we'd rather go under than ...
 

This is a jointly issued statement from ASSF/OSC/Ultras

On Saturday afternoon following the defeat at Chesterfield, the then Vice-Chairman Peter Marsden called a meeting of the following people:

Geoff Heap DIRECTOR Mark Turner DIRECTOR, Rob Heys CHIEF EXECUTIVE (which carries Director), Marcelle Lazarus JOINT CO-CHAIRPERSON, Frank Martindale EX DIRECTOR believed to be there in a minute taking capacity, Peter Marsden VICE CHAIR, Bill Holden DIRECTOR.

Not present who maybe would have been expected at such a meeting were Dave O'Neil JOINT CO-CHAIRPERSON, John De-Maine DIRECTOR and Jim Kenyon DIRECTOR

Peter called this meeting in order to try to garner support for a share issue. He, in his capacity as Vice-Chair, believed that re-capitalisation was the only way forward for the club in its present situation. Not only do we owe £308,000 to HMRC, but it is believed we are in debt to a sum of money in excess of twice this figure. Mr Marsden realised that without external funding this club could only continue to fight fires rather than move the club forward. He was trying to ascertain how much board room support there was to such a notion as a new share issue.

At the conclusion of this meeting it is alleged that a statement was made by two directors that included the words "we would rather the club go under than be run by ASSF or Ilyas Khan"

Members of the ASSF are very concerned by this derogatory comment aimed at a group, a collection of fans that undoubtedly have the absolute best interests of the club at heart. The second part of that statement is irrelevant. However the first part of that statement should be of grave concern to every supporter of Accrington Stanley Football Club. Two people who have the future of the club within their control have stated that they would rather the club go under than ....
We will take this opportunity to remind every director and every fan that as a director of a company one has a responsibility to act in the best interests of said company. With 23 days to go until the club closes its doors for the final time there were no alternative options on the table other than the one issued by ASSF. The best interests of the company were to work with that group and ensure that by the time of the next hearing there is £308,000 to give to HMRC.

Throughout the last four months since proceedings began, the three collective fan groups have tried at all times to act in what they, individually, believed to be in the best interests of the club. We don't believe that the board of directors, led by Dave O'Neil and Marcelle Lazarus as joint co-chairpersons have.

Furthermore it is of no surprise that these individuals have refused to listen to offers of help as neither of these are listed as shareholders nor directors in the latest available Companies House listings.

The collective fan based groups would appeal to all those concerned to put their collective weight behind a motion for the Board of directors to either step aside or carry out their legal, and moral, obligation to do what is in the best interests of the club.




Rob Russell
on behalf of Accrington Stanley Supporters Fund, Accrington Stanley Official Supporters Club and Stanley Ultras

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

If we did not know better, we would not believe it :eek: We would rather go under than let a group of loyal fans - if not true :rolleyes: Help us out!!! How can this be????

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

I need to sleep on this; it’s not what I feared but its bad enough. What level of information have you received from inside the meeting itself and what is hear say? I mean that with the utmost respect Rob.

If true and you have taken this collective step then perhaps you should name those responsible for these comments and what the response was of the other Directors that where there, other than Peter’s which we are aware of.

In respect of other debts. The lights are on, there’s water and the pitch is Green and only one, maybe two CCJs, what is this other debt? We can’t combat this if we don’t know.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

:mad: If this is true that TWO of our Directors have said or ( alleged )to have said ,They should be named and shamed and resign from the board of Directors,whats wronge with these people:mad:

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

at this point in time we are not willing to publicy hang people - they must live with the consequence of their actions. The two names are known and will come out as and when the time is right.

Their was a discussion tonight as to whether we should wait a while before releasing this information. But the clock is ticking and you people are the ones who deserve to know what is said behind closed doors. If information is ever withheld it is done so for a reason. This information could not be held back. Two directors are willing to see the club fold. Those directors that are not willing to see the club fold need to head for the last lifeboat and hope that it hasn't already sailed.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

well this cannot be allowed to happen!:mad:

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Hate to say this .. but why are they directors if they'd rather see it go under .. and plus do they really, really understand what would happen to them if it does?

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

If there is substance to this latest announcement then I'm disgusted....:mad:

For two of our "so called directors" to alledgedly utter such a statement shows the utter contempt of which they hold the true lifeblood of our club (our loyal supporters) in.....:mad:

Talk about Deriliction of duty ???? If true, this latest statement beggars belief.:(

As for the true levels of debt, we had a good idea and Mr. Khan had the insight, that the true figure of debt this club owed was far more than the £308K owed to H.M.R.C.

Our Chairman has released a statement in the last 24 hours stating that he is aware of his responsibilities and states that he will not allow our club to fold again.

Despite this statement, The club and it's board have not offered any insight into:

a) How the initial debt to H.M.R.C. will be satisfied....

b) Any concrete offer of their own financial input...figures,amounts, dates???

c) The true level of debt the club is accountable for....

or

d) Why they, if as a collective???, have chosen to dismiss the offer from the ASSF, the very generous offer which includes funding from a very generous man, who, like all fans, wants to see the club survive.:confused:

Instead, we are offered statements which do nothing to appease our concerned fans. They do nothing to clarify the whole mess the club is in. They appeal for the help from the very people who they are treating in (my view at least) a very contemptous manner , asking us to work together in difficult times.....

If this latest statement (the so called attitude of two of our directors) has substance...IN MY VIEW.....the two involved have no sentiment for our club. And the two concerned have no place within this club....:mad:

If Mr O' Neil and the directors have the best interests of this club and it's survival at heart, then now is the time to step up to the plate:

a) Set in Stone, I.E. make as a collective a statement that will once and for all settle the matter.Put forward their collective response, i.e. their own offers of financial assistance and concrete plans on how they, as the board intend to satisfy all debts.....or

b) Admit that the clubs present board does not have the necessary collateral or any strategy to get us out of this mess, be it temporarily or long term....

If they (As the board of this club) choose to sit in their collective "ivory tower" and act in the manner with the attitude of the "supposed two" directors who "supposedly" have uttered this contemptous statement....then this sorry situation has only one outcome.....:(

The clock is ticking and ASSF's and Mr Khan's very generous offer of financial input, albeit to the present dislike of the current powers that be, has been rebuked, refused or whichever words the present board may wish to attach to this offer may choose....on numerous occasions. I hope like many, Mr Khan reconsiders and may yet step in to help avert this potential catastrophe.

If the club is to be saved, then actions speak louder than words...Time is short....and one thing I cannot understand and perhaps the present board can enlighten us all on, brings me to my final point......

IF Mr Khan (and ASSF's) offer is so unpalletable, what do the current board think their shareholdings will be worth if this club goes to the wall in 18 DAYS TIME????:confused:

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

This statement amazed me to say the least, as a person who is not a Stanley fan, but have contributed to the SOS fighting fund, I sit here shaking my head, if directors don't care what happens and would rather the club folded, what chance is there of survial. As carpon has said the curtain will come down in 18 days time, and unless there is a change of heart by these people, I will have witnessed the demise of Stanley twice in my lifetime, it sure as hell wasn't nice the first time around, but maybe those directors weren't here to see it and don't have any real love for the club, so I would ask why the hell did they get involved in the first place

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Reading the above I only have questions (some might see it as a Devils Advocat angle but I dont care), not angry statements. Perhaps they truly do not see ASSF as the way forward for the club? Do we know for certain that ASSF is the only 'offer on the table'? It certainly was one that had a LOT of oomph behind it but was/is it the only one? Was this 'rather go under' statement just simply a case of engaging mouth before brain (easily done in these times)? Perhaps a more diplomatic response would have been the appropriate one?

Questions questions questions - as someone else's Gran said in another thread, there are 3 sides to every story...

Jimbo T :horn8:blower

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

What do i say? If we still have a club after all this i'll rename myself stanley! Just to reiterate that this is an alleged aligation and doubt that the truth will be known or admitted UNLESS there's EVIDENCE be careful what u say from a legal point of view.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

If they did utter those idiotic words, then they are dickheads of the highest order.I tend to agree with JIMMY T re the making of the statement. I am very curious to know WHY there is this anomosity from within towards Ilyas and the ASSF. I seem to recall reading that ERIC had a gripe with Ilyas as well... No smoke without fire.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

These two Directors are probably friends of EW and are carrying on his gripe. They should be named and shamed so that the fans can let them know what they think of them.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

I think the key point here is whether or not the statement cited above is the genuinely held belief of those who said it, and that they really would rather have no club (and no investment) than have someone they disapprove of in charge, or rather if it's just bluff and bluster; fighting talk if you will.

If it's the former, then it will not just be them that lose their investments, but everyone else who is a shareholder. And, most importantly, there will be no Stanley.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

According to the shareholders list the Directors don't have much shareholding investment to lose except Peter Marsden

Peter Marsden has 631 x £1 shares + 549 x £10 shares
Geoff Heap has 50 x £1 shares
John Demaine has 10 x £10 shares
Mark Turner has 1 x £10 share
J. Kenyon has no shares
W. Holden has no shares

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

I apologise that this message is a long one, but it will give you an understanding as to why Peter Marsden may have resigned. Directors need to protect their credibility and act appropriately.

Fiduciary duty
Each director must act in accordance with what he or she believes to be the best interests of the company. Directors must not place themselves in a position in which there is a conflict between their duties to the company and their personal interests. For example, in a take-over bid, the fact that the directors as individuals might hold between them a majority of the voting shares does not mean they can follow their own individual wishes.

Accounts and dealing
Directors' duties in respect of accounts are stringent and comprehensive. Directors are responsible for preparing a profit and loss account and a balance sheet, ensuring that proper accounting records are kept, and taking all possible steps to ensure that the accounts show a true and fair view. This is now reflected in the 'Statement of Directors' Responsibilities', which has to be attached to the statutory financial statements.
Directors are also under a statutory duty to supply auditors with necessary information and explanations. This is the reason for requesting 'letters of representation'. Criminal liability can follow if directors 'knowingly or recklessly' make a 'misleading, false or deceptive statement' to the auditors.

Directors Duties to whom?
The duties of directors under the general law are owed to the company and not to its shareholders, so it is the company, or its liquidator, that can sue. Creditors can, in the case of a company in liquidation, apply to the court for an order compelling the directors to repay such sum as the court considers just in respect of the directors' 'misfeasance or breach of trust.'

A director who is knowingly a party to fraudulent trading may also be personally liable to creditors.

However, although directors have a statutory duty to have regard to the interests of employees, it is doubtful whether employees could sue the directors personally, because the director's duty is to the company.

Wrongful trading
Wrongful trading may be broadly defined as a failure by a director or shadow director of a company to take every step that he or she should have taken to minimise loss to creditors once he or she knew or ought to have known that the company was unlikely to avoid insolvent liquidation. The possible penalties for wrongful trading are:
• Liability to make a contribution to the assets of the company in a sum to be decided by the court
• Disqualification from being concerned in the management of a company
When a company goes into insolvent liquidation, it is necessary to make a judgement:
• Whether the directors took such steps to monitor their company's affairs as would be taken by a reasonably prudent businessperson
• If they failed to do so, whether they would have realised the company's insolvency earlier if they had taken such steps

It is therefore essential that the board of directors ensure that appropriate steps are taken to monitor the company's financial position on a regular basis.

Tests of insolvency
There are a number of ways to test for insolvency. You should consider the following:
• Is the company paying its liabilities as they fall due or shortly thereafter, and will it continue to do so in the foreseeable future?
• Do the aggregate liabilities, including contingent or prospective liabilities, exceed the total value of the company's assets?
• If the company were put into liquidation now, would the realisations from the disposal of the assets be sufficient to pay all liabilities and the costs of the liquidation in full?

Fraudulent trading
Honest directors should not find themselves guilty of fraudulent trading. Nevertheless, if a company has already incurred liabilities that it failed to pay when they fell due or shortly thereafter, the board should consider the position carefully and place on record the factors that led them to conclude that any further liabilities incurred would be paid at the proper time before allowing the company to obtain any additional credit.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

How up to date or complete is this list? According to MEN story copied below, Ilyas Khan is a 17 per cent shareholder.

From the Manchester Evening News:

Accrington Stanley face vital 24 hours

October 05, 2009
CHIEF executive Rob Heys has said it is a vital 24 hours for Accrington Stanley in their battle for survival.

The Reds need to raise £308,000 to pay off an outstanding tax bill or face being wound up by the end of this month.

£90,000 has so far been raised through the "Save Our Stanley" campaign with time running out.

Over the weekend, vice president Peter Marsden has stood down as a director after the Stanley board held a meeting after the game at Chesterfield on Saturday.

And multi millioniare Ilyas Khan, a 17 per cent shareholder in the club, has withdrawn his financial offer of help.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Devonstanley - Ilyas is a share-holder and not a Director, whereas those listed in a previous post are Directors of Accrington Stanley and also have shares.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

I see, thanks for that

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

So, if Peter Marsden has 10%, that must mean the rest of that list has less than 1% between them; and Ilyas Khan has 17%, David O'Neil has 51%... that makes 78.something%.

Who has the remaining 21.something%? Are there any others with a decent amount of shares between them or are they all small fry like most on the list?

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

The remainder own individual shares/one share each

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Strewth. That must be quite a long list of people if they just have one share each.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

It's far from 1 share per person. I own 10 £10 shares, and I know of various other people owning similar amounts.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

But would it be a fair assessment to say, then, that the only people holding more that 1% of the club are Marsden, Khan, and O'Neil?

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

I think Phoenix meant 1%

beyond the top 3 or 4 people there is a huge list of people who own less than 1%. The list was on here a few weeks back but removed as it contained addresses. Jeff posted it and if anyone wants a copy please PM Jeff, he would more than likely be happy to post it around to those who are regulars on here

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

and Terry Styrings son David.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

That is the last list registered at Companies House on 16th November 2008.

EW has 51.14%
David Styring has 14.5%
Ilyas has 12.05%
Peter Marsden 10%

The rest is made up of small shareholders

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

SO as the list hasnt been updated since & still registering EW as main shareholder ??? the only thing i noticed was that he resigned as director nothing to state don's official directorship or marcelles, really if that was the case u would ensure u was listed or am i missing something other than a very dodgey thought :confused:

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Probably just can't be bothered sending in the necessary paperwork.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Ahh the usual stuff then :rolleyes: how does it stand legally tho ??

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Last Annual Return made up to 16th November 2008 so the next one isn't legally due until 16th November 2009 and can be lodged up to 28 days after that date. So leaglly everything is OK.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

I believe that there is not another offer on the table! That comes from a very sound, reliable source! :)

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

I just keep coming back to this thread and reading the above, we cannot let this go without doing something, I just can't get my head round it, still stunned.:(:(:(:mad:

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

The A.S.S.F. Believe very strongly that this was not a bluff of any sort!

Just another angle, we must wonder why Peter Marsden felt he had to stand down???


Accrington Stanley Football Club Limited
Sunday 4th Oct 2009

Vice Chairman stands down
Accrington Stanley vice chairman Peter Marsden has today resigned as a director of Accrington Stanley.

Speaking about his decision Peter explained "Personally I think the main protagonists involved in the off-field war of words afflicting our club should be locked in a room and not let out until they have resolved their differences.

"If required I would be happy to act as a mediator - not as a director but as an independent shareholder - but you can only help people if they want to be helped.


Food for thought????? :)

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Spot on Baggy :)

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Funny how all these little stories suddenly start dripping through today isn't it? I wonder if there's a pattern developing?

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Explain???

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Is this the way to treat our team when they are doing their best?
With tonight's match postponed will they still get their pay at weekend? :(

Accrington Stanley v Shrewsbury preview: Captain shrugs off wage delay (From Lancashire Telegraph)

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

In the absence of any transparency in:

a) The full accounts of the club

b) Board minutes or directors statements pertaining to the above

.....I wonder if someone could possibly stick on here an excel spreadsheet showing the figures on the balance sheet as deposited at Companies House for the last 5 or 7 years or so? I know we've seen a Jpeg or PDF file relating to individual years posted on here before but it could be a useful exercise just to now reveal how the club has reached this position over the last few years. I know there are a few accountants on here....which I suppose, raises the question of how prior years accounts have been signed off with what now appears to be a serious understatement of financial liabilities.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Ahem, at the risk of being libelous(SP), can I say one word R*****!!

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

1 word comes to my mind............. PROTEST!!!!

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

The Stanley Boys, The Stanley Boys.
In 20-9 they'll close the doors.
We're going to die because of Eric Whalley.
And the b*stards on the board who don't belong.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Since when has songwriting been one of your forte's Baggy?................Must say Im impressed mate :theband:

Bet it wont get sung tho!:(

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

ive heard that as well ... but ive also heard d.s. ???

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

I must be short of good reading material. Yet again, I've been reading Rob Heys' statement of 2 September. Let me pick out one small section:

Over the next few days and weeks we will be announcing a number of initiatives to bring in funds to be specifically used to clear this debt, some of which will bring in relatively small amounts, some hundreds of pounds, some thousands of pounds and some tens of thousands of pounds.

So what has happened? Especially to the intiatives that will bring in "tens of thousands of pounds"?

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Thats a bi harsh... when stuff needs saying, we can be trusted to say it....

We sung about the gamblers, we protested anout Mullin sale/loan, we sung on saturday of "not caring about O'Neill/Illyas... just about saving Stanley!"

If the time comes, we will be at the front of any protest, thats for sure....:p

Jase
Stanley Ultras

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

You got a talent buster!:D

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

No I just changed the words to your/ultras song the credit is yours.:D

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Some of u will have noted that posts have been removed seems there is an issue regarding post that could be a can of worm opener for ALL concerned with asfc not just the club. Possibly could have serious potential to cause harm to the sos cause & we all want to keep the club even if opinion is opposite. Please i know its hard to post feelings & questions but please think carefully about what u post, bare in mind the effects this can have - especially if said without proof if its even at the hint of accusation, but the balance is the hard thing between opinion or accusation/suggestion.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Back to whispering in darkened corners of pubs then.

Agree with you they had to go - FOR NOW!!!

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

I rarely go to the pub but if you have any rumours feel free to call in the shop :D

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

I'm in complete agreement with the plastic scouser. The cheek of some people, suggesting United fans are cockneys. :D

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Lol yep for now least till there is some truth in the matter best way :)

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

I think we are all in agreement on that one, for now. Just as an aside I mentioned the current situation to Sky's number 1 cricket commentator this week, let's just say he wasn't at all suprised........:eek:

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Its reached the world of business recovery accountancy.

Accrington Stanley edges towards administration - Accountancy Age

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Having worked for 2 companies in administration I have to say it's very rare to make it back from the brink. Now would most definitely be the time for some very, very grovelly phone calls to Ilyas. Certain people need to swallow whatever pride they have left and go and do the right thing.....you know who you are !:eek:

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Thanks Haggis,

There version of accounts seems to match the ASSF version, that we only got the 8week stay due too offer from ilyas of share issue...

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Administration ?

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

The Evening Telegraph's opinion...

Why Accrington Stanley's survival surpasses even the derby (From Lancashire Telegraph)

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

"Considering that, according to accounts published on Monday, Stanley had creditors totalling £740,000 in May 2008 and the club have faced further financial obstacles since then, that was no small commitment. "


Where does the telegraph get this from ?????

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

From which a most poignant line Haggis ??......

"Milk drinking kids could soon be asking “who were they?”

"I assure you that I will not let Accrington Stanley fold again."....remember this Mr O'Neil ???...I for one will not let you forget it!!

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

I may be corrected regarding my confusion between administration and winding up, but out of curiosity, can a business go in to administration if there is a current winding up petition already in place ?

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Does it really matter it's not the £750k thats going to wind STANLEY up it's the £308k the TAXMAN wants thats the one!! And if £120k that has been promist by the DIRECTORS is added to the fund we need another £118k to meet the BILL.. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

My understanding is that a winding up order is final…..If Accrington Stanley don’t have the £308.000 when they return to court it’s over; period. No letters of support or potential offers on the table will change that, it will be over……Accrington Stanley as we know it will be gone, no lower league football because we will have no player; they will be flogged off as assets along with the furniture.

If we want a Town Football Team it will have all to be done again and the shadow of all those that worked and fought over what to them were endless years will have been for nothing.

If something doesn’t happen soon Accrington Stanley will be Dead.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

it states" up to £120,000"

so no one really knows how much the board will put in to the SOS fund

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

So lets remind him again Doug !......His pledge :-

"I assure you that I will not let Accrington Stanley fold again.".....



'WE ARE WORRIED !!'

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

I feel quite upset tonight; this is the first time I have actually doubted that we will survive.

I would like to know why the club couldn’t negotiate with Mr. Khan at least to ensure that the funds he offered to match that of the directors contribution was secured.

Those gentlemen that brought about the resignation of Mr. Peter Marsden and the withdrawal of Mr. Khan’s offer should be ashamed; so much so, there can be no justification for them to consider themselves true supporters of Accrington Stanley.

I have made it clear that I have not felt comfortable with the offer made by the ASSF via Mr. Khan’s generosity and Mr. Khan is aware of my feeling on that matter; but there can be no justification for what these so call Directors have done.

It is the opinion of the majority of supporters and some members of the board that the only sensible road to survival was with the assistance of benefactors and true blooded Stanley Supporters like Mr. Khan and Mr. Marsden.

Mr. O’Neil and the Board; I ask you again to not wait until the day of court, end this now by paying this debt outright; we as true supporters will continue to invest in the SOS appeal long after the day of Judgement….If you can’t do it, pick up the phone and speak to both Mr. Khan and Mr. Marsden, no one needs to know what passes between you, just sit down and work it out.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Just remember this, Doug - when it comes to Company Law, there are a number of penalties which can be imposed upon the directors if it is found that the club has continued to 'trade' while it is technically insolvent and that as such they have not exercised their proper responsibilities. Not least of these penalties is the fact they can be disqualified from holding directorships in any other company for a number of years. Neither is a penal sentance for financial misfeasance out of the question.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

not relevant to some of them as they are 'retired' gentlemen who will have no wish to take up directorships anywhere else.

There are some directors though, and Marsden was one, who are young enough to have years of career left in them.

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Excepting the old boys - and I am quite sure that some would argue that they were not fully aware of the liabilities building up over the last few years - and Marsden, who now appears to have taken the honourable course of action - that still leaves at least two names, possibly three,

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

do the same exemptions apply to the Company Secretary Hannah Bailey and Chief Executive Rob Heys?

I'm relatively sure that their positions carry same status as Directors

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Yep. But surely the questions boil down to 'What did they know' and 'When did they know it' and even then, if they were aware of the true financial state of the club but - acting in good faith - believed that it's position was in the long term, sustainable.

I'm still puzzled, though, by the accountants who signed off the financials. Those accounts, as far as I am aware, were never qualified - or were they?

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

i wouldn't even know what you mean buddy! I have a copy of the accounts but its all mumbo jumbo to me. There isn't even a little picture at the bottom to to give you a summary of whether you've made or lost!!

bloody numbers and big words

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Stanley have joint Company Secretaries - Hannah Bailey and Geoff Heap

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

I have been asked by Frank Martindale to point out that he wasn't at the meeting. He was asked to attend to take the minutes but refused. As a non director he felt that it wasn't his place to attend such a meeting.

Frank was a director until recently when he stepped aside due to family health problems. One of the good guys is Frank

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Frank Martindale's total integrity in this matter demonstrates to the other Directors who acted with the less-acceptable behaviour reported regarding the post-chesterfield Meeting...that there are islands of 'Right' existing in the Maelstrom of Half-Truths and Double-speak which we see flooding from 'The Crown' on a daily basis !....Well done to a true 'Stanley' Gentleman.

"I assure you that I will not let Accrington Stanley fold again.".

'LEST WE FORGET !!!'

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

And ferther more if what i was told today and i have NO reason to not believe that its true then may be its time for the FA to investigate this board meeting and find out what was said and let them deal with it:(

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Well at least somebody will be happy :rolleyes: And before you say anything, IT WAS SAID!!!

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

Lets see how happy when they are confronted about it, bankers:mad::mad::mad:

Re: we'd rather go under than ...
 

These idiots should be made to justify thier comments in the local and national press :mad::mad::mad: