Consortium News

[Maverick]

IF the Trust Consortium do have the best interests of the club etc at heart then surely they would be prepared to negotiate with whoever the principal shareholder wishes to act on his behalf?

If Mike D is someone that SSW wishes to act on his behalf then it is his call surely?

I know many people do not trust/like him or necessarily believe he should be involved, but at the end of the day how can it be for the Trust to say who SSW can talk to and make use of, and who he can't?

I am sorry, but to me, no matter how you cut it, if someone ever says to me that: -

"We had the money to take over the club but we decided not to because we didn't like someone and wouldn't talk to him"

Then as far as I am concerned they certainly do not represent true fans, and indeed seem remarkably childish in their approach.  If they want support then they have to be seen to be rising above such pettiness.

As for the necessary paperwork discussed in the interview/disagreement on the radio this morning, is it really so difficult to provide something that the Bank would be happy with?  If it is then how flaky must the prospective deal be?

[Panda Paws]

I'm assuming from what has been said so far that there are not sufficient funds in place for a full takeover

How do you mean? There's a majority shareholder of a limited public company so no matter how much money they have, if SSW doesn't want to sell, he doesn't have to.

There's no way you can, like Man Utd, trigger a full takeover with a certain amount of shares because we're not on the stock market.

[Piemonte]

I'm assuming from what has been said so far that there are not sufficient funds in place for a full takeover

How do you mean? There's a majority shareholder of a limited public company so no matter how much money they have, if SSW doesn't want to sell, he doesn't have to.

There's no way you can, like Man Utd, trigger a full takeover with a certain amount of shares because we're not on the stock market.

I meant that I interpreted from the comments that there was enough in place to fund all existing commitments but not enough to buy out SSW in full.

Although no-one actually knows how much he actually wants back, its probablly safe to assume its more than "enough to cover the existing commitments" as that wont invlove SSW getting any money back.

[arthurhorsfield]

Valid points which I will answer:

The investors will not negotiate with an individual who is at the same time both seeking to sell the company as well as being a major creditor and supplier to the club.  In additon he  is also acting as its shadow controller; these facts may call into question the clubs Football League registration thereby making any investment worthless.

The investors are rightly concerned that any deal which was agreed may at a future stage be deemed legally invalid.

The investors via the consortium will negotiate with any recognised professional advisor nominated by the majortity shareholder.

This is not a matter of personal opinion but of legal advice.

The financial bona fides provided are of a standard type offerd by the Head of Personal Banking for Lloyds Bank London and indicate clearly that the individuals concerned are of financial good standing and would be able to support any deal concluded with the company.

[pauld]

As for the necessary paperwork discussed in the interview/disagreement on the radio this morning, is it really so difficult to provide something that the Bank would be happy with?  If it is then how flaky must the prospective deal be?

The paperwork was from a bank - the Bank are quite happy the funding is in place, that's not the issue, it's just the usual BS and smokescreen. What's the weather like in Newbury?

[Ben-STFC]

Would you remove Dunwoody from the club arthur?

[arthurhorsfield]

Any new owner would review all business arrangements and supplier profiles to ensure that they offer the best possible value to the company.

This process would be concluded swiftly and without prejudice to the parties concerned.  I trust this answers your question.

[sonic youth]

As for the necessary paperwork discussed in the interview/disagreement on the radio this morning, is it really so difficult to provide something that the Bank would be happy with?  If it is then how flaky must the prospective deal be?

The paperwork was from a bank - the Bank are quite happy the funding is in place, that's not the issue, it's just the usual BS and smokescreen. What's the weather like in Newbury?

i can assure you maverick is nothing to do with newbury!

[Maverick]

I presume as always pauld that when someone questions anything you automatically assume they are one of the "Newbury" clan.  It is exactly that attitude that stops some of us long term fans from signing up to the Trust.

I sincerely and genuinely hope that fresh investment can be found to protect the long term future of the club and also to ease the dependence on SSW who surely by now has done well beyond what should reasonably be expected of him.

I also hope that it is investment that can be obtained without so much public, unhelpful and destabilising comments.

[Maverick]

Thanks for the "validation" Sonic!!

[Batch]

I also hope that it is investment that can be obtained without so much public, unhelpful and destabilising comments.

I'm sure the club will  learn from their mistakes eventually

[pauld]

Maverick, fair dos and apologies. Consider my head well and truly pulled in.

[deltaincline]

Any new owner would review all business arrangements and supplier profiles to ensure that they offer the best possible value to the company.

This process would be concluded swiftly and without prejudice to the parties concerned.  I trust this answers your question.

I just listened to the interview with Mike Wilks and ceo Mr Starnes this morning. Well, what a load of rubbish Starnes came out with.

And once again, stripping away the shit about proof of funds being evident, Mike Diamandis seems to be the problem as the club now wont do a deal without him leading it and Wilks lot don't want him involved due to a conflict of interest as he is a major creditor and supplier (not to mention possible other areas of concern which he probably couldn't say on-air)

So the club openly admit that they would welcome fans taking over if they had enough money. They now want to do so and have the funds in place (well done by the way Mike, that's a monumental achievement worthy of a lifetime stfc award on its own!), verified by Lloyds Bank.

They will only do a deal though if Diamandis leads their side.  How childish and commercially unprofessional is that? I think the club, Wills family and Diamandis himself take themselves a bit too seriously.

Unbelievable. Fucking unbelievable to hear the top man of our football club uttering such bollocks as that on the radio today.

I feel that the ante will have to be seriously upped now to rid the football of Diamandis once and for all.  Now we are certain that there IS an alternative to this shower, we all need to get behind the fans consortium. Wilkes said he's backing Sturrock as well, so what do we have to lose now? They've already admitted that they don't have the money to pay the CVA next year, so why are we letting them strangle the club till the inevitable happens when the debt is called in?

I'm going to stretch my flexitime to the limit today, take the rest of the day off and look for some inspirational protest ideas. We can't just sit watching this lot fucking our club up the arse.

[sonic youth]

are the consortium refusing to negotiate with diamandis?

if so, is that not rather counterproductive because we'll never get anywhere otherwise?

just how much money do the consortium have behind them?

will the "mystery backer" be able to support the club in the long term if the team is unsuccessful on the pitch and there is no ground redevelopment?

why exactly is starmes insisting that the paperwork provided to prove the investment is rubbish, i don't understand this sort of thing

[Batch]

are the consortium refusing to negotiate with diamandis?

if so, is that not rather counterproductive because we'll never get anywhere otherwise?

Sonic, above Mike Wilks answers why legally they are advised not to conduct negotiations with him.