Board Statement

[Razzledazzle]

I think the adver should be pressing this board to show their cards? doh i forgot they don't have any....they should be saying to the board name your investor....they haven't said anything about it because there is no investor and i'd put my house on it...

I hope bill power takes them to court and humiliates them and makes them lose control of this club...whether it happens is another thing.....

[RobertT]

I see someone has let Diamandis near the keyboard again

I love it when he gets to write the statements.  I can see him now when I met him at Reading speaking to a Councillor who was expressing concerns about the legality behind just giving away the whole CG site:

"You don't need to worry, I've spoke to my lawyer and it's all legal, no problems"

clearly that's not word for word given the time since it was heard. but it pretty much sums it up.  He's got balls, I'll give him that, but he also spouts bollocks like few people I know.

[Batch]

I have a theory that Friday is Diamandis pub lunch day.

It's the only explanation for the 5pm ramblings.

[Simon Pieman]

I have a theory that Friday is Diamandis pub lunch day.

It's the only explanation for the 5pm ramblings.

admin expenses?

[Batch]

I have a theory that Friday is Diamandis pub lunch day.

It's the only explanation for the 5pm ramblings.

admin expenses?

That's one fuck off big lunch if it is

[Simon Pieman]

he looks like he enjoys big lunches

[RobertT]

fuck lunches, surely it's lynching time now.

If it is then we can finally tell OST he does have to do something.

[sonic youth]

rob, could you post your rant on here please? i refuse to look on the adver board because it makes me angry

[Fred Elliot]

rob, could you post your rant on here please? i refuse to look on the adver board because it makes me angry

I concur

[RobertT]

in response to someone suggesting Power is just in it for quick buck and claiming the Board have made some good decisions:

"I will state on record now, to avoid confusion:

If Power gets control and then subsequently makes any money out of STFC, while at the same time ensuring it's future, consolidating it's debts and bringing it to a positive profit and loss account then I will wrap the money up for him and deliver it to him.

There, don't give a flying feck if anyone makes any money out of STFC the business, provided they are at the same time making STFC a better business and club that can prosper.

I would have accepted Brady making money from the Front Garden, if it had turned out well for us.

I will accept SSW getting his money back and more, if it helps STFC because of it.

I do not, and never will, care what the owners make (provided it's legal of course) if it's off the back of STFC doing well as a business.

There you go Fjortoft. With that major point out of the way, why is it an issue? The only issue is can the person help and improve STFC for us. All the evidence suggests he probably would and would certainly suggest he'd make a much better fist of it than the previous efforts of people. So long as he can only profit if we do, I do not see why that would be morally reprehensible.

As it is, the information we have to hand has so far suggested it would be quite unlikely he would make much if any money off of us even in that event. A pledge to put the profits back into the running of the club to cover trading and player investment etc means he'd be diminishing any get rich quick effort anyway and we'd do well out of it as well (on your argument of him then trying to cream the "profit")."

following that persons response:

"I've had enough of debating rationally, time has come and gone for that. I'm in rant mode now.

They've made one or two good footballing decisions (one of which was actually helped by Power) in 6 years. The fiasco of the the 2005/06 pre season suggests it is not a consistent theme though I'm afraid.

They've ballsed up the one big thing that could have helped save their bacon - ground development - twice.

I'm not suggesting Power is here to make millions by the way, just that even if he did I don't see it as an issue. I've had the pleasure of meeting all the people involved, on both sides. Power is the most honest and passionate of the lot. Starnes seems like a good guy but I don't think much of the remainder from personal experiences.

I'd rather have George Bush running the club now. In fact, I'd be almost likely to accept Donegan and Blatchley back at this rate. I would take jumping into the fire, at least there is 1% chance you'll just get 3rd degree burns rather than sitting around frying to crisp in the pan full to the top with chip fat.

Not quite there, but getting there. Thankfully someone does exist that has a degree of personal skills, some good business background and money."

my response to the statement:

"yep, the difference of opinion started the day of the meeting with Power's wife and Phil Emmell but they have never been able to provide any evidence to back that claim up.

As mentioned by Summer - this Board took 3 people to Court after making a series of accusations about the competency of their stewardship of the club while Brady was involved - Donegan, Lux and Rowe. They lost this case in the courts, were told pay the costs of the case for the 3 people and also had to pay an undisclosed amount of compensation.

Yet, we still harp back at those nasty people who brought ruin on the club by building up a couple of million in debt in the period they had control (we were in Administration before them remember).

Anyone who fancies having a dig can look back through previous statements from the club. The compare this one to each and see if any strike you being close in grammar and style, there are only a few but they are striking. I wonder if a certain Mike Diamandis has been allowed use of the PC today, just like the Monday after the "Peace Talks", or maybe the day that SSW allegedly spoke out....see the picture.

It was only a little while ago they had to go back to Court following an Appeal by Nick Prescott (the man they used to get back in) against a decision to award them compensation for him pinching their customers and staff. They got shown up for providing slightly dodgy financial evidence and had the compensation cut in half pretty much. The only reason, looking at the judges summary, that it didn't go even worse for them seemed to be that Mr prescott decided to ignore some post for a while.

Leave our club before you kill it once and for all. STFC is getting very close to not being the STFC I fell in love with."

[RobertT]

I'm still a way off losing it, but I will get there very soon, maybe in about 10 mins, then it'll just be liberal use of cunt mixed into sarcasm I think.

[sonic youth]

that's not a rant, it's a well reasoned argument!

[RobertT]

I'm getting there, first stage is too lose the politeness.  I've moved on now to using an analogy about a wife taking it up the shitter now.

[Matchworn Shirts]

A fans consortium sounds good in theory, but I wouldn't want it in a million years in practice. How on earth will they continue to keep the club afloat? Ask fans for their spare change outside the ground on a matchday?
I realise the board are not perfect (understatement) but they have kept the club going and this new tactic of threats to try to force the boards hand is very hostile.

Get real, it isn't the way forwards.

[Batch]

Try reading the proposal Dachauer  :-))( , just a thought like..