Thetownend.com

At the risk of being classed a board 'apologist', a few things I picked up on after reading the statement last night from the board and the response it got from this forum.

Everything the board says is deemed lies and bollocks.

Everything the Consortium says is gospel and 24 carat.

There were (Albeit not many) a few interesting questions raised by the statement, but these were either ignored or overlooked by people too eager to post vitriol against the board.

The first letter sent to them by Mike Wilkes (If it was what was displayed) did appear a bit amateurish, surely you'd use your first written communication with the board to outline the most important factors in your offer, not go on about naming things after the Wills family.

The questioning of the consortium being seen as a fans consortium, when most of the financial clout is coming from Bill Power and Phil Emett (sp) This would presumably result in them also receiving a majority share after any takeover? Hardly a fans takeover?

I'm not saying the board should stay. They shouldn't as they are quite clearly not up to the job. I just wish people would refrain from knee jerk reactions when confronted by anything concerning the board and take a bit of time to actually formulate their own opinion.

As I've said before, there are a small percentage of people who actually know what is going on with regard to the takeover. The majority of us have to rely on what we're being told and it seems anything said by the board is instantly dismissed whilst everything said by Mike Wilkes is 100% kosher.

I know the board have a long history of being 'economical' with the truth, but that doesn't mean everything they say is bollocks, does it?

To be fair, hertha, I think you're being a bit harsh on your fellow TEF'ers. What we saw last night was as much as anything a frustrated howl of rage from fans who are sick to the back teeth of the mudslinging statements etc. They've all debated the issues intelligently and at great length so it's not like they don't understand the issues and are just lashing out; I think that people are just heartily sick of going round the same wheel again and again.

As to the specific points:

1) The letter from Mike Wilks quoted on the site was actually the third submission of that offer: prior to that it had been submitted verbally and then in writing to SSW. The version sent to Trevor Watkins after SSW wrote to ask that all further communication be conducted through him was drafted by some quite expensive lawyers, who I tend to assume know what they're doing.

2) The fans' consortium is not a fans' takeover, and we've never claimed it is. It is a consortium made up of individual wealthy investors with the active support and input of fans, which aims to establish a new regime at the club based on (among other things) transparency and the active input of fans, from the boardroom down. Hence the pledge for a supporter director, shares being allocated for fans to purchase etc. The point is also covered in more depth in the Q&A we put out some time ago: http://www.truststfc.co.uk/fc_manifesto.php. FWIW, the name was adopted before Bill Power's involvement at the initial meeting at the railway museum in September where we were mandated to undertake seeking investment with a view to achieving a majority shareholding in the club (minutes at http://www.truststfc.co.uk/meeting_27_09_2006.php). What we have now exactly achieves that brief.

But tbh that's just semantics isn't it? The bottom line is that we've been trying to get the board to negotiate properly, rather than mudslinging or obstructionist tactics since before Christmas - it would appear they'd rather continue with the latter. Which is why I think so many people reacted with such understandable anger. Calling them sheep for doing so is a bit harsh, IMHO.

Apologies for the 'sheep' heading. In my defense it was early and I'd just trawled through all the posts relating to the statement, on this forum and thisis.

I'm not trying to stir things up, I just feel that there's an element of 'The Emperors Clothes' to this whole take over issue.

I'm probably guilty of being a bit blinkered myself but let's be honest - what have the club done recently to make me think they're genuine?

I'm only sceptical because I feel that I cannot trust a word they say whereas I've found the Trust/Consortium to be open, informative and easy to communicate with.

Anybody who has known me for a little while will know that 18-24 months ago I was quite anti-Trust, I saw no reason or use for the organisation and felt they were shit-stirring wannabe politicians and genuinely felt that despite their obvious faults, those running the club were good people with our best interests at heart.

It seems I was wrong.

I initially joined the trust at its inception, primarily on the basis of my belief in fan representation on the board.  But like SY said the club have done little to convince me they are professional at anything.  From sacking Linda Birrell, to bringing in consultants, the shambolic club shop, the mediocre website, the hassles buying tickets.  Everything is just rubbish, like Sturrock said when he arrived, the whole place is tired and needs a change, for me that pretty much includes everything aside from the playing side.

Out of genuine curiosity, what changed your opinion?

Btw, good post herthab.

The fact that the letter appears at all on the website, in whatever guise, is in my opinion more a reflection on the amateurish stance of the Board rather than the Trust

Yep I agree with that - and it's this major unprofessionalism that winds me up the most.

Sounds about right. Never get a lawyer to write a letter! Get them to proof it or just ensure the letter states "without prejudice" at the top.

I used to work in the legal area of a customer relations department and had to write letters that were admissable in court. I had to respond to lawyers letters on regular occassions. Their language and ability to write professionally seems shit across the board.

They smuggle in a few long words, use them badly and sign the letter in an unbelievably pretentious manner. They know dick about writing and just dress it up and write with punchy overtones and "HEY, I'M A LAWYER" demands.

Barry I often get solicitor letters telling me they are going to take me to court with no evidence and no fact finding.  I often type a letter, get my solicitor to proof read it and then send it back.  You hardly ever get a response (touch wood)

No exactly, the majority only know the law in a generic sense. They spend time on scare tactics and long words, and call your bluff.

When you write back and state they're wrong i think it puts their nose out of joint so they get the hump and start to sulk.

It's not that the trust are the gospel truth...but at least they don't force feed me their opinions.

If you were at the open meeting you might be as angry with Mike Bowden as I am.

I couldn't make the meeting due to work commitments, but I have read the minutes and all the feedback on the forums.

I am all for the consortium takeover (As anyone who saw my 'orangeness' at Macclesfield will testify to) I'm just getting a bit fed up with the the entrenched position of some.

Both sides, IMHO, have made mistakes.

Would the consortium in hindsight, have acted in the same way?

People complain that the club weren't transparent enough, then when they issue statements they're criticised.

With all the bullshit that the board have come up with in the past, I'm not surprised a lot of people just assume it's all crap, but that's a bit of a blinkered attitude.

And how have the board 'force fed' you their opinions si pi?

By waving a spoon around and making airplane noises. It's piss easy to force feed si pi stuff.

:Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

If the letter from MW has been accurately portrayed in the Club statement, it really is a bit 'wishy washy'...

MIke Bowden did it at the meeting. With a spoon and everything.

Did he do the 'choo choo train' si?

I would've swallowed that :D

I was totally unaware about Mike D until about a year ago which was when I began to get more curious and scrutinise things closer. Most of the opinions I came to form where from things people had said to me - none of them were said by Trust members in case you think I've been brainwashed by Paul Davis - and so on.

Nothing specific changed my opinion, it was a gradual thing but learning of Mike D's involvement and history was certainly an eye opener.

When the statements are deliberately misleading (backer's an American etc) or contradict themselves or slate the Trust/Fans' Consortium for conducting things in public in a statement that publishes confidential correspondence, I'd say it's understandable they're criticised. There's a difference between transparency and mud-slinging, and some of the statements issued recently have rightly attracted people's ire for that very reason. Transparency would be, for example, telling people what the financial position of the club actually is instead of refusing to answer any questions at all about it at the AGM, other than claiming the CVA payment had been made when it hadn't. Transparency would have been admitting Diamandis was running the club when first challenged about it five years ago. Transparency would have been admitting they'd fallen out with Bill Power. Transparency would have been admitting Linda Burrell was not sacked as part of a cost-cutting measure. These statements do not constitute transparency.

With all due respect Paul, you are talking of previous statements, not last nights.

And I know all of that.

My original post was in response to last nights statement and the reaction to it.

Fair enough - last night's statement was hardly a classic example of transparency either was it? Smear, innuendo, self-contradiction, yes, but very little transparency.

Fair enough Paul.

You are in the enviable position of actually knowing what's going on.

I'm not so fortunate and have to rely on what I read and then formulate my own opinion based on that.

The sooner this whole thing is put to bed the better.

I don't think anyone's in that position, mate. :D


Fair enough, that's all I'd expect anyone to do.


Amen to that.

i don't like the board, and how this club is run is a complete joke sometimes, but the one thing i really don't like is the fact that fans aren't united. When a club comes to swindon on a Saturday and see's fans who are ment to be in red and white supporting their team are in orange as a statement against the board i think it looks silly..i'd much rather on a matchday our focus to be on the team and giving a united front. I understand that you can't make a statement during the week and also that people wearing orange still support the team but the fact that the fan base is divided on this issue surely isn't helping?
That's just my opinion on it though and im not saying anyone that wears orange doesn't support the team, i just wanted to say how i saw it.

I think its irrelevent the last few years I have wore very little red on match days and although I am aware you said it isn't criticism from yourself I feel that fans should never be judged on what there wearing.  Red, Orange even pink if a supporter buys a ticket attends the game and supports the team then there a fan simple as that.  Needless to say I will be wearing Orange for the whole season if needs be  :beers:

results have been ok as well.

we may well be united (or Town) as those not wearing orange may support the "cause" - I suggest all those who support the board wear pink, the playing staff and backroom team know we support them.

of course we are united .. we are all supporting Swindon .. I wear an Orange hat and a red Swindon shirt ...

It's simple for me. I want the board of STFC to be bought out. I have many reasons for this but mainly it is down to:

* The threat of moving to Chippenham or anywhere out of Swindon.
* The threat of the CVA not being paid and the club being wound up.
* My perception of the Board's ignorance and contempt towards fans (or those that dare to question them).
* The Board are playing games in my opinion. If they don't want to sell they should state so and close negotiations, if they are serious they wouldn't be releasing statements such as the one issued on the 16th January 2007.

The only alternative that has been brought forward is the Consortium. I'm assuming (but not stating as fact) other investment either doesn't exist or is purely speculative for a couple of reasons (again my view; not a fact):

* The Board of Swindon have made negotiations with the Consortium a public affair, but no other negotiations (if there are any) have received the same treatment. This has caused me to question if such potential investment actually exists.
* If the Board were really under' threat' from takeover from other parties they would negotiate properly with the Consortium (i.e. avoid as much as possible a public slanging match) to try and get the best deal for either the Club, themselves, or both.

So if the only alternative to the current regime is the Consortium I will support it because I've personally had enough of the current management. I may not always entirely agree with the Consortium or Trust's statements or views, but that's the whole point of putting a fans rep on the Board in the first place. If the above makes me a sheep then I am a sheep.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I couldn't put it better myself. SPOT ON!

I never called ewe a sheep si pi.

I merely intimated that some people may be just following the herd...

Or flock.......................

Or maybe they have weighed up all the facts and made a balanced decision based on these and back the consortium.  

Personally I find it hard to see the other side of the argument at all as after years of being let down and lied too time and time again by the current clowns surely the possibility of having fans input on the board, the excellent investment potential of Bill Power and Phill Emmel's backing and a realistic chance of getting a new ground are way too good to ignore.

The point is that most of us don't know the facts.

I support the consortium, as they appear to be the only alternative to the current regime. But I don't dismiss everything the board say, nor do I believe without reservation everything that the consortium says.

I agree we don't know all the facts and hopefully they will come out in time.  But on what we do know the current board have lied to us, they have attacked us and we continue to lose money where as the consortium Bill Power, Phil Emmel and Mike Wilks have been open, honest and transparent so for me there is only one choice but it is just my opinion  8)

Mike Diamandis.


End of argument. Good night.

Phew, saw the heading "Sheep" and just had to read through it.  Pleased to see that my initial fears were wrong, Mike Diamandis has not let out the grazing rights of the pitch to a local sheep farmer.  Wonder how that would have been entered in the accounts? :mrgreen:  :mrgreen:

What accounts?

Eh don't take the piss!

I would suggest that any grazing rights that he sold for the pitch would probably be the best grazing rights in the division!

I can hear the interview now...'Yeah the grazing rights for those sheep, aye that was all my own work best deal in the division'

Is he Scottish then ??

Do we know that he isn't he may have claimed as much but.....

I am not a conspiracy theorist but, dark hair slightly pale... say no more

Slightly Pale ???????

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

You'll be telling me hes got ginger hair and freckles next !!!!

That's why you can never google the guy.. its McDia****is we never though that did we.

OI though pale sounded better, the pictures I have seen just looks pale and unwell!

Be careful what you say, is that another Trust untruth, I am gonna go on thisisstfc

Trust say he is ginger and has freckles... the lying unprofessional bastards

Talk of grazing rights reminds me of the halcyon days of the early Macari era Board...when one of the directors .....I know his name, but in the current febrile litigious TEF environment I'll refrain from using it.....billed STFC for large quantities of straw to act as a frost protector.....thing was the bills were for 10's of thousands whereas straw even in fairly large quantities is relatively cheap....it was a way of salting cash away from HMCE.

  These events happened more or less straight away after the Articles of Association were changed about 84 or 85.....had this decision not been arrived at we wouldn't be in the shit we are today.

  Put simply up until then the clubs founding fathers had worked on the Rochdale Co-Op system of *OMOV.....in fact what the Trust seek to return to, namely greater democracy.....this meant my vote on matters as a shareholder was as good as SSW's.

  Often Directors could be voted out by ordinary shareholders, this discouraged some businessmen.   In the early days Sam Allen would go rouind the Works when the club was strapped and sell shares to railwaymen.  It meant the club was poor but honest.

 The change in articles it was felt would encourage businessmen to invest, unfortunately it has just led to a succession of chancers of which a recent board appointment would seem the latest in line.

  There must be an irony somewhere that losing the Rochdale system has led us to the Rochdale division.

 *One member one vote

at the Trust Quiz night there were some very frank stories of the mid 80's brown paper bags.

Someone sound the hooter please :P