Thetownend.com

http://www.swindontownfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10341~1154871,00.html

Love the logic. The club cant afford to pay back loans so would of course never take any from anywhere under any circumstances.

SO HOW THE FUCK IS THE CLUB £18m IN DEBT?

Bit harsh - firstly I thought it was stated that we are nowhere near £18m in debt, and secondly he makes the point about a £1m loan being a burden which it obviously would be

Not praising the board as to be honest the way that article is written is prroly attempted propaganda beyond belief, but I do feel people are just slagging the board off for the sake of it now

I agree with that

Im sorry

but I just cannot see the point in that statement at all.

Why would anyone remotely want to hang their washing out to dry so publicly

If anyone from the club is reading this.............stop it please, its making us a real laughing stock

If you count the Wills loans, STFC really is £18m in Debt.

I'm not slagging them for the sake of it. I dont think Bill Power is the all conquering saviour of STFC.

I'm slagging them becasue during their tenure they have taken out millions of pounds in loans against the club then claim that BP's money couldnt possibly be a loan becuase they couldnt repay it. Which is totally unlike any other debts accumulated under there stewardship of course. It fails a basic logic test

"Now that Bill Power and Phil Emmel have seen the strength of our case, I hope we can sit down and resolve this amicably. I await their call."

Wouldn't you be quite happy to go to court if you were convinced of the strength of your case.?

Seems odd. Unless by amicably it means drop the case, instead of settle.

Apart from anything else, as Bill Power and Phil Emmel well know, neither Holdings nor the Club would have been in a position to repay loans of this amount,




Yes but you are expecting your money back you loaned the club (on top of the interest already paid to you) now aren't you Wills ????

Hypocritical and greedy

Whereas that somewhere bizarre statement fortunately refrains from attacking people for the sake of it. Although in some places it's difficult to work out what the attack actually is other than a general sense of "they is bad folks, them lot". And the whole thing is basically apropos bugger all other than a general lashing out at the usual supsects. Bizarre.

I would say thats the board trying to get the fans against power.  The simple fact is the money was owed.  The club are clearly worried

The article is worse than my grammer.

But why?  That's what confuses me, it's not as if Power's ever going to take the club over now is he, nor make another attempt if the Fitton consurtium does come in.

It makes no sense to me at all.

Also it's fucking rich that they come out and say some of that stuff on an official site and we have to watch what we say on a fucking private board.

Sometimes I have trouble believing people like this actually exist in the world...

good lord.

what do the board of stfc and sami hyppia have in common anyone?

that's unbelievable. what was the point of it other than to stir up trouble? why is diamandis using the official website to challenge power/emmell, doesn't he have their contact details?

it's akin to standing in the middle of the street and begging everyone to punch you in the face.

Quite frankly this statement even takes the piss by STFC statements standards. I mean WTF? Hads the fat controller had a liquid lunch again?? The only statement that beats this is the strop 'somebody' had 2 days after the clear the air meeting with the Trust.

I guess it is some prelude to trying to get the fans to pressure Power into dropping the court case "for the good of the club".  Thing is, it wasn't the fans that totally and utterly cocked up the relationship between Power and the club. If Power has a case then he is entitled to go for it, it's the clubs doing and the may be the clubs undoing. So stop trying to pin it on other people.

Going to court in cases like this will always show someone "might have got it wrong". If the club are so confident it is Power why come out with this BS.

What the fuck is the point of that statement? Fred's right, this is an embarrasment and is making the club look fucking stupid.

Why the need to be so public about it like that? A simple press release saying a court writ had been issued and it will be heard in the High Court would have been suffice. Not some 'come and have a go if you think you're hard enough' statement.

Seems to me like Diamandis is scared. Is he afraid something might come out in court that he doesn't want people to know? Like Nemo said, if they were so confident of their case why would they want to talk about it amicably and also threaten Bill and Phil with the "your not fans if you're going to sue us" line.

It really doesn't make sense.

Not if you go by the figures in the audited accounts it isnt.

As of 2006, the total debt is about £6.5 million if you assume that the CVA completes successfully (or about £12 million if it fails).

The Wills have loaned money to the club but it is simply nowhere near the figures that have been claimed. The £8 million mentioned by Diamandis the other week as being "in the balance sheet" just isnt there in the accounts either of the club or the holding company.

The only figures in those accounts relating to loans from Wills are £300K owed to James, and £1.2 million owed to Sir Seton on which he has been paid about £175,000 in interest in 2005 and 2006 (about 7%).

It looks to me like they are having difficulty explaining away the court case to our new potential buyer and are trying to deflect the blame.


... and of course they would never accept a loan unless they knew  they could repay it.  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Correct. The court case is near, and this lot are getting desperate.

A PR exercise entitled “Pissing in the Wind” by Robert Holt.

Although what is interesting is that Power and Emmel must believe they have a strong case if they were prepared to ‘short-circuit’ the trial procedure although you have to look at the existing board’s recent court room successes feel confident with Mickey Mouse as your advocate.

Is the date for a full court case set, or was that the date for the 'short circuit' ruiling?

by the way could someone explain what 'short circuit' means? i keep picturing johnny 5...

Actually, it's Robin.

I don't understand these comments that appear to support the Board version.

By implication, you are by default saying that Bill Power would willy nilly hand over over a million punds without checking first of all that the Company that he is lending it to could not pay it back?

Now I am not sure who is correct, but I sure would not be choosing the Board's version of events over any others.

legal eagle needed

can anybody explain what the short circuit stuff means - I believe there is a court case scheduled for the 9th november.

Enter judgment by default.

ie : there is no legal defence to the action, hence judgment is issued in default negating the need for trial and the possibility of trying to fight thereafter for any costs awards

FWIW, the 9th November hearing is a directions hearing only, it is not the start of the trial.

A period of disclosure with follow prior to any high court date being scheduled

I think it's just a case of declining to even know how the defence will argue their case in an attempt to get the case to court.  They’ve probably taken one look at Mike Diamandis’ track record in court and decided there’s probably no need to know what ludicrous defence they re going to argue.

Just speculation but if a deal is close to being completed at the club then and any hope of a fan’s takeover is dead in the water it would make sense for Power and Emmell to sit back and strengthen their hand in court rather than rush it through.  Even as solid a case as they may have it makes sense to know what the defence will be if there is no incentive for an earlier day in court.

thanks Fred

No problemo

I prefer Robert so Robert he is.  :D

"Speaking for Holdings, Mike Diamandis said: "Much of the present ill feeling towards the Board emanated from a meeting of October 6th last year when Paul Davis presented a report regarding Bill Power's departure from the Club."   :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Yep never mind the previous 4 years of on the pitch cock-up, financial disaster and contempt for fans opinions.  This statement is more muggy than a mug who's been studying muggism at mugsville university etc

And the meeting in question (where we laid out what had gone on causing Bill and Phil to leave the club) was in late September - the one on 6th October was the "peace meeting" brokered by Cliff Puffett that you torpedoed two days later, remember Mike?

But then I'd hardly expect a grasp of detail from a man who's apparently unable to tell whether the club broke even or not.

Oooh a little beauty here....

    I particularly like the way in which in which all the woes of STFC are laid at the door of Paul Davis.....it might seem funny to us, but there are people who'll believe this.

    Its classic tactics of trying to isolate busy bodies....it was tried previously on buttering up Rob T and Sonique,  then a more draconian approach in getting OB to visit Sam, followed by the outrage of the  banning the TEF 2.

    Its important that we don't allow this to happen.....even if its just explaining to people in home, pub or workplace the true nature of events.

It seems to me that they may have run into a problem with the new investors who are unwilling to pay back Power's money when the club lose, so they are now crapping themselves and trying to get fan's against Bill & Phil to cancel the case an accept the money was for shares.

Strange timing though as they would have been served with papers many weeks ago.

Of course that will never happen as Bill & Phil are held in high regard by supporters, while Messrs Holt & Diamandis are thought of so little that they are regarded as an irritation to most.

Banning order for Mr Davis next then by the sound of that....he's just a trouble maker  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

It beggars belief. The statement is absolutely deluded.  For the last few days I think that many fans have been fairly patient, as asked & have calmed down a bit awaiting the 16th November & this proposed takeover.  So what do the club do. Try & shir things up by banning the supporter of the year, & another loyal fan, followed by a public hissy fit, during which they slag off the guy who loaned them 1.2 million in their hour off need, & of course they also choose to slag off the chairman of the largest supporters group FOR TELLING THE TRUTH.
And it's all guff any way.  They ask why Bill P held off for a year, it's bleedin obvious, you don't sue a club you are trying to buy do you.  It could have ended with Bill P suing the club of which he was the major shareholder. You only do that when, you realise that the other party are shafting you.  And as for the bit about borrowing money they can't pay back, that is ludicrous in the extreme, that's all they have EVER done.
AND what about Bob Holts recent statement about the "new" investors. Something along the lines of a million quid is neither here nor there to them.  Wills & Co expect there money back plus some,  so why the hell can't the other investors ?
Besides, if as they allege, there case is SO strong, presumably they will be awarded costs when they win!
Bill & Phil never claimed to be STFC fans through & through, they just told the truth. They were driven to this by the people in charge of the club.  What are they expected to do, say goodbye to 1.2 million ? Sorry, but if I were the sultan of Brunei, I wouldn't do that with this lot!
AND the final sentence takes the biscuit. They wouldn't speaks to any of the fans consortium about buying the club, but expect Bill/ Phil to call them now.
If I were Bill or Phil I would call them, but it would be a very short conversation startiong in F & ending in Off.

:shock:  :shock:

All I'll say is What is the point of this statement?

No one started slagging off the board in the last week and singing Powers praises so why try and get people to turn on Power now?.

I really cant see the point of this what so ever. I could see if the adver or trust or someone did a huge article or something about the upcoming case and the club was trying to defend itsself but.... What is the point of this?

Its just another piece of vindictiveness

hilarious.

get rid!

It's such a clumsy attempt at spin - I've never seen anything like it they make the Labour party look skilled

Oh ffs. More drivel from the board. I can't even be bothered to let my feelings known anymore. I'm that fed up with STFC at the moment that i almost don't even care.

My favourite bit:

'In September of last year Sir Seton Wills was planning for the long term future of the club...'

Of course he was.  In much the same way, probably, that in September of last year Robert Mugabe was planning for the long term future of Zimbabwe.

One day, these awful people will be gone.  I keep telling myself this.

Just when you think the board of STFC can't get any more pathetic. Take 'em to the cleaners, Bill.

They just don't get it do they.
Quote 'much of the present ill feeling towards the board goes back to a meeting on oct 6th last year'
WRONG , it's how these muppets have made Swindon Town FC a laughing stock over the last 2 decades that has caused the ill feeling.
This statement shows they haven't got a clue how to run the football club. Enough is enough , this needs to be a takeover by Mr Fitton and his consortium not an investment to keep the current lot in charge.

It's obviously to split the fans.

It might also get the hardcore protestors to go back to the Bill Power chanting i.e. stop protests progressing and maybe even get them to go even more backward.

This statement serves nothing more than digging up the past and stopping any momentum in my opinion. Whether that's intended or not, who knows.

Actually, it's probably the first club statement EVER, that has a quote by Mike D, and even then it's on 'behalf of the holding company', which itself is worthless, and then he's quoting dates, which are inaccurate.

If I was Bill and Phil, I'd just issue the following statement to Mikey D & co.:

'We'll see you in court.'

Someone ought to remind Mikey boy that the laws of slander and libel apply to him as well. It's all very well him slagging off Paul D and Mike Wilkes who probably don't have the financial clout to drag him through court, but to make statements about the way Bill and Phil have conducted themselves during this process that teeter on the edge of untruth, when it's already clear that the two of them aren't scared of litigation seems a bit stupid.

Oh hold on I forgot who I was talking about for a second.

Well if someone wants to start a fund to look into court cation, I would be happy to contribute.

I particularly like the way that Bob talks for the club and Mike for the holding company, like they are two totally separate entities, beautiful!

To just summarise why they would produce a statement like this, they have a track record in such cases.  I distinctly remember them using the Adver to trumpet the fact they got a Court date to take Donnegan, Rowe and Lux to Court, suggesting quite openly that it was a case about these 3 missappropriating the clubs funds.

They later lost and even managed to have to pay compensation.  A very difficult task, that, be the plaintiff and have to pay the compensation on top of the court costs at the end.

It's about getting a view out in public, even if it is wrong, on the hope the end result if negative gets lost.  The several weeks of making innuendo and allegations of dodgyness stick much longer in the memory than a 1 day article saying they lost their case.  It's how papers like the Mirror work, get the coverage and sales for the shit article, then hope a page 27 apology gets missed by everyone, which it does.

Noticed this and something possibly stupid came to me. Hopefully someone with a knowledge of these things can help...

"As far as I am concerned he has bought shares in the club. If he wants to trade them then I am happy with that."

So MD implied shares in the Club, when it has always been stated it's the holding company, but this raised a question with me.

In the real world the club can't be worth £1.2m, so therefore can a judge rule that BP has to take an equity holding from the club (not the 'holding' company) in relation to his £1.2m?

It may sound a bit silly, but baring in mind the illiquid nature of the club, could it be ruled that for £1.2m BP is entitled to the 100% of the clubs shares?

It may be a shit return on investment (as he'd be buying £xxm of debt within a cash greedy company, as opposed to getting £1.2m), but can a judge demand ssw writes STFC shares over to BP as payment?

I don't see it as a possibility, it's pretty "outhere", just wondered. Plus the thought of BP being given an equity stake in STFC and the right to attend meetings and more would be a touch amusing.

Meh, I've had much worse things said about me by much better men. Not worth the time and effort.

Didn't Mikey D say that he is busy issuing extra sgares to make other smaller shareholdings, insignificant.
I know its a Private Co, but if Bill is alleged to own shares, wouldn't he be entitled to vote on the sale of the club or what ever. I own a very samll number of shares in some large plc's & get a vote on everything.  And they can't even decide on what % of the Co, Bill is supposed to own.
Muppets, the lot of them

Cheers Paul :wink:

Shouldn't that be?:


Cheers,




Donkey

:D