Bill Power&Phil Emmell

[jayohaitchenn]

I want an M3 Hat!

[Don Rogers Shop]

Grumpy Fucker

 

 Still grumpy now

[Nemo]

Oh lord, Rasput...sorry, Diamandis again. Can't we just pretend he's not real.

[Iffy's Onion Bhaji]

It's not Fitton's problem. I don't blame Bill and Phil for wanting their money back though.

[Dazzza]

I’d imagine any insurance policy is only ever going to pay out on the basis of Power and Emmell going through the full legal process and getting a result in court.  Understandably, Fitton is pissed off with this as it’s a short term financial burned and a waste of his and the other director’s time having to put up the pretence of fighting this case in court before claiming back losses from the Wills.

I’d imagine the noises in the Adver today are the first in series of PR exercises showing face that the club are disputing the claim to ensure Wills pays out.  If the case appears as open and closed as it is SWW would be better off settling up with BP and PE now and avoid having to cough up the amount plus expenses on both sides.

As mentioned above it appears to be something that has always been on the cards just a matter of time.

[Summerof69]

The Wills family advisor Mike Diamandis believes Emmell and Power do not have a case.
"I have always said they did not have a case," said Diamandis.
"I think they are trying to win this claim on a point of law.
"First I think they still need to establish whether the money was a loan or shares."

Insightful words from the wonderous Greek. If anybody knows whether it was a loan or shares, surely it should be Diamandis?! Or is it a case of BP gave the money for a loan, then Diamandis put it down as shares somewhere and won't admit it in the knowledge he'll look a complete twat and perhaps end up in serious trouble? Just a thought

Exactly.

Of course, this is the same Mikey D who said the club had an open and shut case against previous Chief Exec Peter Rowe a number of years ago.

The outcome...Peter Rowe won with damages !!!

[deltaincline]

It was inevitable that Diamandis and James 'thicko' Wills would leave a nasty fucking sting in the tail of the Fitton takeover, the cunts.

I don't blame Power for wanting his cash back if the holding company has gone into administration as reported. From my viewpoint, Power and Emmell have acted with restrained dignity throughout the whole shitty fucking stfc pantomime created by Diamandis and the chinless silver-spooned cunt Wills.

I'm hopeful that Power, Emmell and Fitton can sort this shit out privately for the good of the club. If between them they can royally stitch-up the cunts who are ultimately responsible for this dodgy situation, fucking good on em.

[yeo]

Ive read all this and Paul d's explanations,I realise that they are owed the money ,etc  but I still cant help but feel a little dissapointed in Bill and Phil.

[flammableBen]

Ive read all this and Paul d's explanations,I realise that they are owed the money ,etc  but I still cant help but feel a little dissapointed in Bill and Phil.

I think that as Swindon fans we have to realise that any club-saving investor will still have a financial interest in the club, and unless we get lucky with a town fan euro millions roll-over winner, that financial interest is always going to play a part.

Even if you ignore all the indemnity stuff (which as I understand it should pass liability back to Wills and co), the old board nearly took the club from us fans, yet they took more than most of us are likely to earn over 40years from Bill Power.

[Arriba]

why can't power just have a 1.2 million stake in the club?
or doesn't he want it any more?

fitton must have expected this to happen,or at least prepared for it just in case.

[flammableBen]

why can't power just have a 1.2 million stake in the club?
or doesn't he want it any more?

fitton must have expected this to happen,or at least prepared for it just in case.

If you'd bothered to read the rest of the thread Mr. Arriba, then you'd realise that Fitton has prepared for this. That's what I think think that all the indemnity and liability talk stuff is about. :nono:

Sorry, that was a bit of a patronising comment. It's clearly something that was going to happen sooner or later, as I said in my last post, you can't really blame Bill Power for wanting his money back, and any interest in the club is going to be financial to a certain extent

I can't see how it would be in Fitton and Co's interest to give up a 1.2mil stake in the club because of the fuck ups that Diamandis and his associates made.

[Arriba]

no i didn't trawl the thread ben.sorry.
but from fittons comments in the article he said something like "they said they wouldn't do anything to the club"
thats what i was getting at.its not a surprise like, is it?

[flammableBen]

no i didn't trawl the thread ben.sorry.
but from fittons comments in the article he said something like "they said they wouldn't do anything to the club"
thats what i was getting at.its not a surprise like, is it?

Yeah sorry again, my last post was a bit twatish.

But the rest of the thread is worth a read. PaulD and people make interesting points about the inevitability of it all, and the situation with indemnity and the old holding company etc.

[Batch]

Meh, the action was started before Fitton took over. He may be disapointed at the way it's going, but he went into it eyes open even if it is ultimately Diamandis/Wills fault.

[Phil_S]

We only have Bob Holts word for it that it was the holding company that had Bill p's money anyway.  In this instance I would suggest that Holt's word carries little weight. He also said it was for shares 23 % & on another occasion it was for 33%. If there were anytruth in this why was the holding company able to sell their only asset without one of the major supposed shareholders having any vote or say in the matter.
As I see it, it couldn't have been to buy shares in the club either. Because those shares have not been accoubnted for in the sale of 75% of shares to the AF coinsortium. Therefore the money was not for shares. ergo it was a loan or gift. No body not even Diamandis has tried to claim is was a gift, so it was a loan.
Given that the loan was mainly for payment of the CVA it must have been made to the Football club as the CVA was made by the Football club. The fact that the previous bunch of bar stewards used it for "other Purposes" doesn't alter those facts.
Is my reasonong here correct ?