New Consortium Announced

[Auntie Merge]

A mature and reasoned response to having your previous inaccurate rumour spreading reposted.

I have not spread inaccurate rumours. You only know about the texts but there were other times the Easts were told they would not be welcome.

[diggerdagger1]

Alan......I take it that your otiginal post in this thread was a "pointed" dig at me? If so I would respond to my 3 points as follows.

1) I asked Mike if he had spoken to Chris smythe just like he had asked auntie merge. His question raised no response from you but when I ask the same question you react. Why?

2) I have heard that Chris SMYTHE has given at least 3 different reasons why he resigned. I have heard one of the reasons personally when he was talking to someone in my company. I would love to relay these reasons but find it quite tedious to be honest to be told that I am spouting bollocks when I am only passing on information I have heard.

3) was curious where Mike had got his information that's all. No pointed question or hidden agenda. My reason for asking is that I along with 2 friends who are all members have received no correspondence today. As members we should not have to find out through this forum should we?

Merge is right about the 57 per cent. We were told at the egm by tamplin the board and Tom his lawyer the following. That the board had recognised members concerns re one person having overall control. Tamplin was denied overall control but Hopkins can have overall control WHY?

I thought that the final paragraph in Mike's latest update was quite disrespectful to some supporters in my opinion. What's your views?

[diggerdagger1]

Merge......tamplin only issued emails that made him look good. Tamplin was a very clever man. Never put in writing that the easts were not welcome if he took over but verbally said they were not welcome several times and that is not hearsay or me spouting bollocks.

[Alan]

Why? Because someone posts something and others post saying I know it isn't true, but I can't tell you what is true or who told me, but Mike should go and find out what they are refusing to say.

Mike said what he thinks is likely. Not what, if anything, he was told. It's his opinion and I don't know Chris Smythe, so can't comment. If I were him though, I'd be keeping my money in my pocket after some of the things said about him, so I might not agree with the way mike phrased it and it might not be the reason why he isn't investing, but is it disrespectful? Not in my view.

The letter was dated 22.12, yesterday. Maybe the Xmas post has delayed yours; I don't know.

As for the Easts, Mike was given texts by them; they did not say that he had told them anything over and above the texts. I spoke to Brian East and brought up the texts and how it had been blown into them being told they would not be welcome at the club and he said that story was unfortunate.

There was objection to Tamplin having control. I was extremely concerned by the original proposal which gave him over 75% and therefore power to pass a special resolution. I'm not so bothered about the 57%. Mike's article points out the previous concern. As to why 57%, he's putting up £1m, that's why.

[TomMc]

Didn't ask for source, asked for what you know.

I an not sure your sources were that reliable re Tamplin, were they? For example the whole thing that your sources gave you that he had told the Easts they wouldn't be welcome at the club again was shown to be untrue. Your claim that he was going to sack the bar staff was based on nothing.

Ah but they were then he changed his story.

You go on about innuendo and tittle tattle and all you do is stir things up between supporters and get the eye taken off the main issue.

Yet you're the one linking to parody Twitter accounts.

[Alan]

A mature and reasoned response to having your previous inaccurate rumour spreading reposted.

I have not spread inaccurate rumours. You only know about the texts but there were other times the Easts were told they would not be welcome.

Yet the only example you were able to give to show me how misinformed I was and how in the know you were was a statement that they were not welcome on the board i.e. consistent with the texts and my conversation with Brian East.

[Auntie Merge]

A mature and reasoned response to having your previous inaccurate rumour spreading reposted.

I have not spread inaccurate rumours. You only know about the texts but there were other times the Easts were told they would not be welcome.

Yet the only example you were able to give to show me how misinformed I was and how in the know you were was a statement that they were not welcome on the board i.e. consistent with the texts and my conversation with Brian East.

As DiggerDagger1 said, Tamplin was very clever in that he put nothing in writing.

As to the Easts, If the easts would not be allowed to be presidents surely by definition they would not be welcome at the club ! Also on the board situation that was hardly friendly. Are you suggesting Tamplin would have welcomed the Easts?

The other more important point is what are people's views about Bennett/Thompson being part of new consortium with both being a major part for our financial plight and loss of culture Also there has been a vote of no confidence put forward on the board which is a first in any of the clubs history. Mike has been silent in his opinion on both which are important issues. It would be interesting to hear other views also.

Plus this 57%. We know Glyn Hopkin, but what happens if Glyn Hopkin wants to sell...?

[NBDag]

As DiggerDagger1 said, Tamplin was very clever in that he put nothing in writing.

As to the Easts, If the easts would not be allowed to be presidents surely by definition they would not be welcome at the club ! Also on the board situation that was hardly friendly. Are you suggesting Tamplin would have welcomed the Easts?

The other more important point is what are people's views about Bennett/Thompson being part of new consortium with both being a major part for our financial plight and loss of culture Also there has been a vote of no confidence put forward on the board which is a first in any of the clubs history. Mike has been silent in his opinion on both which are important issues. It would be interesting to hear other views also.

Plus this 57%. We know Glyn Hopkin, but what happens if Glyn Hopkin wants to sell...?

You want Thommo, Bennett, Smythe all out. But would you allow them back to the club if they wanted to watch a game?

And I don't get what's wrong with having a controlling interest if they're putting the money in. I understand the risk of them being shite or selling further on down the line. But regardless of if you care about the club or not, would you give loads of money to a business without receiving a relevant say in what happens to it?

[Alan]

Merge, I am not just relying on the texts. I am relying on a conversation with Brian East about the not being welcome issue. He didn't disagree that it related to them being presidents and said they'd still be able to come to the club and that they still purchased season tickets. Let's be honest, they wouldn't have welcomed Tamplin onto the board if they won, would they?

Anyway, moving back to this consortium, anyone putting in 1m of 1.3m is going to want over 50%. Yes, he could sell. But then if you had 3 holding 25% they could all sell to the same person.

[Mike the Dagger]

Wow, I'm obviously the only person who had something to do last night.

For the record, the last section of my items are usually opinion. Ignore it if you don't like it. I am aware that Chris Smythe has more than one reason for being out this time but does anyone really believes that the hassle from the anti group isn't one of them?

I am confused why some people get dogs abuse while others get off scot free. Why do Bennett and Smythe get harranged and David Ward not? Why do Glyn Hopkin's motives not get questioned but other people's get assumed?

Hopkin is a multi millionaire and has been involved in the club years, yet was nowhere to be seen last April. Since he has arrived from left field late in the process, knifed the Tamplin bid by withdrawing late, and now has £1m available to buy a majority stake in the club.

That is deliberately bleak BTW before anyone gets on my back for it, but is a valid question. And yes I have asked if I can do an interview, which will no doubt be biased.

As for posting documents etc. Members letters were regularly posted here without permission during the summer, as were the accounts (which I was given but asked not to publish). Let's not forget that the Easts withdrawal letter was published here before it was read by the club chairman who it was addressed to.

I have had permission to post all the items at DiggerDagger.

Anyway, have a great Christmas everyone and see some of you at Braintree. COYD!!

[daggersjeff]

I for one do not want to see Steve Thompson involved in the future running of this club and also agree on the point that some have made that no one should have an overall shareholding majority.

[lupins]

Somebody who seems to have a good business record and has been a supporter of the Club over a number of years is willing to put £1M+ into the Club probably to try to maintain or even progress the current level in the pyramid and you query why they might like a controlling interest
We should consider ourselves fortunate to have found not one but two possible benefactors

Are you in the remain a members Club camp. if so why exactly

The members currently run the Club, is it working? Presumably when we got to league One it was and now it isn't even though the same people may be involved

Without some investment we will tumble down leagues either quickly or drip drip. I see no enjoyment in that

[Diggerthedog]

Even if we go up the investment won't perform miracles and we will still struggle eventually end up dropping anyway but with even more debt.

[lupins]

Who mentions miracles

Perhaps just being able hold on to players if we choose too or keep a competitive squad its amazing how far that can take you

A managed debt is something we have had for fifteen years probably longer

[Mike the Dagger]

A managed debt is something we have had for fifteen years probably longer

True, but we seem to have stopped doing the managing this season on the assumption that "a miracle occurs".