|
STFC_Gazza
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 10:26:13 » |
|
A Theory perhaps?: Perhaps STFC were talking to St Modwen about working with them on the new Stadium development as one of the bidders hence why nothing was said as St Modwen perhaps saw a way of getting the money, STFC has since said, they wont go with St Modwen so they kicked off?? I know I will get shot down for talking about theories and bollocks because its me saying it but maybe thats why its been kept quiet?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
 Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #46 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 10:32:54 » |
|
The Adver has picked up on the story now. The final para claims that the club will be issuing a statement later today.
Fantastic. The Adver's really excelled itself here - reprinted the Guardian's piece pretty much whole, the only thing they've added is two pretty massive inaccuracies (Fitton took over Jan 2008 and the club are facing a winding-up order, not administration). Way to go boys!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #47 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 10:33:40 » |
|
I know I will get shot down for talking about theories and bollocks because its me saying it but maybe thats why its been kept quiet?
Shut up Gazza you're talking bollocks  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
STFC_Gazza
|
|
« Reply #48 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 10:55:05 » |
|
Shut up Gazza you're talking bollocks BOOOOO. I was expecting Fred to shoot me down... doesn't feel right someone else doing it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rich Pullen
|
|
« Reply #49 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 11:15:22 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mexicano Rojo
Offline
Posts: 11953
Demasiado no es demasiado
|
|
« Reply #50 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 11:29:08 » |
|
so basically the article is a load of cunt
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DUNSWORTHY
Offline
Posts: 151
|
|
« Reply #51 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 11:32:03 » |
|
St modwen obviously wanted to get this shite in the open to try to force the clubs hand, and the guardian needed column space filling!!
Got faith in AF to get us out of this one, as with the Power case.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ardiles
Offline
Posts: 11588
Stirlingshire Reds
|
|
« Reply #52 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 11:34:32 » |
|
To paraphrase the Club's comment...
'Please go away. We really don't want to talk about this.'
Not very reassuring, to tell the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Phil_S
Offline
Posts: 1534
Who changed my Avatar ?!
|
|
« Reply #53 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 11:36:14 » |
|
Wasn't the loan to the holding Company same as Bill P's. From what I can recall AF & CO bought shares in STFC from the HOLDING Company. They didn't buy the holding company itself (An invention & concept of Diadamdis)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
From the Dark Side
|
|
|
|
Spencer_White
|
|
« Reply #54 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 11:38:09 » |
|
This always was the big skeleton in the closet.
But it is sensationalist by the Guardian. After all they lent the money to the Swindon Town Holding company, and Mike Diamandis. What were they thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dell boy
|
|
« Reply #55 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 11:45:36 » |
|
I agree with Gazza's theory!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 57745
|
|
« Reply #56 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 11:49:27 » |
|
To paraphrase the Club's comment...
'Please go away. We really don't want to talk about this.'
Not very reassuring, to tell the truth.
I guess they are in negotiation about the amount and the replayment plan. You can't shoot yourself in the foot at a delicate stage. It would be nice to be told the status of the WUP, assuming there is one. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Fred Elliot
I REST MY FUCKING CASE
Offline
Posts: 15736
|
|
« Reply #57 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 12:44:16 » |
|
I guess they are in negotiation about the amount and the replayment plan. You can't shoot yourself in the foot at a delicate stage.
It would be nice to be told the status of the WUP, assuming there is one.
You cant issue a WUP against a disputed debt Batchy old boy |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sonicyouth
Offline
Posts: 22352
|
|
« Reply #58 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 12:52:06 » |
|
that statement is kind of pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RobertT
Offline
Posts: 12316
|
|
« Reply #59 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 12:58:49 » |
|
As I remember it, the debt is and has always been shown in the accounts as an amount owed to Shaw Park Developments - and St Modwen's accounts show the same. Shaw Park Developments is a seperate company, not the holding Co of the Diamandis concept, used by Wills and St Modwen to channel the future development of the clubs ground through - it may also have an interest in the company that did some work in Hungerford for Wills.
I would presume the dispute here would be around how any takeover was completed in terms of how this was then owed by the holding company and whether any debt was undertaken by the football club - The Holding Co having gone into Admin since then, which avoided them having to pay power.
It's pretty clear the money was used to keep the football club afloat, and assets of the club are held as security for the loan IIRC. It's all going to be down to how that debt was accounted for in the split from the Football club (now majority owned by a new holding co), the old Holding Co and it's liabilities to Shaw Park Developments. Could be a tad worrying.
If the dates are correct, then it seems the negotiation of a delay in full repayment was completed around the time of the Portuguese proposals. Would not seem the delay was negotiated by the new owners, more likely they inherited a tangled mess including this possible debt (possible in spo far as who owes it and who to, the fact it exists can;t be in question)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
