Consortium News

[SwindonTartanArmy]

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?

SSW can ask his advice as much as he wants, but anyone taking over theclub shouldnt be dealing with the guy

[Batch]

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?

Mr Wilks said their advice was a deal could be invalidated through the involvement of Mr Diamandis in negotiations. If you take that as true only an idot would invest £££ into a club. That is the problem.

If you are doubting the credibility and accuracy of the legal advice, or are unsure of context, or think it's all made up then that's your bsuiness.  I suggest you formulate a list of questions to ask Mr Wilks because we don't know any more than is said on here.

[yeo]

But they wont be investing anything if they dont speak to MD will they?

Its a pointless stand off Mavericks right, actual money wont change hands without LEGAL contracts anyway personally I think this is just posturing.

[stfctownenda]

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

Sharkey it is impossible to understand how he could have an advisory role to SSW without knowing all the facts about the consortium and there offer which then due to his role as both a supplier and creditor it will then become a conflict of interests, to put it as an example can you imagine you worked as a supplier to a company and then suddenly you were given an idea of all there finances the ins and outs this would then put you in a strong position when re-negotiation any new contract with them, its simple Mike Diamandis cant be involved!!

[Piemonte]

As far as I'm aware, there is nothing illeagal about it, its just not a very good idea for various reasons that have been stated.

As you have stated it is ulimately up to SSW to decide who he wants to advise him but there seems to be an element of "cutting of his nose to spite his face" in that without investment SSW will end up footing the bill for the £1m CVA debt or the club will go bust and he will have to write off the £10 or so he has loaned the club.

For a football club with little cash and a serious finacial problem looming you'd have thought that the existing owners would be keen to listen to anyone, bearing in mind this isnt just anyone, its a consortium headed by a group of loyal supporters.

[yeo]

well thats bollocks.

I support the consortium but this whole process stinks of "spin" to me.

The way I see it Wills has lent Diamandis his football if Wilks and co want to play with it they are going to have to speak to him.

[flammableBen]

They should sort it out in the ring.

[Maverick]

OK thanks for all of that everyone

To my simple mind I think I need to firstly get a better undertsanding of at what stage things lgeally become a "conflict of interest".

But in reality, based on what we have already been told, it is fair to assume that Mike D already knows the ins and outs of the finances at STFC as he has been an advisor to SSW for some time.  Indeed it would seem from the inferences made by Mark D that Mike D had significant influence.

So, given that information, it is, to my mind, not a great leap to the conclusion that any potential deal will necessitate some sort of verbal "rubber stamp" from Mike D to SSW before it is finalised.

Without him actually being present in the room, I can just see how protracted this could all become ... something along the lines of ...

"So what was said in the meeting?"
"What did they mean when they said?"
"Did anyone suggest an alternative?"
"Would it be a good idea to suggest......?"
"What was their reply?"
"Can you confirm that ... "

And so on ad infinitum.

Hmmmmm surely that cannot make sense, surely there must be a way he can be in the room?  In the end it has to be quicker.

[SwindonTartanArmy]

"MICHAEL AGAPIOS DIAMANDIS Directorships Dissolved: 9 "


Nice

[flammableBen]

"MICHAEL AGAPIOS DIAMANDIS Directorships Dissolved: 9 "


Nice

I keep reading that as Dictatorships Dissolved. He must be a super freedom fighter and I want him involved in the club.

[@MacPhlea]

But the fact he knows the current situation isn't the conflict, it's the fact that he will be privvy to the financial in's and out's of the takeover group and as a creditor/supplier will have privilaged information that a supplier/creditor would not normally have during the negotiations - this is the conflict.

It's a bit like you entering negotiations to buy double glazing and the salesman who supplies the door handles asking you how much you've got in your bank account before he sets the price.

[yeo]

But the fact he knows the current situation isn't the conflict, it's the fact that he will be privvy to the financial in's and out's of the takeover group and as a creditor/supplier will have privilaged information that a supplier/creditor would not normally have during the negotiations - this is the conflict.

It's a bit like you entering negotiations to buy double glazing and the salesman knowing exactly how much you've got in your bank account before he sets the price.

Ahhh that makes it a bit clearer than all this other waffle.But still no money will change hands without a contract so surely that can be covered by a legal contract.

[stfctownenda]

But the fact he knows the current situation isn't the conflict, it's the fact that he will be privvy to the financial in's and out's of the takeover group and as a creditor/supplier will have privilaged information that a supplier/creditor would not normally have during the negotiations - this is the conflict.

It's a bit like you entering negotiations to buy double glazing and the salesman who supplies the door handles asking you how much you've got in your bank account before he sets the price.

Spot on, good post that was exactly what I was trying to say but you simplified it alot better  :toppost:

[@MacPhlea]

But the fact he knows the current situation isn't the conflict, it's the fact that he will be privvy to the financial in's and out's of the takeover group and as a creditor/supplier will have privilaged information that a supplier/creditor would not normally have during the negotiations - this is the conflict.

It's a bit like you entering negotiations to buy double glazing and the salesman knowing exactly how much you've got in your bank account before he sets the price.

Ahhh that makes it a bit clearer than all this other waffle.But still no money will change hands without a contract so surely that can be covered by a legal contract.

I'm good at analogies Yeovil

[@MacPhlea]

But the fact he knows the current situation isn't the conflict, it's the fact that he will be privvy to the financial in's and out's of the takeover group and as a creditor/supplier will have privilaged information that a supplier/creditor would not normally have during the negotiations - this is the conflict.

It's a bit like you entering negotiations to buy double glazing and the salesman who supplies the door handles asking you how much you've got in your bank account before he sets the price.

Spot on, good post that was exactly what I was trying to say but you simplified it alot better  :toppost:

It's a shame I only got here after 11 pages... Anybody want a good analogist?