[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[rivercider]

Interestingly (to me at least) he's been on but not posted since my 'less can be more' comment.

He's certainly stimulated the board this weekend though.

Morning

Just wanted to clarify, I was under NDA with my former employer, not the club, it ended in late February, again the same people who speculated and talked nonsense before about the bids and the bidders are doing it again here.

The reason I didn't answer certain poster's questions is, again, they simply spout absolute bile whilst being a million miles from the truth, and I came on here just to clarify events and tell the truth about what happens, I have no desire nor any intention of getting in to a long slanging match with anyone, just not my style.

However, if you are going to say I am either indiscreet or untrustworthy or unemployable, I think it merits some comment. Unlike the person who made those statements, I have for 3 years kept absolute silence on matters despite knowing the absolute truth, and have checked with every party involved before posting at this time.

Finally Phillip once again you are so completely wrong it's hilarious - you choose to ignore the fact that it was not Plainfield "backing" anyone, the two parties were putting in 50% of the money each and one of the parties had no time horizon, the other one a 8-10 year time horizon and so there was an option for party A (Williams) to slowly acquire the stake of party B (Plainfield). I think anyone who buys anything has a timeline to sell, certainly 8 - 10 years was 8 - 10 years longer than the current owners wanted to hold the club for.

The one question I have died to ask you and a couple of others for the whole time is simply this - you have either lied or twisted the truth to try to destabilize the takeover of this club by a wealthy fan and a multi-billion dollar investment group. These were not lies born out of ignorance, you went out of your way to spread complete falsehoods that you must have known were just that. You have questioned the integrity of an honest and decent individual who was a lifelong fan of your club, and the business ethics of a firm who has created thousands of jobs and is staffed by some of the most reserved and ethical men in an industry full of sharks. You have done all of this from the comfort and anonymity of a computer screen. Why? You question my ethics, I have to ask (in the spirit of cynicism and skepticism) what your agenda and motivation was. Don't say you were just asking questions or trying to find what was best for the club - there are people paid good money to do that who are far more informed than you will ever be who not just OK'ed but actively approved my old company and its partners.

I am just curious since you attack my personal ethics and integrity - what is your real agenda? I have been completely open about my name and background, and have come on here with no hidden motives (I think those people who did e-mail DW will confirm he has ruled out any renewal of the Plainfield/Williams bid) and spoken the absolute truth (likewise those people will be able to confirm from an absolute primary source my info has been 100% accurate).

So Philip et al, perhaps if you chose to publicly attack someone, you could have the decency to do the following 3 things before doing so.

1/ identify yourself properly - I have always thought England to be the country of honor, only a coward attacks someone anonymously.

2/ back up your attacks with some accurate facts and first hand sources, not speculation.

3/ explain why you are doing so.

Or just admit you don't have the first clue what Plainfield's motives were (since unlike me, you have never actually met/spoken to them) or what Williams's motives were (since, same again) or what the club thought (same again. Like I said I don't want any fight or spat with you, but you continue to peddle lies and have now taken to publicly questioning my integrity.

I'll end it simply for you Philip (since as noted, I find brevity a curse). How many people out of the following have you ever met and spoken to at length on this subject.

John Williams, Dan Williams, David Brown, Mark Hughes, Max Holmes, A Walker Trustee.

Personally I am 6 out of 6. I rest my case.

[S15]

Match point, rivercider.

[Iceman]

Unless D Williams, comes knocking again, im greatful for the info but couldnt care less about it. The fact is, we still have no new owner and i cant see that changing anytime soon.

[gumboots]

And the questions about why come on here to tell us what happened then and why come on now still stand. I have no axe to grind with the poster but I can't see what anyone gets out of this info being out there now unless there's something going on and someone, somewhere thinks it's useful. Otherwise discreet silence would have been more apt I feel. Or perhaps that's just me

[Sysagent]

And the questions about why come on here to tell us what happened then and why come on now still stand. I have no axe to grind with the poster but I can't see what anyone gets out of this info being out there now unless there's something going on and someone, somewhere thinks it's useful. Otherwise discreet silence would have been more apt I feel. Or perhaps that's just me

As he said :-

Apologies but as someone quite familiar with things that were taking place at the time some "myths" need to be addressed.

I think basically the guy got well and truly fed up with some of the bull excrement being put about around here about people he obviously knows and is quite close to in some instances, I know if I was in a similar situation I would do the same...

Wouldn't you?

I don't think there is any hidden agenda or motive here taking place, I just think it's somebody putting people in their place about his friends and colleagues.

[philipl]

I apologise unreservedly for any offence taken if what Rovercider has written is true but there are a few items that don't ring true.

The post radically changes the picture of what happened three years ago if it is accurate.

It is the first time anyone has indicated that Dan Williams had £37.5M of his own money (50% of the £35+20+20 had the Williams/Plainfield offer been accepted) and that Plainfield were putting their 50% in on their own account and not using investors' funds.

This is the clear inference of Rivercider's post.

The following is untrue:

"However, if you are going to say I am either indiscreet or untrustworthy or unemployable, I think it merits some comment. Unlike the person who made those statements, I have for 3 years kept absolute silence on matters despite knowing the absolute truth, and have checked with every party involved before posting at this time."

You will in fact see I have said that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, your posts should be accepted at face value.

The following is contradicted by your own posts:

"you have either lied or twisted the truth to try to destabilize the takeover of this club by a wealthy fan and a multi-billion dollar investment group."

I posted nothing about the Dan Williams bid until after Alan Nixon broke the story. In your own words an offer was made and rejected and that was that. So how on earth can a single poster posting on a fan massageboard destabilize a takeover which had already failed several weeks before it became public???

As for who I have spoken to and what has been said, that will remain private you will be relieved to know.

[rivercider]

And the questions about why come on here to tell us what happened then and why come on now still stand. I have no axe to grind with the poster but I can't see what anyone gets out of this info being out there now unless there's something going on and someone, somewhere thinks it's useful. Otherwise discreet silence would have been more apt I feel. Or perhaps that's just me

Because on earlier pages, old falsehoods were being revisited, and also because expectations of these non-existent "covenants" of Jack's will were being revived.

Why does anyone post on here? Exchange of information and views with fellow fans.

Oh and yes, to a previous poster, I thought Stroke Boy season was hilarious, and cannot wait for the next installment. Way back in I think 2008 we were introduced to Stroke Boy when we were in New Jersey on transfer deadline day and Williams had this site on a projector screen and Sky Sports on via satellite, it was about 6 o'clock in the evening and there was beer and sandwiches and for 3 hours we were in absolute stitches following posts and watching the TV. That evening was definitely a highlight.

[Balwer]

I apologise unreservedly for any offence taken if what Rovercider has written is true but there are a few items that don't ring true.

The post radically changes the picture of what happened three years ago if it is accurate.

It is the first time anyone has indicated that Dan Williams had £37.5M of his own money (50% of the £35+20+20 had the Williams/Plainfield offer been accepted) and that Plainfield were putting their 50% in on their own account and not using investors' funds.

This is the clear inference of Rivercider's post.

The following is untrue:

"However, if you are going to say I am either indiscreet or untrustworthy or unemployable, I think it merits some comment. Unlike the person who made those statements, I have for 3 years kept absolute silence on matters despite knowing the absolute truth, and have checked with every party involved before posting at this time."

You will in fact see I have said that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, your posts should be accepted at face value.

The following is contradicted by your own posts:

"you have either lied or twisted the truth to try to destabilize the takeover of this club by a wealthy fan and a multi-billion dollar investment group."

I posted nothing about the Dan Williams bid until after Alan Nixon broke the story. In your own words an offer was made and rejected and that was that. So how on earth can a single poster posting on a fan massageboard destabilize a takeover which had already failed several weeks before it became public???

As for who I have spoken to and what has been said, that will remain private you will be relieved to know.

To clarify, he'd be putting in 27.5m not 37.5m on that basis, the 20m of debt would simply remain as is, to be repaid either at exit or through gradual paydown.

Plainfield, as an asset manager, are by definition investing other peoples money, generally pension funds like AIG and The Pru. They don't have their own money, however management normally gets a carry, or a fee, for managing the funds, generally between 1% and 2%, and sometimes a performance fee on top of that. This is how where Plainfield generates its own revenue from.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Rivercider's posts don't completely change the picture of what happened; they add more detail to the story outlined by Nicko 3 years ago, which Rivercider confirms in every respect. It's the Philipl version of events peddled for the last 3 years that is completely changed.

Leaving aside Philipl's long-running smear campaign against Williams, which most of us ignored anyway, I think the main reason Williams was viewed suspiciously last time is that 3 years ago none of us knew just how unloved by the Trust we were. At that time, we all believed that the Trust would keep up with the 3 million a year and would step in with another Andy Cole cheque if we were in danger of the drop, so just about anyone would look a bit iffy in comparison.

[rivercider]

I apologise unreservedly for any offence taken if what Rovercider has written is true but there are a few items that don't ring true.

AGAIN, YOU ARE TRYING TO CALL ME A LIAR. SO AGAIN, WHO ARE YOU, STOP BEING A COWARD.

The post radically changes the picture of what happened three years ago if it is accurate.

It is the first time anyone has indicated that Dan Williams had £37.5M of his own money (50% of the £35+20+20 had the Williams/Plainfield offer been accepted) and that Plainfield were putting their 50% in on their own account and not using investors' funds.

NO, THE PICTURE (I.E. THE ACTUAL FACTS) REMAIN EXACTLY THE SAME, NOTHING CHANGES. IF BY THE PICTURE YOU MEAN YOUR RANDOM GUESSWORK AND CRUSADE AFTER THE FACT TO TRY AND DISCREDIT PLAINFIELD, I REALLY DON'T KNOW, BUT THE PICTURE OF WHAT HAPPENED 3 YEARS AGO IS COMPLETELY THE SAME AS IT EVER WAS.

As for who I have spoken to and what has been said, that will remain private you will be relieved to know.

WELL NONE OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED SPILLED ANYTHING TO THE PRESS, SO THAT WOULD BE A BIG FAT NO-ONE THEN.

THEN AGAIN, I STILL HAVE NO IDEA WHO YOU ARE SINCE YOU HAVEN'T TAKEN THE TROUBLE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF WHILE AGAIN CALLING ME A LIAR.

[rivercider]

Rivercider's posts don't completely change the picture of what happened; they add more detail to the story outlined by Nicko 3 years ago, which Rivercider confirms in every respect. It's the Philipl version of events peddled for the last 3 years that is completely changed.

Leaving aside Philipl's long-running smear campaign against Williams, which most of us ignored anyway, I think the main reason Williams was viewed suspiciously last time is that 3 years ago none of us knew just how unloved by the Trust we were. At that time, we all believed that the Trust would keep up with the 3 million a year and would step in with another Andy Cole cheque if we were in danger of the drop, so just about anyone would look a bit iffy in comparison.

OK you put that way better than I did, so I will leave it there.

Apparently this nut job has some vendetta against Williams and Plainfield, so I will just let it be. I would have thought that since apparently 20+ other posters have done so, this Philipl "man" - and I use the term loosely - would have taken the opportunity to e-mail Williams or at least PM me bu6 apparently why let the facts get in the way of a good stalking effort. I have met men in straight jackets with more credibility and deserters from the French army with more courage.

Off to see if my local bar with DirectTV will let me watch the game later - we have a big basketball tournament on over here so might be hard to persuade the landlord.

Have a great day and Up The Rovers.

[thenodrog]

Finally Phillip once again you are so completely wrong it's hilarious - you choose to ignore the fact that it was not Plainfield "backing" anyone, the two parties were putting in 50% of the money each and one of the parties had no time horizon, the other one a 8-10 year time horizon and so there was an option for party A (Williams) to slowly acquire the stake of party B (Plainfield). I think anyone who buys anything has a timeline to sell, certainly 8 - 10 years was 8 - 10 years longer than the current owners wanted to hold the club for.

The one question I have died to ask you and a couple of others for the whole time is simply this - you have either lied or twisted the truth to try to destabilize the takeover of this club by a wealthy fan and a multi-billion dollar investment group. These were not lies born out of ignorance, you went out of your way to spread complete falsehoods that you must have known were just that. You have questioned the integrity of an honest and decent individual who was a lifelong fan of your club, and the business ethics of a firm who has created thousands of jobs and is staffed by some of the most reserved and ethical men in an industry full of sharks.

I think you answered your own question rivercider.

[philipl]

Rivercider doth protest too much.

[thenodrog]

Do you seriously think that a prospective purchaser considers it crucial that the 1% of Rovers fans who regularly contribute on here are 'onside' with them?

Way back in I think 2008 we were introduced to Stroke Boy when we were in New Jersey on transfer deadline day and Williams had this site on a projector screen and Sky Sports on via satellite, it was about 6 o'clock in the evening and there was beer and sandwiches and for 3 hours we were in absolute stitches following posts and watching the TV. That evening was definitely a highlight.

There's your answer EiT.

[Exiled in Toronto]

There's your answer EiT.

I suspect they were rather more interested in Nicko's deadline day exclusives than the opinions of you, I or our strait-jacketed French deserter.

[thenodrog]

Rivercider doth protest too much.

Oi! Thats one of my lines Phill ....... errr I mean 'Nut Job'!

[imy9]

Rivercider doth protest too much.

Great response.

You could always respond to the questions asked...

[rivercider]

Rivercider doth protest too much.

From 16th March (3 days before I posted the actual turn of events on here) - this was your post.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Posted 16 March 2010 - 10:23 AM

Williams was shooed out by the club and trustees and only then did he use (operative word) the press.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I protest too much?

3 years on and you were still spouting bile and nonsense. I think we now all realize that Williams was NOT "shooed out by the club and trustees" given that the club and the trustees both were favorable to the Plainfield bid and worked with them for 2+ months to try and reach a compromise on a deal, and Mr. Nixon confirmed already they did not "use" the press and indeed (to quote Nicko) "did not want the story out there". My information being direct from a/ the Vice Chairman of the club (also one of the trustees) and b/ the journalist who broke the story.

But like I said, you say "I protest too much" - only because THREE YEARS ON you were still spouting lies on a public forum and it needed stopping.

Forgive me if I misuse the English taunt but

Obsessed, much?

[Bobby G]

Quick question. Although maybe its not the most pertinent thread, but WHY would we budget for 12th season on the back of a season which we scraped towards survival and sold possibly 2 of our 3 best players, and lost another good player to retirement in what was always going to be a transitional season?

[philipl]

Great response.

You could always respond to the questions asked...

Which questions?

[rivercider]

Which questions?

Do you agree it is the manly thing to do to lie about people anonymously yet not engage with them 1 on 1?

Did the big nasty boys at school say mean things to you?

Have you ever wanted to ride a unicorn?

Do you believe in fairies?

Who killed JFK?

Did Americans land on the moon?

Are the walls of your bedsit adorned with pictures of Alan Nixon and Dan Williams with clown faces painted on them?

Do you hear voices?

[philipl]

And with that rivercider's credibility, such as it was, disappeared.

[rivercider]

Quick question. Although maybe its not the most pertinent thread, but WHY would we budget for 12th season on the back of a season which we scraped towards survival and sold possibly 2 of our 3 best players, and lost another good player to retirement in what was always going to be a transitional season?

IMHO because it is reasonable to assume there will be at least 8 teams in deeper ###### than Rovers next year.

EDIT just realized you can't say ###### on here. Sorry mods. I mean do-do

[rivercider]

And with that rivercider's credibility, such as it was, disappeared.

And with that Philipl's credibility, such as it was, disappeared.

Oh that's right, just stating something doesn't make it a fact.

As with all your other posts.

I hate to sink to your level, but let me try this again.

March 16th on here, you stated that Dan Williams (and by extension Plainfield) were shooed out of the club and that they used (operative word) the press.

Since credibility is so important to you, can you back up either of those statements.

See I can prove for a fact that both statements are false. The "press" themselves have told you that you were wrong on the latter point, and I can tell you that Williams and Plainfield reps have both been contacted since by both the club and its reps, and were never shooed out in the first place, and indeed you are welcome to verify this with either the club or either Plainfield staff or Williams himself (i.e. PM me or e-mail him).

I mock you because you make silly statements like these you see. Credibility is like respect and money - it is rarely given, easily lost and needs to be earned in the first place.

My credibility comes from the fact I have been honest, open and what I have said has been backed up by Nixon on here and by Williams in e-mails to fans.

Again, if you feel you have credibility for some reason, please outline that.

Starting with your name might help

Isaac Cheung (formerly of Plainfield Asset Management)

[philipl]

It is you throwing the abuse and not answering questions.