The thoughts of DJB....

[davei]

NBDag, Please clarify your comment then "apart from financial survival". Are you implying he is not interested in the financial survival of the club (in my world making money not losing it) or what....?

[durnzo]

I think what I said has been misunderstood. Obviously all fans want to be promoted, you want to win every match and if that happens a lot you'll be promoted. I just meant that I'd rather the club was stable if given the choice, I know both can be achieved. I'd be chuffed as nuts if we got back to league 1, but I think there are more pressing matters at the min. I'm also not particularly anti tamplin, I don't know enough about him to have an opinion either way, but I hope he turns out to have a positive effect on the club if he wins the vote.

[Voice of reason]

I agree with virtually everything DJB says
Who knows how the members will vote but quite a few contributors to the forum seem to have made up their mind that Mr T should be backed to be 3rd time lucky in his attempts to take over a football club despite numerous indicators that he may in fact not be the Messiah

[BB-Dagger]

He is not the messiah... he's a very naughty boy!

[diggerdagger1]

Been told that some of the members have done a complete u turn and are now backing tamplin plainly due to the finances only. Mike's last biased interview in favour of tamplin also swayed people.rather disturbed at the financial plan tbh. Can anybody tell me the 3 year financial tamplin plan? I know it's £1225000 over 3 years but what I mean is who pays what year by year? Was told recently that the other 9 members of tamplin's consortium are paying all there investment on completion of the takeover which means tamplin is initially paying very little for 43.5 per cent of the club but worse than the 80 per cent for £250000. A member recently told me that the extra money tamplin gave John still also played a part in them changing sides. Does anybody know if tamplin has paid us any money yet.was told he owes us £2900000 at present which is on top of the takeover money. Still so many issues need clarifying and only 9 days to go! Still don't know how to vote tbh. What a mess and the planned fans forum promised by Dave Bennett before the egm is not going ahead. Hang your head in shame on that point only Dave the plimber! Whatever way it does I have serious worries about the long term future of the club. Would urge all daggers fans to do the lottery Tuesday and weds in the hope one of us win it and can then buy the club. Thought I would end on a light note as need to try and cheer myself up!

[Adrian]

Which biased interview was this?

[diggerdagger1]

Adrian......see the first posting in this thread. Biased example the legal obstacle comment. The easts have only ever gone down the legal channel twice. Once to get there offer on the agenda at an egm.lets be honest without them serving a legal notice on the board there offer would never have been presented to members. The second occasion was to do with fair play. The current tamplin offer is so similar to the easts revised offer that I believe the board saw it and made tamplin aware of it. Would have liked Mike to have pressed tamplin on this issue or ask the easts to respond. People were swayed by the issue of legal hurdles.whether this is the correct way to decide how to vote I don't know. As a member I have still not decided how to vote. One thing I do know is that I will be asking what our current financial position is and what the next couple of years forecasts are that's for sure. Have done my own calculations as per thompsons words at the April 2016 fans forum. Thompson said £250000 loss last season and the same this season. On that basis season 2017/18 will be £500000 as the parachute payment is halved. That's 1million pounds debt against tamplin's investment of £1225000. So the investment is only. £225000 above the debt figure. Does anybody know when the accounts to 30th June 2016 are published? Just hope thompsons figures are correct otherwise this could be a short term solution only. Just hope the money is forthcoming but sadly have my doubts. Hope I am wrong and the long term future of the club can be secured. Anyway must go now and put my lottery on ! I

[Mike the Dagger]

It is in quotes. I reported what I was told.

I've offered the Easts a further chance to put their side.

Biased? Bollocks it is.

[Alan]

Adrian......see the first posting in this thread. Biased example the legal obstacle comment. The easts have only ever gone down the legal channel twice. Once to get there offer on the agenda at an egm.lets be honest without them serving a legal notice on the board there offer would never have been presented to members. The second occasion was to do with fair play. The current tamplin offer is so similar to the easts revised offer that I believe the board saw it and made tamplin aware of it. Would have liked Mike to have pressed tamplin on this issue or ask the easts to respond. People were swayed by the issue of legal hurdles.whether this is the correct way to decide how to vote I don't know. As a member I have still not decided how to vote. One thing I do know is that I will be asking what our current financial position is and what the next couple of years forecasts are that's for sure. Have done my own calculations as per thompsons words at the April 2016 fans forum. Thompson said £250000 loss last season and the same this season. On that basis season 2017/18 will be £500000 as the parachute payment is halved. That's 1million pounds debt against tamplin's investment of £1225000. So the investment is only. £225000 above the debt figure. Does anybody know when the accounts to 30th June 2016 are published? Just hope thompsons figures are correct otherwise this could be a short term solution only. Just hope the money is forthcoming but sadly have my doubts. Hope I am wrong and the long term future of the club can be secured. Anyway must go now and put my lottery on ! I

If the Easts took up mike's offer of an interview, they could put their side.

Did you think Mike's interview with the Easts was biased?

[Mike the Dagger]

see the first posting in this thread. Biased example the legal obstacle comment.

You are referencing the opinion piece by DJ Johnny B??

1... not me
2... clearly an opinion piece from a (very respected, intelligent and even handed) fan
3... if you want to write similar I'll publish it

While we are on agendas, what is yours? You seem to have a lot of inside info...

[Alan]

Adrian......see the first posting in this thread. Biased example the legal obstacle comment. The easts have only ever gone down the legal channel twice. Once to get there offer on the agenda at an egm.lets be honest without them serving a legal notice on the board there offer would never have been presented to members. The second occasion was to do with fair play. The current tamplin offer is so similar to the easts revised offer that I believe the board saw it and made tamplin aware of it. Would have liked Mike to have pressed tamplin on this issue or ask the easts to respond. People were swayed by the issue of legal hurdles.whether this is the correct way to decide how to vote I don't know. As a member I have still not decided how to vote. One thing I do know is that I will be asking what our current financial position is and what the next couple of years forecasts are that's for sure. Have done my own calculations as per thompsons words at the April 2016 fans forum. Thompson said £250000 loss last season and the same this season. On that basis season 2017/18 will be £500000 as the parachute payment is halved. That's 1million pounds debt against tamplin's investment of £1225000. So the investment is only. £225000 above the debt figure. Does anybody know when the accounts to 30th June 2016 are published? Just hope thompsons figures are correct otherwise this could be a short term solution only. Just hope the money is forthcoming but sadly have my doubts. Hope I am wrong and the long term future of the club can be secured. Anyway must go now and put my lottery on ! I

The board weren't obliged to put the Easts' first bid to the board if they didn't believe that it was in the club's best interests - let's remember it was 200k for 51% and so was valuing the club at less than 400k. The Easts', through use of s303 of the Companies Act, served a notice asking for a resolution to be put to the members. As it transpires, the Easts have considerably altered and enhanced their bid to 225% of what they started with, with payments in instalments and different personnel. It's a completely changed bid, but better for it.

They now need to be selling the strengths of their bid.

[diggerdagger1]

Dear oh dear Mike there is no need for insults and swearing is there. However I will try to answer your points in a well respected intelligent even handed manner with no swearing! Yes you did report what you were told I agree. But I would have like you to have pressed tamplin more. Thought you were quite soft on him tbh. I do feel you were biased but that is my opinion and you have yours. You have already stated on more than one occasion rhat you have offered the easts a further chance to comment.there was no need for the swear word was there? Alan's words childish and playground come to mind. The post I am referring to relates to takeover latest not the thoughts of djb and I apologise for that.point one yes you are correct. Point two already answered.the words in brackets are not called for and totally unwarranted.point three thanks for the offer and much appreciated and will let you know. My agenda is pretty simple really. Just want us the members to make the right decision for the long term future of the club. What's yours by the way. Have very little inside information unlike you. My info has been obtained from this forum and talking to fellow supporters both for and against tamplin. Also as a member both consortiums have talked to me and before you say it I am not acting as Billy big shot. I know that they are only after my vote. So to finish with a question for you Mike who would you vote for and why?

[diggerdagger1]

Alan......in response to your two posts I would respond as follows.i would strongly urge the easts to have another interview with Mike. Tbh I found the easts interview to be fair but again not pressed enough imo. I think it is sad that the easts had to serve a s303on the club so there bid could be heard at an egm. All I wanted as a member was to have the chance to vote on it. They should both be selling there bids and that's why a fans forum should have been held as promised by Dave Bennett. From what I have seen and heard this selling and business plans as you have suggested previously should be heard and verified at the same time. Let's not forget 4 members of the board would not recommend the easts bid to the members. These 4 are part of a rival bid and in the words of Sussex dagger it's like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. Still trying to get my head round the similarities of the bids excluding the money. Still think tamplin and the 4 board members had access to the revised east bid which is totally wrong.if you were a member Alan how would you vote?

[Mike the Dagger]

Dear oh dear Mike there is no need for insults and swearing is there. However I will try to answer your points in a well respected intelligent even handed manner with no swearing! Yes you did report what you were told I agree. But I would have like you to have pressed tamplin more. Thought you were quite soft on him tbh. I do feel you were biased but that is my opinion and you have yours. You have already stated on more than one occasion rhat you have offered the easts a further chance to comment.there was no need for the swear word was there? Alan's words childish and playground come to mind. The post I am referring to relates to takeover latest not the thoughts of djb and I apologise for that.point one yes you are correct. Point two already answered.the words in brackets are not called for and totally unwarranted.point three thanks for the offer and much appreciated and will let you know. My agenda is pretty simple really. Just want us the members to make the right decision for the long term future of the club. What's yours by the way. Have very little inside information unlike you. My info has been obtained from this forum and talking to fellow supporters both for and against tamplin. Also as a member both consortiums have talked to me and before you say it I am not acting as Billy big shot. I know that they are only after my vote. So to finish with a question for you Mike who would you vote for and why?

I apologise if the word "bollocks" offended you. Feel free to substitute another word less offensive to you. I suggest tripe, bilge, or something similar maybe.

I am not a member, I don't have a vote so my position is irrelevant, however I have repeatedly stated that I'd rather we stay as we are unless the club is totally sunk without investment. I haven't seen the books but as a Member I would presume you have. What actually is the bottom line?

If we really need investment then the deal offering the most money on the surface makes sense unless there is something in the small print that negates this or the other bid has some hidden gem inside it that outweighs the extra investment. I would assume that the meeting a week today will get all the facts on both bids and reach the right conclusion for the club going forward.

The reason I got involved at all is because there was no information forthcoming officially. Having put up at DiggerDagger what facts I could find out of the whispers and supposition throughout the Summer the Easts approached me first to put their side which went up on the 19th August. Off the back of that, and his rant at the leaflet, Dave Bennett spoke to me, then Glenn Tamplin. All I have done is write the information given to me up for the fans of the club in the absence of anything much official from the club or any real interest from the press.

Since the Tamplin interview went up on the 16th September, I asked the Easts if they wanted to say anything else through DiggerDagger on the 23rd September and they indicated that they didn't think the time was right at that point, and they haven't come back to me since to say that it now is right as yet. I also contacted them subsequent to this over the reported threats to ban them from the club should they lose the vote. That story, plus the news that Tamplin was backing out of the promised fans forum quoting legal issues, went up on the 29th September. In all stories, where words are quoted, they have been approved by the quoted party and are therefore their words not mine.

As I say, if you feel some element is not being represented properly, feel free to send me something, and I'll publish it as an opinion piece.

[Alan]

Alan......in response to your two posts I would respond as follows.i would strongly urge the easts to have another interview with Mike. Tbh I found the easts interview to be fair but again not pressed enough imo. I think it is sad that the easts had to serve a s303on the club so there bid could be heard at an egm. All I wanted as a member was to have the chance to vote on it. They should both be selling there bids and that's why a fans forum should have been held as promised by Dave Bennett. From what I have seen and heard this selling and business plans as you have suggested previously should be heard and verified at the same time. Let's not forget 4 members of the board would not recommend the easts bid to the members. These 4 are part of a rival bid and in the words of Sussex dagger it's like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. Still trying to get my head round the similarities of the bids excluding the money. Still think tamplin and the 4 board members had access to the revised east bid which is totally wrong.if you were a member Alan how would you vote?

Both sides had board members until recently. I suggested a s303 notice to the Easts through an intermediary because I thought members should have a chance - but also because competition focuses the bids.

At the moment, if I look at matters objectively and compare what is in the bid documents, I would vote for more money. If Thommo's figures are right, £450k isn't fixing it.

It's a great shame both sides weren't able to come up with something that they were both happy with to work together.