GM: So it was now time to involve the legal eagles?

MB: Mel and I went to see Gary Stones, probably the best known insolvency practitioner in Swansea, and talked about the options open if Mel purchased the Ninth Floor debt. Gary immediately advised Mel to resign as a Director, which Mel's solicitor had not previously advised him to do. It was apparent that we needed the advice of a more litigiously minded lawyer and Gary recommended Tim Jones of TG Jones and Associates, which meant nothing to either of us at the time, but we were to share some long, late night sessions very shortly!

GM: How much are you able to say about your dealings with the lawyers?

MB: Gary, you will appreciate that I have to treat my dealings with both Gary Stones and Tim Jones with a degree of confidentiality: particularly Gary as he is now the Nominee of the Club in its proposed Creditors Voluntary Arrangement.

GM: So are you able to outline generally what the strategy was?

MB: The first problem we had was money: and not for the advisors, who were both convinced that the Club had to be saved for the benefit of Swansea as a whole and were willing to work for nominal fees.

Mel, having purchased the debt, could petition to have the Club put in to Administration. Following this the football contracts, the Vetch Lease and right to play in the Football League could be transferred to a new company, leaving Petty with shares in a worthless shell. (We would have needed League and council agreement to do this, but thought that this would not be an insurmountable problem in the circumstances). However, in order to convince a judge to make the order, we had to show that the consortium had enough cash to pay the preferential debts (Inland Revenue, VAT and Football Debts) and to continue trading thereafter. Not easy: we reckoned on needing £750,000 to achieve this.

GM: Did you seriously believe you could achieve this sum?

MB: Mel had been to a couple of meetings of local businessmen friends of the Club during the time after Petty had been in control but these had produced a very limited number of potential investors. I also had a list of those we had talked to about a sale whose interest might be rekindled as part of a larger consortium, including Brian Katzen. I was then introduced to David Morgan, who after a few days of chatting, gave me an extremely valuable list of people who had approached him about putting money in.

After I produced a few projections, we worked through the list and were able to reach the magical £750,000 figure, but nearly all of it was pledges and relatively little in cash: the acid test is always whether the cash will come in to the bank. Anyway, it was good enough for round one in the court.

GM: You obviously overlooked Disneyland for some of your support. History suggests that you may have been a little lightweight as far the court battle was concerned?

MB: It should be admitted that we made two serious errors in the Court case. The first was that no one on our side had seen the complications Petty's side brought in by suggesting that as Mel was a Director when the deal to buy the debt from Ninth Floor was negotiated, the debt should be offered back to the Club for the amount which Mel paid for it and could not be used to petition for administration at its face value. The second was that, to my mind and with the benefit of hindsight, the wrong barrister was briefed and he did not perform, pick holes in the credibility of Petty's case or demand the proofs of significant statements they made.

GM: Did the limited finances available to the Consortium, dictate the quality of its legal representation?

MB: I wouldn't say that it dictated the quality - after all Gary Stones is reputedly the best Insolvency practitioner in Swansea - but it did dictate that we used whoever offered their services for free or nominal amounts. As for the barrister, he was the worst performer and far and away the most expensive. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

GM: OK, back to the actual court case, what were the specific failings?

MB: Without going into too much legal detail, the barrister did not (in my opinion) undermine the credibility of Petty/Shuttleworth nearly enough. A couple of examples: a wholly fictitious Board Meeting had been invented between Petty, Shuttleworth and Mel, which brought out exactly what Petty wanted to be brought out, but this was not mentioned. And Petty's claim that the debt was not £801,000 nor repayable on demand was not shown to be false by asking the Court to be given copies of the sale agreement for the shares between Lewis and Ninth Floor.

GM: But ordinary fans could see the flaws in Petty's statements, why couldn't a trained lawyer exploit these?

MB: I think that the barrister felt that the points were either irrelevant to the case or were insufficiently evidenced - for example I have a copy of the Ninth Floor/Lewis sale agreement but it is a printout from a computer, not a photocopy of the signed version. He felt that this was not good enough to use as evidence, which I would disagree with - it's got to be good enough to use as a basis for asking key questions.

Obviously I regret the costs incurred in the legal action, but I can honestly say that when we embarked on it we had a debt of £801,000 which the Club could in no way repay. And I thought that Petty was attempting to defend the indefensible when he went to Court, so it would all be over in two ticks. But when you go to Court it's a game between barristers and anything can happen….

GM: To use a footballing analogy, it looks like we picked the wrong team for that match?

MB: Petty's barrister was the Michael Owen of insolvency petitions and we were left with David Ginola - not doing enough training and having a series of off days!

You may recall that there were three hearings. After the second one Tim, Gary and I could see that we were dead in the water: Petty offered Mel £100,000 less some costs to go away and we were urging Mel to accept it to avoid the costs of the final day. Fair play to Mel: his view was that he was not counting on any return against the £100,000 and he would fight on - his conscience would not let him stop at that point. Nevertheless, we all kept an optimistic public face.

GM: Despite the setback, the fight obviously continued. What went on behind the scenes at this time?

MB: We lost the Court case. Petty carried on, except that we could see that he could not last much longer. His list of potential sources of funds (as given to the Court) was so weak as to be non-existent. His largest pledge, from one Chris Connolly, for £500,000 I knocked out with one late night phone call to California - Lewis, when he asked Chris for his pledge, had not told him that the Club was defending an administration petition!

David Morgan and I then started to co-ordinate the people who had already been identified as potential investors, as opposed to those who liked the idea of being involved but did not have the wherewithal or inclination to be so financially. The major problem was that the key individuals were by-and-large out of the country or not keen to be involved in any meetings. This dogged the whole process from then on, and is one of the reasons why the Committee can appear to be doing nothing: gaining agreement on significant action can be a long process. All the investors are principles in their own businesses and used to doing whatever they alone believe is right: holding them all together was not an easy job!

GM: Progress appeared to be quite slow moving from the outside?

MB: It was a very long process. Everyone had to be talked to - it seemed like morning, noon and night for months. Some investors had to be dissuaded from bidding on their own when they got frustrated, others had to be encouraged that waiting was not the same as doing nothing. The consortium had to be legally formed before we had a vehicle into which the investors could put their money, with specified aims and rules. A solicitor and season ticket holder, Steve Penny at John Collins and Partners acted for the Consortium, again for nothing, and did an excellent job. However, the politics between investors started immediately, and one of the key investors refused to sign the consortium documentation that all others were happy with.

For the last month or so of Petty's ownership, we deliberately kept our heads down completely, even to the point that questions were being asked about whether the consortium still existed.

GM: How did you bring the official agencies onside?

MB: I kept in very regular contact with the Football League and the PFA (Brendan Batson and/or Nick Cusack, who by this time was Chairman) and the investors. David Morgan spoke to the Council at least weekly. Steve Hamer used his contacts at the higher levels of the Football League to good effect, and between us we stopped money flowing from Southampton and the Youth Development funders to the Club, knowing that this might go astray. We were aware by this time that all the bank accounts in the Club had been closed, and that all money was going in to a new account in Bristol to which only Petty had access. No-one in the Club even knew the balance. The Football League and PFA were as desperate as everyone in Swansea to get him out.

GM: Despite all this support, what was the one thing that would turn the screw on Petty?

MB: I knew that Petty would eventually come to us when he ran out of options. And so it proved: David Morgan got a call to say that Petty wanted £100,000 for the shares or he would sell the shares to Mel Griffin, a property developer who wanted the lease on the Vetch. He also added that he would not accept a bid from any group, which had me as a member - quite a backhanded compliment!

GM: Been there done that Martin - so you're not impressing me with that one ;-)

MB: Is that your equivalent of "Trust me I'm a journalist?" (LoL)

GM: So why not buy him out there and then. After all, that's what the Consortium was set up for?

MB: After talking to the Council, who I cannot say too much about, except that they were extremely helpful within the limits which they felt they could go to, we decided that our funds were too limited and decided not to bid. Petty still told Griffin that we had bid him £100,000, but eventually we talked directly to Griffin and Petty's cover was blown. As it turned out, Griffin had been bidding on the expectation of funding from us to help him along, so he pulled out as well.

GM: So were you scrabbling around for the extra money or did you try haggling?

MB: We then offered Petty £10,000, which was accepted, except that the investor politics reared its head again and we ended up parting with somewhat more than this. Petty, great international businessman as he is, demanded the money in used notes, which he got [Loud guffaws from GM]. He refused to come back to Swansea to do the deal, apparently feeling threatened, and we met him at a motorway services on the M4 (or rather I didn't - he wouldn't have me in the same room as him). He was alone apart from Matthew Gunter Bushell, his PR man.

GM: Very cloak & dagger Martin. Were you all in Mel's basement with a single lamplight waiting for the phone to ring?

MB: Several hours of discussions passed, as Steve Penny and Tim Jones refused to hand the cash over until all the various paperwork had been completed. Ultimately we emerged as owners (or rather Gareth Keen and Mel Nurse did - because of the continuing problem with one of the investors, the consortium documentation had not yet been signed. Gareth and Mel authorised use of their money to pay Petty off).

GM: So to move forward, you had to dump one of the members?

MB: Eventually the key investor relented at the twelfth hour: the consortium would have fallen apart that night if he had refused. And so we moved into ownership. I was looking forward to at last being able to run the Club on a sensible basis.

GM: Because of this difficulty, are you hinting that running a football club by committee is too cumbersome and therefore ineffective?

MB: Yes, I think that's right. The Club has to be run by someone with delegated powers to run it (this was one of the reasons behind my ultimate departure) otherwise the response the public expects does not occur quickly, and timing is everything. This is especially true in an entertainment/public relations situation, and football management is a constant series of these. I was always taught that it is better to make a decision as soon as possible (after all the facts are available) and get it wrong than not to make a decision at all, and I think that's right. If the management situation prevents you carrying out the decisions because of 'consultation' then it's rapidly a problem in a football club.

GM: Do you think the club can function properly without a financial director?

MB: Yes, if it's owned by a stable group of people and there is no regular need to go out looking for money. Hopefully the Committee is at that stage now. However, it does need experienced business people who can take it forward, and these people must be familiar with the meaning of the numbers. There will have to be someone producing high quality (ie credible) numbers every month or the investors will very rapidly get twitchy. So I think the Club needs the skills which I was bringing to the mix, but of course those can be supplied by different sorts of people. (I should perhaps make it clear that I spent only a very small proportion of my time actually producing the numbers, and far more on general management tasks).

GM: Do you feel your links with the club have been severed completely?

MB: Unless one of the investors nominates me as a non-executive director, yes. I will never work for the Club again: twice bitten, three times shy!

GM: What is your relationship with the Consortium/Nurse now?

MB: Since the day they decided they could manage quite happily without my services only Brain Katzen has contacted me at all. Who was it said that there is no loyalty in football?

GM: Do you feel hurt at being excluded after doing so much of the early work?

MB: Unquestionably. I got that consortium together, held it together, did all the financial planning, kept the League, the PFA, the Council and the legal side together. Delivered up the Club to the investors, negotiated the sale of the lease to the Council and devised the CVA and then they told me to go forth. Call me arrogant but that's the way I see it. I think certain of the investors and others of the people we dealt with saw it that way, too.

GM: What reason were you given for this apparent betrayal?

MB: I'm not too keen on the word 'betrayal', Gary. There was never an obligation on them to offer me a job, although it had been made clear in several of the earlier meetings that they expected me to run the Club at least for a few months after its purchase. I would though have thought that I had demonstrated my worth, but apparently not. The statement they put out (without consulting me - an interesting management style - even McClure would put out an agreed statement in such circumstances) said that they could not afford my services, although in reality it's a power thing. Money has little to do with it: I was not asking for any more than the bottom end of the average for Chief Execs in the Third Division, and I understand that one of the investors offered to pay part of my salary personally if money was a problem.

GM: Without intending to butter you up, I was amazed that they severed their only link with someone with experience of the running of a football club?

MB: Absolutely right. The other side to it is this: if you don't have the right staff in the right places, income and expenditure both suffer. In the three weeks that I was effectively running the Club, although without any formal mandate, Bound, Mazzina and Keegan were paid off. These are highly profitable actions for the Club. In the whole of the rest of the season the Club took decisive unforced action on only one other player (Appleby). I had also got Sidibe's agent over, rekindled a relationship with him, convinced him that things had stabilised, and Colin Addison and I had him "more likely than not" (his agent's words) to sign for Swansea City for next season.

Will that happen now? Impossible to imagine. How much has that cost the Club? £50,000? £150,000? £250,000?

I/we also had another £130,000 of funds lined up and verbally committed to the cause … whether it's still there I don't know.

GM: Are you confident that the people we now have in charge have the necessary skills to take the club forward?

MB: To overstate the case a little, I think that there is a problem attitude in Swansea business generally where they know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing. I think that prevails here now.

GM: So judging them on their actions so far, what have they done wrong?

MB: Addison, Nicholas and Compton have also all been kicked in the teeth after holding their pieces together during very difficult times. The timing of the departure of Addison and Nicholas was extraordinary: firstly to do it the day before the CVA was announced - effectively sacking them without compensation.

Secondly, this time of year is crucial for knobbling players who are out of contract at other Clubs at the end of the season and who you want to come and play for Swansea. I know Peter and Colin had their eyes on a number of individuals elsewhere. With all due respect to Nick Cusack, he cannot have had a chance to scout other games over the last few months with the same view in mind.

The short-term gain in salary saving may have cost the Club a season in its development, maybe more.

GM: Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

MB: Take the shop as a general example. To make money you have to buy the right goods, employ the right staff to display and sell them and price the product right. The analogy with footballers or any other part of the Club is identical. Many people can administrate, but can they add value?

Similarly, the sacking of Compton has cost us the signatures of some very promising 16 year olds, I hear. If people need to be replaced, it has to be done in a controlled manner.

GM: The people who made those decisions will tell a different story?

MB: The counter-argument will be that the financial situation of the Club is worse than it appeared, and I can see from the CVA papers that the income projections have been reduced by the Committee since I produced the first edition. The reality is that income will suffer if the right people with the right skills are not in the right places, and penny-pinching will then be self-fulfilling. There's a difference of management philosophy here.

GM: Have you a message for the Consortium?

MB: A football club is a public relations business that happens to play football. Running a successful football club has a lot to do with consistency of actions, treating people right and sending out consistent messages over the long term. Let's face it, it's not been a good start.

GM: And what of the future?

MB: Once a Swan, always a Swan. And I'll be around Swansea and West Wales for the next forty years or so, so you never know……..