Sheep.

[McLovin]

If the letter from MW has been accurately portrayed in the Club statement, it really is a bit 'wishy washy'...

[Simon Pieman]

MIke Bowden did it at the meeting. With a spoon and everything.

[herthab]

Did he do the 'choo choo train' si?

I would've swallowed that

[sonic youth]

It seems I was wrong.

Out of genuine curiosity, what changed your opinion?

Btw, good post herthab.

I was totally unaware about Mike D until about a year ago which was when I began to get more curious and scrutinise things closer. Most of the opinions I came to form where from things people had said to me - none of them were said by Trust members in case you think I've been brainwashed by Paul Davis - and so on.

Nothing specific changed my opinion, it was a gradual thing but learning of Mike D's involvement and history was certainly an eye opener.

[pauld]

People complain that the club weren't transparent enough, then when they issue statements they're criticised.

When the statements are deliberately misleading (backer's an American etc) or contradict themselves or slate the Trust/Fans' Consortium for conducting things in public in a statement that publishes confidential correspondence, I'd say it's understandable they're criticised. There's a difference between transparency and mud-slinging, and some of the statements issued recently have rightly attracted people's ire for that very reason. Transparency would be, for example, telling people what the financial position of the club actually is instead of refusing to answer any questions at all about it at the AGM, other than claiming the CVA payment had been made when it hadn't. Transparency would have been admitting Diamandis was running the club when first challenged about it five years ago. Transparency would have been admitting they'd fallen out with Bill Power. Transparency would have been admitting Linda Burrell was not sacked as part of a cost-cutting measure. These statements do not constitute transparency.

[herthab]

People complain that the club weren't transparent enough, then when they issue statements they're criticised.

When the statements are deliberately misleading (backer's an American etc) or contradict themselves or slate the Trust/Fans' Consortium for conducting things in public in a statement that publishes confidential correspondence, I'd say it's understandable they're criticised. There's a difference between transparency and mud-slinging, and some of the statements issued recently have rightly attracted people's ire for that very reason. Transparency would be, for example, telling people what the financial position of the club actually is instead of refusing to answer any questions at all about it at the AGM, other than claiming the CVA payment had been made when it hadn't. Transparency would have been admitting Diamandis was running the club when first challenged about it five years ago. Transparency would have been admitting they'd fallen out with Bill Power. Transparency would have been admitting Linda Burrell was not sacked as part of a cost-cutting measure. These statements do not constitute transparency.

With all due respect Paul, you are talking of previous statements, not last nights.

And I know all of that.

My original post was in response to last nights statement and the reaction to it.

[pauld]

Fair enough - last night's statement was hardly a classic example of transparency either was it? Smear, innuendo, self-contradiction, yes, but very little transparency.

[herthab]

Fair enough Paul.

You are in the enviable position of actually knowing what's going on.

I'm not so fortunate and have to rely on what I read and then formulate my own opinion based on that.

The sooner this whole thing is put to bed the better.

[pauld]

You are in the enviable position of actually knowing what's going on.

I don't think anyone's in that position, mate.

I'm not so fortunate and have to rely on what I read and then formulate my own opinion based on that.

Fair enough, that's all I'd expect anyone to do.

The sooner this whole thing is put to bed the better.

Amen to that.

[stfc11]

i don't like the board, and how this club is run is a complete joke sometimes, but the one thing i really don't like is the fact that fans aren't united. When a club comes to swindon on a Saturday and see's fans who are ment to be in red and white supporting their team are in orange as a statement against the board i think it looks silly..i'd much rather on a matchday our focus to be on the team and giving a united front. I understand that you can't make a statement during the week and also that people wearing orange still support the team but the fact that the fan base is divided on this issue surely isn't helping?
That's just my opinion on it though and im not saying anyone that wears orange doesn't support the team, i just wanted to say how i saw it.

[stfctownenda]

i don't like the board, and how this club is run is a complete joke sometimes, but the one thing i really don't like is the fact that fans aren't united. When a club comes to swindon on a Saturday and see's fans who are ment to be in red and white supporting their team are in orange as a statement against the board i think it looks silly..i'd much rather on a matchday our focus to be on the team and giving a united front. I understand that you can't make a statement during the week and also that people wearing orange still support the team but the fact that the fan base is divided on this issue surely isn't helping?
That's just my opinion on it though and im not saying anyone that wears orange doesn't support the team, i just wanted to say how i saw it.

I think its irrelevent the last few years I have wore very little red on match days and although I am aware you said it isn't criticism from yourself I feel that fans should never be judged on what there wearing.  Red, Orange even pink if a supporter buys a ticket attends the game and supports the team then there a fan simple as that.  Needless to say I will be wearing Orange for the whole season if needs be  

[RobertT]

results have been ok as well.

[ron dodgers]

i don't like the board, and how this club is run is a complete joke sometimes, but the one thing i really don't like is the fact that fans aren't united. When a club comes to swindon on a Saturday and see's fans who are ment to be in red and white supporting their team are in orange as a statement against the board i think it looks silly..i'd much rather on a matchday our focus to be on the team and giving a united front. I understand that you can't make a statement during the week and also that people wearing orange still support the team but the fact that the fan base is divided on this issue surely isn't helping?
That's just my opinion on it though and im not saying anyone that wears orange doesn't support the team, i just wanted to say how i saw it.

we may well be united (or Town) as those not wearing orange may support the "cause" - I suggest all those who support the board wear pink, the playing staff and backroom team know we support them.

[fatbury]

of course we are united .. we are all supporting Swindon .. I wear an Orange hat and a red Swindon shirt ...

[Simon Pieman]

It's simple for me. I want the board of STFC to be bought out. I have many reasons for this but mainly it is down to:

* The threat of moving to Chippenham or anywhere out of Swindon.
* The threat of the CVA not being paid and the club being wound up.
* My perception of the Board's ignorance and contempt towards fans (or those that dare to question them).
* The Board are playing games in my opinion. If they don't want to sell they should state so and close negotiations, if they are serious they wouldn't be releasing statements such as the one issued on the 16th January 2007.

The only alternative that has been brought forward is the Consortium. I'm assuming (but not stating as fact) other investment either doesn't exist or is purely speculative for a couple of reasons (again my view; not a fact):

* The Board of Swindon have made negotiations with the Consortium a public affair, but no other negotiations (if there are any) have received the same treatment. This has caused me to question if such potential investment actually exists.
* If the Board were really under' threat' from takeover from other parties they would negotiate properly with the Consortium (i.e. avoid as much as possible a public slanging match) to try and get the best deal for either the Club, themselves, or both.

So if the only alternative to the current regime is the Consortium I will support it because I've personally had enough of the current management. I may not always entirely agree with the Consortium or Trust's statements or views, but that's the whole point of putting a fans rep on the Board in the first place. If the above makes me a sheep then I am a sheep.