Thetownend.com

Is he allowed to be manager of Swindon Town Football Club? isnt this a conflict of interest? especially as he is a supplier to the club.  I thought this was not allowed as he would be profiting from both sides of a deal.  I personally couldnt rent a house to live in and then charge the client commission for managing it?? definate conflict of interest.

The other thing that is bothering me is why he is paid by the club? does this mean he is an employee? if so are these wages paid by SSW or STFC? Did he declare this on his tax return last year.

Maybe someone with access to the accounts world can inform me of this?

I thought the greek god got banned from beinga  director (which surely means running things) around 97 - 98, and got a seven year ban (the most severe) then does this mean he shouldnt have been running teh club since 2000 as he says?

Just some questiosn id like to put out there!!!!!

Have a look at http://www.thetownend.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=309064#309064 Ash for a bit of an answer.

Talk Talk I had not seen this post very intersting.  That answers a few questions, I have many more tho

Actually the maximum disqualification period is fifteen years.

7 years is pretty bad

Valid post Ash

but does Diamandis have the tactical nous to be manager of STFC ?

Life would have been too kind, methinks. Bring back hanging, I say.

Now dont get me wrong I was 3 months late paying tax last year (clever business tactic I thought) and all I got was a phone call, what the fuc* did he do to get 7 years?? a bit more than fiddling the petty cash me thinks

As far as I am aware the disqualification was for trading companies whilst insolvent.

I think the crux of the issue here is one of that he had major influences over a business during his disqualification period.

If that is correct, that is wrong. The much muted investigation is into these actions so I am led to believe.

I just think he is a cunt tbh

Dont ask why

why? :D

why? :D

why?   :D

Why Lord? Why?


Ooops! Wrong thread.

:D  :D

The same reasons i find both of you cunts

your lack of thinking? surely the nhs must have some sort of answer  8)

i do not have the mental capacity to think,It just ends up hurting

is it because he is also a small person! :)

probably bushey

Man mountains like myself are better than small people

too many drugs.

Just trying to dig around .. and I found this interesting article interviewing Mark Devlin about Mike D in 2005:-

COPYRIGHT 2005 Financial Times Ltd.

Swindon Town deputy chairman Mark Devlin has shed light on the role of Mike Diamandis - who he admits is often seen as a 'mythical, shadowy figure'.

Diamandis, an advisor to majority shareholder Sir Seton Wills, has been involved at Swindon since the club's first spell in administration in 2000.

His strong influence and reluctance to come into the foreground, coupled with rumours he was once banned from being a company director, led to concern among Town fans.

Now Devlin - the former chief executive who has returned to the club with a brief to improve relations with the wider community and encourage greater transparency - has sought to explain Diamandis' position.

Devlin confirmed Diamandis was banned from being a company director until last year, but said the club might not exist if it were not for him.

"Mike Diamandis has been mentioned as being some sort of mythical, shadowy figure and I think that has come because people haven't really talked about him openly, " said Devlin. "Over the past few years he has been instrumental in ensuring that we have always managed to find the money to pay our debts.

"I'm not saying that Mike has put the money in himself personally, although there have been some times when he has. But he has found the individuals and convinced them (to put money in).

"I am not so certain that if Mike had not been around we would have been able to convince people to keep putting the money in.

"And Mike was vital in his sheer bloody-mindedness to save the club when it was faced with extinction under (former directors) Danny Donegan and Ian Blatchly.

"Without Mike's guidance I am not sure we would have come through those darkest hours." Devlin also confirmed Diamandis was involved in helping the club fight off a winding up order over unpaid tax this week.

Asked if Diamandis was once struck off as a company director, Devlin said: "That is true and you cannot get away from it. He did serve a ban on being a director but that finished last October.

"So there is obviously no issue with him playing a part (at Swindon), although he is not particularly seeking to be a director at Swindon.

"Mike is a very determined and competent businessman and we all make mistakes in life. His assistance is invaluable to me personally and I think it will continue to be so to the club." Diamandis is also a managing director at Swindon's marketing partner Dunwoody, who produce the matchday programme. Devlin also works for Dunwoody and stressed this was not something he sought to hide.

COPYRIGHT 2005 Financial Times Ltd.

BUT THAT STILL DOESNT ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, IF HE HAS BEEN RUNNING TEH SHOW SINCE 2000 THEN THIS SURELY IS AGAINST HIS BAN TO BE DOING THIS???  oops caps locks was on!

CAPS was a valid use though.  You are right, maybe that's why the Criminal Investigations bit of the CTI is currently investigating him, maybe he'll be spending some time as a drugs dealer inside.

Farkin hell, he deals in Serbian rock music as well???

“Sa druge strane jastuka”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bajaga_i_Instruktori

so when does this investigation finalise? What are they investigating?

That he's been running companies while Disq.

so if/when they find he has what will happen and could this indeed have any issues towards our club?

these days they tend to punish the people and not the club (crosses fingers).  Some small Town club in 1990 had some harsh shit thrown at them and they've backed off ever since.

Bushey Boy .. according to Mark D .. he was never a Director

Rob - I would also be very interested to see any official document that says he is currently banned or being investigated by the DTI (another frequent allegation)..... if he is then I will happily acknowledge the point, until then it seems like another convenient thing to hurl. There is a world of difference (as I know from my own dealings as a Councillor), between allegations or tip offs, and matters actually being taken up and formally investigated.

yeah but devlin said that while he worked for his company? how long has Mike D been a managing DIRECTOR at dunwoody?  Was it a Mike D interview that devlin had to say was his?

No, not for STFC perhaps. But managing a company while disqualified is a very serious offence. Once again:

http://www.thetownend.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=309064#309064

And he is now a company director again, albeit of several with their registered addresses based in Reading.

Fuck it, one email to a client of mine will dig up all the stuff I want to know, I will post all findings on here.

 :D

Good man.

Incidentally his wife is a director of a couple.


Perhaps you can find out what she is involved with while you are at it?

Try the DTI Mav, they happily confirmed it to the last person that checked (although clearly gave no details).

I have no wish to be sued for libel, so I keep anything which has no place in court under wraps.

Well well well ... the true colours show through .... this seems to be all about "getting Mike D" really doesn't it?

Now you guys decide to go for his wife as well.

If that is the kind of levels supporters of the Consortium will stoop to, then I for one hope that the Consortium either publicly disowns people who are prepared to make it that personal ....... or else it just demonstrates that we have it all to fear with the way they choose to do business.

Let's hope that the other potential investor has a better approach and wins the day.

thanks talk talk although its more his dealings I am concerned about.

what other potential investors?

We've had no proof & we've had no names.....

maverick im nowt to do with consortium just wanna know about this man a bit more, todays interview make me suspicious

Rob, I think you will find that the DTI will confirm verbally that they have been made aware of something (ie a tip off or allegation) but never that they are currently investigating.  It would be kind of self-defeating ... it would mean that I could ring up posing as someone else to find out if I needed to worry that my activities were being investigated.

Many many things will get left on their "hotline" as it is anonymous .... it does not mean that an investigation is under way... or will ever be necessarily.

DV85 ... what proof do you have of exactly who the other people are in the Consortium bid .. or why we were told that a bid had been submitted .. and then suddenly it hadn't been until now??

yawn

   Is she your sister or something.....if you think this is stooping then you aint seen nothing yet.

and a letter that's found it's way into the "wrong hands" Mav, although yes I'm going on someone else's say so ( but I know them to be fan of longstanding).

Mav, you really need to check out some of the non club related posts on here to realise half the shit is just that, shit.  I'm not part of the Consortium, neither is Talk Talk for example.

But yes, on a personal level, Diamandis is the problem for me.  Met him, know his tactics, know his decisions, know enough to not want him around.  It's his involvement that causes me most problems, but that would never see me make anything up about the man.  I only post stuff about people like that if it has grounds.

For example, he is Greek and his is a bit on the portly side. 8)

Hey sonny, it is well known that people in business sometimes use their spouses for deflecting business interest attention away from themselves.

Bushey Boy asked the question and it's fair to supply information.

What the fuck has it got to do with you anyway, stirrer?

For starters the name Bill Power has been made public....we all know who is he, we all know he exists and we all know he's got money to invest.

Which is more than we've got from the 'other investors' who have only come to light recently since the fans consortium  :roll:

The way I understand it, is a bid was submitted, went to the lawyer and then was sent back? how can the lawyer acting on behalf of SSW send something back that hasnt been submitted?!

Go and  :arsekisser: the board's arse's maverick, you obviously love them!!

I am in a business where you find out things about people before deciding what you want to believe, if there has been some dodgy things going on id rather know now so I can act against or for teh man.

Talk talk has provided certain things I needed but the rest I will find.  If he has nothing to hide why worry, for example I woudlnt be against anyone doing checks on me!

As much as it does to you Talk Talk ... we both have a common passion ... STFC .. we just have different views of how to move forward.

There it doesn't really need the insults to establish that does it?

such is the life of a politician.

No, but it certainly makes me feel a lot better.

I give up with you.

 it does on here 8)

Seriously, you question everything I post, and everyone else, yet you seemingly take the clubs response as gospel.  If you want clear decisive answers to your Consortium fears then meet them.

She is a hottie tho !!      :--

Pic?

 With all due respect Rob this fella has had an easy ride, from people trying to accommodate his "concerns", its now clear  he has a different agenda, so I wouldn't bother with further attempts at reason.

ahem  8)

Ask John  :D

Ok, will do. Did he have his camera phone with him?  :P

My personal feeling was that a line was overstepped today with regard to J17.

I know it was said that it is a fall back plan,but knowing full well the club's relationship with SBC, it does not take a brain surgeon to realise that option 2 may well become option 1.

And certain people can't understand why fans are angry ?

They were banned from the AGM as it was a closed meeting.

But the image is imprinted on his retinas

Is that a cartoon of your missus on your avatar, Fred?

Just out of interest, like.

Actually yes it is

Awesome pair of Antlers she's got Fred. Nice one  :thumbs:

* snigger *

:shag:  :--

Fred - I would wholeheartedly agree with you (is this a first?? :D ) ... J17 is just not an option.  Logistically how many people would make the trip .. and what kind of mockery would it be to be chanting/singing for Swindon AT HOME .... in errrr Chippenham??

I know Mav

It would break my heart

Fred ... we are in agreement ..... welcome to the dark side my friend!!!  :twisted:

No Mav

Step into the light ............cross the line

h aha, you two need to hire a room! Been emotional lads, off to get some sleep as big day tomoz! Night

Oh bollocks the fence in the middle will never support the two of us!!

 :P

:Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Ive never sat on the fence in my life Mav

If I believe in something then thats it mate

therein lies the problem .. two stubborn entrenched old gits!!  :old:  :old:

Could be right there Mav

gotta go for tonight ...  say goodnight Fred!

Goodnight Fred

Hmmm.

Some FA regulations (Fit and Proper Persons) preclude anybody who is disqualified as a director from being any part of the management:



And that the penalty is suspension of League Membership unless the "Director" is removed within 28 days.



http://www.thefa.com/NR/rdonlyres/C78670E4-FC3D-4AF2-A526-59DEA094982E/97938/Regs_FitProperPersons.pdf

So it might not be an issue now but it certainly would have been over the last five years. Worrying.

Unfortunately it covers the Isthmian Football League as well, Reg.

What are the regs Alan for those that were privvy to that information but chose not to disclose it and act within the 28 day window ?

Culpable ?

And in the second paragraph, when does a defacto director become acknowledged as a director for the purpose of this ruling ?

It subjects the club to fines (probably quite punitive).


Immediately.

Having said all this, these new tests came in on 1st February 2005, so they might not be applicable to our situation. I don't know what the earlier (if any) regulations stated. I am just highlighting the fact that the FA obviously have some legitimate concerns and that retrospective action could potentially be taken.

Incidentally Schedule III of that document (Schedule of Offences) goes a long way in defining what is within the scope of breaches as a "Fit and Proper Person".

Including:



...and another five pages that I can't be bothered to read.

I will tonight and ill give you a shout tomorrow

Oh, FFS, Maverick. Do you not think supporters have a right to be concerned if the man who has been running our club for the past five years, by his own admission on the radio this morning and according to club statements issued passim, has possibly been doing so for at least part of that time in violation of a very serious legal ban on managing a business? Especially given Swindon's history, is that not something people have a right to be concerned may possibly come back on the club? And I believe it is fairly common when investigations of such matters are done (watch any Roger Cook episode!) to look at whether a person is attempting to hide their own involvement in a company by hiding behind a spouse? I'm not a company lawyer so I'm not suggesting Mike D has done anything wrong in this, but it's pretty legitimate for people to be concerned about it don't you think? Or do you think everyone should follow your own line of "Only ask questions of the Fans' Consortium for the board can do no wrong, no matter how many times they are caught out". Frankly, you're starting to look ridiculous.

but according to Mark D, thats long since passed. Where is the evidence that states that this wanker is currently under criminal investigation?

Lets fucking see it.

DON'T BE FUCKING DAFT!

You're quite happy to sit there and criticise anyone should they show the slightest bit of dissent towards the board and/or Diamandis but you're mot than willing to dish it out towards the Trust/Consortium.

What on earth is wrong with discovering whether the man who runs the club - by his own admission - is under investigation by the DTI? If he's using his wife's name then I imagine that's equally unethical.

Unless you're actually going to start applying some logic and thoughtfulness to the stuff you post, just don't bother.

Everything you post questions and criticises the attempts of a group of hardcore Swindon Town fans, they address your concerns and answer your questions but you NEVER respond. Nor do you respond to other people's questions towards you.

IT'S FUCKING TIRESOME.

Stop believing the hype and apply the same scrutiny to the board that you have to the consortium.

EVERY SINGLE QUESTION YOU HAVE ASKED OF THE CONSORTIUM HAS BEEN ANSWERED. WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

Have the club provided you with the same? Of course not.

So why on earth do you take them so seriously?

Why don't you understand that people are taking an aggressive tone towards you when your only posts are to criticise the consortium, whom are supported by the vast majority on this site.



n.b. The aggressive nature of this post was bought to you by cups of tea, lack of sleep and mince pies. We are not affiliated with the Trust/Consortium in anyway.

here here sonic..........now pop over to the adver site, there's a few more victims for you to rip apart there

Not enough sonic in my opinion.

Shocking!

Good grief, what a day come home to find it's all kicked off.  

Anyway I've got this from my good friend Alan at the CIB. It doesn't add anything more than has already been posted but the 2nd paragraph is food for thought.  



Within the CIB’s powers are the following…
1. Present a petition to the court to wind up a company in the public interest

2. Apply to the court to disqualify a director

3. Prosecute company officials or refer evidence to other investigators or prosecutors (e.g. the police or the Serious Fraud Office)

4. Refer information to other regulators or bodies to consider disciplinary or other action against their members (e.g. the Institute of Chartered Accountants, or the Law Society)

5. Send a Warning letter to the company.

Goodnight

With reagrds to Bushey's original post about the conflict of interest. As long as related parties are disclosed and related party transactions are disclosed then it 's ok. However, within this there needs to be some assessment that the right thing is being done for the business entity (the club itself). A simple example will be if Mike D bought something from one of his other businesses, was the price a fair market price?

Programmes amonst other things si pie?

What's the CIB dazza?

I'd expect the club to have made tenders/retenders with programmes.

The CIB is the Companies Investigation Branch (part of the DTI I think).

To belatedly stick my two penneth worth in, I think there is the point to consider about the distinction between the role of a company director, and the role of a manager. If everyone that were banned from running a company were also not allowed to take on any sort of management role, they might find it difficult to earn a living.

However, in this particular circumstance I think there are a good few reasons to be concerned:

1. The undefined role that Mike D played at the club until recently has always worried most of us. Working virtually full time at the club, with a salary but no job title, and without a clearly defined role. The revelaton, well to me at least, that the finance director reported through him to SSW, rather than through Mark D to the board, just re-inforces this. In all I can't help but suspect that throughout his time at the club Mike D was the effective CEO, with anyone else employed in that role being somewhat powerless. Combine that with a Chariman  who takes very little interest in the day to day operation of the club and it's not hard to see why people might be concerned about who's actually runing the club.

2. Taking that on board the FA's fit and proper person test is suddenly a lot more relevant. That test needs to be applied not just to those people who are nominally the directors and senior management of the club, but to those that are actually running the show.

3. Mavericks outrage at anyone even thinking about Mrs D's directorships is fucking laughable. First thing any DTI ivestigator would look at. After all, the sports marketing company seems to have continued operating throughout Mike D's ban, it's still referred to as his company, he still seems to be running it. It does beg the question of who's now on it's board doesn't it. The first thing in anyones mind will be "he's shifted everything into the wifes name and continued as normal", because it happens a lot.

In a nutshell what everyone is worried about is that someone who has been considered unsuitable to run a business, and banned from doing so,  looks to have been not only continuing to run that business, but has also been placed into a senior executive position at our club, which appears to have been kept on an entirely unofficial basis to get around that ban.

If you look back through my posts on here over the years I've been one of the people who have repeatedly tried to argue that the demonisation of one individual at the club is not helpful, and that it is unlikely that the problems at the club are that one sided.

However, I do think there are questions to be asked about the way the operation has been structured and managed over the last few years. The lack of transparency over roles and responsibilities at the club looks to me as an outsider to be a deliberate mechanism to get over the restrictions on Mike D. And that worries me.

Can I just say to Maverick that if you think asking questions about that and wanting answers to them is some kind of witchunt then can I politely suggest that you look back through your own repeated posts with regard to BP's involvement in the mess at QPR, (allegations that were aired in an open court, with no substantiation, and rapidly dismissed as posing no case for any of the parties named to answer) and have a lttle think about it.

Why is it that you can constantly bang on about your concerns about the probity of the parties involved on one side of this debate, but our concerns are regarded as some kind of personal vendetta?

Pot.......Kettle.......Black..........

According to the interview yesterday Diamandis stated fairly clearly that a) he's been General Manager since 2000 and b) that the Wills' family and St Modwen put their comlete trust in him with regards board decisions and c) that he attends board meetings.

In sum Mike, you've written you're own guilty plea if you were banned from being a director any time since 2000 - broke the law MATE now its time to fuck off

Character assasination? hardly help yourself out do you - we've got no reasn to slate you day in day out unless there is something pretty bloody significant wrong with what you're doing.

Yes Moonraker, Mike D, by his own admissions, has been acting as a de facto Director. Yes, he doesn't formally hold the position of Director, but in effect he is making executive decisions. I know others have made this point, but it seems it hasn't sunk in with some people.

If you look at the legislation that defines what a banned company director can/can't do there clearly is a strong question of breeches of the order.