.png)
One thing all magicians agree on is never to reveal how they did the trick.... this also applies to the 'Sleight of hand' trick... one where things move around right in front of your eyes without most people noticing.
I have heard via various sources that some sleight of hand has allegedly gone on with the share distribution for the club. By this I mean what was "paid" for is not necessarily what they ended up getting....
We all know that the board are kindly offering 5% shareholding in return for the fans raising 150k (not sure what happens if they raise 149k...my gut says the board will give nothing). But how did the current shares get into the state we see now....
The info I have been told is that Dave Ward did indeed pay for shares in the new Ltd company - £77,000 to be precise - this was supposed to have given him a 5.5% shareholding. Except he declined to become a director and its not clear what happened to the 5.5%..... did DW gift them to the board? (ie free shares) or were they not issued? (ie free increase in % power of other shares) - or did the other shareholders just take them?
Very odd that in all this movement of totals - only the board members got increases, the members got nothing!
TA DA !
The board did admit that Hopkins gave up some free shares to ST and DB..... but what happened to the 5.5%. Why did the members not get it?
In short, ST puts in 50k and end up with 9% ish.... DB puts in 150k and ends up with 27% - but they want you to also put in 150k and the members get 5%. Why is your cash worth only a 1/3 of their cash?
The more I look at the figures the more pissed off I become, yes I am sure ST and DB want the club to survive as a club, but mainly I think they want their investment back asap and want YOU to pay for it....
Maybe the figures I've been told are wrong (if so please put up the correct figures) but when the people making decisions for the clubs future ask for donations to which they will personally benefit from in their increased shareholdings..... its a conflict of interest. We need another independent board member who has no shares to oversee this whole thing....maybe Ward, maybe East.
The magicians code.....
-
dagger4eva
- Posts: 1735
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:39 pm
I’m glad someone else has picked up on the very stuff I’ve been banging on about for a while now.
The very idea that “its your club” and “we want to take the club back to its roots” as was declared at last weeks meeting are not only a nonsense but in fact a complete sham.
The only thing the owners are willing to do in terms of it being “your club” are to allow you volunteer / donate / arrange functions etc. etc. all for the cause of saving their investments - sorry, I mean the club.
The increased ownerships percentages (for FREE) bug me immensely – when these could and should be going back to the full members – if the sentiment of your club / back to its roots was a genuine one.
Interested to find out IF Ward did specifically instruct for the shares he at least part paid for, were to be divided amongst ST/DB. But even if he did, the two should now show some good faith and hand them over without any further delay.
The very idea that “its your club” and “we want to take the club back to its roots” as was declared at last weeks meeting are not only a nonsense but in fact a complete sham.
The only thing the owners are willing to do in terms of it being “your club” are to allow you volunteer / donate / arrange functions etc. etc. all for the cause of saving their investments - sorry, I mean the club.
The increased ownerships percentages (for FREE) bug me immensely – when these could and should be going back to the full members – if the sentiment of your club / back to its roots was a genuine one.
Interested to find out IF Ward did specifically instruct for the shares he at least part paid for, were to be divided amongst ST/DB. But even if he did, the two should now show some good faith and hand them over without any further delay.
-
Chigwellian
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:18 pm
Totally agree.... BUT, we have known this for years !!
-
dagger4eva
- Posts: 1735
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:39 pm
There was a very good post made to the FB account recently from a Simon Hanning - as follows:
Interesting that the 'email' or the 'flags' are still being banded around as the main reason the club is in the situation it is. As I have said before, "Just because they say it's true, it doesnt actually mean it's true".
This whole sorry tale about emails has very conveniently taken away from the fact that the two major shareholders of this club advised the membership to forego its members club status and become a Ltd company. The members club status was put in place to stop the situation we are now in from ever happening. Yet the two people whom now own the majority of this private business (which is what the club now is stupidly) are now asking for the fans to bail them out, in effect they will now benefit from this sorry saga personally once they sell the shares that they bought from the opening up of the members shares on their own advice (surely this stinks?). In the meantime the emails and flags takes away all the flack and spotlights that were on them.
All i can refer back to is that the club once had a board of directors that were predominantly football people and in it for the right reasons. I grew up around this, and watched from arms length for many years. Most people would never have to deal with them or hear from them. In the past 3 years funnily enough it has all been about the 2 main members of this board. Its a shame that ego has gotten in the way of what the club should be about.
Right now the private business has no football manager, A managing director that is still able to draw a salary, that you and I are expected to pay for by raising 150k, even though the club has ran at a loss (bar for the selling of players) for many years. What company has someone at the top continually running it at a loss yet able to still keep their job? Staff have been made redundant, so we are left with a fanbase that has a value, some buildings on a lease to the council and a number of bars that should be running at a profit? So the thing of monetary value is you the fans! Without you there is no business and no football club.
Anyhow, going forwards the club needs some stability, can i ask what is stopping those gentleman from returning the club to a members club, especially if the shareholding is now worthless? They cant use rules as they changed them to make it a private company so they can just as well change em back. The old company still exists in the entity that it was, so its a very simple transaction back. Or are we all now supposedly being asked to prop up their investment?
Any money raised from shareholding sales should now go into the club right? As i said before don't believe all that they tell ya!
Interesting that the 'email' or the 'flags' are still being banded around as the main reason the club is in the situation it is. As I have said before, "Just because they say it's true, it doesnt actually mean it's true".
This whole sorry tale about emails has very conveniently taken away from the fact that the two major shareholders of this club advised the membership to forego its members club status and become a Ltd company. The members club status was put in place to stop the situation we are now in from ever happening. Yet the two people whom now own the majority of this private business (which is what the club now is stupidly) are now asking for the fans to bail them out, in effect they will now benefit from this sorry saga personally once they sell the shares that they bought from the opening up of the members shares on their own advice (surely this stinks?). In the meantime the emails and flags takes away all the flack and spotlights that were on them.
All i can refer back to is that the club once had a board of directors that were predominantly football people and in it for the right reasons. I grew up around this, and watched from arms length for many years. Most people would never have to deal with them or hear from them. In the past 3 years funnily enough it has all been about the 2 main members of this board. Its a shame that ego has gotten in the way of what the club should be about.
Right now the private business has no football manager, A managing director that is still able to draw a salary, that you and I are expected to pay for by raising 150k, even though the club has ran at a loss (bar for the selling of players) for many years. What company has someone at the top continually running it at a loss yet able to still keep their job? Staff have been made redundant, so we are left with a fanbase that has a value, some buildings on a lease to the council and a number of bars that should be running at a profit? So the thing of monetary value is you the fans! Without you there is no business and no football club.
Anyhow, going forwards the club needs some stability, can i ask what is stopping those gentleman from returning the club to a members club, especially if the shareholding is now worthless? They cant use rules as they changed them to make it a private company so they can just as well change em back. The old company still exists in the entity that it was, so its a very simple transaction back. Or are we all now supposedly being asked to prop up their investment?
Any money raised from shareholding sales should now go into the club right? As i said before don't believe all that they tell ya!
-
Voice of reason
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:15 am
I think this sums up my thoughtsdagger4eva wrote: ↑Fri May 25, 2018 1:01 pm There was a very good post made to the FB account recently from a Simon Hanning - as follows:
Interesting that the 'email' or the 'flags' are still being banded around as the main reason the club is in the situation it is. As I have said before, "Just because they say it's true, it doesnt actually mean it's true".
This whole sorry tale about emails has very conveniently taken away from the fact that the two major shareholders of this club advised the membership to forego its members club status and become a Ltd company. The members club status was put in place to stop the situation we are now in from ever happening. Yet the two people whom now own the majority of this private business (which is what the club now is stupidly) are now asking for the fans to bail them out, in effect they will now benefit from this sorry saga personally once they sell the shares that they bought from the opening up of the members shares on their own advice (surely this stinks?). In the meantime the emails and flags takes away all the flack and spotlights that were on them.
All i can refer back to is that the club once had a board of directors that were predominantly football people and in it for the right reasons. I grew up around this, and watched from arms length for many years. Most people would never have to deal with them or hear from them. In the past 3 years funnily enough it has all been about the 2 main members of this board. Its a shame that ego has gotten in the way of what the club should be about.
Right now the private business has no football manager, A managing director that is still able to draw a salary, that you and I are expected to pay for by raising 150k, even though the club has ran at a loss (bar for the selling of players) for many years. What company has someone at the top continually running it at a loss yet able to still keep their job? Staff have been made redundant, so we are left with a fanbase that has a value, some buildings on a lease to the council and a number of bars that should be running at a profit? So the thing of monetary value is you the fans! Without you there is no business and no football club.
Anyhow, going forwards the club needs some stability, can i ask what is stopping those gentleman from returning the club to a members club, especially if the shareholding is now worthless? They cant use rules as they changed them to make it a private company so they can just as well change em back. The old company still exists in the entity that it was, so its a very simple transaction back. Or are we all now supposedly being asked to prop up their investment?
Any money raised from shareholding sales should now go into the club right? As i said before don't believe all that they tell ya!
-
Mike the Dagger
- Posts: 2307
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am
- Contact:
Interesting theories, which all seem to be based on the assumption that the change of structure was some evil plot by the current board to destroy the members club for their own profit.
From close to two years of watching this unfold, the issue started at the point that we were pretty certain to be relegated out of the FL. A decision was made that we could not reset to being a non League club, which we had been sustainably for most of the club's history, and we needed to get back up as quickly as possible in order to regain the funding that comes as being in the FL.
That and how we got there I most definitely blame the board for. Let's not forget though that there were a lot of people involved in that decision, including the Easts.
What came after that was the summer of madness around the club courting Glenn Tamplin, which a group of our fans objected to.
Would we have been better off now had that takeover proceeded? Who knows TBH, but possibly. Again mistakes were made during that process, taking money and spending "on promise" from Tamplin when the deal wasn't sealed.
All of the flak for that fell on the usual suspects, despite John Still being a big part of bypassing process and spending on players based (like Corey Whitely for instance) on promises from the prospective new owner, and actually being named as part of the Tamplin consortium. Massive double standards from the objectors there.
When the Tamplin takeover fell apart, in part due to Glyn Hopkin pulling out of his consortium, up stepped... Glyn Hopkin, who was greeted as a saviour.
This was despite effectively doing precisely the same as Tamplin, converting the club from one nominally owned by its fans to one owned by shareholders. He even did the same as Tamplin in making spending commitents, including commiting directly with Stilly on signings we couldn't really afford (Morgan Ferrier) before the deal was sealed. Again, massive double standards from some of our fans.
All the time the financial hole was getting deeper, despite significant investment from Hopkin, due to the level of budgets set on the promise from Hopkin.
Whether he realised that the club was just going to be a money pit, as all clubs are at our level so it shouldn't have been a surprise, or he just found it wasn't enjoying the role of being owner, the ongoing issues between a group of our fans and the board which were graphically demonstrated by all the flag and email stuff were what he used as his excuse to duck out.
He has repeatedly stated that his reason for going was to do with the split beteeen a group of our fans and the board and not any other factors. To be honest, given all the angst since, including the revelation that a long time and trusted member of the board was part of the whole email farce, I can understand this.
Whatever you chose to believe, the timing and the way he ceased funding he had previously committed to is unforgiveable.
At that point we were in a crisis. Sure we could have just stayed as we were and not had the change of structure go through, but that would mean no chance to get a new investor in without the whole expensive legal process starting over. This would have been effectively the end of the football club.
Having committed to see the change of structure through, those shares needed to be distributed. Hopkin, the man, the brand, didn't want to be majority shareholder, effectively to have his name above the door of a club he obviously feels may go bust, therefore his lawyers made sure he reduced his shareholding, and the additional shares were distributed between the other investors pro-rata.
I understand that this was done on the basis that should a future investor buy in, any value realised on these redistributed shares, however unlikely this is, will go to Hopkin. Real cake and eat it stuff.
At the point that the club was at its lowest point with a real danger of being liquidated, Dave Ward tried to wriggle out of paying the remainder of his commitment to buy in despite having signed up to this. His reason for this was he didn't want to sign up to any future liabilities, eventually he paid a proportion of the money he committed with an agreement he would not be a shareholder and director. His shares were never issued and are the ones that are available to the Members now.
No one comes out of this with any real credit, but oddly enough it is the two guys that have followed through on their commitments and paid a lot of personal cash to buy in to the club and are still working to try to make sure it survives, that seem to be made out to be the biggest villians here.
Apparently they are just doing that in order to profit somehow from their shareholding in a worthless company.
Uh huh!!!
Yeah I know, I'm up Thommo's arse or something similar...
From close to two years of watching this unfold, the issue started at the point that we were pretty certain to be relegated out of the FL. A decision was made that we could not reset to being a non League club, which we had been sustainably for most of the club's history, and we needed to get back up as quickly as possible in order to regain the funding that comes as being in the FL.
That and how we got there I most definitely blame the board for. Let's not forget though that there were a lot of people involved in that decision, including the Easts.
What came after that was the summer of madness around the club courting Glenn Tamplin, which a group of our fans objected to.
Would we have been better off now had that takeover proceeded? Who knows TBH, but possibly. Again mistakes were made during that process, taking money and spending "on promise" from Tamplin when the deal wasn't sealed.
All of the flak for that fell on the usual suspects, despite John Still being a big part of bypassing process and spending on players based (like Corey Whitely for instance) on promises from the prospective new owner, and actually being named as part of the Tamplin consortium. Massive double standards from the objectors there.
When the Tamplin takeover fell apart, in part due to Glyn Hopkin pulling out of his consortium, up stepped... Glyn Hopkin, who was greeted as a saviour.
This was despite effectively doing precisely the same as Tamplin, converting the club from one nominally owned by its fans to one owned by shareholders. He even did the same as Tamplin in making spending commitents, including commiting directly with Stilly on signings we couldn't really afford (Morgan Ferrier) before the deal was sealed. Again, massive double standards from some of our fans.
All the time the financial hole was getting deeper, despite significant investment from Hopkin, due to the level of budgets set on the promise from Hopkin.
Whether he realised that the club was just going to be a money pit, as all clubs are at our level so it shouldn't have been a surprise, or he just found it wasn't enjoying the role of being owner, the ongoing issues between a group of our fans and the board which were graphically demonstrated by all the flag and email stuff were what he used as his excuse to duck out.
He has repeatedly stated that his reason for going was to do with the split beteeen a group of our fans and the board and not any other factors. To be honest, given all the angst since, including the revelation that a long time and trusted member of the board was part of the whole email farce, I can understand this.
Whatever you chose to believe, the timing and the way he ceased funding he had previously committed to is unforgiveable.
At that point we were in a crisis. Sure we could have just stayed as we were and not had the change of structure go through, but that would mean no chance to get a new investor in without the whole expensive legal process starting over. This would have been effectively the end of the football club.
Having committed to see the change of structure through, those shares needed to be distributed. Hopkin, the man, the brand, didn't want to be majority shareholder, effectively to have his name above the door of a club he obviously feels may go bust, therefore his lawyers made sure he reduced his shareholding, and the additional shares were distributed between the other investors pro-rata.
I understand that this was done on the basis that should a future investor buy in, any value realised on these redistributed shares, however unlikely this is, will go to Hopkin. Real cake and eat it stuff.
At the point that the club was at its lowest point with a real danger of being liquidated, Dave Ward tried to wriggle out of paying the remainder of his commitment to buy in despite having signed up to this. His reason for this was he didn't want to sign up to any future liabilities, eventually he paid a proportion of the money he committed with an agreement he would not be a shareholder and director. His shares were never issued and are the ones that are available to the Members now.
No one comes out of this with any real credit, but oddly enough it is the two guys that have followed through on their commitments and paid a lot of personal cash to buy in to the club and are still working to try to make sure it survives, that seem to be made out to be the biggest villians here.
Apparently they are just doing that in order to profit somehow from their shareholding in a worthless company.
Uh huh!!!
Yeah I know, I'm up Thommo's arse or something similar...
-
Voice of reason
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:15 am
Very interesting insight as usual Mike including some info I wasn't aware of
-
dagger4eva
- Posts: 1735
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:39 pm
In terms of how we got here, I’m sure there were many people involved in the decision making but it’s difficult to know how the Easts’ can be blamed given they aren’t and have never been decision making board members.
With regards the shareholding, there is currently a clear breakdown of 74% for GH/DB/ST and 26% for Full Members.
This suggests Dave Ward’s shares WERE issued and distributed Pro Rata between DB/ST - otherwise, the 74% would currently read 69% with 5% unallocated.
I don’t believe anyone has ever said DB/ST are looking to “profit” from their shareholding BUT, with Glyn no longer a director, it’s unarguable that DB/ST have effectively obtained total control of the club (36%) for a mere £200k, and yet still have the audacity to value the 5% not taken up by DW at a humongous £150k. This effectively values what you refer to as a “worthless club”, a whopping £3mil.
I’d love to know where these guys think £150k is going to come from. Assuming our hardcore fan base is made up of say 750 adults – this would require a donation of £200 per person.
In any event, it’s fairly obvious that whether full members have 31% / 36% or 49% is probably irrelevant since any unlikely outside investor would be looking to have 100% total ownership. I reiterate a previous point that if there is a REAL desire for the club to return it to its roots, then Full Members should be restored to the majority party with a plan devised for the 3 remaining shareholders to be bought out over a certain period of time.
There are clearly many villians in this whole shoddy affair and despite usually liking to view myself as a glass half full kinda guy – in this instance I fail to see any other outcome for a club that’s been well and truly run into the ground, to be completely out of business in the not too distant future.
With regards the shareholding, there is currently a clear breakdown of 74% for GH/DB/ST and 26% for Full Members.
This suggests Dave Ward’s shares WERE issued and distributed Pro Rata between DB/ST - otherwise, the 74% would currently read 69% with 5% unallocated.
I don’t believe anyone has ever said DB/ST are looking to “profit” from their shareholding BUT, with Glyn no longer a director, it’s unarguable that DB/ST have effectively obtained total control of the club (36%) for a mere £200k, and yet still have the audacity to value the 5% not taken up by DW at a humongous £150k. This effectively values what you refer to as a “worthless club”, a whopping £3mil.
I’d love to know where these guys think £150k is going to come from. Assuming our hardcore fan base is made up of say 750 adults – this would require a donation of £200 per person.
In any event, it’s fairly obvious that whether full members have 31% / 36% or 49% is probably irrelevant since any unlikely outside investor would be looking to have 100% total ownership. I reiterate a previous point that if there is a REAL desire for the club to return it to its roots, then Full Members should be restored to the majority party with a plan devised for the 3 remaining shareholders to be bought out over a certain period of time.
There are clearly many villians in this whole shoddy affair and despite usually liking to view myself as a glass half full kinda guy – in this instance I fail to see any other outcome for a club that’s been well and truly run into the ground, to be completely out of business in the not too distant future.
-
Mike the Dagger
- Posts: 2307
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am
- Contact:
You are fully aware that the Easts were part of the original discussion about seeking outside investment, and that the original valuation put on this, in return for shares in the club, actually came from John East, becasuse you were sat with us when we had this discussion: http://www.fansfocus.net/dagenhamandred ... id=8324615dagger4eva wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 12:52 pm In terms of how we got here, I’m sure there were many people involved in the decision making but it’s difficult to know how the Easts’ can be blamed given they aren’t and have never been decision making board members.
No clue on that, I am reporting what I have been told. They could just be issuing new shares though.dagger4eva wrote:With regards the shareholding, there is currently a clear breakdown of 74% for GH/DB/ST and 26% for Full Members.
This suggests Dave Ward’s shares WERE issued and distributed Pro Rata between DB/ST - otherwise, the 74% would currently read 69% with 5% unallocated.
Dear oh lore. The shares are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. I would suggest that if someone had money to invest to cover the squad for the next year or two they could probably buy a majority shareholding for £1 at the moment.dagger4eva wrote:I don’t believe anyone has ever said DB/ST are looking to “profit” from their shareholding BUT, with Glyn no longer a director, it’s unarguable that DB/ST have effectively obtained total control of the club (36%) for a mere £200k, and yet still have the audacity to value the 5% not taken up by DW at a humongous £150k. This effectively values what you refer to as a “worthless club”, a whopping £3mil.
Or 50 donating £1,000, 50 donating £500 and an average of £100 odd for the rest. Many ways to skin a cat. Having said that, I can't see it happening, but its not unreasonable to set out a target.dagger4eva wrote:I’d love to know where these guys think £150k is going to come from. Assuming our hardcore fan base is made up of say 750 adults – this would require a donation of £200 per person.
Except neither Tamplin or Hopkin were seeking 100% ownership, they both saw the value of split ownership and the Mambers retaining an interest.dagger4eva wrote:In any event, it’s fairly obvious that whether full members have 31% / 36% or 49% is probably irrelevant since any unlikely outside investor would be looking to have 100% total ownership. I reiterate a previous point that if there is a REAL desire for the club to return it to its roots, then Full Members should be restored to the majority party with a plan devised for the 3 remaining shareholders to be bought out over a certain period of
Quite possibly true, but it is still worth trying surely?dagger4eva wrote:There are clearly many villians in this whole shoddy affair and despite usually liking to view myself as a glass half full kinda guy – in this instance I fail to see any other outcome for a club that’s been well and truly run into the ground, to be completely out of business in the not too distant future.
Last edited by Mike the Dagger on Tue May 29, 2018 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
dagger4eva
- Posts: 1735
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:39 pm
I believe this gives a good explanation into the East's level of participation in the path the club took - and it's exactly what I thought I had been told previously by them.
http://www.fansfocus.net/dagenhamandred ... id=8324615
This paragraph would particularly seem to clarify:
I pressed the brothers on their longer term goals for the club. "We would ideally like to see the club remain structured as it is, but feel there are significant changes needed in the way it is run day-to-day in order to maximise income from commercial activities and the club house," Brian told me.
http://www.fansfocus.net/dagenhamandred ... id=8324615
This paragraph would particularly seem to clarify:
I pressed the brothers on their longer term goals for the club. "We would ideally like to see the club remain structured as it is, but feel there are significant changes needed in the way it is run day-to-day in order to maximise income from commercial activities and the club house," Brian told me.
-
Mike the Dagger
- Posts: 2307
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am
- Contact:
Yes, don't deny that was also said, but they were also approached for ideas to sort out the financial issues and John suggested investment in return for a stake.dagger4eva wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 1:38 pm I believe this gives a good explanation into the East's level of participation in the path the club took - and it's exactly what I thought I had been told previously by them.
http://www.fansfocus.net/dagenhamandred ... id=8324615
This paragraph would particularly seem to clarify:
I pressed the brothers on their longer term goals for the club. "We would ideally like to see the club remain structured as it is, but feel there are significant changes needed in the way it is run day-to-day in order to maximise income from commercial activities and the club house," Brian told me.
Of all the interviews I did in this process this one is by far the most "sanitised" by its participants.
-
dagger4eva
- Posts: 1735
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:39 pm
Brian East clearly stated their bottom line wish was for the club to remain as is/was. Care to explain how this particular interview was the 'most sanitised' ?
It appears to me any suggestions (highlight the word ‘suggestions’) of outside investment were only put forward as the club were seemingly heading light speed towards an financial disaster – as firstly suggested by Lee Goodwin (refer to your article as follows)
http://www.fansfocus.net/dagenhamandred ... id=8324614
Lee Goodwin gave an interview to local radio station Time FM, which was broadcast on 23rd July (and can be heard here). In this Goodwin clearly stated that the football club was in severe financial difficulty and could be in a position where it could not pay tax and wages due in the next couple of months without investment
This was denied by Thompson:
It is now rumoured by some parties that, with relegation from the Football League at the end of last season, the club is now in a perilous state and needs significant investment to stay afloat. This has been denied by MD Steve Thompson however in a radio interview linked below.
Considering the turn of events since these interviews, it would appear therefore that this denial by ST was nothing more than a blatant lie.
The board made the decision to go down the path it did, and they, and they alone are the only responsible parties. Anything else suggested is simply a deflection.
It appears to me any suggestions (highlight the word ‘suggestions’) of outside investment were only put forward as the club were seemingly heading light speed towards an financial disaster – as firstly suggested by Lee Goodwin (refer to your article as follows)
http://www.fansfocus.net/dagenhamandred ... id=8324614
Lee Goodwin gave an interview to local radio station Time FM, which was broadcast on 23rd July (and can be heard here). In this Goodwin clearly stated that the football club was in severe financial difficulty and could be in a position where it could not pay tax and wages due in the next couple of months without investment
This was denied by Thompson:
It is now rumoured by some parties that, with relegation from the Football League at the end of last season, the club is now in a perilous state and needs significant investment to stay afloat. This has been denied by MD Steve Thompson however in a radio interview linked below.
Considering the turn of events since these interviews, it would appear therefore that this denial by ST was nothing more than a blatant lie.
The board made the decision to go down the path it did, and they, and they alone are the only responsible parties. Anything else suggested is simply a deflection.
-
Mike the Dagger
- Posts: 2307
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am
- Contact:
As I've said several times in the past, I have always allowed interviewees to have the final say on what is published before it is.
This was most sanitised in that when I drafted it the participants went through several rounds of rewording and specific points being emphasised and others removed.
With the first Bennett interview he did make some wording changes, but it was just cosmetic really.
With Tamplin, he let me publish the first draft.
With Thommo we corrected a few numbers and let me publish.
As for who has said what since, we can play that game forever. Thommo could hardly say publicly at any point that we were bust though as he was trying to keep a business running.
At no point have we been late with PAYE or VAT although it has been close, and we still don't have significant debt, just too high a burn rate so it is constantly hand to mouth.
This was most sanitised in that when I drafted it the participants went through several rounds of rewording and specific points being emphasised and others removed.
With the first Bennett interview he did make some wording changes, but it was just cosmetic really.
With Tamplin, he let me publish the first draft.
With Thommo we corrected a few numbers and let me publish.
As for who has said what since, we can play that game forever. Thommo could hardly say publicly at any point that we were bust though as he was trying to keep a business running.
At no point have we been late with PAYE or VAT although it has been close, and we still don't have significant debt, just too high a burn rate so it is constantly hand to mouth.