Consortium News

[pauld]

Maverick, I'm not interested in playing 6th form debating society chop logic. The reasons why the investors do not wish to negotiate with Mike D's involvement are clear and comprehensible; the reasons why anyone would wish for him to continue to be involved with our football club substantially less so. Clearly you either don't get the point or don't wish to - now can we leave this particular horse dead? If nothing else, I've got to get to work!  

[Sharky]

i'd rather not drag the club through another year just for whoever takes over to fuck it up even more than the current board!

I dont think the consortium would do that mind, but the point Maverick makes is valid in that IF the consortium cant proceed because they dont LIKE the representative they must discuss with, then what change of success do we have under their control in the future if this is such a big probelm to them.

Regardless I dont believe it will be the stumbling block myself, I just think it may have been frustrating considering the knowledge of the recent fuck ups in the past with MD

[SwindonTartanArmy]

This month we have possibly two of the biggest games of the season at home.if anything is going to be done demo wise surely these are the games it has to be done at

Probably a good reasons NOT to have demos at these games!

[Batch]

I dont think the consortium would do that mind, but the point Maverick makes is valid in that IF the consortium cant proceed because they dont LIKE the representative they must discuss with, then what change of success do we have under their control in the future if this is such a big probelm to them.

Well not liking MD aside the consortium have said they have legal advice not to involve MD in any discussions.

Unless this is incorrect legal advice there does not seem to be much of a point discussing it ad-infinitum.

[Maverick]

pauld - sorry but that sort of response from anyone associated with the current board would (quite rightly) probably have brought howls of protest from Consortium/Trust representatives!

Just because you need to get to work, and myself (and it seems some others) are still failing to fully understand what is a very important issue, hardly seems to deserve the response: -

    "The reasons why the investors do not wish to negotiate with Mike D's
      involvement are clear and comprehensible; the reasons why anyone
      would wish for him to continue to be involved with our football club
      substantially less so. Clearly you either don't get the point or don't
      wish to - now can we leave this particular horse dead?"

I will try the question again .....

If SSW insists on having Mike D involved is the whole Consortium initiative dead in the water?

Oh and Batch, we have been told that it is their legal advice, but we have yet to understand the basis of that advice.  If as claimed it was top and expensive advice, should that not be passed on to Trust memebrs at the very least as presumably it is their funds which have helped pay for this advice?  As I keep asking, what is the problem with talking to anyone if it helps to move things forward?

[SwindonTartanArmy]

Oh and Batch, we have been told that it is their legal advice, but we have yet to understand the basis of that advice.  If as claimed it was top and expensive advice, should that not be passed on to Trust memebrs at the very least as presumably it is their funds which have helped pay for this advice?  As I keep asking, what is the problem with talking to anyone if it helps to move things forward?

Because the guy is a crook, has been banned from being involved in the running of companies, and is under investigation by the department of trade and industry! Fairly good reason for him not to be involved at all!!!

[Piemonte]

Maverick you seem like a bright chap, so I dont get what it is that you dont understand about the Diamandis situation. You keep asking that same quastions and as far as I'm concerned they have all been answered at various points throughout this thread.

[Maverick]

And yet SSW still wants his advice which has to be his call.  As far as I know he has no legal power to make any decisions or sign any documents, just to talk.  All I am asking is how is that illegal?  What law does it contravene?

[janaage]

This month we have possibly two of the biggest games of the season at home.if anything is going to be done demo wise surely these are the games it has to be done at

Probably a good reasons NOT to have demos at these games!

I really hope 99% (or more) of our supporters DO NOT go down the protest route.  The last thing we need to do is sing anti board songs, calling for their heads etc.  It's important that we as fans stay focussed on the team, during a massive month on the pitch for us.

Which is why if you wear a simple symbol of support (or it could be seen as a symbol of a lock of faith in the current set up) it will allow you to continue to support the lads 110%.

[Samdy Gray]

Maverick - have a look at this, then I'll think you'll understand why people don't trust Mike D http://www.ukdata.com/creditreports/viewDirectorDetails.do?directorId=2525231

[stfctownenda]

Oh and Batch, we have been told that it is their legal advice, but we have yet to understand the basis of that advice.  If as claimed it was top and expensive advice, should that not be passed on to Trust memebrs at the very least as presumably it is their funds which have helped pay for this advice?  As I keep asking, what is the problem with talking to anyone if it helps to move things forward?[/quote]

Maverick your just not taking anything on board you just keep repeating the same things.  Listen to whats being said they have legally been advised not to enter negotiations with him present.  The reason behind it all would be a conflict of interests as in he is a company supplier and creditor and would then be able to view the new consortiums financial backing and be able to use it to his advantage i.e bigger contract for programmes, or calling in own 'supposed loans' so surely you can understand the logic in him not being present at these meetings.  The main issue Maverick is our board have been so willing to say so happily all year that they would now like to step aside and sell the club but now the option to finally do it has arose they are not being very co-operative Sir Seton and James Wills are perfectly capable of holding negotiations but wont enter discussions, something to hide perhaps.....I will let you make your mind up.

[Maverick]

Piemonte - I don't know about the "bright chap" bit, I think I must be being pretty thick here judging by people's responses!

I desperately want the consortium and the board to be able to sit down and discuss whatever offer may or may not be in the offing.  It has to be in everyone's best interests.

I fully understand the fact that Consortium legal advice says don't involve Mike D (and I fully appreciate his track record and the fact that many people don't like/trust him) - but then legal advice is usually geared towards those paying the bill for it.  

I would not advise you to employ a cowboy builder - there is nothing illegal about it - but if I was your solicitor I would advise you most strongly against it.

The question remains - What is illegal about involving Mike D in the process as a personal advisor to SSW?

[Fred Elliot]

Piemonte - I don't know about the "bright chap" bit, I think I must be being pretty thick here judging by people's responses!

I desperately want the consortium and the board to be able to sit down and discuss whatever offer may or may not be in the offing.  It has to be in everyone's best interests.

I fully understand the fact that Consortium legal advice says don't involve Mike D (and I fully appreciate his track record and the fact that many people don't like/trust him) - but then legal advice is usually geared towards those paying the bill for it.  

I would not advise you to employ a cowboy builder - there is nothing illegal about it - but if I was your solicitor I would advise you most strongly against it.

The question remains - What is illegal about involving Mike D in the process as a personal advisor to SSW?

No one said it was illegal mate.

Legal advice was taken to ensure the viability of the negotiations and also to safeguard the Consortiums position thoughout the negotiations

Simple really

If you were going to invest a shit load of cash, I am sure you would take proffessional advice before doing so.

The crux of the issue is .............................. would you then ignore that advice ?

 :roll:

[Sharky]

The question remains - What is illegal about involving Mike D in the process as a personal advisor to SSW?

I think the above post may help to answer your question Maverick, conflict of interest.

I understand your points though Maverick and it is nice to hear someone challenge what many fans will accept on face value.

If there truely is a conflict of interest then I too dont believe he should be dealt with, but if his involvement is purely advice to SSW, then surely as long as he is not involved in the debate over the agreement then his input is no more conflicting of interest than if one of the tea girls from the ground was given the chance to advise SSW.

The key is that if he does have a conflict of interests then his involvement should only be allowed as a third party advisor and not a voice representing SSW in negotiations from what I make of it

[stfctownenda]

Piemonte - I don't know about the "bright chap" bit, I think I must be being pretty thick here judging by people's responses!

I desperately want the consortium and the board to be able to sit down and discuss whatever offer may or may not be in the offing.  It has to be in everyone's best interests.

I fully understand the fact that Consortium legal advice says don't involve Mike D (and I fully appreciate his track record and the fact that many people don't like/trust him) - but then legal advice is usually geared towards those paying the bill for it.  

I would not advise you to employ a cowboy builder - there is nothing illegal about it - but if I was your solicitor I would advise you most strongly against it.

The question remains - What is illegal about involving Mike D in the process as a personal advisor to SSW?

Maverick its a conflict of interests which is illegal