Thetownend.com

which means ...another club statement...

http://www.swindontownfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/NewsDetail/0,,10341~997647,00.html

unbelievable  :-))(

usual crap - and people say I should change the record - maybe when the board stops saying there is no bid from the consortium and that it doesnt exist etc etc ...

Exactly.

Reg is not going to be happy...What's wrong with 5 o'clock?!

We have a saying at work...SOSDD

Same Old Shit....Different Day !!!

Sums it up perfectly !!!

Om my fucking good lord.

Lies! Blatant fucking cunting lies!

Aaaaaarrrrgggghhhhh!

i dont see the point in it myself. well apart from being 'transparent' to fans

The shit is going to hit the fan. Big time. FACT!

hold fire, no offer?? they are having a little bit of slap and tickle with my todger......

also success on and off? no all they have done this week is sell a very good prospect and also upset the local residents....!

Just to rub it in, there was a picture of Lukas on the banner title thing FFS :-))(

LYING CUNTS

 :x

Nonsense - if there's been no offer how come Mike Wilkes, Phil Emmel, the trust and their lawyers ahve been working their nuts off for months to sort this out.  I assume they mean no proper offer - as the books aren't exactly forthcoming. Total Bloody Idiots. :(

Did anyone really expect anything else?? We all know the shit that comes out their mouths!

Have we had a public statement from Bill saying "I want to buy the club" in big headline print, back of the Adver, "Sell me your club" that kinda thing, then at least the board could not go on and on about no bid been received.

This needs to go public - big time.  Phil and Bill need to make the board look like what they are - numpties.

I wonder what dictionary they use to claim significant strides on the ground proposals :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

I suppose, given they are only in Quiffy's head, they may have scribbled a picture on some paper yesterday.  I can see it now, they have one of those people who draws faces from witness descriptions on the job:

"So Mike, does it have a big stand, or a small stand?"

"well, in my mind I see castles in a pinky colour with a big Mouse out the front and the smell of popcorn."

well this is just pathetic! im not happy! not happy at all! first the whole lucas thing and now this! just what do the board think they are achieving with this?

They are probablly technically right, there isnt a formal offer currently, which goes back to the NDA's , lack of accounts, due dillegence etc blah blah blah round and round we go

DO SOMETHING YOU COCKSUCKERS ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

Does anyone else smell the proverbial brown trousers and a payoff being on the cards in that statement?

I'm not just talking about the turgid lamb Dhanask followed by the rough as old arseholes prostitute I had last night either.

The patronising language and terminology do little to thinly veil their sorry attempts to distort reality.  No doubt a few individuals are starting to worry about their pay check and are attempting to pay off Bill, what would really make my fucking blood boil is any of the money generated from the Lukas Jutkiewicz transfer is used in an effort to pay off Bill Power.

The timing of this statement, several days after the transfer has slipped out leaves me feeling sick to the back teeth and that's not the dodgy lamb ploughing through my bowels.

As for development in the stadium it's a fucking crime, presumably they're discussing the residents meeting and to be honest if this bunch of incompetent leeches attempt to develop the CG site to their own interest then I'll stand toe to toe with the locals residents and do everything to stop them at every turn.

As the club have released this delightful press release, like janaage has suggested a couple of sound bites from Bill Power affirming his commitment to the cause and oust these jokers would be very welcome.

Spot on! Poor and completely unnecessary propaganda.

Just remember Dazza, there is no consortium

Having re-read the statement, I think there is something significant in it.  To admit they are making an offer (of any kind) to Bill Power, would suggest a complete shift in their stance over the nature of his investment.  It sounds like they've realised the ground they were on was as shakey as San Andreas Fault and have had to make on offer on how they propose to deal with a "debt".  If they were still sticking to their guns then the club would not really be involved because we were lead to believe it was a private share deal with James Wills.

I think they've had a smack around the chops.

Rob - I am confused (not difficult!)

Piemonte posted this a couple of weeks back:-


Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:39 pm    Post subject:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Issued at date of Report 3,454,725 ORD Shares of 1.00 each

Principal Shareholders .......Type of Share ....No. of Shares ...Value

James Seton Wills ..................ORD ............1,764,077 ....1,764,077.00

Boodle Hatfield Nominees Ltd ...ORD ...........899,703 ........899,703.00

William Power .................................ORD ..........395,473 .......395,473.00

Philip Emmel ...........................ORD ...........395,472 3.....95,472.00

Latest Update 13/05/2006
_________________
Five year plans - everybody should have one

If that has been turned up formally in a company search, then how can anyone see it as a loan? Or am I only seeing half the picture?

It's quite simple Maverick - if your supposed shareholders don't accept they are shareholders (ie if they feel you've "converted" a loan into shares without their consent) and if the alleged shareholding also flies in the face of your own public statements, then you have a problem.

That means nothin though Maverick, just shows that the club have registered the "shareholding" at companies house, probably in a last ditch attempt to "prove" they bought shares rather than loaned money.

As far as I'm aware there is just a standard type of form that would be sent off to register a change in shareholding, no evidence that this actually happened is required. I'm willing to be corrected on this though, as its not something I'd ever get invloved in.

Ok ..I think I get that ..... So which is better then Paul for Bill/Phil/Consortium with regard to a takeover - to have a shareholding or to have a loan?

If there is no paperwork to the contrary, then if Companies House shows them as shareholders, isn't that the end of it?

Regardless of that Mav, and what people have said since, if it was 100% correct why would they need to be offering Bill a settlement?  It's nothing to do with the club if it's shares, and they certainly wouldn't be offering settlements unless there is a dispute and they are not the winners.

Thanks for that Piemonte - but still confused as it shows "latest update" as 13th May 2006 so presumably around the time it actually happened (or didn't!), so not sure how it could be a last ditch attempt? Ain't got a clue either cos this is way outta my field too!  :)

Maverick, I'm not about to start debating the ins and outs of potential legal disputes here, I'm afraid. You asked a question, I tried to answer it. Although I do feel that as ever Rob is close to the mark.

And that is what puzzles me Rob - could it be that the club don't want them as shareholders and are trying to pay them off?

I would have thought that unless there was paperwork to the contrary they wouldn't be shareholders, in the same way that any one of us aren't shareholders unless they have the paperwork to prove we are?  I suspect you can't just label soemone a shareholder just because you want to?  

Good question though, how would the position of the consortium be affected if Bill and Phil are shareholders or otherwise.

Fair enough Paul, just curious and trying to understand.

But can someone just update a shareholding on their listing at Companies House without any supporting evidence?

It's not for the club to pay them off though is it, if they were shareholders, unless the club was doing a buy back (which would involve having to have surplus cash in the business).  Even then, it wouldn't be a "settlement", it would be a share sale or purchase offer.

Thanks Rob - not sure I am any clearer, but hey you tried!! I am just trying to reconcile how Piemonte's search can reveal that they are shareholders as far as Companies House are concerned. I guess that is why I am not in that line of business!

The shares are also in the holding company, not the club itself.

Like I said, I'm not 100% on this but I'm pretty sure that supporting evidence is not required, it would be up to either the company secreatary or the indivdual selling to get this updaded. In most cases its not going to be benifical to the existing shareholder to tell companies house that they have trasferred x shares to someone else if that is not the case.

Right - thanks for that Piemonte.

The CH search will show what the club have submitted as their register of members (for the holding company)

If i remember rightly, you don't need to submit a share certificate/transfer form, just fill out the form, but you have various duties of good faith and competence to do all this correctly. My guess is that this is where the issue arises.

Who are the Boodle Hatfield (they're a law firm) nominees? Diamandis/Holt et al?

Good faith and competance  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

A transfer document, usually provided by a broker is signed by both parties (normally) but it's a private arrangement between both parties and Companies House, as I understand simply update their records on request of the broker.

Logically both signatures are required on a transfer form and this is the evidence of the transaction.  The club have admitted there is no paperwork for a share transfer, which makes their claim completely unsubstatiated unless they can produce the necessary evidence showing both parties agreeing to the transfer.

As I understand, although not 100% I'm fairly certain no evidence is required by CH on updated shareholders shown in accounts/returns.

Has anyone thought that by them releasing this statement that it is designed to take the attention away for the Lucas transfer deal so they can mention it as a btw....

I think they are building up to a "We had to sell Lucas to pay off the evil Bill Power" PR move.

If Bill is a shareholder then he should have a share certificate - Swindon should have issued him with one withinn 2 months of the purchase. Lack of a share certificate, though not conclusive, surely points towards the money being a loan???

Given that Mike D likes to use nomines - he used Nick Prescott originally, presumably he can't now they've fallen out - then I'd guess it's his shares.

Today's statement is laughable but it's vital that the consortium/Bill Power respond accordingly so as to gain more support. A backpage on tomorrow's/Monday's adver suggesting that not only does the consortium undoubtedly exist but Bill is behind it would cause a huge ground swell of support and expose the board for the liars they are.

That being the case, the next question would be 'So then - any idea how you'll be paying the CVA?'

Up the creek without a paddle.  Why don't they clear off now and save everyone (themselves included) the bother?

This bit annoys me the most.

exactly Si. what stadium project? its just a complete shambles of a statement!  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:

The one in Mr Bowden's head. Like the voices  :D

 Grrrrr  :angry:

  Still its better than nothing, and it is Friday, so I can go and get hammered and digest this little beauty.

  And it is a beauty, in its sparse verbiage and trimmed down semantics.

  I'm with Dazzza, looks like they're going to atempt to buy off Bill with the Lukas dosh, in the hope that will split the Consortium.   Then hope to stumble on with a renegotiated CVA.