Thetownend.com

I can't listen to it any longer !

No matter what happens at the club, the reaction of a substantial proportion of you is to go off on one about Diamandis, Dunwoody, Sandy Gray etc., regardless of whether you have a shred of information about what actually happened.

This CVA payment thing is a case in point.

IT WAS MISSED IN JUNE! JUNE!

(I also seem to remember that the clubs VAT payment was missed around the same time. Something you also all went mad about a few months ago and threw around all sorts of allegations)

But importantly both these oversights seem to have happpened BEFOREthe plane crash, When Mark D was still supposed to be running the clubs day to day operations.

So how is that Mike Diamandis' fault exactly? How is it not the responsibility of the clubs CE?

I'm finding it a bit embarassing to look through this forum, seeing on the same day as the question about the CVA first being posted by Arthur Horsfield, another thread being posted where Fred E and a bunch of others just lick Mark D's arse for a couple of hours, and no-one seems to think, hey hold on, weren't you supposed to be in charge when all this was being fucked up?

shut up.

if we took a vote everyone would blame diamandis and not mark d.

it's a democracy here and it means you're wrong sonny

go elsewhere then.

regardless of who was supposed to make the cva payment it doesn't alter the fact that the board lied to the shareholders at the agm then to representatives of supporters groups in a meeting.

there were countless board meetings between the date the cva payment was due and the accident which led to power's departure - why was this not sorted then? the funds were in place and the board as a whole are surely responsible for making the cva payment and not an individual?

iirc the vat payment was well over a year ago.

I think its fair to raise questions, but unfortunately in the absence of substantial evidence, which is the Boards own doing, by not releasing up to date accounts, and obfusticating the facts at AGM's etc......then people will speculate as to what is really going on.

   The only way that Newbury could claw back any credibility would be to take an elected Trust representative onto the Board......it could be simply done and lance the boil that will otherwise fester until Dunwoody is gone.

  If they don't, then the question.....why not, will be raised.

Well, either Arthur H is right and it was overlooked. People thought it had been paid and hadn't checked, or had just forgotten about it.

or

Paul D is right in his response to my post in the "consortium news" thread, and he club chose not to pay the thing as a part of the renegotiation of the debt.

In which case there's no problem is there and you're all making a big fuss about nothing

Fuck of. Democracy elected Bush, Blair and Hitler. You can't trust people to be right about things all the time. Especially when they don't have any information to base there judgement on.

You can chose to like one person you've never met over another person you've never met if you like (just because that's the consensus of opinion on an internet forum of a bunch of other people most of whom you've never met). But it doesn't say much about your ability to think for yourself.

And don't call me sonny you patronising cunt I'm probably twice your age.

 :fishing:

   Either way the problem is lying to an AGM.....all that was needed was to state that the truth......at a previous AGM Holt had stated that without a new ground they had no plan to pay the 900K....which was the truth.   All that was  needed was a statement that because of that, discussions were in hand to restructure the repayment plan including the June payment.

their*  8)

Ah but is it lying? In the first case, they would just have been making the statement without checking their facts. Stupid and incompetent, but not really lying.

The second depends on haw the question was worded. After all, all due payments have been made. The June one, having been renegotiated is not due. Unless someone directly stated "we've paid the June 2006 CVA payment" they could weasel out of it.

There's no either or - Mike and myself are saying the same thing, it's just that you seem unable or unwilling to understand it. Please see my reply on the original thread


The problem is that the Finance Director and Acting CEO chose not to pay a CVA payment due to the Revenue (the most agrressive of creditors), thereby putting the club at risk of liquidation, at a time when the club apparently had the money to pay that bill.

The problem is that they both over a period of months misled fans and shareholders about the CVA being up to date.

The problem is that we can no longer have any faith in either their management of the business or in any statements they make as to the true financial situation at the club as they have consistently misled fans and shareholders about it.

The problem is that the current regime have shown themselves incapable of working with outside investors, the council, fans etc and now do not seem willing to accept outside investment, despite the fact that by their own admission they don't have the money to meet the "pay it or go bust" CVA payment due at the end of the season and don't seem to have any idea how they're going to do so.

If you don't think any of this is a problem, you're a loon, frankly.

Yeah. I can see you've got a life.

You've missed the point....we were lied to...

Regardless of who didnt pay it. Sandy Gray and Martyn Starnes lied to us.

the board were re-elected on the basis that all was fine with the CVA payment. however this is simply not true, whether they're renegotiating or not they lied - or at the very least told a half truth - which simply adds to the mistrust surrounding the board.

it would have taken a simple statement to explain what was happening and none of this would have happened.

those, as opposed to the non-payment of the cva, are where people have taken umbrage.

unless i'm mistaken, it only takes one creditor to say "nah, fuck this" and refuse to renegotiate and we're fucked, no?

Taking the argument away from who is or isn't culpable, because for a large number of people the decision  has been made....it still leaves the question of how thw money will be raised to pay off the mill....


    Lets assume the CVA can be restructured.....and I'm no expert in this....what would it be something like a quarter of a mill over 4 years?   If the Board hope that a  rights issue underwritten by SSW, will raise funds, then presumably the LSD is in the Boardroom tea, rather than the bank account.

  How would the Trust/ Consortium approach the matter?

we're on a forum whilst not at work...

FWIW Lumps

There was no arse licking going on at all

All that was said was the we hoped that both Mark and Stan were getting better and that personally he had my full support.

If you construe that as arse licking then go ahead.

I bet you also agree with the "get well" banner being pulled down.

FFS get some decency in your life man !

It was a bit arse licky Fred :D

FIGHT!

Been there done that.....................never again !

 :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

If you mean the rights issue, then probably "with extreme caution until we've seen some detail" would probably be about right, especially as it seems to have been plucked out of mid-air in desperation on a Friday afternoon.

  I was thinking more in terms of paying the CVA.

As per my response to Moonraker on the other thread, any party wishing to negotiate with the current owners would clearly need to demonstrate that they could meet the club's existing liabilities at the very least. And then be in a position to stabilise the club and move it forward.

   Right, so Mike Wilks, says sums of money are in place, but there is now a problem with entering negotitions with the owners.

   What is the Trust position in this.....its clear that sums of money mean outside investors, and the Museum meeting mandated for this to happen...OK at this stage we don't expect to name names, but the Trust needs to act as some sort of honest broker here......if there is a serious package on the table, and Newbury were being economical with the truth again, when stating they would welcome a takeover, we fans need to know.

OK. So by your argument,  in June when this decision was made, the CE then, Mark Devlin, had no responsiblity for it. Which, as he was the Chief Executive, must mean that no executive officer of the club had any responsibility for it. Which means it was a board decision.

But now, all of a sudden, the ACTING CE and the Finance Director are to blame for the whole thing.

That's exactly the kind of illogical bollocks I'm talking about. Either the CE's responsible for this or he fucking isn't. Whether you like the bloke or you don't.

"The CE at the time it happened is innocent, the CE 6 months later did it" just makes you sound like an arse.

As for what was said to the AGM. I wasn't there, so you tell me.

If someone said "We've paid the June CVA" then they lied. If they said "We're up to date with all due CVA payments" then they didn't, as the June one, having been renegotiated, was not due.

If the AGM let them get away with an evasive answer then that's their own fault.

but we're not up to date with the cva payment as it hasn't been paid and nor has it been renegotiated yet.

either way it's a question of semantics and interpretation which is clearly going to be different depending on which side of the fence you sit.

The facts are this Lumps. Bill Power put in his first £500k in February, I believe, as the club needed finance at the time urgently. I was then asked to see if Bill would put in his second half million in July, because there were outstanding issues including the CVA. My understanding was that June's CVA installment was to be paid once BP's money was in the bank. As CEO the buck would normally stop with me, but the Finance Director was not taking her instructions from me, so frankly I can't tell you anymore about why it hasn't been paid, as, like most people, I was under the impression it had been paid until I read the websites.

 However you dress it up....if a shareholder asks the question in open meeting  are the payments up to date?  They do so  based on the facts as they've been told.....if those facts have materially altered in the interim, then shareholders should have been acquanted with them.  

  Either way shareholders are being deliberately misled, as they were over the recent VAT winding up order.....which is unacceptable practice if not illegal.

Personally I'm trying to sit on the fence rather than standing on one side of it shouting insults and hurling rocks at the people on the other side.

Particularly when one of the people on the other side is SSW who's already threatened to just fuck off and leave us to it.

As my Euromillions ticket didn't do the business for me t'other week I don't feel in a position to scream "your family and friends are crooks that are bleeding the club dry" to the man that's managed to find a few hundred grand a year to keep us going for the last fucking decade.

If the Trust has found an investor that's got a spare £5-10m to take the club on I'll be delighted. But if they have it's probably not wise to be posting stuff slagging off the people you're trying to get around a negotiating table.

FFS are you understanding impaired or something? What I said was that the FD (and Mike D) was responsible for the major financial decisions (this publicly admitted in James Wills' statement early Oct). Hence they are to blame for non-payment of the CVA.

Where blame attaches to Starnes as Acting CEO is not in the non-payment but in misleading shareholders and fans at the AGM (and before and after). And that is also where a major chunk of the blame attaches to Sandy Gray, but she must have been involved in the non-payment of the CVA as well, as Finance Director.


Your apparent inabilty to grasp two propositions at the same time or willingness to desperately seek any shred of comfort as our club is flushed down the pan rather makes you sound like one.

If this was the Bush/Blair thing you're so keen on, you'd be the one going "Well I'm sure they'll find some WMD soon".

That last sentence worries me the most  :o

if mark is telling the truth what happened to the bp's money? are you willing to take a lie detector test mark?

   All throughout this, its always been pointed out the appreciation for the efforts of the Wills family, nevertheless nothing lasts for ever and on balance, their tenure has failed to further the club.....quite the opposite in fact.  

  It is now time for a change.....of course this strategy is not without its dangers,  but  the pressure needs to be ratcheted up.....

Good point. Fact is, we're all so angry we need to approach this with our heads not hearts. We  need to get round the table with the board and make an offer, if we're in a position to do so. I wouldnt be surprised at all if the Wills' and Diamandis are too proud to hand over to the fans - as thy've publically stated their disapproval for the figureheads (so to speak), Mike and Paul.

We need to move on from criticism to a constructive move forward.

Mr B, why is a lie detector test necessary? It has been widely acknowledged and accepted (by the club in their various statements) that BP has put over £1M into the club.

i was being light hearted, it's my downfall, as is my sunny disposition.

so if billy put in £1million then where has this money gone?

Sorry, went over my head. Stop being so arse licky!

i like coats  :oops:

i love you mark, i know you have a wife and all but can we elope?

 :mrgreen:

Thanks Sonic

It'll be interesting to see if the Adver go to town tomorrow on this one or add it as a footnote of supporter anxiety...

After all, if they run the story they'll probably be denied access to the ground etc etc

I just want ot enjoy football. Had enough. Signing out...for a few days anyway.

The people being criticised, the Newbury crew, are precisely the last people we want to see around a negotiating table. The people we need to negotiate with are the Wills family - no-one has criticised them and we are on record as expressing admiration for them so often it's almost, well, "arse-lickey".

Thanks for that. Nice to get something from the horses mouth rather than the other end.

Truth is I'm sat up in Yorkshire. Unlike others on this forum I've never met you and so,  although your posts on here score you big plus points, I've got no feeling for the personalities involved in the issues at the club.

So when I see statements that completely condemn some individuals, whilst elevating others, like yourself, to positions worthy of canonisation, I can't help but think, "hold on surely there's a bit of grey somewhere in this black and white picture of the world".

Clearly there are some real problems at the club, and most of the people that post on here, like me, know very little about the details. Unfortunately that doesn't stop others slagging people off as if they actually knew them.

It means that the small group of posters that might actually know something, for me just get lost in the sea of ranting Dunwoody marketing bashers.

You're the obvious exception to this being one of the parties involved. So thanks for being prepared to comment. I hope you haven't dropped yourself in it by doing so.

I wish I could say your contribution has made me feel happier but actually it's just very depressing.

Paul D has remarked elsewhere that my contributions are based on the club running as a normal business, and they are. Because that's all have to go on other than the sea of rumour and innuendo on this site, and club statements from the official one that I take with a big pinch of salt. But the idea that a CEO isn't kept up to date with the overall financial position of the organisation, that the FD doesn't report him is just ............. well shit....... what a mess.

Thanks again for being prepared to post. Hope you're back on your feet soon.

You should have worked out by now that this "We like, trust and respect you but your friends and the people you've appointed to run your affairs are a bunch of incompetent money grubbing crooks" line isn't going down to well with the Wills's.

The Newbury/Dunwoody lot are a fact that you're going to have to take account of. SSW keeps sticking by them no matter how much you slag them off. All it does is further entrench their position when you keeping questioning the families judgement in retaining them.

Unless you're hoping Gandalf will stride into the boardroom and smack SSW on the head with a big stick and get him to see "wormtongue" Diamandis in his true colours, you'd better think of a new approach.

another interesting thread.
i think answers from the board need to be made to the questions below at least.

why have you lost faith in mark d?
where did powers money go?
where did the compensation money for wise go?
where is the increased gate money going?

there are other questions i would ask but think the 4 above are paramount!

arriba all good questions i would add 2 more though.

where did the fallon money go

where did the parkin money go

both valid questions macca.there are plenty of em in all honesty

 At the end of the day....the club belongs to the fans, the Wills family can entrench themselves as much as they want.....in the way that 40 fans protesting against King  was distasteful to them, so he was sacked, direct fans action would soon have the same effect on the board.

Well I hope you're right. But I don't see there's an easy answer here. SSW seems wedded to this bloke and seems to just get pissed off and stubborn when he's criticised.

Fallon and Parkin money was used to balance the books at the end of last season.

If I remember correctly, the Parkin money we had received plus the 300k for Fallon (which was all at once) reduced our operating loss of that season, from well alot....to not alot....or so we were told?!

Easy words. Sat up there in Yorkshire, slating us for jumping all over the likes of Diamandis and Dunwoody. Funny how you claim not to know any of the individuals involved on the one hand.......



...........then appear to have an intimate grip on the feelings of the Wills family and their chosen advisors.

Seems like you've been rumbled buddy :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Star or not, he's not really got a full grip on the whole quoting/size change embedded tags thing, has he?  :D

OK. OK. I'm new to all this tecno stuff. I did wonder what my post would look like on a diddy monitor (I use my son's 19" graphic designer monitor and it looked fine). I'll try to resist using big fonts next time. Sorry folks. :oops:

Yet again proof of the old cautionary tale that it's not how many inches you have but what you do with them .... at least that's what I like to think  :oops:

Fuck my old boots, I deliberately made reference to the size of my sons monitor to avoid someone cracking a smutty gag like that.... I obviously have a lot to learn :roll:

Bill P , if he keeps up to date , must be well impressed with his former management colleagues.

He puts in £500K because , amongst other things, the CVA is be paid , and he discovers now (presumably) that his money was used of no such thing.

I wonder if he refers to the Newbury crowd as politely as the rest of us ?

It's soul destroying that so few people are able to comprehend the whole sorry mess as 'grey' rather than a black v white opportunity to lob rocks at whoever they perceive as the other side....how many are waiting for a self-fulfilling prophecy, and an opportunity to blame someone else for killing STFC?

Much as I despair at the way STFC has been managed for what, ten years, I'm equally concerned at the Trust's capability to deliver anything better.

If the naive, provacative shite I read here really is an indication of what's to come, I'm scared.

If the serious minded proactive determination I read here really is an indication of what's to come, I'm optimistic.

shut up, you tart. you've been "Supporting" the town for what, 6 months?

 :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

:shrug:

I don't see any 'naive, provacative shite' - as you put it - being posted. More like a rake of STFC fans joining up and discussing ways of changing the shambolic way that stfc is being run by Diamandis .

Paul Sturrock and his team will only be able to do a half-decent job if the board are behind them. Does anyone seriously expect Diamandis to be around in 12 months time, off the back of the recent revelations about him and his allegedly 'dodgy' activities?

FFS, we need to take a reality check here!!!!

I admit that I only joined the Trust recently, having previously viewed them with suspicion, as we already had a supporters club who do a fantastic job raising funds for the club when they set up as a new, largely 'political' stfc party and opposed / questioned the new stfc consortium board.

I don't often change my mind about people. (Miserable bastard? Yep, that's me.) From what I'm reading though - often between the lines and from all over the STFC network that I can plug into on my travels - I'm putting my 'trust' with the Trust - and Arthur Horsefield - in the inevitable battle with the stinking, lying, shithouse club board and Diamandis.

'DING DONG' ARTHUR AND THE TRUST!

I bet Richard Dunwoody is so proud of what Mik the greek has done with his surname. Such a reputable way to conduct yourself, building strong business relationships. Such a nice man with honestly with integrity I wonder why Mik doesn't use his own name? :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Its worth mentioniong that the company no longer tdades under the name of Dunwoody Sports Marketing .

Interestingly there have been 2 seperate entities known as Dunwoody Sports Marketing Ltd -  one is now know as D421 Ltd, The other as Dunwoody design & Print Ltd

I note their accounts are overdue for D421 Ltd

Administrative inefficiency, never. Where've I seen that before.

Remember, we're wrong and they're right.

Whats the next step Paul, Mike?

And how much did company accounts say got spent on this efficient adminsitraation financial advice?

http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/mediocrity.jpg

Nice one Rob T  :soapy tit wank:

Mark D may want this link to be removed from Diamandis' website.....:

http://www.dunwoodygroup.co.uk/sports/testimonials.php

fair enough. my point remains that they have leagally changed the name of the business

see i dont understand all this shit that is going on with the club.does diamindis have alot to do with dunwoody then.is sew link to diamindis anything to do with dunwoody

can someone explain the ins and outs for me.

maybe markd could answer these for me  :wink:

just realised qpr use dunwoody aswell.just a random thing i noticed

Diamandis owns Dunwoody, he originally set up the compacy with ex-jockey Richard Dunwoody who has now pulled out. There was a story a while ago about Diamandis using the Dunwoody name without consent or something like that.

Dunwoody also provide our matchday programs, hence conflict of interest because not only does Diamandis effectively run STFC he is also a supplier to the club. Does anyone know if he/Dunwoody are a creditor in the CVA?

Delta, football is all about opinions. When I was asked to give that testimonial I genuinely felt that way. At QPR, Dunwoody's design people helped to improve the programme dramatically, so much so that it won awards a couple of years running. Having looked at Swindon's programmes over the years, I do think the current STFC programme is a decent read and well presented. (Feel free to disagree).

I think thats pretty true, our programme is a decent read for the division, many teams at this level and the division above produce pretty mediocre poorly produced programmes, whereas depite the occasional glaring error in ours they quality of the content is OK, and perhaps about the only professional thing about the club in recent years

Crikey Christy, give the trust some time! I dont see many other alternatives coming over the horizon! Do you?

Millom

Fair point, and taken on board. My intention was not to highlight the fact that you may still think that way about dunwoody :wink:

I agree with the comments today about the quality of our progs. Maybe Diamandis ought to stick to what he's good at, which is producing half-decent sports media publications.