Anderson invetment returned

Bluebird · Post by **Bluebird** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:39 am

Town Chairman David Sheepshanks has issued a statement saying that it's been mutually agreed that money Michael Anderson invested in the Club will be returned to him.

"The board has considered the position with regard to the proposed share investment by Michael Anderson," says the Chairman.

"I have subsequently had a further discussion with Michael and we have mutually agreed that it would be in the best interests of all concerned that the money deposited with us be returned to his company.

"This is made possible by virtue of the fact that the shares had not yet been issued or registered. Therefore Michael Anderson will neither be a shareholder nor a director of Ipswich Town Football Club.

"This whole episode has been highly regrettable. The invitation and investment were made and accepted in good faith however following the events of Friday I feel strongly that this decision will be best for both parties.

"It is important to emphasise that additional investment was made at the same time as Michael Anderson's and that the Club can afford to make this repayment without adverse affect on the playing squad.

"This episode aside, the Club is in a much stronger position than was the case a week ago. Agreement has been reached with our three lenders that will enable a consolidation of the squad over the coming two to three years, and other new investment has been made.

"Our new striker Alan Lee has been acquired and we saw a spirited and stirring performance on Saturday from both players and crowd alike that bodes much better for the future. Now we move forward."

Sheepy's finest moment to date?? FFS we are in danger of becoming a joke, how can the board be so publically inept?

Maybe so, but how can we judge that until we know what it was.

Riviera · Post by **Riviera** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:12 am

very good news!!

uefacup81 · Post by **uefacup81** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:48 am

Why the hell can't sheepy just show a little brawn and argue to keep the money - there's nothing saying he couldn't - but no... he just has to go and be mr. nice-guy.

the-mole · Post by **the-mole** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:56 am

With all due respect - I think dear Mr Sheepshanks is no longer fit to run this football club. I have been saying it since we were relegated and it seems only now others are willing to appreciate it!!!

The guy is too weak and inept to run this football club. He isn't as committed as he once was - only working 2.5 days per week. People keep saying he is irreplaceable and that who else could run the club - well all i have to say to that is bollox!!!

No-one had even heard of him before he took over so perhaps it is time for someone a bit younger a bit more committed and a bit more passionate to take over. He was good at making himself look popular but he doesn't even have that skill any longer.

The playing side of things finally looks to be improving so get someone in to support Joe who can actually make things happen and give us some positive news without spin!!

uefacup81 · Post by **uefacup81** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:03 am

the-mole wrote:With all due respect - I think dear Mr Sheepshanks is no longer fit to run this football club. I have been saying it since we were relegated and it seems only now others are willing to appreciate it!!!

The guy is too weak and inept to run this football club. He isn't as committed as he once was - only working 2.5 days per week. People keep saying he is irreplaceable and that who else could run the club - well all i have to say to that is bollox!!!

No-one had even heard of him before he took over so perhaps it is time for someone a bit younger a bit more committed and a bit more passionate to take over. He was good at making himself look popular but he doesn't even have that skill any longer.

The playing side of things finally looks to be improving so get someone in to support Joe who can actually make things happen and give us some positive news without spin!!

Excellent post there Moley! Especially the point about DS being unknown. He was originally appointed to the board of directors after writing in as a disgruntled fan. Now can anyone name me one other club that has promoted a fan to the position of chairman within the space of about three years? What we need is an experienced chairman with clout, contacts within the game and a pair of balls.

Ojc · Post by **Ojc** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:48 am

Leave him in until the end of the season to spare the club anymore embarresment, then kick him out.

This whole saga has been an absolute joke.

John · Post by **John** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:56 am

nice move mr sheepshanks.....if we get the money for M bent,why not offer to give that back as well.

the-mole · Post by **the-mole** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:01 am

Ojc wrote:Leave him in until the end of the season to spare the club anymore embarresment, then kick him out.

This whole saga has been an absolute joke.

Leave him in??? The joke is on sheepshanks and has been since relegation!!! The guy isn't fit to run this football club anymore and I won't want to hear anymore about it!!!

By the way if it is true that he was appointed to the board because he was a disgruntled fan I find it strange that he is hanging on to his position tightly and deflecting as much fan blame as possible!!!!

Bluebird · Post by **Bluebird** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:39 am

To be honest, I have defended Sheepy in the past, because I've meet the bloke several times, and he is a fan, and I believe he is sincere in his desire to see the club do well.

However, recent events cast serious doubts on his ability and suitability to run a football club. How on earth will he attract new investment into the club after this fiasco?

This once respected, great club of ours, is in danger of turning into a sad joke.

ippers · Post by **ippers** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:52 am

Exactly, agree with everything said here. The thing that annoys me is that he has to put spin on it by saying we had 'stringent test in place' obviously not Sheepy

the-mole · Post by **the-mole** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:41 am

ippers wrote:Exactly, agree with everything said here. The thing that annoys me is that he has to put spin on it by saying we had 'stringent test in place' obviously not Sheepy

The stringent tests of YES or NO!!! and they will take your word for it!!!

Sheepshanks has turned into a joke and this club is going down the drain with him.

When we were flying high in the prem sheeps was being spoken about highly and as a possible CEO of the FA - however since we plummetted so has his reputation - now that no-one will touch him he is using us to try and rebuild his bad reputation!!! Why else would he still be here when most other men would have walked and let someone with NEW ideas have a go??

He will keep playing the loyalty card, keep saying he is a fan etc - but I couldn't really care less - when people start to read between the lines I think you will all start to realise the guy is clueless and not fit to run this club!!

Fully · Post by **Fully** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:36 pm

what would you rather have?

Sheepshanks returning money to owner

or

Sheepshanks in court for theft?

uefacup81 · Post by **uefacup81** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:38 pm

It's not theft though Fully, Anderson paid Ã‚Â£250k odd for shares that we were willing to give him, the place on the board had nothing to do with the shares. As long as he had the shares and we had the money, theft would not come into it!

Fully · Post by **Fully** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:41 pm

As far as i know if someone gives you money, and they wish to have that money returned after second thoughts, the money has to be returned in full. If it isnt returned its a criminal offence and is classed as theft.

Post by **Dazza** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:45 pm

We should of taken his Ã‚Â£250k but not offered him a place on the board, then everyone is happy.

Cant see why people are getting mad at Sheepshanks... I just wish we never found out and we took his money. As the guy on the radio said I couldnt care less who gives in money.

Phil · Post by **Phil** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:55 pm

so we have spent 400k(correct me if im wrong) on 2 players based on Andersons investment.

Post by **Earl Blue** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:09 pm

Fully, I dont think Mr. Anderson asked for the money back
did he??.. He might have done.. If he did not then the club have
done the right thing and I dont think it would have been Mr. Sheepshanks who decided to do it off his own back, but indeed the advice of the
clubs legal representatives.

I could be wrong about Mr. A. not asking for it back, but to date
I dont recall anything suggesting he did.

Fully · Post by **Fully** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:32 pm

It said mutually agreed Earl, which suggests that Sheepshanks was asked for the money and he agreed.

Post by **Earl Blue** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:44 pm

Fully wrote:It said mutually agreed Earl, which suggests that Sheepshanks was asked for the money and he agreed.

Well it could mean that it was Mutually agreed that Mr. Anderson
SHOULD take the money.

We never know what really goes on at PR these days

Fully · Post by **Fully** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:45 pm

Earl Blue wrote:
Fully wrote:It said mutually agreed Earl, which suggests that Sheepshanks was asked for the money and he agreed.
Well it could mean that it was Mutually agreed that Mr. Anderson
SHOULD take the money.

We never know what really goes on at PR these days

True true. Wise old owl here