SWINDON TOWN: Mystery four interest in buying club

Swindon Advertiser: Four mystery parties are believed to be interested in buying Swindon Town Four mystery parties are believed to be interested in buying Swindon Town

SWINDON Town’s search for a new owner continues with at least four parties showing interest in the acquiring a controlling stake in the club, the Advertiser understands.

Owner Andrew Black is looking to sell a large chunk of his 98 per cent holding in the Robins and, although the identities of the interested parties remain a mystery, there are believed to be two serious potential bidders discussing the prospect of buying into the club. Both are understood to be foreign investors.

Town have substantial debts to major shareholders, but owe no money to HMRC or creditors and have no bank overdraft, and chief executive Nick Watkins has branded the chance to take control of the club as a “unique investment opportunity”.

The Swindon board met on Saturday to discuss the intended sale of the Robins, and both director Russell Backhouse and Watkins are understood to be talking to interested parties. No letters of intent have yet been received, although the process is expected to accelerate as the week progresses.

Meanwhile, Town were last night waiting to discover the results of Danny Hollands’ second scan on a foot injury picked up in the 2-0 victory over Shrewsbury on Saturday. In the aftermath of the game there were fears the midfielder could have suffered a broken metatarsal.

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:54am Tue 22 Jan 13

LeGod says...

Lets hope these mystery people end up being good for the club if one invests.

It could be a Sheik your Money coming in with his oil millions.On the other hand lets hope its not the Castro brothers coming back to bid.
Lets hope these mystery people end up being good for the club if one invests. It could be a Sheik your Money coming in with his oil millions.On the other hand lets hope its not the Castro brothers coming back to bid. LeGod

8:56am Tue 22 Jan 13

Davidsyrett says...

"Town have substantial debts to major shareholders,"

I assume these are loans that need to be paid back, that puts a slightly different light on it all. I'm guessing that if AB pulled out, Swindon will still owe him money to pay back the loans, hence administration.

Lets hope this is sorted out quickly, Uneasy feeling this morning.
"Town have substantial debts to major shareholders," I assume these are loans that need to be paid back, that puts a slightly different light on it all. I'm guessing that if AB pulled out, Swindon will still owe him money to pay back the loans, hence administration. Lets hope this is sorted out quickly, Uneasy feeling this morning. Davidsyrett

9:06am Tue 22 Jan 13

jontyg says...

This consortium or whatever who takes over the club will have to have deep pockets.
Andrew Black is a saint who saved STFC from certain doom.
Let's take a look at the approx figures:-
Income:- £2m
Outgoings:- £4m
It doesn't look good does it.
All of Black's so called mates have jumped ship and left him to deal with it alone.
No wonder he wants out.
Let's just hope we don't go into administration.
Patey wants a bidding war!!
What a joke!!!
This consortium or whatever who takes over the club will have to have deep pockets. Andrew Black is a saint who saved STFC from certain doom. Let's take a look at the approx figures:- Income:- £2m Outgoings:- £4m It doesn't look good does it. All of Black's so called mates have jumped ship and left him to deal with it alone. No wonder he wants out. Let's just hope we don't go into administration. Patey wants a bidding war!! What a joke!!! jontyg

9:12am Tue 22 Jan 13

deviant in the tupping pen says...

Davidsyrett wrote:
"Town have substantial debts to major shareholders,"

I assume these are loans that need to be paid back, that puts a slightly different light on it all. I'm guessing that if AB pulled out, Swindon will still owe him money to pay back the loans, hence administration.

Lets hope this is sorted out quickly, Uneasy feeling this morning.
If it allays your fears a little David, AB in his interview last week did hint that he would be willing to take a hit on his investment when/if a sale goes through.
[quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: "Town have substantial debts to major shareholders," I assume these are loans that need to be paid back, that puts a slightly different light on it all. I'm guessing that if AB pulled out, Swindon will still owe him money to pay back the loans, hence administration. Lets hope this is sorted out quickly, Uneasy feeling this morning.[/p][/quote]If it allays your fears a little David, AB in his interview last week did hint that he would be willing to take a hit on his investment when/if a sale goes through. deviant in the tupping pen

9:12am Tue 22 Jan 13

SAPFanSTFC says...

jontyg wrote:
This consortium or whatever who takes over the club will have to have deep pockets.
Andrew Black is a saint who saved STFC from certain doom.
Let's take a look at the approx figures:-
Income:- £2m
Outgoings:- £4m
It doesn't look good does it.
All of Black's so called mates have jumped ship and left him to deal with it alone.
No wonder he wants out.
Let's just hope we don't go into administration.
Patey wants a bidding war!!
What a joke!!!
If those figures were accurate then we would be in admin already as it wouldn't be a viable business..a £2 million deficit of revenue v expenses sounds a bit on the high side to me.
...
You also have to look at the asset value on the books as this club now have at least £3 million worth of assets that could be realised compared with less than £1 million when PDC took charge.
[quote][p][bold]jontyg[/bold] wrote: This consortium or whatever who takes over the club will have to have deep pockets. Andrew Black is a saint who saved STFC from certain doom. Let's take a look at the approx figures:- Income:- £2m Outgoings:- £4m It doesn't look good does it. All of Black's so called mates have jumped ship and left him to deal with it alone. No wonder he wants out. Let's just hope we don't go into administration. Patey wants a bidding war!! What a joke!!![/p][/quote]If those figures were accurate then we would be in admin already as it wouldn't be a viable business..a £2 million deficit of revenue v expenses sounds a bit on the high side to me. ... You also have to look at the asset value on the books as this club now have at least £3 million worth of assets that could be realised compared with less than £1 million when PDC took charge. SAPFanSTFC

9:17am Tue 22 Jan 13

Davidsyrett says...

jontyg wrote:
This consortium or whatever who takes over the club will have to have deep pockets.
Andrew Black is a saint who saved STFC from certain doom.
Let's take a look at the approx figures:-
Income:- £2m
Outgoings:- £4m
It doesn't look good does it.
All of Black's so called mates have jumped ship and left him to deal with it alone.
No wonder he wants out.
Let's just hope we don't go into administration.
Patey wants a bidding war!!
What a joke!!!
Exactly, People were giving SWP all sorts of grief yesterday, but this is not going to be an easy sell. The only way we will ever get out losing money year on year is a new ground, all investors will see that. So £13M to pay of share holders, a few years of losing money, New Stadium £25/20M, so probably needing to invest £40M+ before getting some returns. Unless a far Eastern consortium is found I cant see anyone investing that type of money.
[quote][p][bold]jontyg[/bold] wrote: This consortium or whatever who takes over the club will have to have deep pockets. Andrew Black is a saint who saved STFC from certain doom. Let's take a look at the approx figures:- Income:- £2m Outgoings:- £4m It doesn't look good does it. All of Black's so called mates have jumped ship and left him to deal with it alone. No wonder he wants out. Let's just hope we don't go into administration. Patey wants a bidding war!! What a joke!!![/p][/quote]Exactly, People were giving SWP all sorts of grief yesterday, but this is not going to be an easy sell. The only way we will ever get out losing money year on year is a new ground, all investors will see that. So £13M to pay of share holders, a few years of losing money, New Stadium £25/20M, so probably needing to invest £40M+ before getting some returns. Unless a far Eastern consortium is found I cant see anyone investing that type of money. Davidsyrett

9:34am Tue 22 Jan 13

ShearerShearer says...

Dominoes ;-)
Dominoes ;-) ShearerShearer

10:21am Tue 22 Jan 13

eastmidsred says...

If we don't find generous owners the only way we'll ever stop losing money is to attract bigger crowds and to live within our means!!!!
If we don't find generous owners the only way we'll ever stop losing money is to attract bigger crowds and to live within our means!!!! eastmidsred

10:43am Tue 22 Jan 13

old town robin says...

eastmidsred wrote:
If we don't find generous owners the only way we'll ever stop losing money is to attract bigger crowds and to live within our means!!!!
Or sell our assets, which is the route we took with Cox and Austin. None of us want to see that, but it is a reality.

Unfortunately with the loss of jobs at Honda and other companies associated with them, as much as I would like ot see us getting 10,000 crowds on a regular basis i don't see it happening this season at least.
[quote][p][bold]eastmidsred[/bold] wrote: If we don't find generous owners the only way we'll ever stop losing money is to attract bigger crowds and to live within our means!!!![/p][/quote]Or sell our assets, which is the route we took with Cox and Austin. None of us want to see that, but it is a reality. Unfortunately with the loss of jobs at Honda and other companies associated with them, as much as I would like ot see us getting 10,000 crowds on a regular basis i don't see it happening this season at least. old town robin

11:44am Tue 22 Jan 13

ChrisWantageRed says...

As an aside chaps. I have just received an email from David Emery (FLP editor), who says Chris Dunlavy is currently writing an apology for the paper
As an aside chaps. I have just received an email from David Emery (FLP editor), who says Chris Dunlavy is currently writing an apology for the paper ChrisWantageRed

11:52am Tue 22 Jan 13

mallorca says...

All we can do is hope any investors are serious and want to take on this debt to AB.
What is of concern if club aint sold within a certain time limit I fear AB will pull the plug and then only option would be administratio.
One good point if you can call it that is AB is the only creditor and hopefully he will hang in there until at least he get's something back
All we can do is hope any investors are serious and want to take on this debt to AB. What is of concern if club aint sold within a certain time limit I fear AB will pull the plug and then only option would be administratio. One good point if you can call it that is AB is the only creditor and hopefully he will hang in there until at least he get's something back mallorca

11:53am Tue 22 Jan 13

eastmidsred says...

old town robin wrote:
eastmidsred wrote:
If we don't find generous owners the only way we'll ever stop losing money is to attract bigger crowds and to live within our means!!!!
Or sell our assets, which is the route we took with Cox and Austin. None of us want to see that, but it is a reality.

Unfortunately with the loss of jobs at Honda and other companies associated with them, as much as I would like ot see us getting 10,000 crowds on a regular basis i don't see it happening this season at least.
You're absolutely right. None of us want to see Ritchie or anyone else sold, although it's how Wimbledon survived on low crowlds in the old 1st division for years. I'm sure that JW's business plan was probably based on 'success and attractive football will increase average crowds to around 10,000 and even more to sustain us in the Championship.
It isn't happening and obviously the economic climate is part of this. Andrew Black obviously doesn't want to continue to fund a 'black hole'.
Unlike when I was a kid in the 50's, football is not at the heart of the Swindon community and our core support currently is around 8,000. Probably would rise to 10k in the Championship and more when big teams come. Sadly, we're not a Norwich but that's not to say we can't get there. After all we managed to do it in the early 90's with Ardiles and Hoddle. Definitely need a good Sheik!
[quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eastmidsred[/bold] wrote: If we don't find generous owners the only way we'll ever stop losing money is to attract bigger crowds and to live within our means!!!![/p][/quote]Or sell our assets, which is the route we took with Cox and Austin. None of us want to see that, but it is a reality. Unfortunately with the loss of jobs at Honda and other companies associated with them, as much as I would like ot see us getting 10,000 crowds on a regular basis i don't see it happening this season at least.[/p][/quote]You're absolutely right. None of us want to see Ritchie or anyone else sold, although it's how Wimbledon survived on low crowlds in the old 1st division for years. I'm sure that JW's business plan was probably based on 'success and attractive football will increase average crowds to around 10,000 and even more to sustain us in the Championship. It isn't happening and obviously the economic climate is part of this. Andrew Black obviously doesn't want to continue to fund a 'black hole'. Unlike when I was a kid in the 50's, football is not at the heart of the Swindon community and our core support currently is around 8,000. Probably would rise to 10k in the Championship and more when big teams come. Sadly, we're not a Norwich but that's not to say we can't get there. After all we managed to do it in the early 90's with Ardiles and Hoddle. Definitely need a good Sheik! eastmidsred

1:17pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Rebel_phish says...

So what price would a Town season ticket cost in the Championship or the Prem?

Its all a numbers game. You want to get more bums on seats for more atmosphere - and revenue. The higher up the leagues you go, you expect bigger gates and clubs think they need to charge more per ticket.

Currently match-day tickets are £25/£19, less for concessions. Which in this economic climate can be a bit of a struggle.

If promotion is achieved then one would expect the match-day prices to rise to, oh, I dont know, say to £28/£22. Will we get a crowd of 10k+ at those prices? I dont think so. Even with the draw of teams like QPR, Reading (I know they're in the Prem, but for how long?), Middlesborough, Blackpool, Leeds et al. Fans will pick and choose their matches even more carefully than they are now.

Increase in ticket prices does not necessarily equal more revenue. If ticket prices stay the same next season (they wont) and promotion is achieved then 9.5/10K crowds could be the norm. If prices do go up, then I wonder if we would get above 8.5k.

Prospective investors have to take all this into account. They also have to keep in mind how many actually made good money in general from a football club.
So what price would a Town season ticket cost in the Championship or the Prem? Its all a numbers game. You want to get more bums on seats for more atmosphere - and revenue. The higher up the leagues you go, you expect bigger gates and clubs think they need to charge more per ticket. Currently match-day tickets are £25/£19, less for concessions. Which in this economic climate can be a bit of a struggle. If promotion is achieved then one would expect the match-day prices to rise to, oh, I dont know, say to £28/£22. Will we get a crowd of 10k+ at those prices? I dont think so. Even with the draw of teams like QPR, Reading (I know they're in the Prem, but for how long?), Middlesborough, Blackpool, Leeds et al. Fans will pick and choose their matches even more carefully than they are now. Increase in ticket prices does not necessarily equal more revenue. If ticket prices stay the same next season (they wont) and promotion is achieved then 9.5/10K crowds could be the norm. If prices do go up, then I wonder if we would get above 8.5k. Prospective investors have to take all this into account. They also have to keep in mind how many actually made good money in general from a football club. Rebel_phish

1:21pm Tue 22 Jan 13

SAPFanSTFC says...

ChrisWantageRed wrote:
As an aside chaps. I have just received an email from David Emery (FLP editor), who says Chris Dunlavy is currently writing an apology for the paper
Cheers Chris - Fernham Red has also had one apparently - I'll look forward to receiving mine and to seeing the letter in the FLP next Sunday!!
[quote][p][bold]ChrisWantageRed[/bold] wrote: As an aside chaps. I have just received an email from David Emery (FLP editor), who says Chris Dunlavy is currently writing an apology for the paper[/p][/quote]Cheers Chris - Fernham Red has also had one apparently - I'll look forward to receiving mine and to seeing the letter in the FLP next Sunday!! SAPFanSTFC

1:27pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Reading_Robin says...

I read these comments, but rarely actually post... just thought it might be interesting for people that I've had a response from the editor... here's my complaint and the response in full it's probably a standard response, but at least we should be getting an apology.. just hope not too much damage has been done:


On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM, David Emery wrote:

I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have contacted Swindon Town FC.



Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about the club.


His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability.



He saw Sir William Patey’s reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target.

David Emery


From: Tom ****
Sent: 22 January 2013 11:23
To: David.emery@theleagu

epaper.com
Cc: chris.dunlavy@thelea

guepaper.com
Subject: The Football League Paper - Sunday 20th January 2013


Dear Mr Emery,

I am writing in reference to the article in this week's issue of your publication titled "Swindon: the 'cheats' who really prospered".

I am a regular reader of your publication. As a supporter and member of a football club outside of the Premier League (Swindon Town FC), printed news for all but the transfer of some player or another to a Premier League team is impossible to find in the mainstream press, and your newspaper, in my opinion fills a necessary gap. Unfortunately, after reading the above article on Sunday, I will not be purchasing The Football League Paper again.

I am disappointed that, as editor, you allowed a piece with such obvious lack of evidential substance to be printed. This article represents lazy, sensationalist journalism, and is incorrect in the bare facts of the article. I am especially referring to the following sections:

"Every time Swindon added to their wage bill (currently around £3m a year), they knew somebody else was going unpaid. They were spending money they didn't have, otherwise known as financial doping."
"... how would you feel knowing Swindon virtually cheated their way out of the division? "
"Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Robins have behaved immorally"

To the above quotations from the article, I would like to make clear the following points of fact:

On "somebody else was going unpaid":

The debts owed by Swindon Town Football Club are owed to the majority shareholders of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd http://www.companies

intheuk.co.uk/ltd/sw

indon-town-football-

company, the Board members of Swindon Town Football Club have stated in the local and national media that the football club does NOT:

* Owe any monies to HMRC
* Have a bank overdraft
* Have any major creditor issues

http://www.thisisswi

ndontownfc.co.uk/new

s/headlines/10170172

.Watkins_sees_Town_a

s_unique_investment_

opportunity/

In this respect, the financing of Swindon Town FC is not dissimilar to that of Chelsea Football Club or Manchester City Football Club in the Premier League or A.F.C Bournemouth in League One (to mention just a few).

On "virtually cheated their way out of the division" and "have behaved immorally":

Swindon Town Football Club are set annual budgets by their holdings company in line with the financial fair-play rules in force in the Football League. Swindon Town are allowed to work within those budgets, and the fact that the Football Club has owners who are wealthy and are prepared to set high budgets, funded from their own pockets is immaterial. Whilst it is true that Swindon Town FC were placed under a transfer embargo earlier this season for breaching the financial fair play rules, this was a result of tribunal decisions on the transfers of Troy Archibald-Henville and James Collins, where transfer fees were instructed to be paid up front and not in installments as the club anticipated, once under embargo, the club's owners made a capital investment into the Swindon Town FC to bring player spending within the agreed percentage of total revenue, thus bringing the club out of embargo. Swindon Town Football Club faced no such sanctions during the previous season, when were supposed to have "cheated" their way out of the division (according to your article).

I would also like an explanation as to how the club has acted immorally. As stated above, majority of the reported £13m debt is owed as unsecured loans to the directors (current and previous) of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd, and not to minor creditors, suppliers, local small businesses, etc. How can it be immoral to operate within budgets set forth by by the club's owners and within the restrictions of the Football League's financial fair play rules?

Given that it is public knowledge that Andrew Black (majority shareholder) is actively seeking new owners for Swindon Town Football Club, and that a process of due diligence is about to begin, the story published in your newspaper, being based on opinion and lacking evidential substance as previously mentioned is not only irresponsible, but could also be construed by Swindon Town FC as libelous.

I stated above that I would not be purchasing your publication again, and this is not entirely true... I will be buying The Football League Paper one last time on Sunday in the hope of seeing a retraction of the article and apology to Swindon Town Football Club, their supporters, and potential investors which consume as much of your paper in a section of equivalent prominence as the original article. After the issue to be published on Sunday 27th January, I will be cancelling my subscription with my local newsagent.

Yours sincerely,

Tom xxx, ex-reader
I read these comments, but rarely actually post... just thought it might be interesting for people that I've had a response from the editor... here's my complaint and the response in full it's probably a standard response, but at least we should be getting an apology.. just hope not too much damage has been done: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM, David Emery wrote: I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have contacted Swindon Town FC. Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about the club. His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability. He saw Sir William Patey’s reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target. David Emery From: Tom **** Sent: 22 January 2013 11:23 To: David.emery@theleagu epaper.com Cc: chris.dunlavy@thelea guepaper.com Subject: The Football League Paper - Sunday 20th January 2013 Dear Mr Emery, I am writing in reference to the article in this week's issue of your publication titled "Swindon: the 'cheats' who really prospered". I am a regular reader of your publication. As a supporter and member of a football club outside of the Premier League (Swindon Town FC), printed news for all but the transfer of some player or another to a Premier League team is impossible to find in the mainstream press, and your newspaper, in my opinion fills a necessary gap. Unfortunately, after reading the above article on Sunday, I will not be purchasing The Football League Paper again. I am disappointed that, as editor, you allowed a piece with such obvious lack of evidential substance to be printed. This article represents lazy, sensationalist journalism, and is incorrect in the bare facts of the article. I am especially referring to the following sections: "Every time Swindon added to their wage bill (currently around £3m a year), they knew somebody else was going unpaid. They were spending money they didn't have, otherwise known as financial doping." "... how would you feel knowing Swindon virtually cheated their way out of the division? " "Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Robins have behaved immorally" To the above quotations from the article, I would like to make clear the following points of fact: On "somebody else was going unpaid": The debts owed by Swindon Town Football Club are owed to the majority shareholders of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd http://www.companies intheuk.co.uk/ltd/sw indon-town-football- company, the Board members of Swindon Town Football Club have stated in the local and national media that the football club does NOT: * Owe any monies to HMRC * Have a bank overdraft * Have any major creditor issues http://www.thisisswi ndontownfc.co.uk/new s/headlines/10170172 .Watkins_sees_Town_a s_unique_investment_ opportunity/ In this respect, the financing of Swindon Town FC is not dissimilar to that of Chelsea Football Club or Manchester City Football Club in the Premier League or A.F.C Bournemouth in League One (to mention just a few). On "virtually cheated their way out of the division" and "have behaved immorally": Swindon Town Football Club are set annual budgets by their holdings company in line with the financial fair-play rules in force in the Football League. Swindon Town are allowed to work within those budgets, and the fact that the Football Club has owners who are wealthy and are prepared to set high budgets, funded from their own pockets is immaterial. Whilst it is true that Swindon Town FC were placed under a transfer embargo earlier this season for breaching the financial fair play rules, this was a result of tribunal decisions on the transfers of Troy Archibald-Henville and James Collins, where transfer fees were instructed to be paid up front and not in installments as the club anticipated, once under embargo, the club's owners made a capital investment into the Swindon Town FC to bring player spending within the agreed percentage of total revenue, thus bringing the club out of embargo. Swindon Town Football Club faced no such sanctions during the previous season, when were supposed to have "cheated" their way out of the division (according to your article). I would also like an explanation as to how the club has acted immorally. As stated above, majority of the reported £13m debt is owed as unsecured loans to the directors (current and previous) of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd, and not to minor creditors, suppliers, local small businesses, etc. How can it be immoral to operate within budgets set forth by by the club's owners and within the restrictions of the Football League's financial fair play rules? Given that it is public knowledge that Andrew Black (majority shareholder) is actively seeking new owners for Swindon Town Football Club, and that a process of due diligence is about to begin, the story published in your newspaper, being based on opinion and lacking evidential substance as previously mentioned is not only irresponsible, but could also be construed by Swindon Town FC as libelous. I stated above that I would not be purchasing your publication again, and this is not entirely true... I will be buying The Football League Paper one last time on Sunday in the hope of seeing a retraction of the article and apology to Swindon Town Football Club, their supporters, and potential investors which consume as much of your paper in a section of equivalent prominence as the original article. After the issue to be published on Sunday 27th January, I will be cancelling my subscription with my local newsagent. Yours sincerely, Tom xxx, ex-reader Reading_Robin

1:28pm Tue 22 Jan 13

avo says...

7..6..5..4..........
.
7..6..5..4.......... . avo

1:54pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Swindon1984 says...

Reading_Robin wrote:
I read these comments, but rarely actually post... just thought it might be interesting for people that I've had a response from the editor... here's my complaint and the response in full it's probably a standard response, but at least we should be getting an apology.. just hope not too much damage has been done: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM, David Emery wrote: I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have contacted Swindon Town FC. Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about the club. His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability. He saw Sir William Patey’s reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target. David Emery From: Tom **** Sent: 22 January 2013 11:23 To: David.emery@theleagu epaper.com Cc: chris.dunlavy@thelea guepaper.com Subject: The Football League Paper - Sunday 20th January 2013 Dear Mr Emery, I am writing in reference to the article in this week's issue of your publication titled "Swindon: the 'cheats' who really prospered". I am a regular reader of your publication. As a supporter and member of a football club outside of the Premier League (Swindon Town FC), printed news for all but the transfer of some player or another to a Premier League team is impossible to find in the mainstream press, and your newspaper, in my opinion fills a necessary gap. Unfortunately, after reading the above article on Sunday, I will not be purchasing The Football League Paper again. I am disappointed that, as editor, you allowed a piece with such obvious lack of evidential substance to be printed. This article represents lazy, sensationalist journalism, and is incorrect in the bare facts of the article. I am especially referring to the following sections: "Every time Swindon added to their wage bill (currently around £3m a year), they knew somebody else was going unpaid. They were spending money they didn't have, otherwise known as financial doping." "... how would you feel knowing Swindon virtually cheated their way out of the division? " "Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Robins have behaved immorally" To the above quotations from the article, I would like to make clear the following points of fact: On "somebody else was going unpaid": The debts owed by Swindon Town Football Club are owed to the majority shareholders of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd http://www.companies intheuk.co.uk/ltd/sw indon-town-football- company, the Board members of Swindon Town Football Club have stated in the local and national media that the football club does NOT: * Owe any monies to HMRC * Have a bank overdraft * Have any major creditor issues http://www.thisisswi ndontownfc.co.uk/new s/headlines/10170172 .Watkins_sees_Town_a s_unique_investment_ opportunity/ In this respect, the financing of Swindon Town FC is not dissimilar to that of Chelsea Football Club or Manchester City Football Club in the Premier League or A.F.C Bournemouth in League One (to mention just a few). On "virtually cheated their way out of the division" and "have behaved immorally": Swindon Town Football Club are set annual budgets by their holdings company in line with the financial fair-play rules in force in the Football League. Swindon Town are allowed to work within those budgets, and the fact that the Football Club has owners who are wealthy and are prepared to set high budgets, funded from their own pockets is immaterial. Whilst it is true that Swindon Town FC were placed under a transfer embargo earlier this season for breaching the financial fair play rules, this was a result of tribunal decisions on the transfers of Troy Archibald-Henville and James Collins, where transfer fees were instructed to be paid up front and not in installments as the club anticipated, once under embargo, the club's owners made a capital investment into the Swindon Town FC to bring player spending within the agreed percentage of total revenue, thus bringing the club out of embargo. Swindon Town Football Club faced no such sanctions during the previous season, when were supposed to have "cheated" their way out of the division (according to your article). I would also like an explanation as to how the club has acted immorally. As stated above, majority of the reported £13m debt is owed as unsecured loans to the directors (current and previous) of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd, and not to minor creditors, suppliers, local small businesses, etc. How can it be immoral to operate within budgets set forth by by the club's owners and within the restrictions of the Football League's financial fair play rules? Given that it is public knowledge that Andrew Black (majority shareholder) is actively seeking new owners for Swindon Town Football Club, and that a process of due diligence is about to begin, the story published in your newspaper, being based on opinion and lacking evidential substance as previously mentioned is not only irresponsible, but could also be construed by Swindon Town FC as libelous. I stated above that I would not be purchasing your publication again, and this is not entirely true... I will be buying The Football League Paper one last time on Sunday in the hope of seeing a retraction of the article and apology to Swindon Town Football Club, their supporters, and potential investors which consume as much of your paper in a section of equivalent prominence as the original article. After the issue to be published on Sunday 27th January, I will be cancelling my subscription with my local newsagent. Yours sincerely, Tom xxx, ex-reader
Very eloquently put, and the apology has come through to the club (although it stinks to high heaven as far as I'm concerned, and doesn't go nearly far enough to explaining how the article was printed in the first place). Wonder if it'll be published in the paper in anything more than a two inch column?

This is the bit that annoys,the damage is done, and by the time the apology comes people won't care to read it, the mud has already stuck, and the FLP have already made their money out of the story so they couldn't care less.
[quote][p][bold]Reading_Robin[/bold] wrote: I read these comments, but rarely actually post... just thought it might be interesting for people that I've had a response from the editor... here's my complaint and the response in full it's probably a standard response, but at least we should be getting an apology.. just hope not too much damage has been done: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM, David Emery wrote: I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have contacted Swindon Town FC. Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about the club. His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability. He saw Sir William Patey’s reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target. David Emery From: Tom **** Sent: 22 January 2013 11:23 To: David.emery@theleagu epaper.com Cc: chris.dunlavy@thelea guepaper.com Subject: The Football League Paper - Sunday 20th January 2013 Dear Mr Emery, I am writing in reference to the article in this week's issue of your publication titled "Swindon: the 'cheats' who really prospered". I am a regular reader of your publication. As a supporter and member of a football club outside of the Premier League (Swindon Town FC), printed news for all but the transfer of some player or another to a Premier League team is impossible to find in the mainstream press, and your newspaper, in my opinion fills a necessary gap. Unfortunately, after reading the above article on Sunday, I will not be purchasing The Football League Paper again. I am disappointed that, as editor, you allowed a piece with such obvious lack of evidential substance to be printed. This article represents lazy, sensationalist journalism, and is incorrect in the bare facts of the article. I am especially referring to the following sections: "Every time Swindon added to their wage bill (currently around £3m a year), they knew somebody else was going unpaid. They were spending money they didn't have, otherwise known as financial doping." "... how would you feel knowing Swindon virtually cheated their way out of the division? " "Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Robins have behaved immorally" To the above quotations from the article, I would like to make clear the following points of fact: On "somebody else was going unpaid": The debts owed by Swindon Town Football Club are owed to the majority shareholders of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd http://www.companies intheuk.co.uk/ltd/sw indon-town-football- company, the Board members of Swindon Town Football Club have stated in the local and national media that the football club does NOT: * Owe any monies to HMRC * Have a bank overdraft * Have any major creditor issues http://www.thisisswi ndontownfc.co.uk/new s/headlines/10170172 .Watkins_sees_Town_a s_unique_investment_ opportunity/ In this respect, the financing of Swindon Town FC is not dissimilar to that of Chelsea Football Club or Manchester City Football Club in the Premier League or A.F.C Bournemouth in League One (to mention just a few). On "virtually cheated their way out of the division" and "have behaved immorally": Swindon Town Football Club are set annual budgets by their holdings company in line with the financial fair-play rules in force in the Football League. Swindon Town are allowed to work within those budgets, and the fact that the Football Club has owners who are wealthy and are prepared to set high budgets, funded from their own pockets is immaterial. Whilst it is true that Swindon Town FC were placed under a transfer embargo earlier this season for breaching the financial fair play rules, this was a result of tribunal decisions on the transfers of Troy Archibald-Henville and James Collins, where transfer fees were instructed to be paid up front and not in installments as the club anticipated, once under embargo, the club's owners made a capital investment into the Swindon Town FC to bring player spending within the agreed percentage of total revenue, thus bringing the club out of embargo. Swindon Town Football Club faced no such sanctions during the previous season, when were supposed to have "cheated" their way out of the division (according to your article). I would also like an explanation as to how the club has acted immorally. As stated above, majority of the reported £13m debt is owed as unsecured loans to the directors (current and previous) of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd, and not to minor creditors, suppliers, local small businesses, etc. How can it be immoral to operate within budgets set forth by by the club's owners and within the restrictions of the Football League's financial fair play rules? Given that it is public knowledge that Andrew Black (majority shareholder) is actively seeking new owners for Swindon Town Football Club, and that a process of due diligence is about to begin, the story published in your newspaper, being based on opinion and lacking evidential substance as previously mentioned is not only irresponsible, but could also be construed by Swindon Town FC as libelous. I stated above that I would not be purchasing your publication again, and this is not entirely true... I will be buying The Football League Paper one last time on Sunday in the hope of seeing a retraction of the article and apology to Swindon Town Football Club, their supporters, and potential investors which consume as much of your paper in a section of equivalent prominence as the original article. After the issue to be published on Sunday 27th January, I will be cancelling my subscription with my local newsagent. Yours sincerely, Tom xxx, ex-reader[/p][/quote]Very eloquently put, and the apology has come through to the club (although it stinks to high heaven as far as I'm concerned, and doesn't go nearly far enough to explaining how the article was printed in the first place). Wonder if it'll be published in the paper in anything more than a two inch column? This is the bit that annoys,the damage is done, and by the time the apology comes people won't care to read it, the mud has already stuck, and the FLP have already made their money out of the story so they couldn't care less. Swindon1984

2:14pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Stilloyal says...

ShearerShearer wrote:
Dominoes ;-)
They ate all them on Friday night mate.
[quote][p][bold]ShearerShearer[/bold] wrote: Dominoes ;-)[/p][/quote]They ate all them on Friday night mate. Stilloyal

2:30pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Rebel_phish says...

Reading_Robin wrote:
I read these comments, but rarely actually post... just thought it might be interesting for people that I've had a response from the editor... here's my complaint and the response in full it's probably a standard response, but at least we should be getting an apology.. just hope not too much damage has been done:


On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM, David Emery wrote:

I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have contacted Swindon Town FC.



Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about the club.


His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability.




He saw Sir William Patey’s reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target.

David Emery


From: Tom ****
Sent: 22 January 2013 11:23
To: David.emery@theleagu


epaper.com
Cc: chris.dunlavy@thelea


guepaper.com
Subject: The Football League Paper - Sunday 20th January 2013


Dear Mr Emery,

I am writing in reference to the article in this week's issue of your publication titled "Swindon: the 'cheats' who really prospered".

I am a regular reader of your publication. As a supporter and member of a football club outside of the Premier League (Swindon Town FC), printed news for all but the transfer of some player or another to a Premier League team is impossible to find in the mainstream press, and your newspaper, in my opinion fills a necessary gap. Unfortunately, after reading the above article on Sunday, I will not be purchasing The Football League Paper again.

I am disappointed that, as editor, you allowed a piece with such obvious lack of evidential substance to be printed. This article represents lazy, sensationalist journalism, and is incorrect in the bare facts of the article. I am especially referring to the following sections:

"Every time Swindon added to their wage bill (currently around £3m a year), they knew somebody else was going unpaid. They were spending money they didn't have, otherwise known as financial doping."
"... how would you feel knowing Swindon virtually cheated their way out of the division? "
"Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Robins have behaved immorally"

To the above quotations from the article, I would like to make clear the following points of fact:

On "somebody else was going unpaid":

The debts owed by Swindon Town Football Club are owed to the majority shareholders of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd http://www.companies


intheuk.co.uk/ltd/sw


indon-town-football-


company, the Board members of Swindon Town Football Club have stated in the local and national media that the football club does NOT:

* Owe any monies to HMRC
* Have a bank overdraft
* Have any major creditor issues

http://www.thisisswi


ndontownfc.co.uk/new


s/headlines/10170172


.Watkins_sees_Town_a


s_unique_investment_


opportunity/

In this respect, the financing of Swindon Town FC is not dissimilar to that of Chelsea Football Club or Manchester City Football Club in the Premier League or A.F.C Bournemouth in League One (to mention just a few).

On "virtually cheated their way out of the division" and "have behaved immorally":

Swindon Town Football Club are set annual budgets by their holdings company in line with the financial fair-play rules in force in the Football League. Swindon Town are allowed to work within those budgets, and the fact that the Football Club has owners who are wealthy and are prepared to set high budgets, funded from their own pockets is immaterial. Whilst it is true that Swindon Town FC were placed under a transfer embargo earlier this season for breaching the financial fair play rules, this was a result of tribunal decisions on the transfers of Troy Archibald-Henville and James Collins, where transfer fees were instructed to be paid up front and not in installments as the club anticipated, once under embargo, the club's owners made a capital investment into the Swindon Town FC to bring player spending within the agreed percentage of total revenue, thus bringing the club out of embargo. Swindon Town Football Club faced no such sanctions during the previous season, when were supposed to have "cheated" their way out of the division (according to your article).

I would also like an explanation as to how the club has acted immorally. As stated above, majority of the reported £13m debt is owed as unsecured loans to the directors (current and previous) of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd, and not to minor creditors, suppliers, local small businesses, etc. How can it be immoral to operate within budgets set forth by by the club's owners and within the restrictions of the Football League's financial fair play rules?

Given that it is public knowledge that Andrew Black (majority shareholder) is actively seeking new owners for Swindon Town Football Club, and that a process of due diligence is about to begin, the story published in your newspaper, being based on opinion and lacking evidential substance as previously mentioned is not only irresponsible, but could also be construed by Swindon Town FC as libelous.

I stated above that I would not be purchasing your publication again, and this is not entirely true... I will be buying The Football League Paper one last time on Sunday in the hope of seeing a retraction of the article and apology to Swindon Town Football Club, their supporters, and potential investors which consume as much of your paper in a section of equivalent prominence as the original article. After the issue to be published on Sunday 27th January, I will be cancelling my subscription with my local newsagent.

Yours sincerely,

Tom xxx, ex-reader
Your time and effort for putting your complaint across is well appreciated.

If ony Chris Dunlavy had bothered to read the sources you refer to, his article would have been totally different to the point of uninteresting and not worthy of publication
[quote][p][bold]Reading_Robin[/bold] wrote: I read these comments, but rarely actually post... just thought it might be interesting for people that I've had a response from the editor... here's my complaint and the response in full it's probably a standard response, but at least we should be getting an apology.. just hope not too much damage has been done: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM, David Emery wrote: I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have contacted Swindon Town FC. Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about the club. His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability. He saw Sir William Patey’s reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target. David Emery From: Tom **** Sent: 22 January 2013 11:23 To: David.emery@theleagu epaper.com Cc: chris.dunlavy@thelea guepaper.com Subject: The Football League Paper - Sunday 20th January 2013 Dear Mr Emery, I am writing in reference to the article in this week's issue of your publication titled "Swindon: the 'cheats' who really prospered". I am a regular reader of your publication. As a supporter and member of a football club outside of the Premier League (Swindon Town FC), printed news for all but the transfer of some player or another to a Premier League team is impossible to find in the mainstream press, and your newspaper, in my opinion fills a necessary gap. Unfortunately, after reading the above article on Sunday, I will not be purchasing The Football League Paper again. I am disappointed that, as editor, you allowed a piece with such obvious lack of evidential substance to be printed. This article represents lazy, sensationalist journalism, and is incorrect in the bare facts of the article. I am especially referring to the following sections: "Every time Swindon added to their wage bill (currently around £3m a year), they knew somebody else was going unpaid. They were spending money they didn't have, otherwise known as financial doping." "... how would you feel knowing Swindon virtually cheated their way out of the division? " "Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Robins have behaved immorally" To the above quotations from the article, I would like to make clear the following points of fact: On "somebody else was going unpaid": The debts owed by Swindon Town Football Club are owed to the majority shareholders of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd http://www.companies intheuk.co.uk/ltd/sw indon-town-football- company, the Board members of Swindon Town Football Club have stated in the local and national media that the football club does NOT: * Owe any monies to HMRC * Have a bank overdraft * Have any major creditor issues http://www.thisisswi ndontownfc.co.uk/new s/headlines/10170172 .Watkins_sees_Town_a s_unique_investment_ opportunity/ In this respect, the financing of Swindon Town FC is not dissimilar to that of Chelsea Football Club or Manchester City Football Club in the Premier League or A.F.C Bournemouth in League One (to mention just a few). On "virtually cheated their way out of the division" and "have behaved immorally": Swindon Town Football Club are set annual budgets by their holdings company in line with the financial fair-play rules in force in the Football League. Swindon Town are allowed to work within those budgets, and the fact that the Football Club has owners who are wealthy and are prepared to set high budgets, funded from their own pockets is immaterial. Whilst it is true that Swindon Town FC were placed under a transfer embargo earlier this season for breaching the financial fair play rules, this was a result of tribunal decisions on the transfers of Troy Archibald-Henville and James Collins, where transfer fees were instructed to be paid up front and not in installments as the club anticipated, once under embargo, the club's owners made a capital investment into the Swindon Town FC to bring player spending within the agreed percentage of total revenue, thus bringing the club out of embargo. Swindon Town Football Club faced no such sanctions during the previous season, when were supposed to have "cheated" their way out of the division (according to your article). I would also like an explanation as to how the club has acted immorally. As stated above, majority of the reported £13m debt is owed as unsecured loans to the directors (current and previous) of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd, and not to minor creditors, suppliers, local small businesses, etc. How can it be immoral to operate within budgets set forth by by the club's owners and within the restrictions of the Football League's financial fair play rules? Given that it is public knowledge that Andrew Black (majority shareholder) is actively seeking new owners for Swindon Town Football Club, and that a process of due diligence is about to begin, the story published in your newspaper, being based on opinion and lacking evidential substance as previously mentioned is not only irresponsible, but could also be construed by Swindon Town FC as libelous. I stated above that I would not be purchasing your publication again, and this is not entirely true... I will be buying The Football League Paper one last time on Sunday in the hope of seeing a retraction of the article and apology to Swindon Town Football Club, their supporters, and potential investors which consume as much of your paper in a section of equivalent prominence as the original article. After the issue to be published on Sunday 27th January, I will be cancelling my subscription with my local newsagent. Yours sincerely, Tom xxx, ex-reader[/p][/quote]Your time and effort for putting your complaint across is well appreciated. If ony Chris Dunlavy had bothered to read the sources you refer to, his article would have been totally different to the point of uninteresting and not worthy of publication Rebel_phish

3:13pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Di kanny oh says...

Blimey get this Al Waleed Bin Talal on board that would make our rival fans choke on their dinners for sure. Wow, so may be Sir William has got some major contacts after all. We can all but dream as this is really the type of investor we need a mega rich oil sheik who would have ambitions to take his investment all the way to the top. May be its not the way to do it in true spirit and like the old Wimbledon type scenario but in my lifetime I would love to see Swindon mixing it again with the big boys and the only way that will happen is money and lots of it. We could easily become the Southampton of Wiltshire and certainly give Reading something to think about.
Ah well back to my bog repairs and fixing me flush.
Blimey get this Al Waleed Bin Talal on board that would make our rival fans choke on their dinners for sure. Wow, so may be Sir William has got some major contacts after all. We can all but dream as this is really the type of investor we need a mega rich oil sheik who would have ambitions to take his investment all the way to the top. May be its not the way to do it in true spirit and like the old Wimbledon type scenario but in my lifetime I would love to see Swindon mixing it again with the big boys and the only way that will happen is money and lots of it. We could easily become the Southampton of Wiltshire and certainly give Reading something to think about. Ah well back to my bog repairs and fixing me flush. Di kanny oh

5:34pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Bazthebooty says...

Where did you get his name from ? He has personnel wealth of $18 Billion so i hope your right !!
Where did you get his name from ? He has personnel wealth of $18 Billion so i hope your right !! Bazthebooty

5:45pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Di kanny oh says...

Bazthebooty wrote:
Where did you get his name from ? He has personnel wealth of $18 Billion so i hope your right !!
Hi Bazthebooty, yes this was quoted by Newbury Robin on the Benson thread at 1.05 this afternoon, some report on Wikipedia about it apparently.
[quote][p][bold]Bazthebooty[/bold] wrote: Where did you get his name from ? He has personnel wealth of $18 Billion so i hope your right !![/p][/quote]Hi Bazthebooty, yes this was quoted by Newbury Robin on the Benson thread at 1.05 this afternoon, some report on Wikipedia about it apparently. Di kanny oh

5:58pm Tue 22 Jan 13

glasred says...

Al Waleed Bin Talal (who bought the Savoy Hotel Once for £250 million)_has been introduced to STFC by SWP.His son is interested in football and would take an active involvement in running the club should an agreement to buy out AB be agreed.Negotiations are well under way!!Wow...heres hoping.
Al Waleed Bin Talal (who bought the Savoy Hotel Once for £250 million)_has been introduced to STFC by SWP.His son is interested in football and would take an active involvement in running the club should an agreement to buy out AB be agreed.Negotiations are well under way!!Wow...heres hoping. glasred

5:59pm Tue 22 Jan 13

glasred says...

Al Waleed Bin Talal (who bought the Savoy Hotel Once for £250 million)_has been introduced to STFC by SWP.His son is interested in football and would take an active involvement in running the club should an agreement to buy out AB be agreed.Negotiations are well under way!!Wow...heres hoping.
Al Waleed Bin Talal (who bought the Savoy Hotel Once for £250 million)_has been introduced to STFC by SWP.His son is interested in football and would take an active involvement in running the club should an agreement to buy out AB be agreed.Negotiations are well under way!!Wow...heres hoping. glasred

6:00pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Bazthebooty says...

Lets hope that one is true then mate, could it happen to the mighty STFC mmmm !
Lets hope that one is true then mate, could it happen to the mighty STFC mmmm ! Bazthebooty

6:03pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Oldhamred says...

Di kanny oh wrote:
Bazthebooty wrote:
Where did you get his name from ? He has personnel wealth of $18 Billion so i hope your right !!
Hi Bazthebooty, yes this was quoted by Newbury Robin on the Benson thread at 1.05 this afternoon, some report on Wikipedia about it apparently.
Not trying to be negative, but why would somebody with personal wealth of $18 Billion require due dilligence of the accounnts etc when one days interest would buy STFC outright?
Sorry, hope I'm wrong, but I smell a wind-up that may have 6 fingered origins.
[quote][p][bold]Di kanny oh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bazthebooty[/bold] wrote: Where did you get his name from ? He has personnel wealth of $18 Billion so i hope your right !![/p][/quote]Hi Bazthebooty, yes this was quoted by Newbury Robin on the Benson thread at 1.05 this afternoon, some report on Wikipedia about it apparently.[/p][/quote]Not trying to be negative, but why would somebody with personal wealth of $18 Billion require due dilligence of the accounnts etc when one days interest would buy STFC outright? Sorry, hope I'm wrong, but I smell a wind-up that may have 6 fingered origins. Oldhamred

6:05pm Tue 22 Jan 13

glasred says...

No Wind up here chaps...this one is REALLY on the cards.thaks to SWP!
No Wind up here chaps...this one is REALLY on the cards.thaks to SWP! glasred

6:56pm Tue 22 Jan 13

mallorca says...

OK all this B/S about Arab money ?????? is it kosher.
Don't you all think after all these years how much STFC has paid to the Swindon Council it's about time they supported the Club.,what would they do with the CG if the club goes bust?
I know in these hard times they have to be carefull how money is used,but don't you all just think after all these years before the money men get the las Pound out of STFC they should support the club Rest my case Swindon council wake up smell the coffee is a time for you all to get votes
OK all this B/S about Arab money ?????? is it kosher. Don't you all think after all these years how much STFC has paid to the Swindon Council it's about time they supported the Club.,what would they do with the CG if the club goes bust? I know in these hard times they have to be carefull how money is used,but don't you all just think after all these years before the money men get the las Pound out of STFC they should support the club Rest my case Swindon council wake up smell the coffee is a time for you all to get votes mallorca

7:11pm Tue 22 Jan 13

matt71 says...

just copied this off Al Waheeds Wiki page although anybody can post on there -Al Waheed is currently involved in an ongoing dialogue with the directors of Swindon Town Football Club, England. Al Waleed was introduced to the football club by former UN Diplomat, Sir William Patey, who has been handed the task of selling the football club on behalf of major shareholder and Betfair founder, Andrew Black. Al Waleed's son is said to be very keen on English football and it is thought should the due dilligence be completed, he will have an active role in running the club.
just copied this off Al Waheeds Wiki page although anybody can post on there -Al Waheed is currently involved in an ongoing dialogue with the directors of Swindon Town Football Club, England. Al Waleed was introduced to the football club by former UN Diplomat, Sir William Patey, who has been handed the task of selling the football club on behalf of major shareholder and Betfair founder, Andrew Black. Al Waleed's son is said to be very keen on English football and it is thought should the due dilligence be completed, he will have an active role in running the club. [edit] matt71

7:14pm Tue 22 Jan 13

matt71 says...

waleed that is meant to be
waleed that is meant to be matt71

7:21pm Tue 22 Jan 13

avo says...

waleed better hurry up and pull his finger out and buy the club, or else it may have al bin a big waste of everyones time!
waleed better hurry up and pull his finger out and buy the club, or else it may have al bin a big waste of everyones time! avo

8:19pm Tue 22 Jan 13

jontyg says...

avo wrote:
waleed better hurry up and pull his finger out and buy the club, or else it may have al bin a big waste of everyones time!
Nice one avo. Me sides are splittin!!!!
[quote][p][bold]avo[/bold] wrote: waleed better hurry up and pull his finger out and buy the club, or else it may have al bin a big waste of everyones time![/p][/quote]Nice one avo. Me sides are splittin!!!! jontyg

8:29pm Tue 22 Jan 13

RamsburyRed says...

mallorca wrote:
OK all this B/S about Arab money ?????? is it kosher.
Don't you all think after all these years how much STFC has paid to the Swindon Council it's about time they supported the Club.,what would they do with the CG if the club goes bust?
I know in these hard times they have to be carefull how money is used,but don't you all just think after all these years before the money men get the las Pound out of STFC they should support the club Rest my case Swindon council wake up smell the coffee is a time for you all to get votes
Mallorca, that line about Arab money being 'kosher' is pure comedy gold, I never knew you had it in you.
[quote][p][bold]mallorca[/bold] wrote: OK all this B/S about Arab money ?????? is it kosher. Don't you all think after all these years how much STFC has paid to the Swindon Council it's about time they supported the Club.,what would they do with the CG if the club goes bust? I know in these hard times they have to be carefull how money is used,but don't you all just think after all these years before the money men get the las Pound out of STFC they should support the club Rest my case Swindon council wake up smell the coffee is a time for you all to get votes[/p][/quote]Mallorca, that line about Arab money being 'kosher' is pure comedy gold, I never knew you had it in you. RamsburyRed

8:57pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Wilesy says...

Oldhamred wrote:
Di kanny oh wrote:
Bazthebooty wrote:
Where did you get his name from ? He has personnel wealth of $18 Billion so i hope your right !!
Hi Bazthebooty, yes this was quoted by Newbury Robin on the Benson thread at 1.05 this afternoon, some report on Wikipedia about it apparently.
Not trying to be negative, but why would somebody with personal wealth of $18 Billion require due dilligence of the accounnts etc when one days interest would buy STFC outright?
Sorry, hope I'm wrong, but I smell a wind-up that may have 6 fingered origins.
Indeed sounds like a wind-up, although great news should it be true. A statue of SWP at the County Ground might be in order if he puls that off!!

Sounds like his yacht would be bigger than the County Ground.
[quote][p][bold]Oldhamred[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Di kanny oh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bazthebooty[/bold] wrote: Where did you get his name from ? He has personnel wealth of $18 Billion so i hope your right !![/p][/quote]Hi Bazthebooty, yes this was quoted by Newbury Robin on the Benson thread at 1.05 this afternoon, some report on Wikipedia about it apparently.[/p][/quote]Not trying to be negative, but why would somebody with personal wealth of $18 Billion require due dilligence of the accounnts etc when one days interest would buy STFC outright? Sorry, hope I'm wrong, but I smell a wind-up that may have 6 fingered origins.[/p][/quote]Indeed sounds like a wind-up, although great news should it be true. A statue of SWP at the County Ground might be in order if he puls that off!! Sounds like his yacht would be bigger than the County Ground. Wilesy

8:58pm Tue 22 Jan 13

STFCman&boy1973 says...

Oldhamred wrote:
Di kanny oh wrote:
Bazthebooty wrote:
Where did you get his name from ? He has personnel wealth of $18 Billion so i hope your right !!
Hi Bazthebooty, yes this was quoted by Newbury Robin on the Benson thread at 1.05 this afternoon, some report on Wikipedia about it apparently.
Not trying to be negative, but why would somebody with personal wealth of $18 Billion require due dilligence of the accounnts etc when one days interest would buy STFC outright?
Sorry, hope I'm wrong, but I smell a wind-up that may have 6 fingered origins.
I really hope I have to eat humble pie, but I don't believe that either, I think written from someone with 6 fingers as well...
But in the past, someone said we were getting relegated 2 divisions without kicking the ball...I scoffed at that rediculas suggestion, lets hope something good eh???

COYMRs
[quote][p][bold]Oldhamred[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Di kanny oh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bazthebooty[/bold] wrote: Where did you get his name from ? He has personnel wealth of $18 Billion so i hope your right !![/p][/quote]Hi Bazthebooty, yes this was quoted by Newbury Robin on the Benson thread at 1.05 this afternoon, some report on Wikipedia about it apparently.[/p][/quote]Not trying to be negative, but why would somebody with personal wealth of $18 Billion require due dilligence of the accounnts etc when one days interest would buy STFC outright? Sorry, hope I'm wrong, but I smell a wind-up that may have 6 fingered origins.[/p][/quote]I really hope I have to eat humble pie, but I don't believe that either, I think written from someone with 6 fingers as well... But in the past, someone said we were getting relegated 2 divisions without kicking the ball...I scoffed at that rediculas suggestion, lets hope something good eh??? COYMRs STFCman&boy1973

12:57am Wed 23 Jan 13

REDROM says...

why would this man want anything to do with STFC, cant see it take a look at this http://www.itv.com/n
ews/2013-01-22/princ
e-al-waleed-bin-tala
l-the-worlds-richest
-arab-the-man-who-ru
ns-a-big-slice-of-th
e-world/ its gotta be a wind up???
why would this man want anything to do with STFC, cant see it take a look at this http://www.itv.com/n ews/2013-01-22/princ e-al-waleed-bin-tala l-the-worlds-richest -arab-the-man-who-ru ns-a-big-slice-of-th e-world/ its gotta be a wind up??? REDROM

11:51am Wed 23 Jan 13

Swindon1984 says...

REDROM wrote:
why would this man want anything to do with STFC, cant see it take a look at this http://www.itv.com/n ews/2013-01-22/princ e-al-waleed-bin-tala l-the-worlds-richest -arab-the-man-who-ru ns-a-big-slice-of-th e-world/ its gotta be a wind up???
That his son would want to take "an active role in running the club" would be worrying - can't see PDC being the type to have football matters dictated to him by some spiv from the middle east (much like Abramovich dictating footballing policy to Mourinho).

Of course when money is no object the sky's the limit - he could buy the club outright and make himself manager if he wanted to.

All a moot point anyway as I don't believe this story for a minute - why would anyone with that much money would want to sink it into a small to medium sized club in the west country?
[quote][p][bold]REDROM[/bold] wrote: why would this man want anything to do with STFC, cant see it take a look at this http://www.itv.com/n ews/2013-01-22/princ e-al-waleed-bin-tala l-the-worlds-richest -arab-the-man-who-ru ns-a-big-slice-of-th e-world/ its gotta be a wind up???[/p][/quote]That his son would want to take "an active role in running the club" would be worrying - can't see PDC being the type to have football matters dictated to him by some spiv from the middle east (much like Abramovich dictating footballing policy to Mourinho). Of course when money is no object the sky's the limit - he could buy the club outright and make himself manager if he wanted to. All a moot point anyway as I don't believe this story for a minute - why would anyone with that much money would want to sink it into a small to medium sized club in the west country? Swindon1984

6:47pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Pewsham Red says...

Would we want him anyway? Not the sort of guy I'd fancy at the helm. One of the things that has put me off the premiership is the fact that all the big clubs are foreign own and can end up being a 'play thing'.

All well and good when things going well but he may want to do an 'Andrew Black' and pull out but be less inclined to worry about whether he leaves a car crash.

Not for me thanks. Rather stay in league 1.
Would we want him anyway? Not the sort of guy I'd fancy at the helm. One of the things that has put me off the premiership is the fact that all the big clubs are foreign own and can end up being a 'play thing'. All well and good when things going well but he may want to do an 'Andrew Black' and pull out but be less inclined to worry about whether he leaves a car crash. Not for me thanks. Rather stay in league 1. Pewsham Red

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree