Thetownend.com

I know that there is currently much optimism about the new consortium ...... but as a cautious (and many times disappointed) STFC fan, I still have so many questions mulling around my head.

For example, why are we all being asked to join up and spend money with an organisation (The Trust), that is presumably spending money (legal fees?) from its membership, without them being able to tell people the full nature of what it is being spent on?

I really hope that this all goes the way that benefits the club, but nevertheless, as the Trust or Mike Wilks or both decided to go public on this last week, would it not be really helpful and improve credibility, if they now told us the whole picture?

I know that the reply will be that some bits have to remain confidential, but then by going public in the first place, they have in effect opened up the proverbial pandora's box.

Anything that is not answered now runs the risk of being viewed with suspicion, just as everyone views "non-answers" by the current Board as suspicious.

I am certainly not anti-Trust or Consortium so please do not take this as a "bashing" post ... but I do question the modus operandi.

I can understand what you are saying maverick and i do agree in a way with what you're saying!

I would like to know the following things and i'm sure many others we want to know the same:-

1.Are the consortium looking to completley purchase the club? or just a stake in the club?

2.What are the plans of the consortium regarding the stadium/development?

3.Would there be money for new players?

4.Would any of the idiots on the current board be kept on i.e carson/gray/starnes etc?

5.Are there any other backers behind the consortium apart from Power and Emmell?

It would be nice for a change to have some money to spend on new players, Sturrock deserves some decent backing!!

I hope every single idiot on the board is sacked in disgrace when the consortium take over!

This nonsense in the WDP doesn't make sense, Mr.Smarmes saying do the consortium want to buy the football side of the club or buy the whole development potential? how can they include that when nothing's happening regarding the development of the ground???

I am all for the trust, i'm certainly not anti trust or anti consortium, we all want this current board out!!!

The trust is not necessarily using our money to pay for the consortium as I see it.  They are using their money, as 600+ memebers at even a tenner each doesn't buy a lawyer for too long.  The trust and consortium as I recall did distance themselves from each other for a time, and I guess the consortium are paying associated fees.  The trust are merely in dialogue and in support of said consortium and are trying to get involved by signing up as many fans as possible.  The open fans meeting in September effectively gave license to the consortium to go forward after a largely unanimous series of votes.

Add to those the questions I asked on the adver site too! -

http://www.thisisswindontownfc.co.uk/Forum_New/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=31932

There are lots of question Maverick, I'm sure we'll know after the STFC board has been advised.

I am guessing that "development potential" may mean the holding company hold the right to develop the county ground and the football club does not - or rather it says in a contract that if development status is approved it shall be granted to the holding company.  Don't know if this is true or legally possible mind but I'd be surprised if the current board haven't protected their investment somehow.

Don't know how there is "development potential" either mind. If you don't have a clear approval what have you got?

Does anyone want to buy a lottery win potential from me - £2 each, 5 for £10?

A club with no money and no assets (other than player contracts) and masssive liabilities cant be worth much if anything.

As I understand it the trust are currently working on a "manefesto" I'd presume most of these questions can be answered by this when it is realeased. (I'm sure I read Fred Elliot saying it would be a few days, but dont quote me on that.)

But that is my point Batch - by making ANY potential deal public, has already led to all sorts of speculation.  For example it begs the question, have Swindon Borough Council been spoken to recently about their attitude to both the Current Board's  and any proposed Investors potential plans for development?

This is the problem with the internet age, everyone wants information 24/7.  These things take time and I'm prepared to wait for the fans consortium to bring things together properly instead of disclosing information willy nilly.

I've no problem with them going public.  You could argue the converse, that the consortium should have stayed quiet. If the club weren't budging on meeting the  consortium something had to be done.

The board say they want to see a proposal, etc, etc. I don't think they currently have any intention of relinquishing control. And quite frankly I don't believe a word the club says anymore than I would a man down the pub these days. Sad, but if they chose to release a plithera of non accurate statements and contradictions then that's what happens. Fan power can make this deal happen, or at least the consortium case heard.

The current Board have NO proposals for development.  The only proposal was an outline idea submitted over a year ago and rejected by the Council.

I think the Consortium and Trust top bods are working on a document to answer the other stuff Mav, so hopefully you won't have to wait to long.

Rob - is that DEFINITELY no plans (even outline thoughts for the future) based on "from the horse's mouth" or speculation based on track record?

Perhaps the Consortium should have had the document together before they decided to go public?

I think it's good the FC went public, gives the fans renewed optimism.  So we now have to wait for the finer detail, who cares.  What is important is the FC is not just a pipeline dream.

The last time they were asked the answer was no.  This was because the Trust has spent a lot of time producing some proposals (over 50 pages of supporting work) and the club decided they were quite good.  The clubs proposal (available from the Council by the way, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act) were very basic and suggested the development of the entire site with housing other than the ground (so all the cricket pitch, athletics etc).  it was supported with about 1 page of financials, all very basic and headline stuff.  The Council rejected this and have not had anything further from the club - they can confirm this.  Speak to Justin Tomlinson and I think he'll back up that version of events as well.

One of the few things I know some of the detail on as I was involved in the Trusts proposals (before becomming a member) and things like this were discussed with the board.

So does this mean that the present Board could also make use of the plans you worked on with the Trust Rob?

Not to make money out of a land deal.  it is not designed for personal profit, so would not provide a cash pay off that could be included in the sale of the club.  It also would be a community based project so the club would not own the land after the deal.

So does that mean then that the club would remain without assets Rob?  

Not sure how that makes for an attractive proposition for potential investors if so.

I am all for community projects which benefit the local community, but only as long as it includes ongoing sustainability for the club as well!

The club has no claim on the freehold as it is.  the development would be designed to provide ongoing revenue generation options for the club at no cost to them.  That's the best they would get out of any deal which uses Council property, unless they buy the land.

You could also ask what hope have the current board got for any ROI ? If there is none as Maverick suggests how can they possibly even hope to keep the club going?

These community intiatves in the past at other clubs are mutually benificial, the council helps fund the development, alongside private money, and then the profits are split accordingly.  The council owns the land, but the club owns profit making assets, ie improved conferencing facilities, hotels or whatever.  Should be undoubtedly benifical to both parties provided it's well executed, which I guess with the current regime at both STFC ad SBC is something of a stumbling block.

Yeah I realise the Council holds the freehold Rob - just trying to understand the proposal ... to see it in the context of what someone would be investing in ... if there is little return on investment, and even then only in the long term ...... why would a consortium wish to invest?  I guess I am trying to understand their motivation.... very few businessmen are altruistic!

The attraction would be a sustainable football club. Whilst it may not have any assets the improved revenue generation from conferencing etc should mean the club could break even or thereabouts based on current expenditure.

Ok Piemonte - I can see that - but what is in it for them?  We end up with a sustainable football club (which we all want), but how many years would it take them to get back their initial £x million investment, let alone with interest?

they may not want a return on their investment.  He came on board before and gave money before any formal agreement was even in place and said he didn't want to get involved in the Ground development at that time.

I would suggest contacting Mike Wilkes directly or seeing if any of these questions are answered by the manifesto.

In its current 'form' if you like, on a day to day basis, The football club is cash positive. From an operational standpoint. Highest gates in the league, one of the average wage bills.

The CVA apart, what other debts does the club have?

Answer: NONE. They were all consolidated into the CVA as a result of the last administration.

The debts Mr Starnes refers to are the ITV Digital collapse (5 years ago) and any other debts to the Wills Family. Can then Sir Seton truly be referred to as a Benefactor, or is he indeed just another creditor. :shock:

SSW and St Modwen (using SSW's land) are indeed current creditors.

The club is trading (according to them) at a loss this season.

Maverick were you one of the people who when King was in charge who said 'is there anyone really better we can have?'.  Bill Power is a lover of football and with his finance and Devlins & Wilks knowhow we can turn this club from a club on its knees to one that hits profit, this board have had 5 years in charge and although we are grateful for the Wills family for keeping us in existance it is very clear they have taken us as far as they can and are not moving forward.  Do not fear change, POWER IN  :D

I am as interested in the goings on at the Club as most supporters, but I can't help thinking that some people are trying to find out a bit too much, a bit too quickly.

I've signed up for the Trust, but I don't think that gives me any rights to know all the details with regard to the Consortiums proposals.

Until a new Board is in place, none of us are gonna know if they are the ones to push this Club on or not and constant questioning isn't gonna help.

At the end of the day, the current board are inept and I am in favour of a change, be that a fans consortium backed by Bill Power, or a takeover by Bill Power and his partner(s).

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and we are never going to know the full picture until the deal's done and maybe not even then......

Yep stfctownenda I was indeed one of those who thought that Kingy was about as good as we could get given our situation at the time  :oops:

However I was proved wrong as we got in Wise/Poyet and now Sturrock.

I am happy to admit I was wrong.

I am not sure who agreed to them coming here or who finally arranged it, but clearly the present Board approved both sets of appointments.

These are positives which I am grateful for.  There have been precious few!

Wasnt it the trust who came up wit hthe latest proposal for the redevelopment of the CG? The one by the club was basically luaghed out of the planning office, but the trust one was taken on board IIRC.

Yes STA it was the Trust and I believe Rob Tuck contributed as well.

Although it seems to be the only credible plan to date - I am unsure as to its current status or indeed Swindon Borough Council's attitude to it in terms of whether they would be prepared to support it and if so when.

Perhaps Justin Tomlinson can enlighten?

Just found this on the trust site

"Ground Redevelopment - The Leisure Strategy Review will be delivered to the Council Cabinet on 15th November 2006. This will instigate a six month period of public consultation. Our latest proposals are complete but not issued into the public domain. We are currently undecided on the timeframe for that release in relation to the Leisure Strategy Review, but it was stressed that our proposals were good for the whole of Swindon, not just STFC. "

Alan H and DV85 also helped.

The plans received a cautious welcome from residents groups, the Central Ward councillors and the Council as a whole I believe, as well as Anne Snelgrove and the club itself.

Sounds like a true "consortium" Rob !! Partnership working in action!

someone ought to get their hands on a copy of the club's proposal and scan it, it is truly laughable. it's like a gcse geography project.

this has got me thinking though...if the trust are behind the latest proposals, would the funding be in place via the consortium? i.e. would power et al be willing to help redevelop the county ground?

I presume that there is no copyright on the proposal so funding would be up for grabs with whoever wanted to run with it .. subject to Swindon Borough Council approval.

Next Monday night, there is the monthly Trust meeting at the GW Bar, starting at 7.30pm.

Most of these questions could be brought up then, as the Trust board will be there to answer them.

Any word yet on Power's favourite cheese?

I've been reading all the posts and other info on the take-over, and weighing it all up.

I don't think its a 'good vs evil' scenario, as all involved have STFC's best interests to heart, and have spent large sums of money already, to suppoert it.

I may be missing something here, but something occurs to me, that doesn't seem to have been mentioned elsewhere !

Why does SSW have to leave the club/board, if Power takes over ??
Why not let Power buy enough shares to take a controlling interest, but leave SSW on the board, with a substantial shareholding. That way, Power gets control of the club, can invest further, and take STFC onto greater things. AND ssw gets to stay on and share the better future, both as a fan, and in terms of making some money out of it [ which he's well entitled to do, as he's kept us going thro this dark period in our history !!]

Am I being a bit naive here, or does it make sense ?? !!

Digby

I thought that was the original plan to be honest but im not sure now.

He doesn't. No-one's said he does.


Up to SSW really - I think all of us would welcome him retaining a role if that's what he wants to do. I really don't understand where this idea that SSW would have to leave comes from, certainly not from the Trust or Mike W.

SPOT ON THEY WERE INDEED LAUGHABLE. HOWEVER YOUR MAN DEVLIN WAS IN CHARGE AT THE TIME THEY WERE SUBMITTED I BELIEVE. CAN'T BE HIS FAULT THOUGH. :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Mike Diamandis has always been in charge of the ground redevelopment: when we put our proposals to the board, we were explicitly instructed to deal directly with Mike Diamandis as he was in charge of these matters, not Mark Devlin.

and they were produced by Dunwoody, the famous architects

Thanks, I stand corrected.  :beers:

At they probably charged the club £50k + VAT for the privilege !!!