I have previously mentioned that I have made past mistakes. After spending many days reflecting on the situation, I realised that making a spelling error in this statement would be a mistake. What I did in 2013 was not a mistake, it was a crime, I broke the law. I have to own that situation and be strong enough to deal with the consequences. The shame and embarrassment I felt before it was made public was always there. What I feel now is real pain. I do not agree that me opening up at the Fans Forum in February would have created me a more supportive response, I actually think it would have been catastrophic. But, I should have been honest in January before taking control of your club. I should have given you the supporters the opportunity to decide if the honesty would have outweighed the crime I committed in the past.
I have a stain on my personal character that I am now certain I can never wipe clean. Unfortunately, whilst I am your owner the club will carry that same stain and for that I am truly sorry.
What The Athletic set out to do is not how it is being portrayed. It was a character assassination, carried out either as a personal vendetta, or on behalf of someone else. It cannot be considered an article created in the public interest. For this article to be in the public interest it would have had to discuss everything about me in a fair and balanced way. It did not do that. It would also have to consider the ramifications for the public.
I have already discussed the club's current financial position and the fact that it is a completely unattractive proposition for anyone. Therefore any article going against the Rehabilitation Act would need to demonstrate that destroying my life and potentially killing a football club, which is what it was trying to do, is in the public interest.
The article failed to mention anything since my rehabilitation period ended. Assisting and donating to charities, taking another club from the brink of liquidation to a seven-day-a-week thriving non-league football club. I helped with the integration and growth of a town's junior section, which currently has over 600 children playing grassroots football in unity. It fails to mention the large sponsorships or the million pound 4G surface I installed with my business partner for the benefit of the community and children.
No, the article only wanted to publicise things that I was found NOT guilty of in order to muddy the waters before releasing information about a spent conviction they had no legal right to publicise. This was not great investigative journalism either, this was pre-packaged for The Athletic, and also contained no mention that prior to the convicted offence and since I was convicted there has been no other convictions.
The Athletic also reported me to the Football Association. Despite this, they did not feel it appropriate to wait for the outcome of that investigation before releasing their article. The reason for this is that they have full knowledge that my conviction was spent and that I did not break any rules in not declaring it. If the Football Association themselves do not require notification of a spent conviction at the time of my application, or indeed now at this level and even on the new EFL applications my conviction would not cause my application to fail, then how can The Athletic deem this to be in the public interest. This matter is now in the hands of my lawyers.