The unofficial AFC Rushden & Diamonds messageboard

http://www.thediamondsfc.com/page/NewsD ... 99,00.html

Gillingham have paid in line with agreements, final installment due in July, as was reported by KC at the meeting.

So who is the 'offending reporter'?

It certainly was not stated at the meeting that The Gills were late paying , i don,t know where that came from

STAGMAN wrote:It certainly was not stated at the meeting that The Gills were late paying....

I agree. KC stated that he would ask Paul Scully, the Gills Chairman, if he would pay the next installment early but knowing Scully he doubted if he would agree to that request.

I'm puzzled to know where it has been reported that the Gills are behind with their payments.

I was initially concerned it was me regarding the 'forum minutes', but given that I did not write what is on the Gillingham website: ''Former Rushden owner Keith Cousins suggested that the sum outstanding could help the club's current financial plight'' - i'm now less concerned. I didn't actually refer to Keith Cousins at all, in fact. Neither did I say that they were late in paying.

Not to mention the fact that what i have stated is factually correct. There is a world of difference between saying that payments are owed (which they are - an installment in July as has been confirmed by Gillingham) and saying payments are late.

This particular bit of information has made its way accros various other blogging and 'rivals' websites and has been altered (not actual rivals, if you know what i mean, the websites are known as 'rivals' for some reason), so it could be those. I'm not at home so don't have access to the ET/Chron to see what is in those.

Maybe there is confusion in some people's minds between the words outstanding and due. There is a significant difference.

A quick google of the key words shows that some websites have suggested that Gillingham haven't paid at all.

It's pointless guessing, we'll just have to wait and see i suppose.

BartonRaz wrote:A quick google of the key words shows that some websites have suggested that Gillingham haven't paid at all.

Yes. One here:-

http://www.thefootballnetwork.net/main/ ... 168512.htm?

Poor reporting. :evil:

Trek wrote:

BartonRaz wrote:A quick google of the key words shows that some websites have suggested that Gillingham haven't paid at all.

Yes. One here:-

http://www.thefootballnetwork.net/main/ ... 168512.htm?

Poor reporting. :evil:

That one suggests that we're owed following the sale of Jackson from Gills to Norwich.

That wasn't even mentioned at the meeting was it? In hindsight we should have perhaps asked if we were due anything relating to that.

It was mentioned, as the question was asked if there were still any monies owing from the sale of Simmo, KC said yes there was but it was not due until July but jokingly said about asking the Gillingham chairman for it early