The CVA balls up and this forums reaction to it

[Lumps]

I can't listen to it any longer !

No matter what happens at the club, the reaction of a substantial proportion of you is to go off on one about Diamandis, Dunwoody, Sandy Gray etc., regardless of whether you have a shred of information about what actually happened.

This CVA payment thing is a case in point.

IT WAS MISSED IN JUNE! JUNE!

(I also seem to remember that the clubs VAT payment was missed around the same time. Something you also all went mad about a few months ago and threw around all sorts of allegations)

But importantly both these oversights seem to have happpened BEFOREthe plane crash, When Mark D was still supposed to be running the clubs day to day operations.

So how is that Mike Diamandis' fault exactly? How is it not the responsibility of the clubs CE?

I'm finding it a bit embarassing to look through this forum, seeing on the same day as the question about the CVA first being posted by Arthur Horsfield, another thread being posted where Fred E and a bunch of others just lick Mark D's arse for a couple of hours, and no-one seems to think, hey hold on, weren't you supposed to be in charge when all this was being fucked up?

[Bennett]

shut up.

if we took a vote everyone would blame diamandis and not mark d.

it's a democracy here and it means you're wrong sonny

[sonic youth]

I can't listen to it any longer !

go elsewhere then.

regardless of who was supposed to make the cva payment it doesn't alter the fact that the board lied to the shareholders at the agm then to representatives of supporters groups in a meeting.

there were countless board meetings between the date the cva payment was due and the accident which led to power's departure - why was this not sorted then? the funds were in place and the board as a whole are surely responsible for making the cva payment and not an individual?

iirc the vat payment was well over a year ago.

[Reg Smeeton]

I think its fair to raise questions, but unfortunately in the absence of substantial evidence, which is the Boards own doing, by not releasing up to date accounts, and obfusticating the facts at AGM's etc......then people will speculate as to what is really going on.

   The only way that Newbury could claw back any credibility would be to take an elected Trust representative onto the Board......it could be simply done and lance the boil that will otherwise fester until Dunwoody is gone.

  If they don't, then the question.....why not, will be raised.

[Lumps]

Well, either Arthur H is right and it was overlooked. People thought it had been paid and hadn't checked, or had just forgotten about it.

or

Paul D is right in his response to my post in the "consortium news" thread, and he club chose not to pay the thing as a part of the renegotiation of the debt.

In which case there's no problem is there and you're all making a big fuss about nothing

[Lumps]

shut up.

if we took a vote everyone would blame diamandis and not mark d.

it's a democracy here and it means you're wrong sonny

Fuck of. Democracy elected Bush, Blair and Hitler. You can't trust people to be right about things all the time. Especially when they don't have any information to base there judgement on.

You can chose to like one person you've never met over another person you've never met if you like (just because that's the consensus of opinion on an internet forum of a bunch of other people most of whom you've never met). But it doesn't say much about your ability to think for yourself.

And don't call me sonny you patronising cunt I'm probably twice your age.

[Bennett]

shut up.

if we took a vote everyone would blame diamandis and not mark d.

it's a democracy here and it means you're wrong sonny

Fuck of. Democracy elected Bush, Blair and Hitler. You can't trust people to be right about things all the time. Especially when they don't have any information to base there judgement on.

You can chose to like one person you've never met over another person you've never met if you like (just because that's the consensus of opinion on an internet forum of a bunch of other people most of whom you've never met). But it doesn't say much about your ability to think for yourself.

And don't call me sonny you patronising cunt I'm probably twice your age.

 

[Reg Smeeton]

Well, either Arthur H is right and it was overlooked. People thought it had been paid and hadn't checked, or had just forgotten about it.

or

Paul D is right in his response to my post in the "consortium news" thread, and he club chose not to pay the thing as a part of the renegotiation of the debt.

In which case there's no problem is there and you're all making a big fuss about nothing

   Either way the problem is lying to an AGM.....all that was needed was to state that the truth......at a previous AGM Holt had stated that without a new ground they had no plan to pay the 900K....which was the truth.   All that was  needed was a statement that because of that, discussions were in hand to restructure the repayment plan including the June payment.

[Bennett]

shut up.

if we took a vote everyone would blame diamandis and not mark d.

it's a democracy here and it means you're wrong sonny

Fuck of. Democracy elected Bush, Blair and Hitler. You can't trust people to be right about things all the time. Especially when they don't have any information to base there judgement on.

You can chose to like one person you've never met over another person you've never met if you like (just because that's the consensus of opinion on an internet forum of a bunch of other people most of whom you've never met). But it doesn't say much about your ability to think for yourself.

And don't call me sonny you patronising cunt I'm probably twice your age.

their*  

[Lumps]

Well, either Arthur H is right and it was overlooked. People thought it had been paid and hadn't checked, or had just forgotten about it.

or

Paul D is right in his response to my post in the "consortium news" thread, and he club chose not to pay the thing as a part of the renegotiation of the debt.

In which case there's no problem is there and you're all making a big fuss about nothing

   Either way the problem is lying to an AGM.....all that was needed was to state that the truth......at a previous AGM Holt had stated that without a new ground they had no plan to pay the 900K....which was the truth.   All that was  needed was a statement that because of that, discussions were in hand to restructure the repayment plan including the June payment.

Ah but is it lying? In the first case, they would just have been making the statement without checking their facts. Stupid and incompetent, but not really lying.

The second depends on haw the question was worded. After all, all due payments have been made. The June one, having been renegotiated is not due. Unless someone directly stated "we've paid the June 2006 CVA payment" they could weasel out of it.

[pauld]

Well, either Arthur H is right and it was overlooked. People thought it had been paid and hadn't checked, or had just forgotten about it.

or

Paul D is right in his response to my post in the "consortium news" thread, and he club chose not to pay the thing as a part of the renegotiation of the debt.

There's no either or - Mike and myself are saying the same thing, it's just that you seem unable or unwilling to understand it. Please see my reply on the original thread

In which case there's no problem is there and you're all making a big fuss about nothing

The problem is that the Finance Director and Acting CEO chose not to pay a CVA payment due to the Revenue (the most agrressive of creditors), thereby putting the club at risk of liquidation, at a time when the club apparently had the money to pay that bill.

The problem is that they both over a period of months misled fans and shareholders about the CVA being up to date.

The problem is that we can no longer have any faith in either their management of the business or in any statements they make as to the true financial situation at the club as they have consistently misled fans and shareholders about it.

The problem is that the current regime have shown themselves incapable of working with outside investors, the council, fans etc and now do not seem willing to accept outside investment, despite the fact that by their own admission they don't have the money to meet the "pay it or go bust" CVA payment due at the end of the season and don't seem to have any idea how they're going to do so.

If you don't think any of this is a problem, you're a loon, frankly.

[Lumps]

shut up.

if we took a vote everyone would blame diamandis and not mark d.

it's a democracy here and it means you're wrong sonny

Fuck of. Democracy elected Bush, Blair and Hitler. You can't trust people to be right about things all the time. Especially when they don't have any information to base there judgement on.

You can chose to like one person you've never met over another person you've never met if you like (just because that's the consensus of opinion on an internet forum of a bunch of other people most of whom you've never met). But it doesn't say much about your ability to think for yourself.

And don't call me sonny you patronising cunt I'm probably twice your age.

their*  

Yeah. I can see you've got a life.

[DV]

You've missed the point....we were lied to...

Regardless of who didnt pay it. Sandy Gray and Martyn Starnes lied to us.

[sonic youth]

Ah but is it lying? In the first case, they would just have been making the statement without checking their facts. Stupid and incompetent, but not really lying.

The second depends on haw the question was worded. After all, all due payments have been made. The June one, having been renegotiated is not due. Unless someone directly stated "we've paid the June 2006 CVA payment" they could weasel out of it.

the board were re-elected on the basis that all was fine with the CVA payment. however this is simply not true, whether they're renegotiating or not they lied - or at the very least told a half truth - which simply adds to the mistrust surrounding the board.

it would have taken a simple statement to explain what was happening and none of this would have happened.

those, as opposed to the non-payment of the cva, are where people have taken umbrage.

unless i'm mistaken, it only takes one creditor to say "nah, fuck this" and refuse to renegotiate and we're fucked, no?

[Reg Smeeton]

Taking the argument away from who is or isn't culpable, because for a large number of people the decision  has been made....it still leaves the question of how thw money will be raised to pay off the mill....


    Lets assume the CVA can be restructured.....and I'm no expert in this....what would it be something like a quarter of a mill over 4 years?   If the Board hope that a  rights issue underwritten by SSW, will raise funds, then presumably the LSD is in the Boardroom tea, rather than the bank account.

  How would the Trust/ Consortium approach the matter?