Thetownend.com

Further to the radio interviews given by Mike Wilkes yesterday morning and the subsequent press release issued by TrustSTFC, the Wills family and Club’s Board wish to make the following statement:

 

The continued reference to a Fans Consortium appears to be misleading given that Mr Wilkes is stating he has funding available from an unnamed backer, who we understand is American and not a fan of the club. Have the Trust been informed as to the identity of the proposed backer and if so, have they satisfied themselves as to their credentials? If they have not been provided with the identity of the backer or not checked their credentials the Club would have to ask the Trust why they are endorsing a potential bid with so little information.

 

Mr Wilkes has chosen to make his proposals, such as they are, through the media and no letter or offer document has been sent or provided to Sir Seton Wills. No evidence has been provided to the Wills family or to the Board to suggest there are sufficient funds available to buy the club and service its working capital requirements. The only document that Mr Wilkes has so far provided is a copy of a standard bank reference that does not identify the account holder and gives no indication of the funds being made available to the football club. It falls considerably short of the professional standards we would expect to be associated with a serious potential investor. With the permission of Mr Wilkes we would be prepared to release a copy of the letter to the media to underline our confidence in this opinion.

 

Furthermore no evidence has been provided to the Board, which suggests Mr Wilkes has, to quote the Trust Press Release, “the wherewithal and the business acumen to stabilise the business and take it forward.”

 

Contrary to the Trust’s claims that the Club is blocking negotiations and moving the goalposts the Wills family have consistently maintained they will discuss a prospective bid with any serious investor once they have presented their credentials and provided absolute proof of funds in a professional manner. Such proof of funds has to incorporate evidence of amounts that such a bidder is prepared to commit to the Club. We would expect that to be included in a formal offer document which would be presented to us, subject to due diligence.

 

Mr Wilkes continues to issue pre-conditions to negotiations regarding who and who cannot act on behalf of the Wills family in the construction of any deal. It is not for Mr Wilkes or any other group to dictate with whom they will engage in any discussions with the Club. Any deal agreed between the parties would be confirmed in contracts prepared by highly competent lawyers and designed to protect the interests of all concerned. This would be standard practice and obviate concerns Mr Wilkes has about the validity of any agreement.

 

It should be emphasised that the Wills family are not actively looking to sell the Club. However, they are willing to entertain a credible bid, which will secure its future and take it to the next level. In the meantime they have complete confidence in the current management team who are working closely with Paul Sturrock and his backroom staff to deliver success to The County Ground.

oooh, release one back mr. Trust. STATEMENT FIGHT.

Well they raise some good points I guess. Will be interested to see a response.

Surprised the investor is an American, can only guess they will be looking for an ROI through ground redevelopment which is fair enough.

Thats the point ive been trying to make in the other thread.

So a short while after stating if we fans don't stop being beastly they'll walk, we're now told they don't want to sell.

bit of a turn around isn it!

Fucking exactly.

Thats what we have been trying to acheive.

meh !

 :roll:

What an absolute shambles.

It really annoys me that the board have to keep playing things out via the media when it would be much better if they did it all behind closed doors.

By making this statement the board are only fueling more hatred towards themselves and seriously jeopardising the future of our club. If they were serious about the future of STFC they'd cut all this crap, call Mike Wilkes, politely explain his original offer wasn't good enough and invite him to come and talk it over.

But alas, they obviously don't have the clubs best interests at heart if they want to drag out this whole saga.

They're not

What a load of tripe. Moving the goal posts once again and now wanting us to believe that the Wills don't really want to sell afteral.

They have adimitted that they don't have the money to keep going, yet now they don't want to sell. Well, they will either have to sell up, or invest more money to keep the place going. Simple.

I suggest that the consortium now rise above all this negative bollocks and don't reply to their childish statement, or send out another press release. Mike Wilkes and the consortium appear to have adequate funds in place - they have proved that to a reasonable standard that would be acceptable to most small business vendors - and are firmly in place to rescue the club from these disrespectful arseholes.

maybe the board should spend their time more constructively.instead of wasting time on preparing statements.they should have got their arses down the bank and paid the facking cva installment.the money was there of course(or so yesterdays adver said) :-))(

Hmmm, interesting. Are the games beginning or have the board been misinformed?

Ding ding. Round 1.

Fuck knows where they got that from. Made it up, dreamt it, long lunch? Who knows with this lot?

hahah they are trying to scare us with talk of investment from the "new world"

I'd like to bring this to the clubs attention:

WTF has the nationality of a potential investor got to do with it anyway?

It doesn't seem to bother the current incumbents that the current effective CEO is a Greek (bearing no gifts incidentally).

I know who the main man is, i think.

The Consortium WILL NOT get involved in any form of games................ believe me

Paul - what is the next stage or, has previously been asked, are we now at an empasse?

The Investors ARE NOT (are you listening Diamandis ?) American

Bugger. Not Bill Gates then  :(

Kassam  :wink:

is it mr singh from the shop down manni road?

He's probably got more money than the current board

Because people automatically start saying "why would an American get involved?" and get a bit panic laden over whether the change is such a good idea.

Now this may be purely unintentional by the board, or it may be an attempt to split the fans, or an attempt to flush the investor out - the the latter may be dangerous if the investor turned out to be even more credible than they thought.

I never used to get carried away and beleive the whole conspiracy theory - of the board trying to influence people through careful PR. Those days are long gone, rightly or wrongly I am suspicios of anything the board says now.

We are at a bit of a logjam, yes.  It would appear that despite previous statements re burning leather the current regime are not that interested in securing investment in the club. There's a variety of ways this could go if the current childish obstructionism continues, but I'd still hope that it can be resolved amicably by sitting down sensibly with the Wills family. For the moment, though, I don't think there's a lot to be gained from stooping to the yah-boo-sucks level we're seeing from the board.

Oh, crap! Our cover's blown!  :D

And which members of our current board are fans of the club??

Sandy? Mik? or maybe little Willie

FFS the chairman says he has no time for us except to get a return on his cash, and they say someone wants to get involved who's not a fan!! :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Cant the trust just say to the board, right, we have investment, we want to purchase the club, what exactly do you want from us?


Or is that a bit simple?

Not meaning to sound disrespectful Fred, but if you are involved in this deal and the trust is trying to convey it's professionalism, I hardly think the public arena of a forum is the best place to discuss who the new investor is or isn't and make points to a football club's board.

It's starting to sound like a childs arguement.

And in response to someone else's post, if the statements from the club are to be believed then bank statements are not the most professional means of providing proof of funds.

I'm playing my usual devils advocate role here, but i wouldn't sell a club, if i owned one, for love nor money if the above club statement is to be believed.

Just seems very puzzling, especially given todays official statement - are they trying to secure investment of their own possibly? Waiting for the ground redevelopment perhaps?

it's just difficult for me to understand what the board's position is with this as there doesn't seem to be any direction or intent from them?

Or can someone else enlighten me?

silly question as im silly but cant the trust deal with diamindis if they have to but when it comes to any legal signings and declarations etc state that it HAS to be sew who actually signs over

or is that just really silly :?

By the way, its not me ! Is it you Coxernator ?

NMH

here we go again then. the war with the board and the fans begins all over again. why do the board have to make things difficult? i thought they wanted to sell? im surprised this bloke is American too.

Like I have previously said Barry

The Consortium will not get involved in public slanging matches.

It has asked for NDA's to be signed to that end.

Please consider that it is not The Consortium OR The Trust that have issued this statement this morning.

I hasten to add, a statement that is basically innaccurate in the speculation at the source of investment.

Fred you say

"The Consortium will not get involved in public slanging matches."

Please tell us then, who was it that initiated the radio interviews yesterday and has been happily talking to the media in general about how difficult the board are to deal with?

What I really want to know is how the hell did all of this come out into the public domain?

If I was the Board, then I too would have felt obligated to make a public press statement, and if I hadn't, I would expect to be criticised for keeping quiet after so much public vitriole has been aired in the media and on the various forums.

I love the way the board are basically saying "this isn't a fans consortium as the money man behind it is American and not even a fan..." what did they expect??  Did they think that we the fans would be clubbing together until we saved enough money, or that we were just gonna wait until STFCGazza won the euro millions???

At no time have the Trust or The Consortium been vitriolic in any form of the media, merely stating the facts as they present themselves to us.

As for the fans, we do not like being lied to, simple as that.

I have posted elsewhere on this forum the Bob Holt "burning leather" statement, and subsequent statements from STFC/Wills underlines that.

I think the club have tried to call the consortiums bluff and failed. Hence the u turn in todays statement saying they are not actively looking to sell. That is a far cry from "burning leather" if you ask me !

As for the forums, they are open to public debate and that's exactly what happens.

At best Fred the following is a tad confrontational and was issued to the media: -

"A Trust statement said: “We call on the Wills family to recognise that the current non-football management of the club no longer has any credibility with the fans, and has neither the wherewithal nor the ability to meet the club’s liabilities, much less take the club forward.

“On that basis, we would ask that they set aside those who seem intent on blocking any progress and enter into detailed negotiations with the Fans’ Consortium who have demonstrated that they can take this club forward.”"

Dear Santa,

For Xmas pleas could I have:

-1 or 2 strikers who can score consistently
-1 hard working midfielder who can pull the strings without getting injured every week
- A swift resolution to all this statement/counter statement crap. I know that this type of stuff goes on in every business, but can you make it so that it happens in the background without Joe Public being aware - Just like in most credible businesses.

Thanks

NMH, aged 39.5

Look at the facts Mav ;

The board have already stated that they do not have the 1 mill needed to satisfy the June payment of the CVA, nor are they likely to find it, as they were alledgedly pinning their hopes on rasing the capital via the ground redevelopment.

It was stated that the money secured from the sale of both Parkin and Fallon was used to cover the operating loss from last year.

It is now stated that BP's money was used for exactly the same thing.

Now that means that we run at nearly a 2 mill loss !

Take into consideration the revenue from the Adams concert, increased season tickets, shirt sales, gate receipts, Wise/Poyet compo and all of a sudden things really do not add up.

Of course you have an opinion and you should voice that. I respect that.

However to an awaful lot of fans the discrepancies within the finances of the club will not wear anymore

Sounds like fact to me. The board doesnt have any credibility with the fans. And on their own admission, they dont have the funds to run the club.

as a member of the trust, can i be chairman of the board of stfc when the takeover is complete?
thanks in advance :wink:  :D

I nearly threw my monitor out the window when I saw the club had released another statement.

Anyone fancy going through each individual statement the club have released over the past three months and pointing out the huge contradictions?

do you really wat me to answer that ? :wink:

You too can have whatever opinions you choose Fred.. but how is this actually moving things forward?

My guess is that whatever happens in the future that is of a positive nature, will be conducted, negotiated and agreed away from the glare of the media.

We can all surmise and express opinions on here, but it would be a wonderful example of professionalism (and as a result confidence inspiring) if all those at the heart of this debacle - i.e. Trust/Consortium/Board representatives all now kept quiet, and only make a statement in the future when there is something positive to say and ideally it can be issued as a joint statement.

I agree whole heartedly

It'd keep you off the streets for a couple of days mate.

Mav - It's tough because the fans will want to know what's going on, sudden and complete silence from both parties will not seem constructive to the fans. At least with this scenario we're in now, the fans have an idea of what is happening and aren't left in the dark.

Sonic - perhaps a joint statement on all sides could be issued then that says something along the lines of: -

"Discussions are currently ongoing between STFC and a consortium-led potential investor.  No further statements will be issued on either side until a conclusion has been reached"

That way we all know it is not dead .. but also that it needs to be confidential.

To be fair, Maverick that was tried a few weeks back if you remember with the "end to public slanging matches" agreement and within 72 hours we had a statement from the club slagging off Mike Wilks, the Trust and anyone else within range.

I realise that pauld but if soemthing is really worthwhile then it is worth trying again and again until it happens.

At least that will clearly mark out the moral high ground!!

true... this would be the perfect opportunity for the consortium to take the moral high ground.

Which would amuse me no end!

Statement from the Trust:

"We've decided not to release a statement in response to the club's statement breaking away from the tit-for-tat statement issuing. We will not be issuing another statement saying we're not releasing another statement until the club release another statement. But, if their statement says something bad we might think about releasing a full statement rather than our holding statement stating that we will not release a statement. This has been a non-statement on behalf of the Trust. Thank you"

 :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Ace !!!!!!

Have you placed a bug in the Trust office?  :D

If there are to be more statements can you delay them til monday please? Makes the working week much more interesting

thanks in advance

piemonte

Chris,

Do you want to become the Trust new speach writer ?

Nice one.

It's brightened up my Friday afternoon.   :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Moving on

I was further intrigued, gosh when you really start to sit down and think about things, isn't it revealing. The final three lines of a post from "Arthur  Horsfield" - ( The real one was at the game last week any one see him ? )   Who said this :-

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              

I must admit being a little puzzled by this for several reasons, through personal experience.

Firstly, I would find it extremely unusual for the Head of Personal banking of Lloyds Bank ( can I assume LloydsTsb, rather than Lloyds underwriters of London, or some other institution of which I am not aware) to be providing personally a customer reference. That particular role, ( if it still exists) would be responsible for the strategy within that part of the organisation, rather than having a portfolio with individual customer responsibility.

Secondly, I was puzzled by what the letter actually said during the interview . It would appear that other options such as a note confirming a level of wealth can be discounted as financial organisations do not like issuing letters such as that because of the risk of accusations of fraud or misrepresntation,particularly if lost or stolen. I was going to ask therefore was it a standard credit reference / bankers reference / status report. I think the football club press release  has probably cleared that one up.

So what does that mean - if I remember correctly for bankers references etc
1. Will be unsigned - unless policy has changed
2. It is an opinion only, not a guarantee
3. The response will be given in direct answer to the question posed.

 

If you ask "Is good for normal business transactions"
90% of responses would say "respectable and trustworthy should prove good " or similar. The value of response is only as good as the question in the first place - the enquiry would also normally be made by the person/ organisation with whom you transact the business not by a third party.

A good example woud be perhaps where someone tries to rent a flat and the company would want to know if you are good for the monthly rental .  

Sorry, to go on, but this document appears to be crucial and I would really like to know the real facts and make my mind up on that.  

I am sure those in the "know" will put me right and also let us know the question put to the bank in order for them to give an answer.

The devil is in the detail as is usual I'm afraid and without that knowledge who knows which way to fall.

As it is so frustrating not knowing the real facts about the financial situation, we can all make up our own speculations. One from me:
Most of the "lost money" has gone to repay loans to SSW and possibly Willy. This accounts for SSW changing his mind about selling, being now in a no-lose situation where he can either stay and develop the ground, or gain when a credible big investor comes in. If true, he is not to be blamed in my view.
There is no evidence yet that Diamandis and Dunwoody are detrimental to the Club. We are well overdue for a complete audit, and Puffet might come up with something.
Maybe I am naive, but we just do not know enough, time will tell.

If they offered me a free cup of chips (isn't the County Ground just classy?) at each game I'd write anything they wanted.

Professional writer for hire :-)

On no the investor might be foreign.

They are all really bad for the game, so ours will be just like that Ambraovich bloke, heaven forbid!

Useless  :roll:

Not me. I'd struggle to buy a pack of Clubs at Tesco, let alone a debt-ridden football club.

And when exactly did I become American? You know something I don't?

I think Mike Wilks' announcing Bill Power as the main backer, has pissed all over their statement, or has Bill taken on American citizenship.

I was hoping it would be an American backer as I would be able to use Swindon Town in my dissertation conclusion  :D

You seem a bit anal about the Bank letter that Wilks used as a reference to be honest. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but instead of playing the cunt by trying to skirt around openly questioning the letter from the bank - which is fucking irrelevant  anyway now that Power is on the scene ( and I trust you won't be questioning the adequacy of his funding?) - why don't you just get to the point and tell us that you don't trust the document and therefore Wilks as well?

Maybe you have personal issues with Wilks? Seems that something isn't quite right with you anyway.

Bit harsh delta, but the central point you make is valid - the quibbles over the legitimacy of the bona fides was only ever a time-wasting smokescreen anyway and is now obviously wholly irrelevant, as Bill Power has already presented 1.2 million bona fides. If the board aren't prepared to accept him as someone with the finances and business acumen to take the club forward it plainly shows they're just not interested in attracting outside investment and would rather see the club fold in June when they can't meet the CVA

Got to agree with Delta there as you have to question what credentials do the club actually want to see as proof of backing?

While any bona fides would detail the bank’s opinion of a customer’s good character as Mike Wilkes mentioned on the wireless it would include the ability to meet a financial obligation.  

What that entails is at this stage is anyone’s guess.  

It goes far beyond that of an individual being able to meet a monthly rental.   I presume pre-negations there are no agreed specifics on share value (if any) and repayment of loans and creditors.  You can’t put a specific value on anything at this stage and unless there are questions over Bill Power’s resources the argument is irrelevant.

It’s the key in the door to commence negotiations and given the state of the finances at the club it seems incredible that Diamandis is prepared to question any offer of financial input.

Besides isn't Mr W a banker by trade?   :D

I don't think my post was harsh at all. I think Nigel was just trying to be clever. I don't pretend to understand the detailed formalities of taking control of a private company, but I do accept that Wilks, Power and the trust do know what they're doing.

If nothing else, Wilks and the trust boys are real dyed-in-the-wool town fans. No question there. Bill Power is a well known QPR fan first and foremost, but he also loves STFC and has shelled out real money for us already.

  They are the only realistic option we have to the wankers that currently run the club (Luggy and the lads; I don't include you in that statement) and I would rather see them take control than suffer any longer thinking that something is deeply wrong behind the scenes and continually waiting for the next scandal or boardroom lie to come to the surface.

We should remember that this isn't some innocent little jolly that the consortium are embarking on for fucks sake. They can't just climb away and hide if everything goes pearshaped, especially now that they have come out in public with their plans and backers.

I'm all for debating the pro's and cons of all this - god knows there will be problems by the bucketful when Diamandis is finally wrenched kicking and screaming from his stinking little perch - but shit like Nigel posted just seems like he has an axe to grind and is pissed off with Wilks for reasons that have no place here.

We will produce a manifesto within the next 5 days and then tell us what your views are

I notice that the factual issues I raised last Friday about the “financial document” have still not been answered.

I am beginning to wonder why there is such a determined avoidance of the clarification, particularly as the document was touted widely, in an attempt, to influence public opinion and perception.

Without such clarification, I am concerned any influence it may possibly have achieved, has been through a misrepresentation of the real position because of a material failure to reveal, the actual nature and true content.

To clear the situation up would be so easy. Sorry for being pedantic, but would someone please clarify the inconsistencies, so obvious to me.

Nigel, with the greatest of respect, you are probably asking in the wrong place.  Mike is cleary the closest person to the facts in this instance and he rarely pops on here I think.  Try him directly or via MOS.

Nigel, I do see your point - as to exactly what that document was. But remember that was prior to the announcement that it was BP's funds that are behind the consortium.

Now we are aware the BP a backer - the board knew what his financial standing was when they offered him the club in August, so what has changed now?

I have to agree with Paul, that if the club don't accept this offer then it's a clear indication they're prepared to see the club die. Nobody else will come forward. Nobody else can pay the CVA.

Nigel, the "financial document" as you refer to it, was a standard bona fides letter from the head of private banking at Lloyds of Mayfair, stating that the person concerned was of financial good standing and would, in effect, be good for any deal they struck with STFC. Mike Wilks said all this in the interview on Radio Swindon on Friday evening so I'm surprised you're still asking for "clarification".

It is standard practice in such business negotiations to use such bona fides letters, not as proof that you have x million etc but as a door-opener to demonstrate you are at least not a time-waster.

As for the letter having been "widely touted" in an attempt to influence public opinion, I think you've perhaps got the wrong end of the stick, as it wasn't, at least not by Mike, the Trust or anyone connected with the Fans' Consortium. The only person who tried to influence public opinion over this non-issue was Martyn Starnes who seemed to be attempting to cast doubt on a perfectly standard business document as an attempt to imply something fishy was afoot.

Even he has stopped going on about this now, as it's plainly irrelevant now that everyone knows that Bill Power and Phil Emmel are backing the consortium. Given that the purpose of such a document is to prove that the holder has the financial wherewithal to be able to see through such a negotiation this really is something of a dead-end in the light of their involvement. Unless you think anyone seriously doubts their financial status!

I hope that clears up any lingering issues you may have. Sorry no-one responded to you on this earlier - I must confess personally I thought it was a bit of a dead issue and I suspect others did too, which is probably why no-one responded.

:-))(

Personally, Bill Power's got 1.2m reasons why no-one from the football club now questions his financial position.

Isnt Nigel Bennett something to do with the supporters club?

If so why isnt he "in the loop"?

Yes he is - he's their press spokesman, Roger Bunce is the SC chairman. FWIW we've been in contact pretty much weekly with the SC, usually via Roger, but also Nigel, since all this first kicked off, precisely so that people are kept in the loop. I spoke to both of them at the start of last week, but I must confess I've not spoken to Nigel or Roger since the latest revelations on Friday. There's only so many hours in the day!

Hello Nigel <waves>

you could of rang him in the time you posted that paul  :D

 :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

sarky cunt

 :wink:

i cant help it

Nigel, this banking stuff is obviously your forte but it does seem an odd issue for you to make your entry into the ugly world of STFC politics, given your silence on everything else that has gone on in the past few years.

That said I hope you will post more often as a wider representation of views is always welcome.