Swindon Town FC County Ground redevelopment is rejected by trust
Members of a supporters' trust have blocked the redevelopment of Swindon's Nigel Eady County Ground.The club had requested consent for the introduction of executive boxes and hospitality facilities in the Don Rogers stand.Trust STFC jointly owns the ground with the club, with each holding a 50% stake. Whilst the vote achieved the required percentage of members participating, it only received 478 votes in favour, falling far short of the 717 votes required.The trust said it was "disappointing" improvements "cannot proceed at this time" after "years of neglect" of the ground.
A statement added the "result of the vote was not unsurprising, given the consultation feedback".The primary concerns raised by members included a lack of trust in the club's ownership, lack of clarification over funding, concerns over a "risky" business plan and the design and the lack of an overall masterplan."With this in mind, the trust board are committed to working with the club to find solutions to the issues highlighted above," the trust added."As we have said repeatedly, restoring good governance and meaningful dialogue will lead to greater trust in the ownership of the club."The vote was undertaken earlier in June.For consent to be granted, at least 50% of eligible members were required to cast a vote, with at least 75% of those having to vote in favour of granting consent.Some 1,263 trust members were eligible to participate in the vote, with 955, representing 76% of the membership, eventually participating.But with only 478 votes in favour of the proposal, consent for the club's request was declined.The club has yet to respond to the vote result.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
39 minutes ago
- Reuters
European shares dip as Middle East tensions, U.S. involvement fears weigh
June 19 (Reuters) - European shares opened lower on Thursday as persistent Middle East tensions and fears of possible U.S. involvement kept investors on edge. The pan-European STOXX 600 (.STOXX), opens new tab was down 0.6% at 537.23 points at 0707 GMT. Israel and Iran's aerial attacks continued as U.S. President Donald Trump kept the world guessing about whether the U.S. would join Israel in air strikes on Tehran. Trump also said that Iranian officials wanted to hold talks, while a Reuters report said that European Union ministers were set to hold nuclear talks with the country on Friday. The week-old conflict has already impacted oil prices, higher on the day and boosting the energy sector (.SXEP), opens new tab, the only stocks trading higher, up 0.7%. Meanwhile, The U.S. Federal Reserve on Wednesday held interest rates steady but Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said he expects "meaningful" inflation ahead due to the Trump administration's planned import tariffs. On the day, interest rate decisions are expected out of Switzerland, Norway and the UK. Among stocks, Stora Enso ( opens new tab jumped about 15% to top the STOXX 600 after the Finnish forestry group said it was initiating a strategic review of its Swedish forest assets.
Daily Mail
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Russian oil tycoon accused of cheating with secret second family faces jail for not paying legal fees in multi-million pound divorce fight
The wife of a Russian oil tycoon has demanded her husband go to jail after he allegedly failed to pay her legal fees amid their multi-million pound divorce. Mikhail Kroupeev, the non-executive chairman of energy company Gulfsands, appeared at the High Court in London today following the collapse of his 36-year marriage. His wife, Elena Kroupeev, discovered in 2023 her husband had been living a double life with a secret family in Russia. Mr Kroupeev now stands accused of refusing to comply with numerous court orders following the pair's 'tempestuous' separation. Elena Kroupeev began proceedings for a financial settlement in July 2024, and in February, her husband was ordered to pay just over £195,000 towards her legal fees. But her lawyers said he had failed to comply with that and other subsequent orders demanding he reveal the true extent of the wealth from his business empire. He therefore owed her more than £837,000, they said, while a freezing order had also been made covering £38million ($51 million) of his assets. Ms Kroupeev's lawyers said the judge should now issue an order for his imprisonment for contempt of court. 'It is suggested that nothing short of a period of imprisonment will be an effective punishment,' the lawyers said in their court submission. Mr Kroupeev's lawyer Michael Glaser said the allegations about their marriage and alleged affairs should not have been made. 'Not only are they not relevant, they are denied,' he told the court, saying the contested court order was subject to an appeal. However, the judge rejected his attempt to have the case adjourned. The couple, who are both Russian nationals but have British citizenship, moved to Britain in 1993. Ms Kroupeev's lawyer Justin Warshaw said Mr Kroupeev had made his fortune through his connections with Yuri Shafranik, a former Russian energy minister. As well as Gulfsands, which Ms Kroupeev's lawyers said had a contract to export oil from Syria, his business interests included Jupiter Energy, which is involved in oil and gas exports in Kazakhstan, and Waterford Finance which specialises in oil, gas and other energy projects. 'They have been a very wealthy family for a very long time,' Mr Warshaw told the court, saying they lived an 'opulent lifestyle'. The couple's assets were extensive, including a £15million house in north London, luxury homes in Portugal and Turkey, and a portfolio of properties in Russia worth 10 million pounds, her lawyers said. The couple also took luxurious holidays that involved flying by private jet, they said. 'A large motivation for travelling privately would be to ensure that the family dogs could go on holiday with the family,' her legal team said in their submission. While Ms Kroupeev was in court on Wednesday, her husband, who is in Cyprus, attended remotely by videolink. The hearing continues.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Ministers must walk a careful tightrope in Abramovich case
Threats from British ministers to sue Roman Abramovich have brought the Russian billionaire back into the spotlight. A fortnight after Russia invaded Ukraine, Liz Truss, then foreign secretary, announced sanctions against seven of the wealthiest Russian oligarchs. On her list was Abramovich, who at the time owned Chelsea FC. His assets were frozen, a prohibition was placed his on transactions with UK individuals and businesses, and he was subjected to a travel ban. Having owned Chelsea since 2003, Abramovich was granted a special licence to sell the club, provided he could prove that he would not benefit from the deal. In May 2022, Todd Boehly led a consortium, later known as BlueCo, which bought Chelsea — and the sale proceeds remain frozen in a UK bank account linked to Abramovich. While he cannot gain access to the money, it legally belongs to him. This month the government threatened legal action to ensure that the frozen £2.5 billion is ring-fenced to fund humanitarian causes only in Ukraine. Issuing a joint statement, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, and David Lammy, the foreign secretary, said: 'While the door for negotiations will remain open, we are fully prepared to pursue this through the courts, if required, to ensure people suffering in Ukraine can benefit from these proceeds as soon as possible.' • Roman Abramovich: government threatens to sue former Chelsea owner over sale The three-year delay in the funds being released centres on sustained disagreement between the UK government and Abramovich. Through his lawyers, the oligarch argues that a much wider set of beneficiaries should receive money, with proceeds being donated via a foundation 'for the benefit of all victims of the war in Ukraine'. That would include Russian soldiers and other charitable causes outside Ukraine. After three years of fruitless discussion, the government is now seeking to break the impasse. But after the threat of legal action against Abramovich — intended to force his hand as Reeves and Lammy have outlined — the government must now walk a legal tightrope in proving its case. They must be careful not to set a precedent for asset-freezing cases that undermines the rule of law, or invites future legal challenges from other sanctioned parties. An attempt by the government to force a release of the sale proceeds will risk a legal confrontation with the established sanctions framework. Legally, they must be dealt with under the terms of the licence granted by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. However, it is conceivable that if ministers proceed down this road, other legal avenues might be considered, such as those under international investment treaties, depending on the circumstances. Manifestly, turning a high-profile Premier League transaction into a High Court test case for sanctions enforcement will not be straightforward — there are no easy games at this Hastings is a partner at Quillon Law
