Thetownend.com

It's him again. That  poster on thisis. He's just posted this:

 have a source very close to the football club, and you can take or leave what I'm to inform you of, but if you are in any doubt about the strength of my information, just have a look at my last few posts which have both proved to be correct, and these claims have come from the same source, I’m a Swindon Town supporter and just want to give the supporters a chance to fight back, if indeed it's not already too late.

Mr. Fitton gave SSW and the board of Swindon Town a deadline of 2 pm this afternoon to tie up loose ends and agree to the terms of his takeover proposal, or he would no longer continue with negotiations, and effectively walk away. SSW and the board have not responded to Mr. Fitton's deadline, and although I'm not aware as to their reasons for doing this, I have an understanding they wanted an unreasonable return on any future ground redevelopment.

I don't know what this means for the future of the football club, but here you have it.


Oh dear  :cry:

oh son of a bitch! :(

Is it that Bape character?  

I can't get on for some reason.

No it's not Dazz. He's made 3 posts. The last time he posted he said the BEST Deal had collapsed and it did. He's been right with both his posts so far so let's hope this one doesn't end up the same

If this is true then Saturday is going to get very VERY messy.

I'm not condoning it, but I think Bullshit Bobs pleas for peaceful protests are gonna fall on a lot of deaf ears.......................

I said all along that this takeover would collapse, i would believe this info based on the history of this guy's post's, looks like this board have totally killed this club, i hope the fan's really give it some on saturday now!!

no surprises with what he-she says.
the future redevelopment money has been the golden egg all along.

If as you all say this is substantiated then it is all out war for Saturday with the board I feel.

Right, that's it!

The Baseball bat is coming out!

 :angry:

The leather jacket will earn it's reputation.

I assume they have some sort of plan B in place ready. It's not good enough and it's going to end in tears.

Plan B went out with window with Shaw Tip. This is at least Plan E. Is there an F? (actually, there's 3 in Fuck Off....)

The board's plan B will be to get seton wills to bail them out and possibly use Sturrock's compo money and hope for a big draw in the fa cup 3rd round and to flog some players off in january e.g Brezovan, Ifil etc.

I have had enough, we need to go to war with this bunch now, i can see it getting really nasty and out of hand now.

Well we all know the Inland Revenue will come calling on Monday then  :(

wow, i'll try and act surprised. I never believed in this take over from the start

rip stfc and rip dichael mimandis

Respect da family!

 :suicide:

clearly the board are passionate about money.

but i will tell you what, there are many people that are many many times more passionate about this football club.

everything that happens on saturday, they have brought on entirely by themselves.

To be fair 000 isn't Bape. It would be nice to get some independent source to confirm or deny 000 claim.

I'm not saying it's a wrong claim.

until its confirmed i dont believe it. fitton and the club are saying it could be complete by monday but friday at the earliest. the comming back early from his U.S business trip  for friday would tally up with the earliest possibility being friday. so if he didn't intend to complete it why give 2 dates to get it complete.

Before anyone gets out of their tree about this I've looked at 000's other posts on Thisis, of which there are only 2, both of which all scare story bollocks.

In July he posted:

"I urge all town fans not to be taken in by all the 'spin' that the board are currently shouting about.

The HMRC and other creditors have confirmed they will not renegotiate the final CVA payment which is now overdue, and they may apply for a winding up order against the club if the CVA payment is not made.

The football club have confirmed they do not have the funds to pay the debt, and will be writing to the creditors and asking them for a further 8 weeks in which to pay the monies due.

The statement on the website is very cleverly written, but when given closer inspection, there is clearly no take over guaranteed, and they are only in the early stages of discussion, due diligences has not even been carried out yet!

There is no last minute investor, but the board have once again bought themselves some time when the hammer was about to fall.

If you take them at their word, you may not have a football club in 8 weeks."


Which was shite, then a couple of weeks later he gave us:

"The FA were going to enforce a transfer embargo against the football club, in view of the fact the club have not fulfilled their duty in respect of the final CVA payment, and thus have cast doubt over the football club’s short and long term future, as a result of the impending FA ruling the football club have agreed to a Voluntary transfer embargo, which will stay in place until a satisfactory takeover is complete or until a new agreement is reached with creditors over the final CVA payment."

Another sack of shite.

Whoever it is sounds like a know nothing mouthy wind up merchant who doesn't even bother to make his stories convincing. Voluntary transfer embargo FFS!

on what basis can the board demand a cut of future profit from redevelopment? they don't own any of the land and they've made zero progress on any plans... i don't get it.

I think Diamandis will only sell his shares to Fitton providing he makes money from a future ground redevelopment, that's how i read it.

It's not the board it is Wills & Diamandis that are being greedy end of - Wills (via Diamandis) may beleive he is due some money back with all the money he has put in, I'm sure he will not see back all the loans he has outstanding, this is probably a good way for him to get something back or the only way but I'm sure they probably want a bigger slice of the pie.

With a Ground Redev there is money to be made if done correct and Diamandis can see a pay day however far in the future but he does not deserve anything as he is only a minority shareholder in the holding co but has enough to cause a problem and obviously he hould nto be left with those shares, and probably wants more than £1....he has got Dunwoody to keep aloat you know !

Agreed, as i have said before the people being greedy are wills and diamandis, these two are bringing this club down, diamandis is more responsible for the situation but wills is not helping the cause.

Do this guy and the infamous bape ever really say stuff that isnt already known? Im not entirely sure why so much credence is given to their posts if im honest.

I was wondering that myself, we have no proof they are who people think they might be...just a couple of lucky guesses in my opinion but I am willing to be proven wrong if anyone actually knows them.

Bape was reliable in my opinion but as for 000 i'm not sure he doesn't seem very reliable, he could be right this time though or he could be on a wind up.

I think that wills and diamandis want a big slice of the pie with regards to a future ground redevelopment and this is going to kill any takeover, they need to cut their losses accept they are going to get nothing and walk away, wills could walk away with a little bit of dignity, blow this takeover though and he will totally lose any dignity and will be seen in the same light as diamandis imo.

Shame Bape dissappeared shortly after Sturrock went to Plymouth...

luggys daughter maybe :o

indeed, didn't sturrock say that his daughter liked to read the forums?

Bape wasn't related bu I think the likelihood is it was someone with close links to Sturrock, quite possibly on the coaching side.  I think banbury ended-up knowing who it was.

You been intercepting pm's between Batch and me at the weekend?!  :)

Doubt it though, whenever asked for info, Bape always said they'd try and find out the next day, ie: in da club, rather than whilst having dinner with dad.

Banburys replied.
He hasn't really commented on it.
Just seems in a really good mood.
:D

Sorry for being thick - but I am with sonic on this one unless I am missing something?

Ground redevelopment is wholly up to the Council to agree to. They have a duty to get best value for the local taxpayer or face investigation from the auditors and all the ensuing penalties that can carry.

Best that anyone else could hope for would be a partnership arrangement and as I understood it from other threads and "word on the street" ... there is no way that the Council would consider any partnership with the current incumbents.

I would think that SSW will want some undertaking about getting something back on the money he has put in over the years, based around a % of any future profits, which is probably not unreasonable.

As long as SSW and AF are talking face to face without an intermediary then that has to be positive as I am absolutely convinced that SSW would never want to be forever known as the man who took STFC into oblivion ...... nobody can be sure of any other person worrying about that aspect in this debacle.

For those of you who don't want to trawl through the rubbish....

It's probably been mentioned and apologies for being thick but what is Fitton attempting to take over; the football club from the holding company or the holding company in its entirety?

I understand Mike Diamandis has a significant shareholding via a proxy but what stake does he have from the McMoan shares he bought for £1 in the club?

Diamandis only owns 26% of the holding company and my remedial maths tells me that the Wills own about 51% so again with a simplistic take on it surely the Wills have the majority stake and could sell the football club to Fitton and bypass Diamandis altogether.

Yeah from ive heard, the takeover might collapse....then again it might go through.

We might get Martin Allen as our manager - but the flip side is he wont be our manager.


Its good to have a definate opinion about something.....

If the 26% MD holding is correct there is the problem. I believe Fitton needs 75% to gain unconditional control of the holding co., so with the Wills 51% plus the remaining 23% held by a.n. others the maximum he can attain without MD's block is 74%.

So he is trying to buy the holding company?

[speculation ]
I'd imagine he could just buy the club from the holding company. I'm guess that Wills' 51% share would be enough for him to sell from the holding company.

There'd probably be some complications from that though. I'd imagine/guess/speculate that MD as a shareholder would be entitled to any money gained by the holding company. Also, I'd i/g/s that a lot of our debts go through the holding company to the club. So just taking the club from the holding company would leave a potential sketchy middle man in between STFC and it's debts.
[/speculation]

I really don't have any clue though, so that's all guesses. I wonder if anybody more knowledgeable can tell be how badly I've cut myself whilst stabbing in the dark.

I think 25% does give you the option to block so Diamandis has it by a whisker even if you include Bill and Phil's shares he can block the sale of either company which I think is classed as passing a 'special resolution' in law gubbins.

There may be provisions under the articles of association or the shareholders agreement, which stipulate something to the contrary or what may be classed as a ‘special resolution’ but I’m firmly prodding away at my leg with a pitchfork there.

I understand that holding co. owns 70% of the club. Therefore Wills 51% of holding co. = 35.7% of the club. MD's reported 26% of hc = 18.2% of club PLUS any other shares he has in the club which, if when combined give him more than 25% of the club, means AF cannot achieve unconditional control of the club either.

This is my understanding based on info posted here and elsewhere. Quite frankly it means sweet f. a. as the only thing that matters is whether the deal completes or not.

Does the holding companies shares match up with the ownership of STFC? Is it not the case that the holding company owns  the club, and depending on the rules either SirS's 51% is enough to sell or he needs MD's 20something%.

If the holding club owns 70% of the club then I wouldn't have thought in real terms the holding companies shares directly go down into that 70%. Basically I'm saying that nobody has these 70% shares in the club apart from the holding company. The directors of the holding company can make decisions but it doesn't directly filter through.

I'm not sure I've made myself very clear, but with this 25% Diamandis rule it probably doesn't make any different.

You are right. Both times.

As far as I can understand it from the constant froth of rumour and gossip that circulates both here and elsewhere, the situation is along these lines:


Although buying the Wills family shares will give Mr Fitton control, that isn't enough for him as, quite sensibly, he doesn't want Mr D to continue to have any material interest in the club. He doesn't want to have to deal with him in the future and wants him out.

That is going to be difficult to acheive if the man insists in holding on to his shares.

I assume they have told AF That Bill P owns 22/23/32/33% of the shares. After all they are going to court on that basis. That could be why diamandis is able to cause a problem. Solution , AF talk to Bill, or club admist they are wrong & bill is right.

Ummm why could it cause a problem? Even if Power, Emmel and Diamandis all got on and voted against Fitton, Fitton would still have enough of the control to go against them and win in any vote.

There are rules about the rights of minority shareholders, so if MD owns more than 25%, even though AF can outvote him, he cannot just go ahead and do what he wants. There are certain things that MD can influence.

Influence, but not control. I think that's the key.

If Fitton has a controlling interest, wouldn't he be able to issue more shares, buy them himself, thus diluting any other stakeholders % ? Or are there laws against that sort of thing

That would be unfair prejudice against the minority shareholding I think.

at 25% you can block a Special Resolution, you'd also benefit quite handsomely should any profits be made following a ground development.  If you only paid a quid for them you'd not be losing anything by being the obstacle really.

Diamandis is determined to bring this club down isn't he, I'm surprised no-one has given him a hiding yet.