nevillew
Tripping the light puntastic
 Offline
Posts: 4156
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 13:10:41 » |
|
that statement is kind of pathetic.
What do you expect them to say then ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Paolo Di Canio, it's Paolo Di Canio
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #61 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 13:16:41 » |
|
What do you expect them to say then ?
"Come over here and say that. We'll fucking do you".  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DMR
|
|
« Reply #62 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 13:34:01 » |
|
I'll get loads of abuse for this but fuck it, racking my brains I can't really think of any time when this current board have actually been proactive rather than reactive - I'm not suprised, and am starting to think Fitton and co mean well but are incompetant... That statement is a load of gash as well, it doesn't even begin to really address the issue.
I'm worried.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RJack
Offline
Posts: 1449
|
|
« Reply #63 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 13:44:40 » |
|
I'm not worried at all, it's all a load of bollocks tbh and St Modwen have showed just how unprofessional they are by spouting this crap through the National Tabloids
Reaks of desperation and i think St Modwen are clutching at straws.
Even if the club have to pay out, the board took out an indemnity which means the debt will be passed onto the Wills Family
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Arriba
Offline
Posts: 21305
|
|
« Reply #64 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 13:45:19 » |
|
i concluded a while ago that the current board are trying to avoid paying certain inherited debts.the power case was evidence of this and i see nothing different with st mowden.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Samdy Gray
Dirty sneaky traitor weasel
Offline
Posts: 27180
|
|
« Reply #65 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 13:46:24 » |
|
From what Rob's saying it does sound messy.
I suppose it boils down to whether the £1.45 million was loaned to the club or to the old holding co. If the latter then it's not a problem, if it's the former then I'm slightly worried.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jonny72
Offline
Posts: 5554
|
|
« Reply #66 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 13:53:50 » |
|
Unless St Modwen got personal guarantees at the time (which seems unlikely as its never been mentioned), then them loaning the money to the club was extremely high risk. The only real chance of them getting the money back was if the re-development went ahead and it generated a high level of profits, and there was never much of a chance of their proposed development plan happening.
So I don't have much sympathy for them. Especially as they've waited until there is someone with money in control of the club, who they feel they've got a chance of hitting up for the money.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Summerof69
Offline
Posts: 8598
|
|
« Reply #67 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 14:05:26 » |
|
i concluded a while ago that the current board are trying to avoid paying certain inherited debts.the power case was evidence of this and i see nothing different with st mowden.
Why should you pay anything that you don't need to? If you moved house and a few days later after moving you received an electricity bill for the previous tenant for a couple of hundred quid, would you pay it ? Of course not. The Power case was down to the previous boards holding co. and who says that the new board have found that the St Modwen money was paid to the old holding co. and not the club directly, and therefore the debt belongs to the old holding co. which has gone under. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Arriba
Offline
Posts: 21305
|
|
« Reply #68 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 14:12:00 » |
|
if they haven't inherited the debt then they shouldn't.time will tell if they have or not
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jayohaitchenn
Wielder of the BANHAMMER
Offline
Posts: 12832
|
|
« Reply #69 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 14:15:14 » |
|
I'm with arriba. The new board are trying to worm their way out of as much debt as possible.
And why not, I say. You don't get rich by paying other people's debts.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Summerof69
Offline
Posts: 8598
|
|
« Reply #70 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 14:23:34 » |
|
And St. Modwen shouldn't have been stupid enough to do business with a certain Greek. I'm sure they smelt a good deal and they got greedy, without checking who they were doing business with.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
alanmayes
Offline
Posts: 1437
|
|
« Reply #71 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 14:26:39 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It's not delusions of grandeur sir,it's intolerance of mediocrity and minimal performances."
|
|
|
|
iffy
|
|
« Reply #72 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 14:45:26 » |
|
Total speculation on my part, but the boys on the board didn't get rich by missing details of this size. This is what due diligence is for. So it's a play by St Modwen. You only go to the press if you're in a weak position, so my guess would be that they are trying some legals and some bad PR to try and screw a better deal out of Fitton and co.
The fact that it only went to one paper suggests it was a direct leak and the fact it went to the Guardian (neither really a business paper or a sport paper) suggests that someone in St Modwen has called a mate rather than thought through a proper PR campaign.
And I love the Adver article. Utterly useless reporting. Do they even know anyone at the club?
The opening sentence:
"SWINDON Town fans are watching with bated breath today to see what will happen to their club. "
should have read:
"SWINDON Advertiser journalists are watching with bated breath today to see what will happen to their club."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rich Pullen
|
|
« Reply #73 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 14:50:33 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sonicyouth
Offline
Posts: 22352
|
|
« Reply #74 on: Monday, November 16, 2009, 14:54:50 » |
|
What do you expect them to say then ?
fair point. the statement doesn't actually say anything, it's all a bit bob holt... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
