in my mind anyway).

My blood is fucking boiling :evil:

:clap:

Fucking right on, Mike Wilks.

I'm going to marry you.

Or at least run off with your wife  :twisted:

http://www.redarmyloudnproud.org.uk/mikewife.jpg

After the shit that's been going on today, Arthur's post takes the edge off it for me. Thanks for that Sir!

I hope the fans consortium blokes kick Diamandis's fat arse out of the club once and for all. I don't think it will be easy as Diamandis sounds like he's a right little ratchety cunt who'll fight till the end, specially when money is still up for grabs.

Still, Arthur and the rest have done very well to get us to this stage of new hope and possibly a Diamandis-free future.

Glad I joined the trust now :beers:

To Arthur!!
 :toppost:  :thumbs:  

Keep us informed sir.

Millom

:dance:  Clarence Street boys united will never be defeated.

Thanks for that AH its great to hear that there is an option,just got to get the idiots to speak to you now.

This is great news, just hope those idiots in the boardroom see sense and sell up.

Cheers Arthur.

I hope the board see sense of the financial pickle we are in and open a dialogue forthwith. It would be crazy not to listen to what you are proposing.

I realise I'm out of touch on these matters, but who is this Arthur fella???

well its a great start. lets hope they sell.

Mike Wilks, one of the tops boys of the consortium

Definitely the most encouraging thing I had read in a long time. I hate Diamond Mike and co with a passion. The sooner they are gone the better.

what a great read!
i will be signing up today.the sooner the club is in the hands of the people who truely care the better

Fantastic work Arthur.

Lets get Diamandis out as soon as possible

One question Mike - you say significant financial backing...I take it that would be to purchase a certain amount of shares and obtain a place on the board. What I'm concerned about though is whether we'd be able to fund the club's lump sum debts that constantly crop up - the CVA payments, rents, etc etc.

Great work - it is so so good to see a group of fans getting off their arses and doing something.

Mike

As they they:

Don't let the bastards grind you down....Especially Greek ones !!!

Let's hope the fans consortium take over the club sooner, rather than later, and kick these lying arse wipes out of the club.

Ere fuckin Ere!


Millom

Newbury clowns out. No more bullshit.

I don't want to piss on anyones chips, but surely if the CVA was due in June, when we had cash in the bank, slagging off Diamandis for failiing to pay it is a bit fucking rich.

I know you're all completely up his arse, and from his posts on here he seems a genuine bloke, but we had a CE, Mark D, in post at that time. If important stuff didn't get done surely the buck has to stop there?

There are two payments that we seem to have overlooked during that period this year. The CVA and the one to the revenue. ANYONE in business will tell ou these are the two you pay FIRST, as there the ones most likely to get you wound up. If, as it seems, they didn't get paid through an oversight, then that's almost unforgiveable.

Add to that the debacle of failing to adequately document the nature and scope of Bill P's investment before starting to spend the money, and it doesn't look good for the man in the flasher mac to me.

Erm, actually I think you'll find that Mark D was not allowed to engage in "important stuff" to do with the overall financial structure of the club - read the club statements slagging him off, it's quite clear he was expected to stay on a tight leash. Those matters would be dealt with by Mike D and Sandy Gray. Or in this case not dealt with.


Were did you get this oversight business from? They chose not to pay the CVA deliberately. This was admitted in the statement the club put out, according to that they decided not to pay the amount due because they were going to try and renegotiate next year's payment (the 900k). Whether you believe that or not there was no oversight, just a deliberate reckless gamble with a CVA that could force the club into liquidation.

And I'm curious that you're talking about two payments - one to the CVA and one to the revenue. No-one's said we've missed a payment to the revenue outside the CVA. And Sandy Gray assured everyone at the AGM and in subsquent fans' meetings that payments to the revenue were up to the date, at the same time as she was assuring us that CVA payments were. Oh.....

Seriously, is this stuff about a second missed payment just you getting the wrong end of the stick or is there something else we don't know about?

Say it is Mark Ds fault it didnt get paid, that is still no reason to lie to your share holders at an AGM.

We were promised this had been paid, and it hasnt been. Regardless of who was supposed to pay it....we have been lied to which is disgusting

Erm....

That sounds like a load of shite to me I'm afraid.

The Chief Executive of a limited company is exactly that. The person charged with running the day to day operations of the company on behalf of the board.

All the statements I've seen from the board seem to say is that those operations were supposed to be within strict financial budgets, that Mark wasn't allowed to exceed without reference to the board, which isn't at all unusual.

If, as you're suggesting, the CE of STFC wasn't expected to take responsvbility for something as "important" as making sure the bills got paid, then it begs the question what the fuck was he responsible for?

The revenue payment being missed? Check back on this forum a couple of months ago. Everyone got out of their tree 'cause we missed a the end of year VAT payment. I'd find a link but I can't be arsed. It got sorted months back, but shouldn't have happened at all. Suprised you don't remember it?

As for the choosing not to pay the CVA thing and including it in the renegotiation of the final payment.

Frankly using that as an argument is fucking bizarre! If you believe that statement then I don't see why there's a problem. No-one's to blame because it was a chosen course of action. It could even be argued that the statements to the AGM and SC were technically accurate, as payments that were due were up to date, the June one having been renegotiated and therefore not due.

However, the statement posted by Arthur H (on behalf of the Trust?), suggests that the failure to pay had been "uncovered by due diligence procedures" and would other wise have been not known about threatening the future of the club. That, I thought was the position most people on here had adopted, not taking that statement at face value, but seeing it as a way of dressing up a mistake.

If we've now decided the board are telling the truth then you can all fucking shut up about it and talk about something else.


I fucking knew this would get this reaction. It's absolutely fucking typical of the completely partisan way you lot have started to approach every issue at the club.

"Mark D and Bill P are perfect and totally blameless, the other lot are wankers" sums it up.

Even when Billl promised major investment in the club, then completely understanderbly as a result of his accident and health chose not to pursue it, leaving us financially a bit fucked, it had to be Mike D's fault.

Even when Bill pulled the, "I want my money back" thing, he was still a saint. When it was thought he might be able to get his money back because the terms of his investment hadn't been documented, ....still no criticism of either of them.

I've never seen a bunch of football fans be so one eyed.

With respect Lumps, I can't help thinking that you are going to look a bit of a tool when the truth does come out about how this football club has been run in recent years.

the vote never happened. should we start a poll?

Lumps, the board knowingly lied to its shareholders/fans at the AGM. Yes, at times it does pay to stand back and take a more balanced view, but when in this case there is no debate. How can we possibly trust one single thing we are told? It cannot continue.

Paul D, Mike/Arthur - I asked above about the potential for continued investment past the initial acquisition of shares should the consortium be a success - there was an interesting piece on the Championship this morning about Brentford's new model and how they simply haven't got any funds to fund the long term and how many of the fans who supported Bees United now wish they never had - Greg Dyke refuses to invest, so they're staring L2 in the face. The issue of continued funding needs to be addressed too - not simply a place on the board.

I've come to my wits end with the current board - at times I've thought its a hard job and perhaps we should cut them some slack, but after being lied to, thats it. End of the road and no turning back. Its completely indefensble and heads must roll for the good of OUR club.

Lumps, I think you're the one-eyed one round here. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or just haven't understood what's well documented in the public domain.

1) Mike Diamandis runs this club, arguably on behalf of the Wills family, in some cases directly (e.g. he claims the credit for bringing in players, managers etc) and in some cases indirectly, through the likes of Sandy Gray, the Finance Director. If you have any doubt about this, read the club's own statements from September which make it very clear that any major financial decision had to be cleared by Mike Diamandis and Sandy Gray.

2) Your definition of what a CEO should be responsible for may hold in most businesses, but sadly STFC has not been a normal business for many years. Mark D would not have had responsibility for ensuring bills were paid, that was the responsibility of the Finance Director, Sandy Gray. Or, for the more day-to-day stuff, some of the more mundane stuff would have been devolved to the finance department which at the time would have been the financial adminstrator, Martyn Starnes.

3) Bill Power did not just promise major investment in the club, he put in £1.2 million, the bulk of which was to be used to ensure serious bills that could otherwise put the club under were paid. Where did that go?

4) Mike Wilks's statement does not say that the CVA not being paid was an oversight, what he is quite clearly saying is that we would not know about this had it not been unearthed ie that the Finance Director and Acting CEO, despite their statements before the AGM, at the AGM, and subsequently that the CVA had been paid would have continued to conceal the fact that it hadn't from fans and shareholders had they not been "outed" as having misled both fans and shareholders. The accusation is not that the current regime somehow forgot about the CVA and wouldn't have spotted it otherwise, but that they continually and over a sustained period of time misled fans and shareholders as to the financial situation at the club. That's what Mike is saying and that's what I am saying.

With respect, I think everyone that's thrown around allegations of incompetence and even fraud on this forum would look "a bit of a tool" if the truth were ever to emerge.

However, you all carry on doing it safe in the knowledge that's fucking unlikely to happen.

I'm just trying to provide a bit of balance.

But as you've all made you're minds up about everything already I'll not bother.

The world really is black and white to you people isn't it?

Lumps, where's the black and white in being lied to by the board. Please, do answer.

Hey, I'm just guessing at what has gone based on everything I know that is factual.

However, I think the consensus on this (and other forums) is closer to reality than the direction you are coming from. We all have opinions.

I'm just waiting for the day when the truth does come out. Hopefully we will still have a football club and time to do something to save it from going down the pan. In my eyes at the moment that "something" is the consortium.

Lumps, I've made the point here and on the other thread you (needlessly) created that your slanted view of this seems to come from a serious misunderstanding of how events have unfolded and how the club is run. Fair enough, it's complex and there's been a lot to keep up with - but would you care to answer some of those points rather than picking off the easy ones and striding off to the moral high ground every 20 seconds like some kind of cross between Mary Whitehouse and a deranged mountaineer?

Lumps = Diamandis!

also, if it was Devlins fault for not paying it do you not think the board would have already publically stated this?

They've been quick to point the finger in the past, why should this be any different?

rather than picking and choosing which posts to reply to lumps, why not try to respond to all of them? after all you're perfectly happy to cast aspersions on all and sundry with regards to our blinkered views and the such like.

Moonraker, I think it would be fair to say that any serious negotiation with any group claiming to have serious backing would have to proceed on the basis that they could demonstrate they could meet the club's existing liabilities (which the current regime admit they cannot - ie the CVA final payment due next July) and be in a position to then stabilise the club as a business and then move it forward.

Right...obviusly we need long-term stability and funding to match - not just the funds to get a voice.

The consortiums backers are fully appraised of all publically identified outstanding liabilities, what nobody has is the exact state of the current financial situation.  This will only be evident when the clubs owners allow for due diligance to commence; it is clear that all is not well with the CVA at least, or renegotiatons would not be needed (as they are dangerous to the clubs long term stability i.e. what happens if they fail?) so we know that they owe £100k from last May for the 2006 payment we also know that they owe a further £900k next June and we can assume that they owe BP £1.2m.

Currently my backers have a full understanding of the issues above and are willing to indemnify them as part of any deal, they will not however deal with Michael Diamandis as part of the negotiation, he is not a Director, declared shareholder or  officer of any company associated with Swindon Town, but is a major supplier and therefore has a  major conflict of interest.

Arthur a couple of questions for you..

how much backing do you have already? ball park figure if you can

the backing,is it from local companies or individuals

do you want me to ring sinli sangh shui at honda for you :D

  How can this likely impasse be got round then......

I think the stumbling block Reg is the reluctance for the STFC major players to commit to any form of NDA's that the consortium require to move this forward.

  Sorry what's an NDA?

so its basically a no go then fred?

Non Disclosure Agreement

Its an agreement betwen parties that states that whatever is discussed around a negotiation table and any further arenas, stays around the negotiation table etc  and is not knowledge to any third parties that could have an impact, detrimental or otherwise to the ongoing talks.

Hope that helps Reg

Problems are there to be solved Deano and I am sure that they will be

  Right in other words the NDA would keep Mickey out of the loop.......conversely it would also mean the fans would not have any knowledge of the outcom eof discussions.

No, an NDA is there to protect confidentiality while discussions are ongoing and to ensure that should talks break down, neither party can seek to gain commercial or other gain from information acquired during negotiations and/or any period of due diligence. It's standard business practice, pretty much universally used to enable both parties in a negotiation to be able to discuss sensitive issues without fear of exposing themselves or that someone would turn up, pretend to want to invest in your company/market your new invention etc without any intention of actually doing so but just intending to get access to your books/ideas/etc to gain commercial advantage for themselves.

Sorry, in less bullshit-laden language, an NDA would keep anyone who hadn't signed it out of the loop in terms of the fine detail, but wouldn't prevent 3rd parties (Mickey, fans, the CIA) from being kept up to speed with a broad overview of how things were progressing. And clearly once there was an outcome, fans would know one way or another what that outcome was.

And don't worry Lumps, an NDA's not like a WMD  :D

English please mush !

So if the NDA is standard business practice, I'm no businessman, so pardon my ignorance why don't the Board want to sign one?

ehem

exposure ????

   I must be being thick here, because I thought a non disclosure agreement would prevent exposure.

   If, as increasingly seems to be the case, its suspected that Newbury has something to hide.....is it possible to get legal advice from Supporters Direct, as to what might be done to shed some light on matters?

yes

 Whoosh.....yes what? I'm being thick.

so why wouldnt anyone sign it ?

  Fred, you've completely lost me  :tea:  maybe time for beer.

God same here mate

Shhhh, the eagle flies at dawn.

I think what Fred was aiming at is this:

If the club had to enter into an NDA with potential investors then they would have to "bare all". Which might not be...shall we say...a credit to those currently running the club. It doesn't take much imagination to see a lot of skeletons actually flinging themselves forcibly out of the wardrobes once the doors have been opened.

So it is more in their interest to talk up the co-operation but to do nothing. As to whether SSW is aware of all this time bomb stuff is another question.

I will be watching the Adver's coverage of this tomorrow with interest.  Let's keep asking the right questions.  Diamandis must be squirming right now, and he'll have to face the music sooner or later.

I still think someone who can get on the bank should stick a 'DIAMANDI'S OUT' flag up to show us what we think of this Cunt, or better still get a huge one to go across the fans in the TE.

And that is really going to help matters. The club have openly said come and buy us out if you have the money, I think putting flags etc out slating Diamandis is hardly going to help matters.

So have 'the club' whoever that is, actually refused to sign an NDA?

Or are we going off on one on the possibility that they might not?

 I thought the eagle flies with the dove

 And if you can't be with the one you love

 Love the one you're with

Is Diamandi out then?

Isnt he the one who is blocking the financial takeover then?

The original poster is attempting negotiations with the club, directly, so I'd be inclined to think they were telling it as it is rather than be a 3rd hand rumour creator.

Beeb Swindon were reporting this morning that the fans' consortium are ready to enter into negotiations with the club on a possible takeover and that they have sufficient funding to cover all known liabilities including the CVA and Bill Power's £1.2M.

This was followed by an unbelievable phone-in exchange between Mike Wilks and Martyn Smarmes over proof of funding.

The club couldn't try harder to make it any more difficult for the consortium to get involved.

Wankers.

What was most astonishing was the blatant way they keep moving the goalposts - in any other business transaction, the bona fides presented to SSW would be accepted as sufficient to progress to more detailed negotiations. Especially if you're a business that has admitted it doesn't have the money to meet a CVA payment that will put the club under in just over 6 months, being approached by a group of people who can cover not just that debt but all the other liabilities the club has, and take the club forward. Something this board is palably incapable of.

The Fans Consortium has met all the criteria the board and SSW set down back in September (sufficient funds, interests of the club at heart, ability to take club forward) and now they're moving the goalposts again - it's almost as if they don't want to hand over to people who could run the club properly.  Starnes seemed to be pulling out all the stops to prevent due dlilgence taking place - that's the bit where the bidding party gets to see the books. Makes you wonder what they're worried about people finding out.

If the consortium have met the conditions laid down by the board, it's time for the powers that be to step aside!

Demo time???

Trouble is I don't think they're under any legal obligation to sell unless they want to ...

Yeah I appreciate that mate, but they publically stated that if certain conditions were met they'd go, now Paul D is saying they have met those conditions and now the board have changed the criteria.

Yeah, I know ... I'm on your side :)  I'm just saying if they changed their minds for whatever reason we can't force them to sell just because they said they would.

Other thing I thought ... if they're worried about stuff getting out from due dillegence ... I thought the process was supposed to be confidential? Surely whatever they see in the books they can't talk about outside the club anyway ...

So if the consortium gained control, how would it work?  Is all the money being put through the trust so the trust would control the shares or would the individuals who had invested have control of their own stake?  How would it be decided who got a seat on the board.

I'm assuming from what has been said so far that there are not sufficient funds in place for a full takeover

Sorry Paul, I don't think it's astonishing at all.

In fact I predict the next move will be for a club line of 'agree with takeover in principle...but only if all the loans SSW has made to the club are repaid in full' followed by a random figure of £10M.

If this happens I can kind of see why someone would like to get a return on their investment. But it's unrealistic unless a redevelopment happens. And that is a massive gamble, tyring to keep a club going on peanuts just in case it goes ahead.

Personally (and I am as far removed from the club as can be) I don't know if there is anything to hide other than questionable competence in running the club. I'd like to think not. But given the panic measure of a share reissue to cover the CVA I can't see what they have to lose by starting negotiations.

IF the Trust Consortium do have the best interests of the club etc at heart then surely they would be prepared to negotiate with whoever the principal shareholder wishes to act on his behalf?

If Mike D is someone that SSW wishes to act on his behalf then it is his call surely?

I know many people do not trust/like him or necessarily believe he should be involved, but at the end of the day how can it be for the Trust to say who SSW can talk to and make use of, and who he can't?

I am sorry, but to me, no matter how you cut it, if someone ever says to me that: -

"We had the money to take over the club but we decided not to because we didn't like someone and wouldn't talk to him"

Then as far as I am concerned they certainly do not represent true fans, and indeed seem remarkably childish in their approach.  If they want support then they have to be seen to be rising above such pettiness.

As for the necessary paperwork discussed in the interview/disagreement on the radio this morning, is it really so difficult to provide something that the Bank would be happy with?  If it is then how flaky must the prospective deal be?

How do you mean? There's a majority shareholder of a limited public company so no matter how much money they have, if SSW doesn't want to sell, he doesn't have to.

There's no way you can, like Man Utd, trigger a full takeover with a certain amount of shares because we're not on the stock market.

I meant that I interpreted from the comments that there was enough in place to fund all existing commitments but not enough to buy out SSW in full.

Although no-one actually knows how much he actually wants back, its probablly safe to assume its more than "enough to cover the existing commitments" as that wont invlove SSW getting any money back.

Valid points which I will answer:

The investors will not negotiate with an individual who is at the same time both seeking to sell the company as well as being a major creditor and supplier to the club.  In additon he  is also acting as its shadow controller; these facts may call into question the clubs Football League registration thereby making any investment worthless.

The investors are rightly concerned that any deal which was agreed may at a future stage be deemed legally invalid.

The investors via the consortium will negotiate with any recognised professional advisor nominated by the majortity shareholder.

This is not a matter of personal opinion but of legal advice.

The financial bona fides provided are of a standard type offerd by the Head of Personal Banking for Lloyds Bank London and indicate clearly that the individuals concerned are of financial good standing and would be able to support any deal concluded with the company.

The paperwork was from a bank - the Bank are quite happy the funding is in place, that's not the issue, it's just the usual BS and smokescreen. What's the weather like in Newbury?

Would you remove Dunwoody from the club arthur?

Any new owner would review all business arrangements and supplier profiles to ensure that they offer the best possible value to the company.

This process would be concluded swiftly and without prejudice to the parties concerned.  I trust this answers your question.

i can assure you maverick is nothing to do with newbury!

I presume as always pauld that when someone questions anything you automatically assume they are one of the "Newbury" clan.  It is exactly that attitude that stops some of us long term fans from signing up to the Trust.

I sincerely and genuinely hope that fresh investment can be found to protect the long term future of the club and also to ease the dependence on SSW who surely by now has done well beyond what should reasonably be expected of him.

I also hope that it is investment that can be obtained without so much public, unhelpful and destabilising comments.

Thanks for the "validation" Sonic!!

I'm sure the club will  learn from their mistakes eventually ;)

Maverick, fair dos and apologies. Consider my head well and truly pulled in.

I just listened to the interview with Mike Wilks and ceo Mr Starnes this morning. Well, what a load of rubbish Starnes came out with.

And once again, stripping away the shit about proof of funds being evident, Mike Diamandis seems to be the problem as the club now wont do a deal without him leading it and Wilks lot don't want him involved due to a conflict of interest as he is a major creditor and supplier (not to mention possible other areas of concern which he probably couldn't say on-air)

So the club openly admit that they would welcome fans taking over if they had enough money. They now want to do so and have the funds in place (well done by the way Mike, that's a monumental achievement worthy of a lifetime stfc award on its own!), verified by Lloyds Bank.

They will only do a deal though if Diamandis leads their side.  How childish and commercially unprofessional is that? I think the club, Wills family and Diamandis himself take themselves a bit too seriously.

Unbelievable. Fucking unbelievable to hear the top man of our football club uttering such bollocks as that on the radio today.

I feel that the ante will have to be seriously upped now to rid the football of Diamandis once and for all.  Now we are certain that there IS an alternative to this shower, we all need to get behind the fans consortium. Wilkes said he's backing Sturrock as well, so what do we have to lose now? They've already admitted that they don't have the money to pay the CVA next year, so why are we letting them strangle the club till the inevitable happens when the debt is called in?

I'm going to stretch my flexitime to the limit today, take the rest of the day off and look for some inspirational protest ideas. We can't just sit watching this lot fucking our club up the arse.

are the consortium refusing to negotiate with diamandis?

if so, is that not rather counterproductive because we'll never get anywhere otherwise?

just how much money do the consortium have behind them?

will the "mystery backer" be able to support the club in the long term if the team is unsuccessful on the pitch and there is no ground redevelopment?

why exactly is starmes insisting that the paperwork provided to prove the investment is rubbish, i don't understand this sort of thing :)

Sonic, above Mike Wilks answers why legally they are advised not to conduct negotiations with him.

gotcha. i missed that  :o

I agree with the questions Sonic poses, and as for Mike D's involvement, I see no problem with it as long as he is not signing anything on behalf of anyone.  Surely SSW can take advice from who he chooses?

He can and that option remains open to him - he could for example ask Mike D for his advice after a discussion or even by telephone during a "comfort break" if he really needs to rely on him to that extent. But it would be foolish of the Consortium to ignore the legal advice they've been given.

It would be interesting to understand the basis of that legal advice.  If all he is doing is leading negotiations and not signing anything then surely SSW and the deal itself are in no legal danger.  Just as SSW could have chosen to have someone from the Inland Revenue or Swindon Borough Council involved to give him advice or even lead negotiations?

Surely the legal difficulties arise once he starts to actually make or authorise any decisions?

I fully agree that who James Wills takes advice from is his prerogative but given circumstances you cannot expect anyone to negotiate with Mike D.

Putting prejudices to one side for a moment under no circumstances would it ever be rational to negotiate with a creditor and supplier of the same company you are trying to acquire.  With the greatest respect if you came into this scenario without any previous knowledge of circumstances and affairs the first question you would ask of Mr Diamandis is who are you and what is your official connection to the club?

You’d run a mile.

That’s before you start delving into the gentleman’s history and hear rumours of ongoing DTI invstigations.

The club have via a public statement made on the official website stated that Diamandis authorises all contractural arrangements at the football club, this whilst a major creditor and supplier.  The investors have taken note of this information and have furthermore received corroborated confidential information which deems him unfit currently to be involved in the sale of a Football League Club.

Authorises (ie says yes that is ok) or actually signs?  This may sound picky but there is a huge difference between someone who says "yes this is ok" and someone who actually takes responsibility and signs on behalf of the club.

I still struggle to see any legal difficulty with his involvement as long as he does not sign things.

Any creditor or supplier is perfectly at liberty to advise or suggest all they like - it is up to the company and/or majority shareholding to decide whether or not to listen.

http://www.truststfc.co.uk/pr_30_11_2006.php

trust press release

Interesting stuff PM.  We await the "please stop saying things in public otherwise we will open fire on the home supporters at the Morecambe match" reply from The Wills Family (and adviser)

Maverick, are your views on the consortium legal advice no to deal with Mr D from a personal or professional point of view?

I'm not trying to confrontational here, just curious.

indeed. I can feel another "statementfest" (copyright someone on here) coming on very soon.

The words "cat amongst the pigeons" spring to mind! :mrgreen:

Purely a personal curiosity Batch .. I am no legal professional.

If you were in the Consortiums position, would you deal with a person who has a massive conflict of interest, a former banned company director, who apparently the DTI are looking into in breaking that banning order, who has been involved in a number of companies which have gone into administration and have had legal advice from very expensive lawyers saying that 'Do not deal with this guy'.

I know I wouldn't in their position.

It'll be interesting what the Adver comes out with tomorrow. If they had any sense, they would go for the juggular. The fact is, the Consortium in two months, have come up with what they asked and more, and in the process, got more funds than Diamandis has bought into the club in his tenure.

The board are digging themselves a big hole, and in the meantime Mr Diamandis, goes further and further into the shadows.

For the record Diamandis has no "tenure" officially .. he is an advisor as I understand it, chosen by the major shareholder.

I personally have no idea specifically how much money has come into the club in recent years because currently not all of the accounts are published.

I certainly do not know how much money the consortium have 100% secured and I doubt that will be public knowledge anytime soon either!

I have no idea what their future business plan looks like either.

I certainly do not try to claim things as "facts" if they are not.

If I want to invest in or buy something and I am serious about it, then I recognise that I have to discuss this with whoever the seller wants me to .. or there is no deal.

Like or loathe the Board - this is their show and people will have to do it by their rules or lose out.

Surely though the argument can easily be turned around.

The club can not pay it's debts on the terms agreed under the current CVA, if they want people to invest then they will have to meet the investors wishes or the club will lose out.

Bit of a deadlock so I fully expect both sides to play this one out through the media, which could be messy and is unfortunate.

Paul D  on the TV yay!!!

I think despite the general air of cobblers coming out the club, Starnes did raise one good point that it isn't a fans buyout it's a 'mysterious' buyer.  It's a shame that it wasn't fully articulated that the 'fans consortium' was a notional consortium backed by members of the trust at a meeting, not the typical collection buckets type of funding.

It can be turned around Batch, but the fact remains that it is for the Board to decide to do so.

I think they know the risks as some of them stand to lose a few quid of personal investment if the club goes under!!

it was an open meeting to anyone....so it wasnt just members of the trust

Even Better DV, just a shame it wasn't put across the same.  It'd be interesting to see whether the club would ever go so far as to ban any local media if they had the temerity to actually ask the pertinent questions?

I've avioded this forum for the past few days, because i dislike negative comments.

I was never one to judge Diamandis, as i had no opinion of him and his dealings. I felt that he would not have been appointed as an adviser to the money man without SSW trusting him.

Well i must say, having read this thread today, i'm very pleased. :D I'm now alot more distrusting of Diamandis and his involvement and no longer stand neutral or behind the current board. I'm an out and out turncoat.

I now couldn't give 2 shits about the current board and their dealings, to a degree, as there is a potentially large positive around the corner; a light at the end of the tunnel.

Well done to Paul, Mike Wilks and everyone else involved in what they have done. I appreciate there is a very long way to go and the grass isn't always greener, but i do feel positive about this.

I don't mean to sound sceptical or imply any dislike of the potential new regime here, as i believe the consortium will be a good thing, but i can't help but remember Willy Carson's comments of our current "consortium".

"We have more money than you can shake a stick at"

Now, they felt they understood the debts, much like the new consortium, but i have a horrible feeling that there are much greater debts and servicing costs than Mike Wilks et al are aware of. Afterall, the same happened to old willy.

Do not take this the wrong way, i'm behind this 100% and feel much more confidence going forward.

Regarding my thoughts on huge hidden debts, does the new consortium fear this potential banana skin rearing it's head once they take over and fully see the magnitude of the clubs debt?

On a contrary note, is it possible that the club don't want to pass controlling shares to a new party, when they can see that the money the new consortium have is not enough? Afterall they don't want to open the books and appear to shun any talk of someone else controlling the club, could this be the reason?

Anyway, not meaning to detract from the positive and constructive work the trust is undertaking, i'm behind you. Bring the noise.

Bang! And the board is gone... :shock:

There really shouldn't be any hidden debts as these were wiped off at the last CVA.

    Of course the sums payable to SSW for his loans and shares are something to negotiate.....and this could easily be a stumbling block.  Nevertheless I'm sure an increase in pressure from the fans, might persuade The Wills to cut their loses and run.

i don't understand this though. first the Wills family and Co say they will sell up to anyone who proves they have the money. and now they say they don't want to negotiate. strange that. i wonder who the "mysterious buyer" is?

Bill Power

that did spring to mind i have to admit. its funny how the board don't want to negotiate. as far as im concerned he is the only person i can think of who they wouldn't want to negotiate with. could be wrong though. but its also quite interesting to see that its only taken 2 months to find a major backer. if it was someone new it would probably take longer

Us fans need to force this board out, we all want them out and if they block this move from the consortium then we need to do something about it!!

Massive protests after every game, loads of emails sent to the board, bombard them with phone calls, put stuff in the adver and on here and get BBC Radio Wiltshire to put stuff out, we need to do everything that we possibly can.

This board cannot stay in control until June otherwise we are going to go bust!!

If us fans really want to we can force these idiots out so let's do it, let's get them out of town before it's too late, let's save our club!!!!

If I want to invest in or buy something and I am serious about it, then I recognise that I have to discuss this with whoever the seller wants me to .. or there is no deal.

That's bollocks Mav. If you're running a business that is losing 'more money that you can shake a stick at' and you can't or don't want to go on funding the losses anymore, you deal with anyone who is offerening you an escape route. The alternative for anyone dumb enough to think differently is going to be insolvency.

Like or loathe the Board - this is their show and people will have to do it by their rules or lose out.[/quote]

Bollocks again. Liking or loathing the board has nothing to do with things. Also, it is not 'their show'.  From what has been said so far, I don't think the Wills family have any cash left to keep on funding it so will either have to sell it soon, or be forever dammned by the whole town for taking the club out in a fit of spite. Only the Wills family can make that decision. I suspect they wont be needing the advice of Diamandis when they reach which way they want to go. Simple really.

Keep up the good work Mike Wilks and the trust lads 8)

I'm sure SSW will want enough cash to pay off the mortgages he has over most of his property.

This month we have possibly two of the biggest games of the season at home.if anything is going to be done demo wise surely these are the games it has to be done at

How on earth is a protest at two of our biggest games actually going to help the morale of the players on the pitch? Particularly in games that we desperately need to do well in.  Ask the players whether it affects them, and I think you will find that certainly for some of them it does.

I'd agree with you there Maverick. Any vocal protest, if there is to be one, should be before or after the game - while the players are on the pitch, the only thing any of us should be shouting about is cheering the lads on for a win.

Sorry delta, but for me if I was looking to sell my business and it was in dire straits, then I would definitely be taking advice as well.  Otherwise the risk is I am going to be the proverbial "lamb to the slaughter".  I would insist on having my own trusted advisor there, and if the potential purchaser won't talk to him/her, then it would immediately arouse my suspicions regarding their interest.

If the consortium really want this to happen (and I hope they do, and I hope they can inject some much needed investment), then how does involving Mike D in those conversations cause a problem?  As far as I am aware there is nothing illegal about talking to someone unless there is a personal injunction in force.

I would presume the following would be good grounds not to talk to someone:

Not employed by the organisation (although not essential)
A current supplier to the company
A current creditor of the company
A previously disqualified Director
A person who is subject to a current DTI investigation

How could you ever be in a position where you are speaking to a creditor and supplier of a company about it's purchase.  How can he not be coming into the talks without having a conflict of interest?  As such I would guess there would be serious legal concerns about the validity of such negotiations even if SSW ultimately signs the paperwork.  You only have to look at the issue of endowment mortgages to see how legal issues surrounding advice are very possible.  To many potential issues could arise further down the line and does he even have the necessary insurance to protect against providing negligent advice on financial matters at such value?

Very few if any people have called for vocal portests.  So far the only real move has been for a visual display of a colour to show dissastifaction.

Given the past few months, I'm still suprised nothing has happened and I think it does go to show just how delicately fans have decided to play this on matchdays.

Maverick it's quite simple - if you have had legal advice from a very heavyweight and extremely expensive team of legal advisers that it would be wrong to negotiate with a discredited individual on four or five grounds that have been extensively outlined in this thread, you would be exceptionally foolish to ignore that advice wouldn't you?

And if the board are serious about seeking new investment, why the childish obstruction tactics?

Thanks pauld - I always struggle with how people should express their opinions about off the pitch matters for two reasons: -

1/ How can it be done without in some way affecting the players.

2/ With the way that any club is run, how does anybody sort out the truth from the rumours and lies?  The problem being that the media then jump on whatever is said, and if it is not completely correct then it leaves the door open for the whole protest to lose all credibility.

All the media want is a story - all of us at each others throats is what they love to see as it gives them that story.

I am not saying I have any answers - I wish it was that easy!

Rob the issue of endowment mortgages is very different.  People are entitled to compensation because they invested their money in what their advisor told them to so the advisors had to pay up.  IF SSW wishes to take Mike D's advice then it is between the two of them and at a later date it would be for SSW to take legal action against Mike D and nobody else.

As for the good grounds ... I would suggest that what you have laid out are the reasons that you or presumably the consortium would not wish to seek advice from Mike D.  Clearly SSW thinks differently and that is his prerogative.

Rob - if every fan wore orange or whatever colour - do you think the board would see it but the players wouldn't?

Sorry, but for me those 90 minutes (plus stoppages!!) are sacred - it is about the match - after all it is the reason I started supporting STFC, I certainly didn't start supporting them because of what does or doesn't happen off the pitch!!

I'm not sure the players would be paying too much attention to my attire.  They are more likely to be aware of my voice.

I used endowments as a way of showing how advice can often lead to many ongoing issues.  it's a mess, regardless of who it would effect, that is well worth avoiding in the first place.

You claim that off the field stuff affects the players, well an ongoing legal wrangle after the club is taken over being played out in the media would by your standards cause trouble on the pitch.

Not negotiating with a supplier of the company seems fairly sensible practise if you ask me.

In all fairness rob he has a point - at the end of the day we should be there to support the team rather than focusing so much on the board issues.

If the trust is serious in its attempts to curtail this downward spiral of events then that can be done off the pitch and away from match days so as not to interupt the players and management that are still working towards the same goals we are!

I hereby take back my original agreement to wear orange and will be there with my town shirt on as per usual and as it should be. Board room talk and protests should be made with the board - who by all accounts will not, in their main, even be at the game!

Not at all Rob - if the wrangle is between a previous owner and his advisor then it would have no impact on anyone at the club - it becomes their problem.

As I said before with regard to the status of the advisor - if that is who SSW wants to advise him, what on earth could the consortium have to fear?  You or I may feel that would be flawed or biased advice but that would merely be our opinion just as he clearly has his.  People should respect that and not try to tell him who he should and shouldn't listen to.

We all have opinions and bias, however if we took into account everyone else's prejudices and involvements then nobody would ever discuss or negotiate about anything.

It seems clear to me that SSW wants him to be involved, so it seems equally clear that it is unlikely this whole consortium initiative will get any further unless people accept that and work with it.

People chose to make this issue public - they have to live with the consequences of that - i.e. it becomes much more difficult for people to compromise.

Simple question -

If SSW insists on having Mike D involved is the whole Consortium initiative dead in the water?  If so, was it really worth pursuing anyway?

No and yes in that order.

Simple answer - yes, if we want a football club to support next season.  :roll:

good news pauld - so Mike D's involvement is no longer an issue?

Maverick, I'm not interested in playing 6th form debating society chop logic. The reasons why the investors do not wish to negotiate with Mike D's involvement are clear and comprehensible; the reasons why anyone would wish for him to continue to be involved with our football club substantially less so. Clearly you either don't get the point or don't wish to - now can we leave this particular horse dead? If nothing else, I've got to get to work!  :D

i'd rather not drag the club through another year just for whoever takes over to fuck it up even more than the current board!

I dont think the consortium would do that mind, but the point Maverick makes is valid in that IF the consortium cant proceed because they dont LIKE the representative they must discuss with, then what change of success do we have under their control in the future if this is such a big probelm to them.

Regardless I dont believe it will be the stumbling block myself, I just think it may have been frustrating considering the knowledge of the recent fuck ups in the past with MD

Probably a good reasons NOT to have demos at these games!

Well not liking MD aside the consortium have said they have legal advice not to involve MD in any discussions.

Unless this is incorrect legal advice there does not seem to be much of a point discussing it ad-infinitum.

pauld - sorry but that sort of response from anyone associated with the current board would (quite rightly) probably have brought howls of protest from Consortium/Trust representatives!

Just because you need to get to work, and myself (and it seems some others) are still failing to fully understand what is a very important issue, hardly seems to deserve the response: -

    "The reasons why the investors do not wish to negotiate with Mike D's
      involvement are clear and comprehensible; the reasons why anyone
      would wish for him to continue to be involved with our football club
      substantially less so. Clearly you either don't get the point or don't
      wish to - now can we leave this particular horse dead?"

I will try the question again .....

If SSW insists on having Mike D involved is the whole Consortium initiative dead in the water?

Oh and Batch, we have been told that it is their legal advice, but we have yet to understand the basis of that advice.  If as claimed it was top and expensive advice, should that not be passed on to Trust memebrs at the very least as presumably it is their funds which have helped pay for this advice?  As I keep asking, what is the problem with talking to anyone if it helps to move things forward?

Because the guy is a crook, has been banned from being involved in the running of companies, and is under investigation by the department of trade and industry! Fairly good reason for him not to be involved at all!!!

Maverick you seem like a bright chap, so I dont get what it is that you dont understand about the Diamandis situation. You keep asking that same quastions and as far as I'm concerned they have all been answered at various points throughout this thread.

And yet SSW still wants his advice which has to be his call.  As far as I know he has no legal power to make any decisions or sign any documents, just to talk.  All I am asking is how is that illegal?  What law does it contravene?

I really hope 99% (or more) of our supporters DO NOT go down the protest route.  The last thing we need to do is sing anti board songs, calling for their heads etc.  It's important that we as fans stay focussed on the team, during a massive month on the pitch for us.

Which is why if you wear a simple symbol of support (or it could be seen as a symbol of a lock of faith in the current set up) it will allow you to continue to support the lads 110%.

Maverick - have a look at this, then I'll think you'll understand why people don't trust Mike D http://www.ukdata.com/creditreports/viewDirectorDetails.do?directorId=2525231

Oh and Batch, we have been told that it is their legal advice, but we have yet to understand the basis of that advice.  If as claimed it was top and expensive advice, should that not be passed on to Trust memebrs at the very least as presumably it is their funds which have helped pay for this advice?  As I keep asking, what is the problem with talking to anyone if it helps to move things forward?[/quote]

Maverick your just not taking anything on board you just keep repeating the same things.  Listen to whats being said they have legally been advised not to enter negotiations with him present.  The reason behind it all would be a conflict of interests as in he is a company supplier and creditor and would then be able to view the new consortiums financial backing and be able to use it to his advantage i.e bigger contract for programmes, or calling in own 'supposed loans' so surely you can understand the logic in him not being present at these meetings.  The main issue Maverick is our board have been so willing to say so happily all year that they would now like to step aside and sell the club but now the option to finally do it has arose they are not being very co-operative Sir Seton and James Wills are perfectly capable of holding negotiations but wont enter discussions, something to hide perhaps.....I will let you make your mind up.

Piemonte - I don't know about the "bright chap" bit, I think I must be being pretty thick here judging by people's responses!

I desperately want the consortium and the board to be able to sit down and discuss whatever offer may or may not be in the offing.  It has to be in everyone's best interests.

I fully understand the fact that Consortium legal advice says don't involve Mike D (and I fully appreciate his track record and the fact that many people don't like/trust him) - but then legal advice is usually geared towards those paying the bill for it.  

I would not advise you to employ a cowboy builder - there is nothing illegal about it - but if I was your solicitor I would advise you most strongly against it.

The question remains - What is illegal about involving Mike D in the process as a personal advisor to SSW?

No one said it was illegal mate.

Legal advice was taken to ensure the viability of the negotiations and also to safeguard the Consortiums position thoughout the negotiations

Simple really

If you were going to invest a shit load of cash, I am sure you would take proffessional advice before doing so.

The crux of the issue is .............................. would you then ignore that advice ?

 :roll:

I think the above post may help to answer your question Maverick, conflict of interest.

I understand your points though Maverick and it is nice to hear someone challenge what many fans will accept on face value.

If there truely is a conflict of interest then I too dont believe he should be dealt with, but if his involvement is purely advice to SSW, then surely as long as he is not involved in the debate over the agreement then his input is no more conflicting of interest than if one of the tea girls from the ground was given the chance to advise SSW.

The key is that if he does have a conflict of interests then his involvement should only be allowed as a third party advisor and not a voice representing SSW in negotiations from what I make of it

Maverick its a conflict of interests which is illegal

SSW can ask his advice as much as he wants, but anyone taking over theclub shouldnt be dealing with the guy

Mr Wilks said their advice was a deal could be invalidated through the involvement of Mr Diamandis in negotiations. If you take that as true only an idot would invest £££ into a club. That is the problem.

If you are doubting the credibility and accuracy of the legal advice, or are unsure of context, or think it's all made up then that's your bsuiness.  I suggest you formulate a list of questions to ask Mr Wilks because we don't know any more than is said on here.

But they wont be investing anything if they dont speak to MD will they?

Its a pointless stand off Mavericks right, actual money wont change hands without LEGAL contracts anyway personally I think this is just posturing.

Sharkey it is impossible to understand how he could have an advisory role to SSW without knowing all the facts about the consortium and there offer which then due to his role as both a supplier and creditor it will then become a conflict of interests, to put it as an example can you imagine you worked as a supplier to a company and then suddenly you were given an idea of all there finances the ins and outs this would then put you in a strong position when re-negotiation any new contract with them, its simple Mike Diamandis cant be involved!!

As far as I'm aware, there is nothing illeagal about it, its just not a very good idea for various reasons that have been stated.

As you have stated it is ulimately up to SSW to decide who he wants to advise him but there seems to be an element of "cutting of his nose to spite his face" in that without investment SSW will end up footing the bill for the £1m CVA debt or the club will go bust and he will have to write off the £10 or so he has loaned the club.

For a football club with little cash and a serious finacial problem looming you'd have thought that the existing owners would be keen to listen to anyone, bearing in mind this isnt just anyone, its a consortium headed by a group of loyal supporters.

well thats bollocks.

I support the consortium but this whole process stinks of "spin" to me.

The way I see it Wills has lent Diamandis his football if Wilks and co want to play with it they are going to have to speak to him.

They should sort it out in the ring.

OK thanks for all of that everyone

To my simple mind I think I need to firstly get a better undertsanding of at what stage things lgeally become a "conflict of interest".

But in reality, based on what we have already been told, it is fair to assume that Mike D already knows the ins and outs of the finances at STFC as he has been an advisor to SSW for some time.  Indeed it would seem from the inferences made by Mark D that Mike D had significant influence.

So, given that information, it is, to my mind, not a great leap to the conclusion that any potential deal will necessitate some sort of verbal "rubber stamp" from Mike D to SSW before it is finalised.

Without him actually being present in the room, I can just see how protracted this could all become ... something along the lines of ...

"So what was said in the meeting?"
"What did they mean when they said?"
"Did anyone suggest an alternative?"
"Would it be a good idea to suggest......?"
"What was their reply?"
"Can you confirm that ... "

And so on ad infinitum.

Hmmmmm surely that cannot make sense, surely there must be a way he can be in the room?  In the end it has to be quicker.

"MICHAEL AGAPIOS DIAMANDIS Directorships Dissolved: 9 "


Nice

I keep reading that as Dictatorships Dissolved. He must be a super freedom fighter and I want him involved in the club.

But the fact he knows the current situation isn't the conflict, it's the fact that he will be privvy to the financial in's and out's of the takeover group and as a creditor/supplier will have privilaged information that a supplier/creditor would not normally have during the negotiations - this is the conflict.

It's a bit like you entering negotiations to buy double glazing and the salesman who supplies the door handles asking you how much you've got in your bank account before he sets the price.

Ahhh that makes it a bit clearer than all this other waffle.But still no money will change hands without a contract so surely that can be covered by a legal contract.

Spot on, good post that was exactly what I was trying to say but you simplified it alot better  :toppost:

I'm good at analogies Yeovil :mrgreen:

It's a shame I only got here after 11 pages... Anybody want a good analogist?

You study peoples anus's?? :shock:

Nope, but I'm full of shit

A really good analogy triseros and it does indeed explain things well. Thanks.

However it seems that although there could be construed to be a conflict of interest, there will be no further progress without his involvement.

It's not construing anything Maverick, there is a conflict of interest.

He has a an interest in things involved with STFC.These things are outside of STFC's control, yet have some degree of control, wanted or otherwise, over STFC. He can affect his own finances by being involved in a deal he has no right to be party to. He can construe anything he wishes to in being a middle man. He can manipulate the deal and control the deal to a degree which is better for him than it is for the club or it's directors. End of.

In many respects if he is involved nothing can be done till the contracts are signed, so to speak. If either party is unhappy with any part of any contract, nothing is signed.

The fact is, i suspect the trust wil allow him to the table, provided he signs an NDA. This though, as previously stated is against legal advice.

Yep ok Barry ... but that interest has been declared (if only by virtue of all the publicity!).  

So all parties are aware of it and need to take it into account in any discussions.  

If SSW gets ripped off in the deal at the expense of Mike D then that is between the two of them.  The consortium just need to ensure that their legal team do a thorough job and also put the necessary caveats into any ensuing contract.

The way I see it and I'm trying to to remain as unbiased as I can given my pathological hatred of the board, is that the Consortium have been advised not to persue negotations with Diamandis for legal reasons.

REGARDLESS of those legal reasons, it would be foolish to ignore them and continue blindly into negotiations which could later become null and void due to supposed pending DTI investigations etc.

The only way around this that I can think of is by using a mediator, someone to act as a go-between and a buffer between the board (i.e. Diamandis) and the consortium (i.e. Wilks).

No idea who that would be, the first person that came to mind was Cliff Puffett.

Couldn't agree more Sonic - great idea ...... but!!

It seems that at this stage if the prospective deal is to get anywhere people have to accept that either discussions take place with him in the room .. or they walk away .. at least that is what the official statement seems to say.

Perhaps the first thing would be for a meeting to take place between all sides WITH Mike D in the room, and for that legal advice to be presented to STFC legal advisors .. with a view to agreeing a way forward from there?

Tortuous I know, but to overcome this hurdle then it seems the law needs to be agreed on.

Sounds like a good idea, no official discussions or negotiations will take place but at least the club and the consortium will be able to discuss the reasons why they've been advised not to persue negotiations with Diamandis acting as adviser, without it being played out in public and no details being disclosed.

Whilst it would be foolish to go against the legal advice, it would be equally foolish to completely refuse to negotiate - meet each other halfway or something.

We all want progress.

See .. left to us sonic we can conquer the world!! .. if only the bastards would listen!!!

 :beers:  :soapy tit wank:

I'd like to see Diamandis say that he doesn't want to be involved. That would be a treat.

 :D Sonic and Maverick for Chairmen, erm, Chairpersons, erm, Chairpeople, erm, oh bollocks!

Maverick, has the news of Bill Power getting involved in the consortium in any way changed your views of things ? I realise that the club would still need proof of finances, etc, etc.

It would be an interesting guage of how this news is met by someone not so convinced a change of ownership is the nest thing for the club.

And I quote you:

:D  :D
but in all fairness i suppose what lumps said is all in hindsight now is,nt it.i admit when i was in a bad mood the other week i said i doubted markd but then with all the shit in the press lately its hard to know who to believe,i hold my hands up and admit i was wrong and will trust better peoples judgement in future

plus it is a stronger man who says sorry(sorry markd)