Club Press Release.

[herthab]

Glass half full guys!

The Club are going to meet with BP and his reps.

Surely a positive step?

For sure a positive step as they've made the commitment to meet in writing. Not sure I quite like the tone of their last paragraph towards Mike W though... :?

Agreed.  But I'm sure MW doesn't give two shits as long as representatives of both sides meet, reach an agreement and finish this once and for all.

This could be the start of the end for the current incumbents!

[Dazzza]

It's a step forward as noted, once Mike WIlks has been verified then it looks like proper discussions can start.

Do you think Mike may have burned his bridges and that it may be best dealt with in the hands of BP and his legal eagles?

Not implying that Mike hasn’t been anything but professional and done things by the book but mike d and his clowns have been incredibly hostile towards Mike and the Trust in the press and perhaps in the interest of progress the men in suits may be able to progress things a little quicker.

The more you consider it the more it’s blatantly a Diamanadis’ swipe at Mike for not negotiating with the un-named.

[redbullzeye]

Sounds like they are saying they will negotiate with Bill Power but not with Mike, (along with the usual stuff trying to portry his actions as amateurish etc).  I don't care who does the negotiations as long as the end result is the current board packing their bags as quickly as possible and FOFWTCF

[Reg Smeeton]

but it's tuesday. They have no respect for the ancient traditions do they?

   :negsy: .......its just not the same....on a Friday I can go out and get hammered, and forget about the nuances of  "a statement"....tonight I mat even have to read it.

[herthab]

Sounds like they are saying they will negotiate with Bill Power but not with Mike, (along with the usual stuff trying to portry his actions as amateurish etc).  I don't care who does the negotiations as long as the end result is the current board packing their bags as quickly as possible and FOFWTCF

Is that rude?

[Ardiles]

Sounds like they are saying they will negotiate with Bill Power but not with Mike, (along with the usual stuff trying to portry his actions as amateurish etc).

The obvious retort to that is

'Fine.  And we'll negotiate with SSW but not Diamandis.'

And everyone's happy.

[STFC_Gazza]

It's a step forward as noted, once Mike WIlks has been verified then it looks like proper discussions can start.

Do you think Mike may have burned his bridges and that it may be best dealt with in the hands of BP and his legal eagles?

Not implying that Mike hasn’t been anything but professional and done things by the book but mike d and his clowns have been incredibly hostile towards Mike and the Trust in the press and perhaps in the interest of progress the men in suits may be able to progress things a little quicker.

The more you consider it the more it’s blatantly a Diamanadis’ swipe at Mike for not negotiating with the bloated poker.

Even if Mike Wilks has burned his bridges say with Mike D, Bill Power was recruited by MW to back the fans consortium, any move will be discussed no doubt with MW the same way any move made by SSW will be discussed with Mike D. Effectively this situation just creates a middle man as opposed to having direct contact but it is a way for both parties to move forward. This is assuming that Mike D and SSW still do not want to sign a confidentiality agreement. At the end of the day Bill Power and Phil Emmell would have the final say anyway. Its just a bit of role reversal, whereas I believe MW was going to be a the forefront, Bill Power and Phil Emmell will now be with MW at the back assuming that BP and PE do not name MW as one of the un-named parties.

[Frigby Daser]

Is everyone not missing the point here that a club who had the slightest interest in selling up wouldn't be throwing such childish statements about?


they may have a meeting, but it'll be no more than 'good morning, we'd like to buy the club, because you're shit, you've got no money and we have, and we like fans'.

board: 'thanks for coming, but nah, we like it here even if nobody else likes us here. there's the door'.

[Give us an S]

What happened to no more statements?

[Sussex]

I guess that because the seven days was up, they had to cobble something together.

[herthab]

Is everyone not missing the point here that a club who had the slightest interest in selling up wouldn't be throwing such childish statements about?


they may have a meeting, but it'll be no more than 'good morning, we'd like to buy the club, because you're shit, you've got no money and we have, and we like fans'.

board: 'thanks for coming, but nah, we like it here even if nobody else likes us here. there's the door'.

You might be right.

Then again, you might be wrong.

The way I see it is this

Up until now, the club have refused to meet anyone and we've all been pussyfooting around in case it upsets them.

Well now they're having a meet. If nothing comes off it, I would say that all avenues have been explored with the exception of demonstrating.

We can still come back at them.

They've got nothing left.

[pauld]

Its just a bit of role reversal, whereas I believe MW was going to be a the forefront, Bill Power and Phil Emmell will now be with MW at the back assuming that BP and PE do not name MW as one of the un-named parties.

Is this the club reverting to a 4-5-1 formation then? Will they force Mike D back for corners or allow him a roaming role in the hole? And as you seem to have a flatback three on the consortium side, does that mean they're playing with nobody up front?

[pumbaa]

What happened to no more statements?

Don't confuse Statements with Press Releases. There is a difference.

[genf_stfc]

Hmmm, I don't understand this...

Interestingly, the letter from Bill Power's lawyers dated January 15th, and referred to by Mr Wilks in his interview with the Swindon Advertiser today, made no specific reference to Mr Wilks or a 'Fans Consortium', but instead refers to 'other potential investors in the Club (who will at present remain anonymous)'. If this is the same group as stated by Mr Wilks it would be inappropriate to liaise with him directly as solicitors are now instructed to deal with this consortium's approach. Accordingly no further communication will be made with Mr Wilks until this is clarified."

It reads to me as "MW isn't referenced in BPs letter; If MW IS still involved in the group mentioned by BP, we won't deal with MW because we have instructed solicitors to deal with BP's group"

Does that just not make sense ?  or have they arsed it up and the start of the 2nd last sentence should read 'If this is NOT the.."

I also think the "Interestingly, " start to that paragraph just sounds like a smug bit of shit stirring, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that its not if we actually see some progress !

[yeo]

I was suprised to see the piece in the Adver in the first place,hasnt everyone been calling for silence  why did MW get involved and release the original piece?