Firstly I can't imagine anyone firing a loaded gun publicly without having tangible evidence at their disposal. AW is not an uneducated person as far as I can see. Board statement left questions unanswered as ultimately the land issue aside they confirmed no-one knew about stage 1 application until after it had been made, what would have happened if it had reached stage 2 without anyone's knowledge? Very strange that any application especially given it passed stage 1 and went to stage 2 allegedly had incorrect land showing. Also strange the actions of the SMFC Board banning AW given from what I have read at no point has AW made any allegation against the club nor the club board but rather against Kibble so why the ban. Also, given another poster on this forum claims to have provided the initial story freelance to the press who in turn would naturally then contact parties for further comment. If that is the case then again it's not AW who has gone directly to the press. To my mind this is only going to be resolved by both sides putting respective evidence on table. Maybe it would be an idea for Smisa to appoint an independent auditor with no affiliation to kibble or any other party to investigate the allegations provided they are given access to all documents pertaining to the application from Kibble and the Council together with any associated Club Board minutes when it was discussed. The outcome of that investigation should in theory identify what actually happened and who is right/wrong and then any appropriate action could be taken thereafter. We can all speculate as to who is right/wrong and statements can be worded in any way to potentially hide key facts or muddy the position without giving clear facts. Only time will tell what the truth actually is and how this resolves one way or other for all parties.