Town tight-lipped on embargo (From Swindon Advertiser)

London Red wrote:
Jed was asked directly on Twitter if it was a sensitive legal matter as to why the silence to which he replied with a thumbs up
.
Not sure why so many find that hard to understand that prevents them talking now (he has said he will reveal all once sorted)
.
Anyway can see how this thread is going to go so doubt I'll be back on it as I've already read all the likely comments before

Graham8181 wrote:
PLEASE JUST TELL US WHEN IT'S LIFTED !!! Getting fed up reading what seems like the same article cut and pasted for weeks now and I'm getting sick of reading about it.

Last step wrote:
A 'thumbs up' on twitter is hardly the most professional way to go about advising people what is going on, is it.

Chish and Fips wrote:
Is this new board going to control the club through Twitter - why can't they contact the media properly and explain why this situation of silence is necessary, with just a small statement, at least we may feel there is something happening, and someone is actually thinking of the supporters.

Jets there'd wrote:
Full credit to the players & KMac for the 3 points at Yeovil on Tuesday. The longer the Board remain silent the more I don't think they have the Club's best interests at heart. How many other businesses would ask customers to invest in them & tell them nothing? STFC are asking us to renew our season tickets but won't tell us anything!!! Jed McCrory has said we'll 100% be out of the embargo by 5pm on deadline day..... If we are, I reckon it'll be at 4.58pm - so he will have kept his word!

jayden wrote:

Last step wrote:
A 'thumbs up' on twitter is hardly the most professional way to go about advising people what is going on, is it.

Slightly better than two fingers.

London Red wrote:
Jed was asked directly on Twitter if it was a sensitive legal matter as to why the silence to which he replied with a thumbs up
.
Not sure why so many find that hard to understand that prevents them talking now (he has said he will reveal all once sorted)
.
Anyway can see how this thread is going to go so doubt I'll be back on it as I've already read all the likely comments before

jayden wrote:

Last step wrote:
A 'thumbs up' on twitter is hardly the most professional way to go about advising people what is going on, is it.

Slightly better than two fingers.

London Red wrote:
Jed was asked directly on Twitter if it was a sensitive legal matter as to why the silence to which he replied with a thumbs up
.
Not sure why so many find that hard to understand that prevents them talking now (he has said he will reveal all once sorted)
.
Anyway can see how this thread is going to go so doubt I'll be back on it as I've already read all the likely comments before

smirg kcab wrote:
Stunning headlines.
Onwards and upwards
So you believed Walter Mitty then?
Losers

Chish and Fips wrote:

smirg kcab wrote:
Stunning headlines.
Onwards and upwards
So you believed Walter Mitty then?
Losers

On good form this morning SK - always the clinical cynical approach eh !

;o)

London Red wrote:
Jed was asked directly on Twitter if it was a sensitive legal matter as to why the silence to which he replied with a thumbs up . Not sure why so many find that hard to understand that prevents them talking now (he has said he will reveal all once sorted) . Anyway can see how this thread is going to go so doubt I'll be back on it as I've already read all the likely comments before

Brojackson70 wrote:
This is my take on whats happening happening here... the football league think that this board don't have the extra funds needed outside of the 1.2m to bring in new players...Steve Murrall provides a statement last week saying he is confident the embargo will be lifted Monday knowing he was adding Greg Hall to the board on this day and the football league would sanction that, as i see it they have concerns over Hall as do most supporters hence the embargo remaining in place..... Now yes i'm speculating and i could be wrong, but i bet i'm not 1.2m miles away from the truth

Oldhamred wrote:
Please tell me, please, please, please, Jed i'll promise i'll be good. Please, please tell me why are we under embargo? Please tell me, please, please tell me. Sam, tell him to tell me please. Please Sam, Adver, anybody tell me.

Have you heard yourselves?

Moaning on this forum like spoilt children will NOT get you any answers.

You have all been told you will have to wait, so what you will have to do is WAIT.

Chish and Fips wrote:

smirg kcab wrote:
Stunning headlines.
Onwards and upwards
So you believed Walter Mitty then?
Losers

On good form this morning SK - always the clinical cynical approach eh !

;o)

davel4848 wrote:
Hark at you all !. On here again just winding each other up. We can't do anything about it so just sit back and wait.

smirg kcab wrote:

Chish and Fips wrote:

smirg kcab wrote:
Stunning headlines.
Onwards and upwards
So you believed Walter Mitty then?
Losers

On good form this morning SK - always the clinical cynical approach eh !

;o)

Just the truth loser
Get back to the poxford mail site
O&u

Is that you Lovesey wrote:
Guys

I think we have been told some time ago why the embargo hasn't been lifted, Picareta hasn't been paid money he is owed, this is because he has not signed the compromise agreement that the clubs lawyers have drawn up, this agreement protects the club and stops him coming back with court action at a later date, although he walked away there is no conclusion yet, I wouldn't be surprised if Paolo hasn also put in a constructive dismissal claim, but there has been no mention anywhere.

Kmac has siad all the right things and whilst I find him a tad dull, he knew the situation and wanted to come and manage with what he has got, no tantrums, no slagging the board off or threatening to quit or even calling players Donkeys, somewhat refreshing I feel.

London Red wrote:
The board have never said it is getting lifted tomorrow - that was the Adver reporting it could be lifted tomorrow . The two are separate so should not be banded together . SM said at the Q&A before Walsall that we were under a embargo and would be until the £1.2m was raised which would happen on Monday or Tuesday - this did happen as Sam has reported . We then got an update last Sat saying unseen issues prevented it being lifted during the week but are confident it would be lifted on Monday . This was not and Jed has now said it will be lifted by 28 March . So there has not been repeated it will be tomorrow comments from the board at all . Also as others have said we are in 2013 and communication has moved on and like it or not Twitter forms a major part . I don't have a Twitter account but that doesn't mean it prevents me from reading tweets - simply google Jed McCoy Banbury and the top link will be his account -click on tweets and there you go . Granted they could publish an official statement on the clubs website - but it wouldn't tell us anything we didn't already know . We would then simply get complaints over a non statement statement . I think Sam has had some unfair stick in the past but think he should think before writing articles like this . He's on Twitter, is following Jed and some of the Tweets were too him - so he would certainly know about the club stay quite due to it be legal related . He could have easily put that above and then some would see it as bein "out there" . As for profession don't forget Black only communicated via Twitter rant . Least Jed is communicating with fans who are asking him questions . Now I don't think everything is hunky dory - but considering the board have been in charge for what a month max - am prepared to give them time before judging . Jed has said 28th and all will be revealed - so if by after the Easter weakend we haven't heard anything then it will time to question . However ideally another Q&A will be held before Oldham to address this

stfc-manila wrote:

davel4848 wrote:
Hark at you all !. On here again just winding each other up. We can't do anything about it so just sit back and wait.

Hark at you harking!
No-one here winding anyone up - purely people expressing opinions and asking questions
If that winds you up, crawl back under your covers and pop back out tomorrow to see if your sun is shining so much brighter!

London Red wrote:
Jed was asked directly on Twitter if it was a sensitive legal matter as to why the silence to which he replied with a thumbs up . Not sure why so many find that hard to understand that prevents them talking now (he has said he will reveal all once sorted) . Anyway can see how this thread is going to go so doubt I'll be back on it as I've already read all the likely comments before

davel4848 wrote:

stfc-manila wrote:

davel4848 wrote:
Hark at you all !. On here again just winding each other up. We can't do anything about it so just sit back and wait.

Hark at you harking!
No-one here winding anyone up - purely people expressing opinions and asking questions
If that winds you up, crawl back under your covers and pop back out tomorrow to see if your sun is shining so much brighter!

My point is that it's the same posters saying the same things that were said a few days ago. We can't do anything about it so just wait.
And probably unlike yourself, I don't have to crawl anywhere. Please don't be so insulting in future. We are all town fans, albeit with a different point of view.

Chish and Fips wrote:

smirg kcab wrote:

Chish and Fips wrote:

smirg kcab wrote:
Stunning headlines.
Onwards and upwards
So you believed Walter Mitty then?
Losers

On good form this morning SK - always the clinical cynical approach eh !

;o)

Just the truth loser
Get back to the poxford mail site
O&u

Sorry SK but you are a waste of time IMO with your stupid and useless comments sometimes..
I say sometimes, as you have posted some valuable input in the past, but seem to be on a mission, at the moment of self destruction.

andy5364 wrote:

Chish and Fips wrote:

smirg kcab wrote:
Stunning headlines.
Onwards and upwards
So you believed Walter Mitty then?
Losers

On good form this morning SK - always the clinical cynical approach eh !

;o)

So u would rather be in admin then grim !!! . Totally agree with London red . Let's actually wait for the facts , before we slag the new owners off. There may be good reasons why they can not say much at moment . Coyr

john9149 wrote:
Does anyone actually know if the Club is under an embargo? After all, we only have the Board's word that we are. The Football League will neither confirm or deny it! There seems no doubt to me that we will not be in a position to sign new players until after the deadline.
Well, here's one who won't be renewing his two season tickets if no new players are brought in by next Thursday. Paolo must be having a right laugh!

davel4848 wrote:
Methinks you're far to sensitive if you are insulted by the word 'hark'.
This is exactly the sort of rift between supporters that has been caused by the sometimes nonsensical speculation on here.

smirg kcab wrote:

Chish and Fips wrote:

smirg kcab wrote:

Chish and Fips wrote:

smirg kcab wrote:
Stunning headlines.
Onwards and upwards
So you believed Walter Mitty then?
Losers

On good form this morning SK - always the clinical cynical approach eh !

;o)

Just the truth loser
Get back to the poxford mail site
O&u

Sorry SK but you are a waste of time IMO with your stupid and useless comments sometimes..
I say sometimes, as you have posted some valuable input in the past, but seem to be on a mission, at the moment of self destruction.

No
the mission is to get through to thick people that Walter Mitty won't say anything and won't simply because this embargo shat ( as one poster said who says we are in embargo)
Takes away the fact that they are not even considering giving the likes of ferry,flint,Thompson

, devera,de vita
New contracts,
These players can walk for FREE yes FREE 8 games times.
If the embargo is removed (which it won't) the panic from the swindle fans will move onto the new contract talks.
Just a thought (think about it)
Onwards and upwards
Do you really need to waste time posting back to me)
After all my mission apart from legods was the only correct call on here, perha

glasred wrote:
Lovesey..I think you are correct..its unfinished business with PDC and his crew.We just need Jed to say he is sorting whatever it is...no need for him to give details.

Oi Den! wrote:
Bill, I would have a good wager with anyone that this is all about the club not providing sufficient financial information to the Football League.

I'm not sure what guidance they need to give clubs on communicating with supporters. As far as I know, the League places no restriction on what the club can tell the fans. Surely that's good enough? The reason the League refuses to disclose transfer embargoes is that they think it would betray the trust between them and their member clubs. But they are happy for clubs to disclose them - and the reasons for them. Over to Mr McCrory to do the communicating.

LeGod wrote:
The major mistake this consortium have made as i have said before is they should have made an early statement to say there is an issue with the embargo being lifted and it could take time to sort and they are working with the FL to get it lifted. But all they have kept saying it will be lifted tomorrow, next week whatever and these stupid statements have wound fans up.
There communication skills are zero and they do come across as a bunch of fly by night cowboys who are going to milk the club for as much as they can and then walk and especially with this new guy on board (Hall) who is classed as very high risk bu companies house and for all of us that is worrying. So what exactly is his role?
Jed i feel just likes the title of telling people he is chairman of a FL club and likes to be liked but what is he really all about.
Im afraid they have made us feel the way we do about them due to the way they are going about this whole takeover as to me it has been totally unprofessional in the way they have gone about the whole process.
i hope i am totally wrong about the new owners but they dont fill me with confidence and as has laready been said Jed and his twittering and thumbs up is not exactly the way to fill you with confidence it should be an official statement on the website stating the facts and doing what he is doing makes me think he is treating us in the same way he would banbury united fans all 75 of them by wanting to be one of the lads. Sorry Jed this is a professional football club and treat it like it is and not a non league semi pro outfit.

London Red wrote:
So why are you on here and not simply reading the Adver in its paper format then 1950? . We now live in the digital age and its why Twitter is valued at $11bn! . As I said earlier they could make a statement to on the offical site which the adver could then reprint online (as it won't make that days paper) but we would still be in the same boat as we are now - so what benefit would we really get from that? . Pretty much every programme these days has a get involved using the following #tag - its now the modern mode of communication . Think reading through these comments you can clearly see an age divide forming and its the older generation who are unhappy no official statement are made while the younger generation are happy to accept information in all formats . To me info is info - doesn't matter if it is republished in the adver or not - this is not the only media source out there - it is simply one forum where people can communicate with each other about STFC

London Red wrote:
Smirg - you going to provide the evidence that they are not going to give these players new contracts?
.
Jed has said he wants to keep the squad together but will leave the decision up to KM as he is the manager
.
That is 100% the opposite of what you say - now who should we believe
.
The chairman or an random poster on a message board???
.
Also Flint and Thompson can't walk for free they are under 24 and we will be entitled to compensation - just like Bodin, Collins and Troy!

Stilloyal wrote:
Hey good news, penny off a pint , I'm gonna get rat'd.


I think this embargo fiasco is all down to our former manager. He's like a spoilt child, it's my team I made them what they are and if I cant have my team back I'll destroy the promotion push, why should another manager get praise for all my hard work.
Our former manager has gone from hero and possible Town legend to zero and leg end. All the adulation this person received from the loyal fans will be replaced by hatred and loathing , mark my words he is behind this IMHO.

smirg kcab wrote:

smirg kcab wrote:

Chish and Fips wrote:

smirg kcab wrote:

Chish and Fips wrote:

smirg kcab wrote: Stunning headlines. Onwards and upwards So you believed Walter Mitty then? Losers

On good form this morning SK - always the clinical cynical approach eh ! ;o)

Just the truth loser Get back to the poxford mail site O&u

Sorry SK but you are a waste of time IMO with your stupid and useless comments sometimes.. I say sometimes, as you have posted some valuable input in the past, but seem to be on a mission, at the moment of self destruction.

No the mission is to get through to thick people that Walter Mitty won't say anything and won't simply because this embargo shat ( as one poster said who says we are in embargo) Takes away the fact that they are not even considering giving the likes of ferry,flint,Thompson , devera,de vita New contracts, These players can walk for FREE yes FREE 8 games times. If the embargo is removed (which it won't) the panic from the swindle fans will move onto the new contract talks. Just a thought (think about it) Onwards and upwards Do you really need to waste time posting back to me) After all my mission apart from legods was the only correct call on here, perha

Perhaps you should take note from me instead of reading s.m fish and chip paper. Don't forget also 600/700 fans including Me didn't bother going to Yeovil, and I'm sure thousands like me will say stick your s:t up your arse. Keep on about youth and villa,I wouldn't like to be a villa fan at the mo would you? Relegation next year with any good youth player walking/sold and administration Or you could say we will win the championship without (above mentioned) make a prophet Since 1950 says... 12:59pm Tue 19 Mar 13 get a 14,500 gate next year. Come on Chish I gave you more credit in the past and hope you post something more to debate on here/poxford mail than just to slaggg True fans with views

Oi Den! wrote:
Here's a thought. It's not actually a "transfer embargo", it's a registration embargo. On the face of it, presumably this means that we won't be able to re-sign our out of contract players in the close season if the embargo is still in place?

Oi Den! wrote:

Oldhamred wrote:
Please tell me, please, please, please, Jed i'll promise i'll be good. Please, please tell me why are we under embargo? Please tell me, please, please tell me. Sam, tell him to tell me please. Please Sam, Adver, anybody tell me.

Have you heard yourselves?

Moaning on this forum like spoilt children will NOT get you any answers.

You have all been told you will have to wait, so what you will have to do is WAIT.

Oldham, you have your view and others have theirs. Some of us believe the football club should be communicating with the supporters over such a serious matter affecting the club.

So McCrory gave a "thumbs up" when asked on Twitter if it was a sensitive legal matter? Well, that's alright then. S0d the Adver and local radio - the two organisations that do more to promote the club than any other. Maybe he won't talk to them because he knows that they'll ask direct questions.

As each day passes, this lot become more unconvincing.

I think we'll find that "sensitive legal matter" will eventually be proved to a convenient smokescreen. If McCrory can be 100% sure on Twitter that the embargo will be lifted before the loan deadline he should be able to give us some official comment on why it has taken so long to get to this stage.

I'm not actually that bothered about the embargo. The bigger concern is what lies behind it. Even if it is lifted before the loan deadline, which I doubt it will be, I think the club is heading rapidly in the wrong direction, promotion or not.

glasred wrote:
Twitter is a social media like facebook which are both full of flippant comments small talk and loads od bul.s.it. They are not a media where statements of intent are made or anything said on on these sites can be beleived. The adver STFC site however is aimed at supporters and the paper itself asks the questions ..so anything said in the paper can be deemed as an official statement. Twitter is gossip....Jed should use the proper channels for his comments and remarks.

Oi Den! wrote:
Here's a thought. It's not actually a "transfer embargo", it's a registration embargo. On the face of it, presumably this means that we won't be able to re-sign our out of contract players in the close season if the embargo is still in place?

trowbridgeambler wrote:
"The glass is half empty" brigade are at it again. Yes, supporters pay to watch the team and without supporters the team would not exist. However, not one of us, unless involved as a Director or Manager, etc., has the right to know intimate business dealings down to the last detail. I doubt if the board are sitttng doing nothing - and from the sound of it, lawyers are involved with everything that entails including "NO PUBLICITY" until things are sorted. Be patient folks and stop the continual abuse of the Board, the Manager, etc., etc. Support the team and that is what matters.

Oldhamred wrote:

Oi Den! wrote:
Here's a thought. It's not actually a "transfer embargo", it's a registration embargo. On the face of it, presumably this means that we won't be able to re-sign our out of contract players in the close season if the embargo is still in place?

Come on Den!

That's pure speculation!

:-)

Is that you Lovesey wrote:
Guys

I think we have been told some time ago why the embargo hasn't been lifted, Picareta hasn't been paid money he is owed, this is because he has not signed the compromise agreement that the clubs lawyers have drawn up, this agreement protects the club and stops him coming back with court action at a later date, although he walked away there is no conclusion yet, I wouldn't be surprised if Paolo hasn also put in a constructive dismissal claim, but there has been no mention anywhere.

Kmac has siad all the right things and whilst I find him a tad dull, he knew the situation and wanted to come and manage with what he has got, no tantrums, no slagging the board off or threatening to quit or even calling players Donkeys, somewhat refreshing I feel.

Stilloyal wrote:
Social media sites including this one are a vessel where people can throw insults , abuse and threats at each other.
I doubt very, very much that if some of the posters on social media sites were sat around a table and having conversations about issues like this the chat wouldn't be so aggressive.
There is no need to be so tribal , make your point and let others have theirs even if you don't agree with it.
Being told to go to another clubs forum just because someones viewpoint differs from yours is so very childish
We all have a common denominator here , we are Swindon Town fans.
Discuss, disagree , agree or whatever but lose the attitude because you are boring me to death.

Oi Den! wrote:
Oldham, your last para almost mirrors my last para above. So I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet. Avo, "unable" or "unwilling"? The Football League have referred several of us to the club for an answer, so they clearly don't see a problem with making the reason public. If McCrory and co are making sterling efforts to resolve a problem that is not of their making, I would have thought they would want to tell us all about it. After all, they don't come across as a bunch of shrinking violets. Can anyone suggest why a "sensitive legal matter" cannot be disclosed now but can be explained in full when the embargo has been lifted?

Bassett Hound wrote:

Is that you Lovesey wrote:
Guys

I think we have been told some time ago why the embargo hasn't been lifted, Picareta hasn't been paid money he is owed, this is because he has not signed the compromise agreement that the clubs lawyers have drawn up, this agreement protects the club and stops him coming back with court action at a later date, although he walked away there is no conclusion yet, I wouldn't be surprised if Paolo hasn also put in a constructive dismissal claim, but there has been no mention anywhere.

Kmac has siad all the right things and whilst I find him a tad dull, he knew the situation and wanted to come and manage with what he has got, no tantrums, no slagging the board off or threatening to quit or even calling players Donkeys, somewhat refreshing I feel.

The Picarreta situation has nothing to do with the embargo. It's only non payment of players that would bring an embargo. You can choose to believe Smirgk but he is wrong

glasred wrote:
The difference between a statement made on Twitter or facebook and a statement that is made on the adver site is that a reporter/journalist ASKS the questions on the Adver site,and on aptly named twitter it is much like the comments we write on here, which cannot be regarded as statements or facts.
As far as Jed is concerned, answering questions on this Adver STFC would give whatever he says more credability,and also show respect to everyone who supports STFC.

Bassett Hound wrote:

Is that you Lovesey wrote:
Guys

I think we have been told some time ago why the embargo hasn't been lifted, Picareta hasn't been paid money he is owed, this is because he has not signed the compromise agreement that the clubs lawyers have drawn up, this agreement protects the club and stops him coming back with court action at a later date, although he walked away there is no conclusion yet, I wouldn't be surprised if Paolo hasn also put in a constructive dismissal claim, but there has been no mention anywhere.

Kmac has siad all the right things and whilst I find him a tad dull, he knew the situation and wanted to come and manage with what he has got, no tantrums, no slagging the board off or threatening to quit or even calling players Donkeys, somewhat refreshing I feel.

The Picarreta situation has nothing to do with the embargo. It's only non payment of players that would bring an embargo. You can choose to believe Smirgk but he is wrong

the don69 wrote:
Good story on the Beeb website chaps!saying that League one is the most exciting league in Europe?worth a read!!!!!!!!!!

smirg kcab wrote:

the don69 wrote:
Good story on the Beeb website chaps!saying that League one is the most exciting league in Europe?worth a read!!!!!!!!!!

Also don take a look at div2 relegation dog fight, glad we are not fighting in that one lol
O&u

davel4848 wrote:
Hark at you all !. On here again just winding each other up. We can't do anything about it so just sit back and wait.

MITTED wrote:
I think there is a simple but very disturbing solution as to what is going on. I don't know if anyone else has come up with this but here goes:

1. Total silence from the Board - we experienced this courtesy of a non-disclosure agreement just a few weeks ago. Is there one in force again?
2. The FL implemented a transfer embargo because of the takeover whilst they did their checks. All debts are apparently paid therefore it cannot be for financial reasons. Is it more of the same and we have another takeover on the go or a major new share-holder involved and the FL checks have started all over again?
3. We learn that a new director is appointed to the holding company. Early indications are that he has a questionable business history. Do the FL have such concerns?
4. A number of interested parties withdrew their interest in January because of the short timescale set by Andrew Black did not fit with their due diligence. Did the current board take a punt by stepping in because they saw an opportunity and did a deal to sell on to one of other parties in full or in part? Not much risk or expense to the new board but it would give other parties greater time to carry out due diligence. If they are still interested, the current board could line their pockets in return for little expense or risk. If no one is interested, they can walk away and let the club fold, again for little expense of risk.

I hope I am wrong to be worried. Maybe it is a wealthy investor and everything will be a nice surprise. Either way, I bet I am close to the mark.

COYR

the don69 wrote:

smirg kcab wrote:

the don69 wrote:
Good story on the Beeb website chaps!saying that League one is the most exciting league in Europe?worth a read!!!!!!!!!!

Also don take a look at div2 relegation dog fight, glad we are not fighting in that one lol
O&u

Spot on Grim!it's dog eat dog down there,hope the Pilgrim's get out of it cause their fans have really suffered!in fact they really have something to moan and whinge about!LOL!!!!!!

glasred wrote:
The difference between a statement made on Twitter or facebook and a statement that is made on the adver site is that a reporter/journalist ASKS the questions on the Adver site,and on aptly named twitter it is much like the comments we write on here, which cannot be regarded as statements or facts.
As far as Jed is concerned, answering questions on this Adver STFC would give whatever he says more credability,and also show respect to everyone who supports STFC.

Oi Den! wrote:

Bassett Hound wrote:

Is that you Lovesey wrote:
Guys

I think we have been told some time ago why the embargo hasn't been lifted, Picareta hasn't been paid money he is owed, this is because he has not signed the compromise agreement that the clubs lawyers have drawn up, this agreement protects the club and stops him coming back with court action at a later date, although he walked away there is no conclusion yet, I wouldn't be surprised if Paolo hasn also put in a constructive dismissal claim, but there has been no mention anywhere.

Kmac has siad all the right things and whilst I find him a tad dull, he knew the situation and wanted to come and manage with what he has got, no tantrums, no slagging the board off or threatening to quit or even calling players Donkeys, somewhat refreshing I feel.

The Picarreta situation has nothing to do with the embargo. It's only non payment of players that would bring an embargo. You can choose to believe Smirgk but he is wrong

It's not only non-payment of players that would bring about an embargo. There are other reasons, such as non-disclosure of financial information - that are clear in the League's regulations. They are easy enough to find on their website. I think Grim is probably wrong but there is no doubt that you are wrong. Have a look at the regulations.

LeGod wrote:
changing subject i see Bournemouth chairman Mitchell and the russian have had a big bust up. With the nw training ground and other building work that has been carried out Mitchell has used his building company to do it all and hey presto the Russian has discovered he has bee ripped off big time by Mitchell with all the costs. Mitchell also has all his family working at the club and paying them all big money.
Currently the Russian has brought in the auditors to check out the books and the financial situation.
With Mitchell ripping the russian off there can surely only be one outcome which is the russian either walks and wants his 6 million loan back or Mitchell goes. Apparently they are at constant loggerheads with each other so i think its a case of watch this space.
Mitchell who has a reputation for being a crook when all his previous building companies went into liquidation owing thousands.
So Bournemouth fans need to tone there cockiness down as all could come back and bite them.

the information i got was from someone i know who works at Bournemouth fc and at the moment staff are all concerend as well there could be more redundancies to follow the ones from a couple of weeks ago.

The last time the Bournemouth lot got cocky was with the saints fans when they were near the top of the league and they blew it so maybe history could repeat itself.

the wizard wrote:

MITTED wrote:
I think there is a simple but very disturbing solution as to what is going on. I don't know if anyone else has come up with this but here goes:

1. Total silence from the Board - we experienced this courtesy of a non-disclosure agreement just a few weeks ago. Is there one in force again?
2. The FL implemented a transfer embargo because of the takeover whilst they did their checks. All debts are apparently paid therefore it cannot be for financial reasons. Is it more of the same and we have another takeover on the go or a major new share-holder involved and the FL checks have started all over again?
3. We learn that a new director is appointed to the holding company. Early indications are that he has a questionable business history. Do the FL have such concerns?
4. A number of interested parties withdrew their interest in January because of the short timescale set by Andrew Black did not fit with their due diligence. Did the current board take a punt by stepping in because they saw an opportunity and did a deal to sell on to one of other parties in full or in part? Not much risk or expense to the new board but it would give other parties greater time to carry out due diligence. If they are still interested, the current board could line their pockets in return for little expense or risk. If no one is interested, they can walk away and let the club fold, again for little expense of risk.

I hope I am wrong to be worried. Maybe it is a wealthy investor and everything will be a nice surprise. Either way, I bet I am close to the mark.

COYR

Agreed, see my post at 08:16 this morning. Glad to see somebody else on a similar wave length.

Very worried about hall, his record is not covered with medals of the right sort.

billbst wrote:
Den, Just picking up your response to my earlier post and I agree that the club could and should be communicating more. However there is no framework of how embargoes are managed. When the FL say that we are Real fans I am sure they are trading on the loyalty that we have for our clubs. That goes beyond responsibilities to clubs and is why I criticise the fact that they have not concerned themselves with making their pocedures more transparent to us.

old town robin wrote:
I asked the question earlier, but nobody seems to want to speculate with an answer to a simple question, is the ring fenced £1.2 million that the board confirmed was in place a secured guaranteed loan from the likes of Wonga with high interest rates to be repaid when any assets the club may have such as Fodders, or is as all of us would hope from a new board for an injection of cash from the directors to increase the equity of the club. Answers on a post cards please, have they raised the necessary ring fence from a loan or equity, if it's the first option and it has to be repaid at some time, it does not forebode well for the future of our club

Oi Den! wrote:
This "age divide" thing is nonsense. It's not the fact that McCrory uses Twitter that's the problem, it's the fact that he sticks half-arsed stuff on there and will not talk to anybody properly. When Black used it to explain himself, he did it fully and openly, and his comments were backed up later by Watkins. If McCrory used Twitter in the same way, there would be few complaints. He is painting a poor picture of himself and, worse, the club. It does not bode well for the retention of our existing reputable sponsors or gaining new ones.

terrier, I don't think the registration embargo would prevent us recalling loan players. We hold their registrations. But signing new players, taking players on loan or re-signing our out of contract players would be out of the question because we'd have to register them.

Bassett Hound wrote:

Oi Den! wrote:

Bassett Hound wrote:

Is that you Lovesey wrote:
Guys

I think we have been told some time ago why the embargo hasn't been lifted, Picareta hasn't been paid money he is owed, this is because he has not signed the compromise agreement that the clubs lawyers have drawn up, this agreement protects the club and stops him coming back with court action at a later date, although he walked away there is no conclusion yet, I wouldn't be surprised if Paolo hasn also put in a constructive dismissal claim, but there has been no mention anywhere.

Kmac has siad all the right things and whilst I find him a tad dull, he knew the situation and wanted to come and manage with what he has got, no tantrums, no slagging the board off or threatening to quit or even calling players Donkeys, somewhat refreshing I feel.

The Picarreta situation has nothing to do with the embargo. It's only non payment of players that would bring an embargo. You can choose to believe Smirgk but he is wrong

It's not only non-payment of players that would bring about an embargo. There are other reasons, such as non-disclosure of financial information - that are clear in the League's regulations. They are easy enough to find on their website. I think Grim is probably wrong but there is no doubt that you are wrong. Have a look at the regulations.

I was only referring to the non payment of wages not any other issues. I do know there are other reasons for embargo. And I have read the regulations

madterrier wrote:

Oi Den! wrote:
This "age divide" thing is nonsense. It's not the fact that McCrory uses Twitter that's the problem, it's the fact that he sticks half-arsed stuff on there and will not talk to anybody properly. When Black used it to explain himself, he did it fully and openly, and his comments were backed up later by Watkins. If McCrory used Twitter in the same way, there would be few complaints. He is painting a poor picture of himself and, worse, the club. It does not bode well for the retention of our existing reputable sponsors or gaining new ones.

terrier, I don't think the registration embargo would prevent us recalling loan players. We hold their registrations. But signing new players, taking players on loan or re-signing our out of contract players would be out of the question because we'd have to register them.

Den, from a purely 'player registration' point of view then you are probably correct. But as a transfer embargo must apply to all inward player movements, my point is that recalling our loan players (if the agreements provide for this) would increase our wage bill and potentially push us over the 65% cap.

No-one knows, thanks to the mute board and zipped Football League.

the wizard wrote:

MITTED wrote:
I think there is a simple but very disturbing solution as to what is going on. I don't know if anyone else has come up with this but here goes:

1. Total silence from the Board - we experienced this courtesy of a non-disclosure agreement just a few weeks ago. Is there one in force again?
2. The FL implemented a transfer embargo because of the takeover whilst they did their checks. All debts are apparently paid therefore it cannot be for financial reasons. Is it more of the same and we have another takeover on the go or a major new share-holder involved and the FL checks have started all over again?
3. We learn that a new director is appointed to the holding company. Early indications are that he has a questionable business history. Do the FL have such concerns?
4. A number of interested parties withdrew their interest in January because of the short timescale set by Andrew Black did not fit with their due diligence. Did the current board take a punt by stepping in because they saw an opportunity and did a deal to sell on to one of other parties in full or in part? Not much risk or expense to the new board but it would give other parties greater time to carry out due diligence. If they are still interested, the current board could line their pockets in return for little expense or risk. If no one is interested, they can walk away and let the club fold, again for little expense of risk.

I hope I am wrong to be worried. Maybe it is a wealthy investor and everything will be a nice surprise. Either way, I bet I am close to the mark.

COYR

Agreed, see my post at 08:16 this morning. Glad to see somebody else on a similar wave length.

Very worried about hall, his record is not covered with medals of the right sort.

Oi Den! wrote:
This "age divide" thing is nonsense. It's not the fact that McCrory uses Twitter that's the problem, it's the fact that he sticks half-arsed stuff on there and will not talk to anybody properly. When Black used it to explain himself, he did it fully and openly, and his comments were backed up later by Watkins. If McCrory used Twitter in the same way, there would be few complaints. He is painting a poor picture of himself and, worse, the club. It does not bode well for the retention of our existing reputable sponsors or gaining new ones. terrier, I don't think the registration embargo would prevent us recalling loan players. We hold their registrations. But signing new players, taking players on loan or re-signing our out of contract players would be out of the question because we'd have to register them.

Med Red wrote:
MITTED, if Jed and his mates are looking to make a fast buck and sell the club onto another consortium then WHY the appointment of Hall last Friday? Unless Jeddy-boy owes Hall and it's a way of paying him back?

As for thumbs up on twitter... what a load of sh1te.

Lazaat wrote:

London Red wrote: Jed was asked directly on Twitter if it was a sensitive legal matter as to why the silence to which he replied with a thumbs up . Not sure why so many find that hard to understand that prevents them talking now (he has said he will reveal all once sorted) . Anyway can see how this thread is going to go so doubt I'll be back on it as I've already read all the likely comments before

Sensible point LR, I agree it's best to wait and see what the problem is rather then launch into a tirade of abuse at the board...there may well be good reasons for their silence at the moment? On a positive note KM seems to be picking same team every match (injuries permitting) with no crazy chopping and changing week in week out, I'm sure the players appreciate this and I get the impression we have a happier and more settled squad.

madterrier wrote:
Le God - when you ask "What is it with football clubs and why are they treated differently to normal businesses?"

The answer is because they can get away with it. Football is self-regulating, which usually means ****-poor or non-existent (or non-applied) regulation. And disasters.

Just like The City and banking. Allowed to self-regulate, and hence doesn't do it adequately. More disasters.

So eventually, the Government steps in to force them to run a tighter ship.

Er...the Government? If there's one institution that certainly doesn't run itself like a normal business, it's the Government. Racks up endless debts, never balances its books, mortgages the future of next generations through irresponsible spending chasing the dreams (votes) of today.

Which brings us back to football..... (continued page 94)

Pewsham Red wrote:

Lazaat wrote:

London Red wrote: Jed was asked directly on Twitter if it was a sensitive legal matter as to why the silence to which he replied with a thumbs up . Not sure why so many find that hard to understand that prevents them talking now (he has said he will reveal all once sorted) . Anyway can see how this thread is going to go so doubt I'll be back on it as I've already read all the likely comments before

Sensible point LR, I agree it's best to wait and see what the problem is rather then launch into a tirade of abuse at the board...there may well be good reasons for their silence at the moment? On a positive note KM seems to be picking same team every match (injuries permitting) with no crazy chopping and changing week in week out, I'm sure the players appreciate this and I get the impression we have a happier and more settled squad.

Agreed, but is a two way street and when one of the board says that the embargo is almost certain to be lifted by last Monday then surely questions will be asked.

If Murrall had kept his trap shut and if Jed stopped taking to Twitter with his mysterious messages then we may all be happier.

A simple ' there are legal issues to overcome and we will update you when resolved' three weeks ago may have stopped all the negative speculation.

smirg kcab wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Lazaat wrote:

London Red wrote: Jed was asked directly on Twitter if it was a sensitive legal matter as to why the silence to which he replied with a thumbs up . Not sure why so many find that hard to understand that prevents them talking now (he has said he will reveal all once sorted) . Anyway can see how this thread is going to go so doubt I'll be back on it as I've already read all the likely comments before

Sensible point LR, I agree it's best to wait and see what the problem is rather then launch into a tirade of abuse at the board...there may well be good reasons for their silence at the moment? On a positive note KM seems to be picking same team every match (injuries permitting) with no crazy chopping and changing week in week out, I'm sure the players appreciate this and I get the impression we have a happier and more settled squad.

Agreed, but is a two way street and when one of the board says that the embargo is almost certain to be lifted by last Monday then surely questions will be asked.

If Murrall had kept his trap shut and if Jed stopped taking to Twitter with his mysterious messages then we may all be happier.

A simple ' there are legal issues to overcome and we will update you when resolved' three weeks ago may have stopped all the negative speculation.

London
You walks away from us more times than paolo
O&u

MITTED wrote:
so, a statement is issued at last - how difficult was that.

As regards debts from 1957? WTF is that all about? How can there be any debts from prior to the previous administrations - any debt is written off. I presume they are talking about the year 1957 and not the time of day?

Former employees? Who is going to be first to guess who?

COYR

Rebel_phish wrote:
So, there you have it. The board have found out that there is outstanding debts stretching back to 1957 that the FL want settling. Why these debts weren’t written off or become redundant due the club going into admin the last time is any bodies guess.

All the vociferous, vicarious, vexatious diatribe outpouring towards the board and has been completely over the top. The recent character assassination some posters have been carrying out towards the newest member of the board has been nothing short of visceral. Do you really think that they would want to buy the club only to put it into admin ?

Also, members of our recent, beloved managerial team are looking to sue the pants off the club, allegedly. If that is true, then, and I mean no disrespect to Dreamo, but they won’t be building a statue, not even a sand castle, but a bon-fire with big fat effigies on the top.

Just give the new board a chance. I feel that they have all the good intentions to get this club on a financial even keel and promoted to the championship as soon as possible.

madterrier wrote:
The idea that any debts stretching back to 1957 have only just been revealed, are significant, and are now 'an issue' and of concern to the Football League simply beggars belief.

Ditto that the mere 'possibility' of a former employee taking legal action is sufficient justification for the Football League to effectively apply anaesthetic to our season is incredible. Nigel Adkins IS taking action against Southampton - not just a 'possibility' - yet are Southampton under embargo??

It still stinks.

MITTED wrote:

madterrier wrote:
The idea that any debts stretching back to 1957 have only just been revealed, are significant, and are now 'an issue' and of concern to the Football League simply beggars belief.

Ditto that the mere 'possibility' of a former employee taking legal action is sufficient justification for the Football League to effectively apply anaesthetic to our season is incredible. Nigel Adkins IS taking action against Southampton - not just a 'possibility' - yet are Southampton under embargo??

It still stinks.

That is an excellent point ref. Adkins and Southampton.

madterrier wrote:
The idea that any debts stretching back to 1957 have only just been revealed, are significant, and are now 'an issue' and of concern to the Football League simply beggars belief.

Ditto that the mere 'possibility' of a former employee taking legal action is sufficient justification for the Football League to effectively apply anaesthetic to our season is incredible. Nigel Adkins IS taking action against Southampton - not just a 'possibility' - yet are Southampton under embargo??

It still stinks.

smirg kcab wrote:
Omg
So grim was right?
Picaretta not being paid and paolo and all sueing.
And Walter Mitty didn't know anything about any of it lol?
Onwards and upwards
You can all blame paolo, but the truth is black stitched us up, along with Walter Mitty.
No players that's why kmac was picked and keeps banging on about youth.
Onwards and administration
Saves us lots of money for our season tickets if and when we go into admin.
No club no money back

MITTED wrote:
Sorry but nowhere does it say its Paolo. As regards Picareta, he was left with egg on his face following his public rant because the club revealed that all he had to do, was return the necessary completed paperwork he had been asked to do, and payment would be made. All standard stuff when you leave employment.

I still think it will more likely be to do with ex-players who have been released by the club.

ciclosporindorset wrote:
The expression cyber bullying comes to mind when I read some of the persistent attacks on this site directed towards the new board - just to reveal info about a confidential issue. If you dont like it why did you not put yor own £1.2m in and take the flack instead!

London Red wrote:
So a statement at last and confirms what me, Do and a few others have been saying - it's the legal issue holding it up
.
I still don't see how PdC could win the case
.
Even if Ritchie was sold without his consent surely a tribunal will - go had he not been sold the club would be in administration and lots of people would lose their job - including PdC and his crew
.
Had this been the sale of say Greer or Austin think he could have won like Curbishley did
.
This will also be career suicide for him - no one will hire him if he does sue
.
He's seen as high maintenance as it is - but suing a club who were about to go under will not go down well with anyone
.
If it is not PdC and his crew - how can this still be hanging around as no player has been paid off this year and surely JT would only be able to sue PdC not the club?

smirg kcab wrote:
After well over a year without a manager, a poor start to the 1956/57 season finally persuaded the Town board to appoint someone. It proved a difficult task, with Swindon in financial difficulties and rooted to the bottom of the league, there weren't many people interested - so they eventually chose Bert Head, an assistant-manager at Bury.

It was an unenviable job. Swindon finished the season just one place off the bottom, and having to apply for re-election. With the league being restructured at the end of the 1957/58 season, it would be crucial for the Town to finish in the top half of the table - to avoid having to become founder members of the newly created Fourth Division. Against all the odds, the Town finished just three points behind the leaders in fourth place, and took their place in Division Three.

With little money available for transfers, Head set up a youth system, which aimed to develop young players in some of the local leagues. Gradually, these players were blooded in the first team. Shortly before the 1960/61 season, Head arranged a trial match between the "Probables" and the "Possibles" - the Probables were the older, experienced players, the Possibles were a team of youngsters. When the Possibles won the game convincingly, it persuaded Head to start the season with a young team, which included the youngest ever full-back pairing of John Trollope and Terry Wollen - both of whom were aged just seventeen.

So it was bert heads fault,

the don69 wrote:

MITTED wrote:

madterrier wrote:
The idea that any debts stretching back to 1957 have only just been revealed, are significant, and are now 'an issue' and of concern to the Football League simply beggars belief.

Ditto that the mere 'possibility' of a former employee taking legal action is sufficient justification for the Football League to effectively apply anaesthetic to our season is incredible. Nigel Adkins IS taking action against Southampton - not just a 'possibility' - yet are Southampton under embargo??

It still stinks.

That is an excellent point ref. Adkins and Southampton.

The historic debt is only £30k,it's the possibility of Paolo and his team going to court that's the problem!!!!!!!

the don69 wrote:
As I said a couple of days ago chaps it is a legal issue!the historic debt,must be disputed so Fitton didn't or wouldn't pay it,so maybe with new owners,their trying it on again!the big issue is the possibility of legal action by Paolo and his team,which IF lost would cost millions,with legal fee's and compensation and would drag for ages and I would think Black would also be involved,can of Worms chaps!still don't think PDC would win,but it would go on and on!!!!!!!

Oi Den! wrote:

the don69 wrote:
As I said a couple of days ago chaps it is a legal issue!the historic debt,must be disputed so Fitton didn't or wouldn't pay it,so maybe with new owners,their trying it on again!the big issue is the possibility of legal action by Paolo and his team,which IF lost would cost millions,with legal fee's and compensation and would drag for ages and I would think Black would also be involved,can of Worms chaps!still don't think PDC would win,but it would go on and on!!!!!!!

And all this was discovered late last week, Don?

the don69 wrote:

Oi Den! wrote:

the don69 wrote:
As I said a couple of days ago chaps it is a legal issue!the historic debt,must be disputed so Fitton didn't or wouldn't pay it,so maybe with new owners,their trying it on again!the big issue is the possibility of legal action by Paolo and his team,which IF lost would cost millions,with legal fee's and compensation and would drag for ages and I would think Black would also be involved,can of Worms chaps!still don't think PDC would win,but it would go on and on!!!!!!!

And all this was discovered late last week, Don?

That was the rumour on your favourite site Twitter Den!!!lol

madterrier wrote:
The idea that any debts stretching back to 1957 have only just been revealed, are significant, and are now 'an issue' and of concern to the Football League simply beggars belief.

Ditto that the mere 'possibility' of a former employee taking legal action is sufficient justification for the Football League to effectively apply anaesthetic to our season is incredible. Nigel Adkins IS taking action against Southampton - not just a 'possibility' - yet are Southampton under embargo??

It still stinks.

Pewsham Red wrote:
I am not saying this is a farce but I just saw Brian Rix running around the magic roundabout with his trousers round his ankles!!

Nosuprises wrote:
Perhaps LR could expand on the reasons for Ringfencing. Ringfencing or Ring-fencing occurs when a portion of a company's assets or profits are financially separated without necessarily being operated as a separate entity. This might be for:
regulatory reasons,
creating asset protection schemes with respect to financing arrangements,
Or segregating into separate income streams for taxation purposes.

the don69 wrote:

the don69 wrote:

Oi Den! wrote:

the don69 wrote:
As I said a couple of days ago chaps it is a legal issue!the historic debt,must be disputed so Fitton didn't or wouldn't pay it,so maybe with new owners,their trying it on again!the big issue is the possibility of legal action by Paolo and his team,which IF lost would cost millions,with legal fee's and compensation and would drag for ages and I would think Black would also be involved,can of Worms chaps!still don't think PDC would win,but it would go on and on!!!!!!!

And all this was discovered late last week, Don?

That was the rumour on your favourite site Twitter Den!!!lol

PDC agent declined to comment when asked by the ADVER about legal action!!!!!!!!!!!

the don69 wrote:

Nosuprises wrote:
Perhaps LR could expand on the reasons for Ringfencing. Ringfencing or Ring-fencing occurs when a portion of a company's assets or profits are financially separated without necessarily being operated as a separate entity. This might be for:
regulatory reasons,
creating asset protection schemes with respect to financing arrangements,
Or segregating into separate income streams for taxation purposes.

I'm hearing the historic debt is some sort of debenture!all very intriguing and complex,wonder who's the owner of that from 1957!not you is it Den!LOL!!!!!

Oi Den! wrote:

the don69 wrote:

the don69 wrote:

Oi Den! wrote:

the don69 wrote:
As I said a couple of days ago chaps it is a legal issue!the historic debt,must be disputed so Fitton didn't or wouldn't pay it,so maybe with new owners,their trying it on again!the big issue is the possibility of legal action by Paolo and his team,which IF lost would cost millions,with legal fee's and compensation and would drag for ages and I would think Black would also be involved,can of Worms chaps!still don't think PDC would win,but it would go on and on!!!!!!!

And all this was discovered late last week, Don?

That was the rumour on your favourite site Twitter Den!!!lol

PDC agent declined to comment when asked by the ADVER about legal action!!!!!!!!!!!

Don, it always seemed likely that PDC would try to sue the club, from the moment he uttered the words "We have evidence..." in that Sky interview.

London Red wrote:
Why am I not surprised by the reaction to the statement by certain posters
.
It was so obvious the board would be damned if they kept quite and damned if they did release a statement!

andy5364 wrote:

smirg kcab wrote: Omg So grim was right? Picaretta not being paid and paolo and all sueing. And Walter Mitty didn't know anything about any of it lol? Onwards and upwards You can all blame paolo, but the truth is black stitched us up, along with Walter Mitty. No players that's why kmac was picked and keeps banging on about youth. Onwards and administration Saves us lots of money for our season tickets if and when we go into admin. No club no money back

U really do talk some crap . U seem to enjoy when our beloved club is in trouble . U seem very sad to me . Here's hoping for a great end to the season despite our manager throwing all his toys out the pram and walking out on us . I'll still keep the faith coyr

London Red wrote:
Touché Pewsham

London Red wrote:
Why am I not surprised by the reaction to the statement by certain posters
.
It was so obvious the board would be damned if they kept quite and damned if they did release a statement!

the don69 wrote:
When you think about it,you couldn't make it up!good ol STFC still owes some debenture holder from 1957 Bert Head days thirty grand,mind you if that was £30k from 57,that was a lot of dosh in those days(maybe Den will know how much £30k in 57 is worth today only joking Den)and poor ol Jedi boy got PDC's gang on his back threatening him with legal action,that Aston Martin you got Jed has got to go ready to pay future legal fee's!I'll make you an other for it!LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jayden wrote:
Dont know Bert Head but their seems to a few Dick Heads on here.

multipostingshouldbe
banned wrote:

the don69 wrote:
When you think about it,you couldn't make it up!good ol STFC still owes some debenture holder from 1957 Bert Head days thirty grand,mind you if that was £30k from 57,that was a lot of dosh in those days(maybe Den will know how much £30k in 57 is worth today only joking Den)and poor ol Jedi boy got PDC's gang on his back threatening him with legal action,that Aston Martin you got Jed has got to go ready to pay future legal fee's!I'll make you an other for it!LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

£505714.29.

Courtesy of Moneysorter.co.uk

A lot of Money indeed.

joey butler wrote:
Sorry guys {and girl from Stroud}, but you are all wrong.

This is all down to Doris the Tea Lady, who was dismissed in disgrace last week after 82 years of loyal service.

In 1957, she only had 26 years of service with The Town and that fat bloke in a white coat, who used to go around the pitch at half time spilled hot bovril on Doris from his tank on his back.

When she complained, he threw one of those lardies with 9000 calories at her and The Adver understands that the court case launched by Doris in 1957 is still outstanding.

Oi Den! wrote:
Funny how there's a school of thought that the Football League is somehow doing us down. I take a lot of comfort from the fact that they are being careful to safeguard the club's existence. Anybody fancy seeing us run up a load of debts to players that can't be paid?

smirg kcab wrote:
After well over a year without a manager, a poor start to the 1956/57 season finally persuaded the Town board to appoint someone. It proved a difficult task, with Swindon in financial difficulties and rooted to the bottom of the league, there weren't many people interested - so they eventually chose Bert Head, an assistant-manager at Bury. It was an unenviable job. Swindon finished the season just one place off the bottom, and having to apply for re-election. With the league being restructured at the end of the 1957/58 season, it would be crucial for the Town to finish in the top half of the table - to avoid having to become founder members of the newly created Fourth Division. Against all the odds, the Town finished just three points behind the leaders in fourth place, and took their place in Division Three. With little money available for transfers, Head set up a youth system, which aimed to develop young players in some of the local leagues. Gradually, these players were blooded in the first team. Shortly before the 1960/61 season, Head arranged a trial match between the "Probables" and the "Possibles" - the Probables were the older, experienced players, the Possibles were a team of youngsters. When the Possibles won the game convincingly, it persuaded Head to start the season with a young team, which included the youngest ever full-back pairing of John Trollope and Terry Wollen - both of whom were aged just seventeen. So it was bert heads fault,

sagadude wrote:
Sack Don Rogers!

joey butler wrote:
Sorry guys {and girl from Stroud}, but you are all wrong.

This is all down to Doris the Tea Lady, who was dismissed in disgrace last week after 82 years of loyal service.

In 1957, she only had 26 years of service with The Town and that fat bloke in a white coat, who used to go around the pitch at half time spilled hot bovril on Doris from his tank on his back.

When she complained, he threw one of those lardies with 9000 calories at her and The Adver understands that the court case launched by Doris in 1957 is still outstanding.

Wilesy wrote:

joey butler wrote:
Sorry guys {and girl from Stroud}, but you are all wrong.

This is all down to Doris the Tea Lady, who was dismissed in disgrace last week after 82 years of loyal service.

In 1957, she only had 26 years of service with The Town and that fat bloke in a white coat, who used to go around the pitch at half time spilled hot bovril on Doris from his tank on his back.

When she complained, he threw one of those lardies with 9000 calories at her and The Adver understands that the court case launched by Doris in 1957 is still outstanding.

It is no wonder we are in financial strife if we had Doris the Tea Lady and Curly Withers the Team Man on the books, up to last week.

In addition to 1957's "Lardiegate", my understanding is there is also a threat of Doris launching 2012's "Paintgate" after missing out on the big day out at Wembley and traumatised after Curly returned wearing a Paolo mask and wanting to put the price of tea up to £3.

joey butler wrote:
Sorry guys {and girl from Stroud}, but you are all wrong. This is all down to Doris the Tea Lady, who was dismissed in disgrace last week after 82 years of loyal service. In 1957, she only had 26 years of service with The Town and that fat bloke in a white coat, who used to go around the pitch at half time spilled hot bovril on Doris from his tank on his back. When she complained, he threw one of those lardies with 9000 calories at her and The Adver understands that the court case launched by Doris in 1957 is still outstanding.

Since 1950 wrote:

joey butler wrote:
Sorry guys {and girl from Stroud}, but you are all wrong. This is all down to Doris the Tea Lady, who was dismissed in disgrace last week after 82 years of loyal service. In 1957, she only had 26 years of service with The Town and that fat bloke in a white coat, who used to go around the pitch at half time spilled hot bovril on Doris from his tank on his back. When she complained, he threw one of those lardies with 9000 calories at her and The Adver understands that the court case launched by Doris in 1957 is still outstanding.

Oh, it was Bovril was it? I thought the tea was crap from that urn on his back! I'm gonna sue for miss representation.

Also I got hit on the head once as a small boy standing at the front of the Town End against the rails. At half time when they came around with those big collection thingies I got a tuppney piece on the bonce. How much for that?

sp1dersw3b wrote:
Shame all you tweeter sniffy people are missing out on an interesting Q&A with our Sam M right now.

I'm old too but a recent convert - give it a try!

Since 1950 wrote:

joey butler wrote: Sorry guys {and girl from Stroud}, but you are all wrong. This is all down to Doris the Tea Lady, who was dismissed in disgrace last week after 82 years of loyal service. In 1957, she only had 26 years of service with The Town and that fat bloke in a white coat, who used to go around the pitch at half time spilled hot bovril on Doris from his tank on his back. When she complained, he threw one of those lardies with 9000 calories at her and The Adver understands that the court case launched by Doris in 1957 is still outstanding.

Oh, it was Bovril was it? I thought the tea was crap from that urn on his back! I'm gonna sue for miss representation. Also I got hit on the head once as a small boy standing at the front of the Town End against the rails. At half time when they came around with those big collection thingies I got a tuppney piece on the bonce. How much for that?

the don69 wrote:
When you think about it,you couldn't make it up!good ol STFC still owes some debenture holder from 1957 Bert Head days thirty grand,mind you if that was £30k from 57,that was a lot of dosh in those days(maybe Den will know how much £30k in 57 is worth today only joking Den)and poor ol Jedi boy got PDC's gang on his back threatening him with legal action,that Aston Martin you got Jed has got to go ready to pay future legal fee's!I'll make you an other for it!LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the don69 wrote:

sp1dersw3b wrote:
Shame all you tweeter sniffy people are missing out on an interesting Q&A with our Sam M right now.

I'm old too but a recent convert - give it a try!

He's off on his Hols tomorrow so who's reporting on the Town for the week???

the don69 wrote:

sp1dersw3b wrote: Shame all you tweeter sniffy people are missing out on an interesting Q&A with our Sam M right now. I'm old too but a recent convert - give it a try!

He's off on his Hols tomorrow so who's reporting on the Town for the week???

London Red wrote:
Just had a look - can't believe I'm getting mocked on that thread!
.
Still at least Sam wants to buy me a beer

35 year fan wrote:
you should all definitely be reading sam morsheads twitter page.

he says the legal dispute is not di canio, goes back to january.it seems really strange that a possible legal dispute would lead to an FL embargo. must be major league. fitton (and his debt claims)? remember black said he wouldnt write them off. was he ever an employee though?

Steve. Brentford wrote:

the don69 wrote:
When you think about it,you couldn't make it up!good ol STFC still owes some debenture holder from 1957 Bert Head days thirty grand,mind you if that was £30k from 57,that was a lot of dosh in those days(maybe Den will know how much £30k in 57 is worth today only joking Den)and poor ol Jedi boy got PDC's gang on his back threatening him with legal action,that Aston Martin you got Jed has got to go ready to pay future legal fee's!I'll make you an other for it!LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I heard we still owe 2/6 from 1957,buckets out on Saturday!

Steve. Brentford wrote:
Paolo di canio
keeps town in embargo
we still lick his arse doe
fckuk paolo di canio

Weve got Jed and his boyo`s
they talk in riddles though
football lge moved the posts to and fro
lifes a b1tch in this embargo.

Im ere all week!

the don69 wrote:

sp1dersw3b wrote:
Shame all you tweeter sniffy people are missing out on an interesting Q&A with our Sam M right now.

I'm old too but a recent convert - give it a try!

He's off on his Hols tomorrow so who's reporting on the Town for the week???

the don69 wrote:

London Red wrote:
Just had a look - can't believe I'm getting mocked on that thread!
.
Still at least Sam wants to buy me a beer

Yeah I seen that LR,make sure he buys you a pint!!!!!!!!

Steve. Brentford wrote:

the don69 wrote:

London Red wrote:
Just had a look - can't believe I'm getting mocked on that thread!
.
Still at least Sam wants to buy me a beer

Yeah I seen that LR,make sure he buys you a pint!!!!!!!!

Being a nosey barsteward, what thread?

madterrier wrote:

the don69 wrote:

sp1dersw3b wrote:
Shame all you tweeter sniffy people are missing out on an interesting Q&A with our Sam M right now.

I'm old too but a recent convert - give it a try!

He's off on his Hols tomorrow so who's reporting on the Town for the week???

Grim

the don69 wrote:

Steve. Brentford wrote:
Paolo di canio
keeps town in embargo
we still lick his arse doe
fckuk paolo di canio

Weve got Jed and his boyo`s
they talk in riddles though
football lge moved the posts to and fro
lifes a b1tch in this embargo.

Im ere all week!

LOL, just checked Jedi boy's twitter account,it's all gone mute,think he's learning not to sing like a canary on twitter Steve!!!!!!!!

the don69 wrote:

Steve. Brentford wrote:

the don69 wrote:

London Red wrote:
Just had a look - can't believe I'm getting mocked on that thread!
.
Still at least Sam wants to buy me a beer

Yeah I seen that LR,make sure he buys you a pint!!!!!!!!

Being a nosey barsteward, what thread?

@JedMcCoy don't know why he uses that name Steve!!!

the don69 wrote:

the don69 wrote:

Steve. Brentford wrote:

the don69 wrote:

London Red wrote:
Just had a look - can't believe I'm getting mocked on that thread!
.
Still at least Sam wants to buy me a beer

Yeah I seen that LR,make sure he buys you a pint!!!!!!!!

Being a nosey barsteward, what thread?

@JedMcCoy don't know why he uses that name Steve!!!

@SamMorshead_SA is Sams!!!!

Steve. Brentford wrote:

the don69 wrote:

Steve. Brentford wrote:
Paolo di canio
keeps town in embargo
we still lick his arse doe
fckuk paolo di canio

Weve got Jed and his boyo`s
they talk in riddles though
football lge moved the posts to and fro
lifes a b1tch in this embargo.

Im ere all week!

LOL, just checked Jedi boy's twitter account,it's all gone mute,think he's learning not to sing like a canary on twitter Steve!!!!!!!!

By the look of his picture (above)he has probably gone to eat all the pies :O) and will be back after a liitle Gaviscon!

joey butler wrote:

Steve. Brentford wrote:

the don69 wrote:

Steve. Brentford wrote:
Paolo di canio
keeps town in embargo
we still lick his arse doe
fckuk paolo di canio

Weve got Jed and his boyo`s
they talk in riddles though
football lge moved the posts to and fro
lifes a b1tch in this embargo.

Im ere all week!

LOL, just checked Jedi boy's twitter account,it's all gone mute,think he's learning not to sing like a canary on twitter Steve!!!!!!!!

By the look of his picture (above)he has probably gone to eat all the pies :O) and will be back after a liitle Gaviscon!

I thought Chris Martin ate all the pies Steve, before he went back?

I doubt there are many left!