ASSF response to The Dons programme notes ...

[Pendle Red]

Aspring
Solidarity
For Everyone
Club

[Shurm]

Originally Posted by Jesus_was_A_red_

Are Glasgow Celtic run in a similar way ?
It seems an excellent idea in theory so what percentage of shares would give you a voice ?. It seems like the Buy a Football club idea at Ebbsfleet but with people that actually care.

Cheeky I'm an Ebbsfleet shareholder and its an excellent format everyone is involved from shirt design and cost to transfers of players. I don't think there will be that amount of freedom at Stanley but if people are putting money in they will perhaps feel more at one with the club.

[Jesus_was_A_red_]

I was initally interested in the project but didnt bother, but obviously thousands did. I think not continuing to invest is a major hiccup with alot of takeovers, but i think perhaps people would feel more involved if they had purchased shares.

[Whalley Red]

Could I also ask Ilyas what input he had into the decision to release the 'Statement from Accrington Stanley Supporters' Fund 28/09/09'? And whether he thought that the decision to release that statement was in the best interests of Accrington Stanley Football Club or the Accrington Stanley Supporter's Fund?


My opinion of David O'Neill has fallen a great deal since those programme notes, but a public response that makes the fallout reach a much wider audience is hardly beneficial to the fund-raising efforts carried out by the fans. The press release contains the following two sentences:

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

We believe that the Club's debt is now substantially more than just £308k owed to the tax man.

...


The Supporters' Fund, allied with the generosity of Ilyas Khan, is able to remove Accrington Stanley Football Club from debt.

While there may be a lot of agreement with those two sentences within this forum, we should also acknowledge they are two very strong reasons for people to be reluctant to hand over money to the SOS appeal. The louder we shout them, the more people we turn away from the appeal.

[Doug]

I can’t get my head around why there needs to be a complete take over by the ASSF in terms of a controlling interest; yes, you all love the club and are committed, but what experience have any of you at running a football club. Why can’t there be a consensus between the ASSF and the current board (less the odd one or two, on both sides if necessary) and an amalgamation of the talent on offer.

Apart from the diehards we know and love on here, who are the ASSF? Where are the profiles? Not just the ASSF but the Club also….

Can I ask why you has a major shareholder Mr. Khan can’t you elect someone to sit on the board on you behalf, someone one who understands football and has the business acumen needed to work with those already at the club to take us forward. Yes it would mean putting money in unconditionally to clear the debt, but once that’s done you will have nailed your colours to the mast and Mr. O’Neil will have the eyes of the county on him….

[expatriate]

whalley red - i refer to your post from 20.51. I dont know about the long term future, but clearly assf has the means to pay off current debt, unlike oneil etc. also, the base of funding would be broader. which cant be bad. As i have said to others this evening, worrying about a future with assf compared with oneil is not something i can understand right now, since the immediate problem is simply survival. its a bit like worrying about what colour your front room will be decorated in - after you put out a raging fire that threatens to destroy everything. If the club has many other alternatives to assf, then by all means lets chat about them and compare, and make whatever choice is best for the club. right now oneil has no money to deal with the current situation, and hence the dismal prospect of debt owed to all and sundry.

i hope my point is clear.

[Revived Red]

Originally Posted by Doug

In respect of transparency I still don’t know who makes up the ASSF; what the Constitution is and how we can access information following meetings etc; if it wasn’t for two or three individuals feeding back to me I would be absolutely clueless.

I may be wrong, Doug, but I seem to think that the ASSF was in the process of sorting out the legalities and establishing itself when everything was overtaken by the announcement of the winding-up order. At that point, the SOS Fund took over.

[VALAIRIAN]

Originally Posted by Revived Red

I may be wrong, Doug, but I seem to think that the ASSF was in the process of sorting out the legalities and establishing itself when everything was overtaken by the announcement of the winding-up order. At that point, the SOS Fund took over.

Spot on RR Thank you.

[expatriate]

macca your message from 20.53. Really the same point i just made to whalley red. if we dont pay off the debts we dont have the option to worry about other things. your point is that if all we do is pay off debt, we dont have further funds is somewhat of a luxury to me. In my view, unless we pay off all debt, nothing is possible. Nothing. its curtains. so we have to start by paying off debt. I am hopeful (but not sure) that we can handle both the debt repayment as well as new investment. thats why i have asked for transparency. at least if we know what the total debts are, we can then make some judgement about whether paying them off is worthwhile. Right now my view is that we MUST pay off our debts.

[Revived Red]

I have never met Mr Khan but I want to thank him for the honesty which he has shown especially in this series of posts.

There is now no doubt in my mind where the future of Accrington Stanley lies. I think it will be a positive and exciting future.

[Haggis316]

Ilyas is right.

Football Club Directors would simply not let a club go down in circumstances where alternative finance was available as they would never hear the end of it from the supporters the other shareholders or the Liquidator or via him the creditors which usually include HMRC.

People have talked about a desire to keep control. Well no such desire could live faced with that.

[expatriate]

Owd Bob. i accept your point about the question being legitimate. Equally, you must accept i will respond to things as I read and see them.

Coming to the question of why eric sold the club to oneil, and why oneil has refused to accept a share issue. I think it was not a case of eric refusing - so much as my refusing to pay the price he asked. When he told me that he would not compromise, I asked to look at the books so that i could make a judgement about whether his asking price was fair or not. A bit like doing a survey of a house before you buy it. At that point I had already told eric that i could not be chairman or manager or ceo, so if i bought his shares, the money would really be for the club, not for his pocket. Eric then refused access to the books of the club, and the next thing we knew is that the club owed lots of money to lots of people, but mostly to the tax man. This part of the story is quite well known. Coming now to oneil, i dont know for sure why he refuses the ASSF offer (remember assf only came into being when oneil was coming on board). I assume he has two reasons. Firstly, if he is the major shareholder, he does want to lost that position by someone else coming on board. secondly, i assume his actions speak louder than words, by which i mean he does not want assf to look at the books.

if you think I have missed a point, by all means say so. In oneil's programme notes, he did not say why he refused the offer. He only said that he wanted "unconditional" cash. Of course i then turned around and offered to match his unconditional cash. I am still waiting for an answer.

[expatriate]

jesus was a red from 21:26

i would LOVE it if someone else joined me. In fact i am hoping that i end up being a minority in assf. Would it not be brilliant if fans all over the world stepped up and joined the share issue ? The whole point of assf is to provide fans everywhere with the means to invest in the club, and for the club to be run for the benefit of the community.

i know many assf people are on this board, so if you are interested, please do speak up. they will make contact.

[Whalley Red]

Originally Posted by expatriate

at least if we know what the total debts are, we can then make some judgement about whether paying them off is worthwhile. Right now my view is that we MUST pay off our debts.

Sorry to press you on this, but either:

• the total debts are all-important; in which case the raging fire has to put out before anything else is considered and the ASSF simply gives the club the money to do so (the fire service never make conditions on offering their services) ... or
• there is a "judgement about whether paying them off is worthwhile"; in which case the club is allowed to fail if the debts are too high for ASSF funds or the judgement is made that the club cannot be made self-sufficient at this level of football.

[Jesus_was_A_red_]

It seems that DON will lose money on his investment if his shares are diluted. He is hoping for the sos to hopefully raise the funds to keep his shares intact, Which from a business point of view I can have a level of sympathy. But Accrington Stanley isnt some factory or car lot it is much more than that and he will have to give in at some stage. If he has indeed bought the majority shares knowing the debts and knowing he had no further investment funds then to me its just one massive question WHY ?
My view totally. Ilyas your comments and fears prior the takeover were/are well justified in my opinion.