Thetownend.com

Can't quite believe the article in the adver by Sturrock today. Can't quite put my finger on my disatisfaction but there is something about today's article that smells a little fishy to me.

Link : http://www.thisisswindontownfc.co.uk/display.var.1559628.0.sturrocks_plans_on_ice.php

When we had no 'investor', we were able to sign players, including one for a fee if the press are to be beleieved.

All of Sturrock's meetings with the investor's have gone well according to his statements.

And now, weeks down the line, "takeover talks have "frozen" potential transfer dealings".

I suppose the other side of the argument will be that due diligence needs to be completed and that will determine the level of investment and therefore the transfer fund but for some reason this leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

It can only be that there has been so much crap coming out of SN1 in the last few weeks that this is just more of the same.

 :chunder:

That is a worrying statement to come from a Manager IMO.

I don't think anyone knows whats going on!!  :?

All the article says to me is that Sturrock is trying to get the process sped up by making such comments. Obviously if these investors do take over he's been promised a budget, he wants it asap so it makes sense for him to voice his frustrations.

As a manager, you are forced to use diplomatic language (as Sturrock has been doing for months).  If you wanted to put these comments through a translator to find his true feelings, I think you would find he's absolutely livid and as worried about the future as the rest of us.

Let's ne honest...if another club were to approach PS with an attractive managerial position, would you really blame him for showing an interest (contract considerations aside)?  Neither would I.

Not good enough.

Sturrock isn't going anywhere...

I just think this is a case of Sturrock gettting impatient more than anything

Just like our fans then!!

He will when this fucking bullshit make believe "investor" falls through and we're left with -10 points and a winding up order :roll:

Tbh though i think we can safely say that this investor(s) really does exist. Why we appoint Rufus Brevett? Whether or not a deal gets done remains to be seen.

You really think so Rich? I'm a bloody investor for fucks sake, we all are. It doesn't mean we're going to pay the CVA though does it? Personally I see this whole facade as another bullshit time buying exercise for that cunt Diamandis. I've not believed any of this shite from the start, and it still looks like a big scam to me. I hope I'm wrong but I can't see any positives coming from anywhere at the moment. Not one.

You could say the same about the Fans Consortium being a facade for Bill Power to take over the club....

No I couldn't. There is no facade at all with the FC, which is the beauty of the idea. You think it was all a facade?

Stop talking bollocks The_Plagiarist,

I don't think that, but until he takes over the club and runs it (if ever) then we won't ever know.

Isn't the Fans Consortium made up of other backers (supposedly)? I don't know their identities either.

No need for that Todd old son :evil:

The FC was made up of Mike Wilks, Phil Emmell, Power and the Trust, as you know as well as anyone.

FWIW I'm with the Plagiarist.

My personal opinion is that it is indeed all time buying horse shit and it is all going to go horribly wrong  :(

I seem to remember talk of other backers from the city? Anyway, it does seem that people have short memories. When the FC was initially created nobody knew their identities, it was all secret. It was only when the club asked the FC themselves who the backers were that it became apparent who the main backers are and rightly so.

I don't like this cloak and daggers situation as much as the next man and it does seem we'll only ever know what happens once the deal's done, which is shit. However, the other consortium which is now undertaking due diligence has not come forth with explanations as to who they are. Maybe it's them and not the club people should be unhappy with.

Well it needed to be said. I appreciate that you are very anti board, but its pretty clear from recent events that there IS an investor in negotiations with the club. Evidence of this includes:

1. The investor apparantly beeing at both friendlies so far
2. Sturrock REPEATEDLY saying he has met them.
3. The appointment of Brevitt

If you still dont think that there is an investor then I think your deluded and need to remove the Bill Power blinkers.

I am a bit split on this and can see points to both sides, if we look at the facts its easy to see why people have there beliefs:

1. The boards failure to name or deliver any of the numerous investors they have discussed this season.

2. The CVA is due and this would be a good way to bide time with the creditors.

But then if we look at things the other way, I feel there must be an investor there as:

1. Sturrock said he has met him and I do not align him with the board he has never lied to us.

2. The Brevitt appointment would be bizarre if there was no investor there as it would be throwing more money away as a smoke screen and I don't think the current regime want to lose money with pointless appointments more concerned with lining there own pockets.

3. It seems the 'investors' are being consulted over many decisions Pook's contract, transfer budgets etc so I think there must be someone there.

Main issue we all have is they refuse to publically state there intentions or what they intend to invest.  I hope the media pressure continues and that answers are forthcoming in the near future.  In the meantime I don't think it does any of us any good to either insult the negative people or the positive people we will find out hopefully sometime soon what the future holds.

That's not actually true, Si. When the FC was first created it consisted of the Trust and Mike Wilks. Together, we were tasked with attracting backers who could secure the future of the club. Obviously our first port of call there was always going to be Bill and Phil who had an existing interest in the club and thanks to considerable hard work and persuasion (mostly from Mike) that this was a viable project they wanted to get involved with, Bill and Phil were persuaded to back the FC. They weren't involved from the outset so it's totally wrong to say that "When the FC was initially created nobody knew their identities, it was all secret" as they weren't involved at that stage.


Again, not quite true. The timing of the disclosure was to some extent provoked by the club's idiotic "Americans" statement, but it was something that was underway anyway and would have been revealed around that time irrespective of what the club said, if only to remove the fog of suspicion that we could be "getting into bed" with dodgy investors/Kassam/Di Stefano or that there actually was no substance behind the whole thing at all and that the "mystery backers" subsequently turned out not to be able to provide the backing required. Fans were quite rightly asking those kind of questions around that time as they are now, which is why it was right to disclose who the backers were then and why people are nervous the board will not disclose who they are now. Let's face it, the track record does not inspire confidence

Ok thanks for clearing up the technicalities Paul.

I'm under no illusions that the club has played games and could still be playing them. I just think that we can all be a bit repetitive and unconstructive at times.

Sturrocks clearly getting pissed off, he's gonna walk soon I reckon  :o

Erm, no we're not.

We're customers.

We pay x amount to watch the club we support.

I don't think it's a question of whether there are new investors, it's pretty obvious there is. What the real questions are, are how much are they going to invest and what they expect as a return for that investment. Assuming they're still interested after they've completed due diligence.

Sturrock's frustrated and rightly so, but I can't see him walking and even if he wanted to, the club he goes to would have to be willing to stump up quite a large amount of cash in compensation.

im not sure he'll walk, but if the day comes that he does then i dont believe it would be unjustified for full scale protests to occur. It would be at such a stage that the board have lost the confidence of the fans, the council and now its own employees. If the was ever a time to protest then that would be it.

Before any of you mention the Dennis Wise going to Leeds situation i believe he'd have left regardless of any aggravation on the behalf of STFC he's just a little glory shite who fucked up and is now worse of getting leeds relegated than if he had got Swindon promoted.

The thing about Dennis Wise is when offered the leeds job he must have thought, "best" case scenario is I go to leeds have a stormer, get to play offs and who knows.

Worse case scenario we go down, Swindon go up, but what have I lost?  Nothing as the best I could do at Swindon is get promoted and end up in League 1.  Therefore he was in a no lose situation, especially with Ken Bates in charge at leeds.  

This season would be where he can only make a loss, if we do well and leeds do crap  and by that time it wouldn't really matter.

Why the need for all the secrecy though - I am genuinely asking for what reason?

Someone posted the other day about Man U, Man C, Liverpool - all are much bigger clubs/takeovers but the identities were know much earlier in the process and they stated their intentions BEFORE the takovers. Then again, this is STFC I suppose.

:shrug:

So why the cloak and dagger stuff - something doesn't smell quite right to me. Don't forget, while most people are hoping for the 'miracle once in a lifetime investment/takeover', we could actually turn out to be in a WORSE situation that we are with the current muppets in charge. During the last 15 years or so, has there been one genuine board to run the club for the fans rather than seeing STFC as a vehicle in which to make their millions?
 :shock:

I have stated before that I have no issue with people who want a return on their money - nobody throws good money after bad - but it seems that through the greed of various individuals, we find ourselves where we are currently, through lack of investment in various parts of the business.

£1.5 million in 'admin expenses' should tell you what you need to know.

Manchester and Newcastle Uniteds both had to go public though due to stockmarket rules didn't they???

Not sure about the others.  I agree about Town though there's no excuse for it especially after all the shit the board were spouting back in December.

We could smoke them out of the CG?

My theory is that the potential investors have demanded anonymity until they've gone through the books. That way, if they find a problem, they can walk away without any hassle.

The difference between ourselves and teams in the premiership is that they make money, there's also the cachet of being involved with a top-flight, famous club.

For this reason, I very much doubt that the used car salesmen lookalikes who have been attending pre-season games and pictured talking to Sturrock are the actual investors.  If you obsessed with keeping your identity secret, would you then turn up in person at games and allow your picture to be taken?  I wouldn't.

The characters pictured in the paper are either people associated with the investor (should he exist), players' agents...or they are actors employed by Diamond Mike.  And no, I wouldn't put the latter option past this lot.

Not sure that that answers the question - if they find a problem with the books and their identity WAS known, there is still nothing stopping them walking away without any hassle?

If they view the books and are  :shock: , they can still do a :run:

Apart from the media.

Agreed - surely they should be inconspicous  :hide:  with the deal being as shrouded in secrecy as it is.

What could the media do?

They might ask them for an interview to explain why they chose not to invest but they are hardly going to camp out overnight outside these peoples houses on a witch-hunt  :box:  because they didn't invest are they?

(Sorry, it's emoticon Friday and I'm getting a little carried away) :oops:

Maybe we're not the only club they're looking at?

I was about to post this.

This sort of silence isn't like the Super PR Machine that the BOB HOLTAZOR 3000. Secrecy maybe, but I'm sure if they had there way then our current lot would be playing "We got INVESTORZ" statement tennis, especially with such provocation from the adver.

Points massively to them  being silenced while the new consortium have a butchers at Sandy's adding up. Which makes it unsurprising that there's going to be some rocky patches along the way - and not of the good montage variety. I think we've all got a good idea that some of our accounts may be a bit creative.

I think it's pretty clear that the investors to exist. I'm with Si on doubting it was them in those pictures though. Whether they stick around after getting a sniff of the real state of the club or not is I guess what we're really waiting to find out. That and if they are SUPER ACE I WANT TO BUY YOU MEGA L1 DREAM SQAUD INVESTORZ or EVIL I WANT TO BUILD HOUSES ON YOUR PITCH INVESTORZ.

It just makes there life easier all round I guess. One less thing to worry about.

To be honest this doesn't stick with me because I don't think theres a Swindon fan alive or the local media who would anyway hassle some investors who walked away as they refused to work with this bunch of crooks/imcompetent cunts.  

Yes they could discover a problem within the books (which would in no way surprise me) but because of the due dilligence they would never be able to reveal it due to the legal grounds.  

There is no real reason why they should want to remain anonymous, this is why people become suspicious and negative.  Just come out and give us some answers simple as that.

Spot on.

The way I look at this is:

1. There is no concrete proof that these investors are real or if they are that they are serious. I can't believe that after all these weeks there hasn't been a leak from somebody in the know. The board are staying completely schtum.

2. If they do exist, then Worcester makes a very valid point about their motives. What do investors invest for? Er yeah - a return. So in what form?

3. If they are foreign then how does that sit with a community club like STFC? I can't believe that they are just benevolent individuals who want the club to do well. Look at the Glazers and all of the other recent takeovers.

4. Given 3. then I would prefer the FC - it has publicly declared that it is in for the football and community aspect, not for financial gain (read rip off). Give me Bill Power over unknown foreign businessmen any day.

It does not matter about the pictures we are still no wiser to who they are.

Personal i have got to the stage where i dont give a fuck

How about Diamandis insisting on anonymity?
Maybe Swindon have demanded secrecy so that if the investors back out because they find something they are not happy with, the investors are unable to go public with what the problem is.

Much more likely scenario !

Alan with all due respect I agree with alot of what you say but I don't think we can be too closed or blinkered in the way we look at things.

1. There is no concrete proof that these investors are real or if they are that they are serious. I can't believe that after all these weeks there hasn't been a leak from somebody in the know. The board are staying completely schtum.

I think the fact Sturrock has said he has met them is proof that someone exists, plus the Brevitt appointment adds weight to the claims.

2. If they do exist, then Worcester makes a very valid point about their motives. What do investors invest for? Er yeah - a return. So in what form?

This is one of the main reasons they must come public with there intentions.  Most takeovers are done for personal gain rather than a love of the club they are buying, if it is something that is mutually beneficial to us and them then thats fine with me.

3. If they are foreign then how does that sit with a community club like STFC? I can't believe that they are just benevolent individuals who want the club to do well. Look at the Glazers and all of the other recent takeovers.

I think if there foreign that is irrelevent very few Man U fans have a bad word to say about the Glazers now, they have delivered major signings every summer and finally won the league after a few years last year.  Other success stories include Chelsea, Portsmouth so nationality is irrelent IMO.

4. Given 3. then I would prefer the FC - it has publicly declared that it is in for the football and community aspect, not for financial gain (read rip off). Give me Bill Power over unknown foreign businessmen any day.[/quote]

I agree I would prefer Bill and the fans consortium and I still hope in someway they can still against all the odds takeover.  I think Bill and the others have shown incredible patience and desire to still be here after all these months of frustration.  There honest and up front approach has always been a major plus, it is still my dream for them to takeover.

But until we have answers from this consortium I don't think we can hold too much negativity against them.  As I said keep the pressure up lets keep writing in demanding answers, lets hope the adver keep up the media pressure then sooner rather than later we will hopefully get to the bottom of all of it.

That's fair enough.

I think I'm just sceptical as to the motives of anybody who hasn't got direct connections to a football club (like living in the same country).

The fans consortium consists of Bill P, Phil Emmel, Mike Wilkes & the TRUST.  End off.
The "other" backers were/are their, but would not be part of the consortium (just putting some money in I thought)

This new consortium, could it me that it is that internet thingy, where the investors choose the players & the team ? That would explain the freeze ! :P  :P

Hence why I put the word backers - people who fund the thing.

Incidentally I think the fans consortium is a great idea, but it's not the perfect little scenario it's often made out to be.

Still would be preferred by myself to the unknown investors as information has been a lot more forthcoming.

I agree that it's largely irrelevant whether the proposed investors are foreign or not, but this point about the Glazers isn't true of ordinary fans who actually go to games. Very few armchair Man Utd fans may have a bad word to say about the Glazers but the ordinary fans have seen their season ticket prices rocket in the past couple of years. They may be happy with what's happened on the pitch but they're certainly not chuffed about paying the price for the Glazers debt in a highly leveraged take-over.

All of which is completely irrelevant to Swindon - whether the investors are foreign or not, they're not the Glazers and we're not Man Utd.

As Pauld says this is not quite accurate, Man Utd are currently the subject of a court action over their recently introduced controversial automatic cup ticket scheme, which could in the worst case scenario almost double season ticket prices. This on top of a 14% rise anyway and the club basically on record as saying; 'there's 14,000 on the waiting list take it or leave it' I would imagine you could find a large number of Man Utd fans who have bad words to say about the Glazers

I bet they don't have a bad word to say about manatees though

Is that cinema for children in the afternoon?