New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[Nemo]

I suspect they're not giving the figure up to the May 24 accounts date so much as up to this exact moment, so it's more the increase in nearly two years - but it's still enormous and worrying. We're heading into Colchester territory.

[4D]

I think a detailed breakdown of admin expenses should help.

[horlock07]

The preemption answer is encouraging.

Is it, I interpret it that the AoA were changed purely to protect fuck faces position to avoid anyone getting the club for a song like he did.

They even listed one of the persons names who asked a question. Question 15

Cant even proof read correctly

Could get them into some GDPR shit I suspect if named person wanted to be a prick about it.....

[horlock07]

What point does the AB actually serve any more, looking at the minutes there is literally nothing of any great interest or use in there, the only possibly purpose it shows is that the club have decided that they will no longer even entertain difficult questions and blame anyone else for anything, plus no actions for the coming month (or two months, or whatever the term is now) so what will they discuss next.

In terms of the JV IIRC the chair was on a rolling 12 month cycle between club and Trust, if its the Trust in the hotseat can the chair start to apply some pressure that way?

[No Longer Posh Red]

They even listed one of the persons names who asked a question. Question 15

Cant even proof read correctly

Could get them into some GDPR shit I suspect if named person wanted to be a prick about it.....

That's me, fame at last

I asked a question through the OSC, so I presume it's come from a copy & paste

[Bennett]

What point does the AB actually serve any more, looking at the minutes there is literally nothing of any great interest or use in there, the only possibly purpose it shows is that the club have decided that they will no longer even entertain difficult questions and blame anyone else for anything, plus no actions for the coming month (or two months, or whatever the term is now) so what will they discuss next.

In terms of the JV IIRC the chair was on a rolling 12 month cycle between club and Trust, if its the Trust in the hotseat can the chair start to apply some pressure that way?

The new TOR were agreed in the meeting, so we are hopeful that come March's AB it will revert to being a sounding board from the club, rather than what is has evolved into.
https://s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/gc-media-assets-v2.gc.swindontownfcservices.co.uk/e80f6390-eea2-11ef-9d41-61946047d66d.pdf


I don't sit on the JV board, but it's my interpretation that the JV chair is a largely ceremonial position, rather than having greater weight or steering power than the other directors

[tans]

https://x.com/so69fangroup/status/1892528067890798772?s=46&t=sUQ-fFgelrF5oqTmo-D8tA

[Batch]

Well the debentute is interesting. The terms are completely unknown.

He's passed the cost onto the club as you say.


If he sold at 12M then 17% to the wives is 2M - assuming they sell up too and it's a 100% buyout..

There must be more in it for them.

What am I maths-ing wrong here? Clem would pocket 10M and therefore walks away 4M up.

12M is of course a nonsense value.

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

When i said if you arent a trust member you dont get a vote for the redevelopment this is the resppnse i got

This is wrong is it not, there has to be a voting percentage and majority for works to be completed?

Rob Clarke got this reply

"Please remove this, as a real fan this is upsetting me and I need my safe space. At least we still have a club, buy an orange Australian hat or you are not a REAL fan. If you haven't got 12m to buy the club you are also not a REAL fan. Clem in, Clem in CLEM IN."

And didn't pick up on the sarcasm and responses in agreement.

Fuck me. There is thick and then there is whatever little it rattling around between that cunts ears.

[horlock07]

https://x.com/so69fangroup/status/1892528067890798772?s=46&t=sUQ-fFgelrF5oqTmo-D8tA

On grants and funding, having managed grants funding and received grants funding (so sat on both sides of the fence) the control the funder has over who is contracted to do the work (and any relationship they have with any of the parties obtaining said grant funding) seems to be being completely ignored in that exchange.

[Power to people]

https://x.com/so69fangroup/status/1892528067890798772?s=46&t=sUQ-fFgelrF5oqTmo-D8tA

So the JV just says yes or no and that is it ?

When the club do maintenance around the ground for e.g. upgrade the bogs do they have to provide 3 quotes to the JV, or just invoice them regardless of cost and it is paid ?

I assume also if the decision is no on 2 out of 3 votes basis then the club cannot proceed I cant remember if all had to agree or a majority

[RobertT]

Two examples give me great pause for concern with development:

a) The experience of the work the current ownership have completed - Legends Lounge & Statue Park.  Both of these have been shabby at best, low cost delivery - not being willing to describe the overall capital cost is very concerning for a "transparent" business.  The quality of workmanship is not great, the quality of products chosen is shocking - either the budgets were set for bodged work, or someone made some money on those deals.

b) Northampton Town FC showed there are some very creative ways to make personal money from capital financing for large development projects.  Given Money Laundering is one of the charges in that case, and we at least have people associated with the Strategic function of our club who have been exposed to that crime in the past, I'd have red warning lights blaring everywhere.  Especially as they now work in the construction trades.

[Nemo]

JV not having approval over the selected contractors is a red line for me. I might have voted in favour before, I will not now.

[RobertT]

JV not having approval over the selected contractors is a red line for me. I might have voted in favour before, I will not now.

While it may not be written in the by-laws, the vote could easily be withheld unless the club provide such details, and even request a breakdown of project costs and deliverables etc.  The Club requires unanimous consent, so the vote comes with negotiating power.

[horlock07]

While it may not be written in the by-laws, the vote could easily be withheld unless the club provide such details, and even request a breakdown of project costs and deliverables etc.  The Club requires unanimous consent, so the vote comes with negotiating power.

Similarly, and going back to these hypothetical grants, any grant giving body is going to want to know a degree of who precisely they are granting the money, what for, being spent with who, claw back provisions, lawyers legal etc to which I suspect, much as with any possible due diligence of any purchaser, would make the club run a fucking mile rather than answer the questions.

FWIW I think the Trust are rapidly reaching (if not already arrived at) an untenable situation (through little fault of their own I add considering how many years ago this process started), if this gets voted down there will be immediately a deluge of 'Clem was going to spent £200m on the ground and the Trust stopped it' and associated bullshit.

Similarly I don't see any development happening under the present structure as fans won't sign off Trust and club can't do owt without at least initial sign off, so possibly everyone should just stop wasting energy on it.  Its why I've said all along that yes the club may have got 50% of the freehold basically FOC but its little use or ornament with little actual value to them as it stands.