ANOTHER club statement ...

[DV]

On no the investor might be foreign.

They are all really bad for the game, so ours will be just like that Ambraovich bloke, heaven forbid!

Useless  :roll:

[pumbaa]

Surprised the investor is an American

They're not

By the way, its not me ! Is it you Coxernator ?

NMH

Not me. I'd struggle to buy a pack of Clubs at Tesco, let alone a debt-ridden football club.

And when exactly did I become American? You know something I don't?

[Summerof69]

I think Mike Wilks' announcing Bill Power as the main backer, has pissed all over their statement, or has Bill taken on American citizenship.

[Rich Pullen]

I was hoping it would be an American backer as I would be able to use Swindon Town in my dissertation conclusion  

[deltaincline]

Moving on

I was further intrigued, gosh when you really start to sit down and think about things, isn't it revealing. The final three lines of a post from "Arthur  Horsfield" - ( The real one was at the game last week any one see him ? )   Who said this :-

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              

I must admit being a little puzzled by this for several reasons, through personal experience.

Firstly, I would find it extremely unusual for the Head of Personal banking of Lloyds Bank ( can I assume LloydsTsb, rather than Lloyds underwriters of London, or some other institution of which I am not aware) to be providing personally a customer reference. That particular role, ( if it still exists) would be responsible for the strategy within that part of the organisation, rather than having a portfolio with individual customer responsibility.

Secondly, I was puzzled by what the letter actually said during the interview . It would appear that other options such as a note confirming a level of wealth can be discounted as financial organisations do not like issuing letters such as that because of the risk of accusations of fraud or misrepresntation,particularly if lost or stolen. I was going to ask therefore was it a standard credit reference / bankers reference / status report. I think the football club press release  has probably cleared that one up.

So what does that mean - if I remember correctly for bankers references etc
1. Will be unsigned - unless policy has changed
2. It is an opinion only, not a guarantee
3. The response will be given in direct answer to the question posed.

 

If you ask "Is good for normal business transactions"
90% of responses would say "respectable and trustworthy should prove good " or similar. The value of response is only as good as the question in the first place - the enquiry would also normally be made by the person/ organisation with whom you transact the business not by a third party.

A good example woud be perhaps where someone tries to rent a flat and the company would want to know if you are good for the monthly rental .  

Sorry, to go on, but this document appears to be crucial and I would really like to know the real facts and make my mind up on that.  

I am sure those in the "know" will put me right and also let us know the question put to the bank in order for them to give an answer.

The devil is in the detail as is usual I'm afraid and without that knowledge who knows which way to fall.

You seem a bit anal about the Bank letter that Wilks used as a reference to be honest. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but instead of playing the cunt by trying to skirt around openly questioning the letter from the bank - which is fucking irrelevant  anyway now that Power is on the scene ( and I trust you won't be questioning the adequacy of his funding?) - why don't you just get to the point and tell us that you don't trust the document and therefore Wilks as well?

Maybe you have personal issues with Wilks? Seems that something isn't quite right with you anyway.

[pauld]

Bit harsh delta, but the central point you make is valid - the quibbles over the legitimacy of the bona fides was only ever a time-wasting smokescreen anyway and is now obviously wholly irrelevant, as Bill Power has already presented 1.2 million bona fides. If the board aren't prepared to accept him as someone with the finances and business acumen to take the club forward it plainly shows they're just not interested in attracting outside investment and would rather see the club fold in June when they can't meet the CVA

[Dazzza]

Got to agree with Delta there as you have to question what credentials do the club actually want to see as proof of backing?

While any bona fides would detail the bank’s opinion of a customer’s good character as Mike Wilkes mentioned on the wireless it would include the ability to meet a financial obligation.  

What that entails is at this stage is anyone’s guess.  

It goes far beyond that of an individual being able to meet a monthly rental.   I presume pre-negations there are no agreed specifics on share value (if any) and repayment of loans and creditors.  You can’t put a specific value on anything at this stage and unless there are questions over Bill Power’s resources the argument is irrelevant.

It’s the key in the door to commence negotiations and given the state of the finances at the club it seems incredible that Diamandis is prepared to question any offer of financial input.

Besides isn't Mr W a banker by trade?  

[deltaincline]

Bit harsh delta, but the central point you make is valid - the quibbles over the legitimacy of the bona fides was only ever a time-wasting smokescreen anyway and is now obviously wholly irrelevant, as Bill Power has already presented 1.2 million bona fides. If the board aren't prepared to accept him as someone with the finances and business acumen to take the club forward it plainly shows they're just not interested in attracting outside investment and would rather see the club fold in June when they can't meet the CVA

I don't think my post was harsh at all. I think Nigel was just trying to be clever. I don't pretend to understand the detailed formalities of taking control of a private company, but I do accept that Wilks, Power and the trust do know what they're doing.

If nothing else, Wilks and the trust boys are real dyed-in-the-wool town fans. No question there. Bill Power is a well known QPR fan first and foremost, but he also loves STFC and has shelled out real money for us already.

  They are the only realistic option we have to the wankers that currently run the club (Luggy and the lads; I don't include you in that statement) and I would rather see them take control than suffer any longer thinking that something is deeply wrong behind the scenes and continually waiting for the next scandal or boardroom lie to come to the surface.

We should remember that this isn't some innocent little jolly that the consortium are embarking on for fucks sake. They can't just climb away and hide if everything goes pearshaped, especially now that they have come out in public with their plans and backers.

I'm all for debating the pro's and cons of all this - god knows there will be problems by the bucketful when Diamandis is finally wrenched kicking and screaming from his stinking little perch - but shit like Nigel posted just seems like he has an axe to grind and is pissed off with Wilks for reasons that have no place here.

[Fred Elliot]

We will produce a manifesto within the next 5 days and then tell us what your views are

[Nigel Bennett]

I notice that the factual issues I raised last Friday about the “financial document” have still not been answered.

I am beginning to wonder why there is such a determined avoidance of the clarification, particularly as the document was touted widely, in an attempt, to influence public opinion and perception.

Without such clarification, I am concerned any influence it may possibly have achieved, has been through a misrepresentation of the real position because of a material failure to reveal, the actual nature and true content.

To clear the situation up would be so easy. Sorry for being pedantic, but would someone please clarify the inconsistencies, so obvious to me.

[RobertT]

Nigel, with the greatest of respect, you are probably asking in the wrong place.  Mike is cleary the closest person to the facts in this instance and he rarely pops on here I think.  Try him directly or via MOS.

[Frigby Daser]

Nigel, I do see your point - as to exactly what that document was. But remember that was prior to the announcement that it was BP's funds that are behind the consortium.

Now we are aware the BP a backer - the board knew what his financial standing was when they offered him the club in August, so what has changed now?

I have to agree with Paul, that if the club don't accept this offer then it's a clear indication they're prepared to see the club die. Nobody else will come forward. Nobody else can pay the CVA.

[pauld]

Nigel, the "financial document" as you refer to it, was a standard bona fides letter from the head of private banking at Lloyds of Mayfair, stating that the person concerned was of financial good standing and would, in effect, be good for any deal they struck with STFC. Mike Wilks said all this in the interview on Radio Swindon on Friday evening so I'm surprised you're still asking for "clarification".

It is standard practice in such business negotiations to use such bona fides letters, not as proof that you have x million etc but as a door-opener to demonstrate you are at least not a time-waster.

As for the letter having been "widely touted" in an attempt to influence public opinion, I think you've perhaps got the wrong end of the stick, as it wasn't, at least not by Mike, the Trust or anyone connected with the Fans' Consortium. The only person who tried to influence public opinion over this non-issue was Martyn Starnes who seemed to be attempting to cast doubt on a perfectly standard business document as an attempt to imply something fishy was afoot.

Even he has stopped going on about this now, as it's plainly irrelevant now that everyone knows that Bill Power and Phil Emmel are backing the consortium. Given that the purpose of such a document is to prove that the holder has the financial wherewithal to be able to see through such a negotiation this really is something of a dead-end in the light of their involvement. Unless you think anyone seriously doubts their financial status!

I hope that clears up any lingering issues you may have. Sorry no-one responded to you on this earlier - I must confess personally I thought it was a bit of a dead issue and I suspect others did too, which is probably why no-one responded.

[Fred Elliot]

:-))(

[Summerof69]

Personally, Bill Power's got 1.2m reasons why no-one from the football club now questions his financial position.