Consortium News

[Maverick]

How on earth is a protest at two of our biggest games actually going to help the morale of the players on the pitch? Particularly in games that we desperately need to do well in.  Ask the players whether it affects them, and I think you will find that certainly for some of them it does.

[pauld]

I'd agree with you there Maverick. Any vocal protest, if there is to be one, should be before or after the game - while the players are on the pitch, the only thing any of us should be shouting about is cheering the lads on for a win.

[Maverick]

Sorry delta, but for me if I was looking to sell my business and it was in dire straits, then I would definitely be taking advice as well.  Otherwise the risk is I am going to be the proverbial "lamb to the slaughter".  I would insist on having my own trusted advisor there, and if the potential purchaser won't talk to him/her, then it would immediately arouse my suspicions regarding their interest.

If the consortium really want this to happen (and I hope they do, and I hope they can inject some much needed investment), then how does involving Mike D in those conversations cause a problem?  As far as I am aware there is nothing illegal about talking to someone unless there is a personal injunction in force.

[RobertT]

I would presume the following would be good grounds not to talk to someone:

Not employed by the organisation (although not essential)
A current supplier to the company
A current creditor of the company
A previously disqualified Director
A person who is subject to a current DTI investigation

How could you ever be in a position where you are speaking to a creditor and supplier of a company about it's purchase.  How can he not be coming into the talks without having a conflict of interest?  As such I would guess there would be serious legal concerns about the validity of such negotiations even if SSW ultimately signs the paperwork.  You only have to look at the issue of endowment mortgages to see how legal issues surrounding advice are very possible.  To many potential issues could arise further down the line and does he even have the necessary insurance to protect against providing negligent advice on financial matters at such value?

[RobertT]

How on earth is a protest at two of our biggest games actually going to help the morale of the players on the pitch? Particularly in games that we desperately need to do well in.  Ask the players whether it affects them, and I think you will find that certainly for some of them it does.

Very few if any people have called for vocal portests.  So far the only real move has been for a visual display of a colour to show dissastifaction.

Given the past few months, I'm still suprised nothing has happened and I think it does go to show just how delicately fans have decided to play this on matchdays.

[pauld]

Maverick it's quite simple - if you have had legal advice from a very heavyweight and extremely expensive team of legal advisers that it would be wrong to negotiate with a discredited individual on four or five grounds that have been extensively outlined in this thread, you would be exceptionally foolish to ignore that advice wouldn't you?

And if the board are serious about seeking new investment, why the childish obstruction tactics?

[Maverick]

Thanks pauld - I always struggle with how people should express their opinions about off the pitch matters for two reasons: -

1/ How can it be done without in some way affecting the players.

2/ With the way that any club is run, how does anybody sort out the truth from the rumours and lies?  The problem being that the media then jump on whatever is said, and if it is not completely correct then it leaves the door open for the whole protest to lose all credibility.

All the media want is a story - all of us at each others throats is what they love to see as it gives them that story.

I am not saying I have any answers - I wish it was that easy!

[Maverick]

Rob the issue of endowment mortgages is very different.  People are entitled to compensation because they invested their money in what their advisor told them to so the advisors had to pay up.  IF SSW wishes to take Mike D's advice then it is between the two of them and at a later date it would be for SSW to take legal action against Mike D and nobody else.

As for the good grounds ... I would suggest that what you have laid out are the reasons that you or presumably the consortium would not wish to seek advice from Mike D.  Clearly SSW thinks differently and that is his prerogative.

[Maverick]

Rob - if every fan wore orange or whatever colour - do you think the board would see it but the players wouldn't?

Sorry, but for me those 90 minutes (plus stoppages!!) are sacred - it is about the match - after all it is the reason I started supporting STFC, I certainly didn't start supporting them because of what does or doesn't happen off the pitch!!

[RobertT]

I'm not sure the players would be paying too much attention to my attire.  They are more likely to be aware of my voice.

I used endowments as a way of showing how advice can often lead to many ongoing issues.  it's a mess, regardless of who it would effect, that is well worth avoiding in the first place.

You claim that off the field stuff affects the players, well an ongoing legal wrangle after the club is taken over being played out in the media would by your standards cause trouble on the pitch.

Not negotiating with a supplier of the company seems fairly sensible practise if you ask me.

[Sharky]

I'm not sure the players would be paying too much attention to my attire.  They are more likely to be aware of my voice.

In all fairness rob he has a point - at the end of the day we should be there to support the team rather than focusing so much on the board issues.

If the trust is serious in its attempts to curtail this downward spiral of events then that can be done off the pitch and away from match days so as not to interupt the players and management that are still working towards the same goals we are!

I hereby take back my original agreement to wear orange and will be there with my town shirt on as per usual and as it should be. Board room talk and protests should be made with the board - who by all accounts will not, in their main, even be at the game!

[Maverick]

Not at all Rob - if the wrangle is between a previous owner and his advisor then it would have no impact on anyone at the club - it becomes their problem.

As I said before with regard to the status of the advisor - if that is who SSW wants to advise him, what on earth could the consortium have to fear?  You or I may feel that would be flawed or biased advice but that would merely be our opinion just as he clearly has his.  People should respect that and not try to tell him who he should and shouldn't listen to.

We all have opinions and bias, however if we took into account everyone else's prejudices and involvements then nobody would ever discuss or negotiate about anything.

It seems clear to me that SSW wants him to be involved, so it seems equally clear that it is unlikely this whole consortium initiative will get any further unless people accept that and work with it.

People chose to make this issue public - they have to live with the consequences of that - i.e. it becomes much more difficult for people to compromise.

Simple question -

If SSW insists on having Mike D involved is the whole Consortium initiative dead in the water?  If so, was it really worth pursuing anyway?

[pauld]

If SSW insists on having Mike D involved is the whole Consortium initiative dead in the water?  If so, was it really worth pursuing anyway?

No and yes in that order.

[TalkTalk]

Simple question -

If SSW insists on having Mike D involved is the whole Consortium initiative dead in the water?  If so, was it really worth pursuing anyway?

Simple answer - yes, if we want a football club to support next season.  :roll:

[Maverick]

good news pauld - so Mike D's involvement is no longer an issue?