Swindon Town's retort to the Trust only underlines why a rift between club and fans is widening

For the Trust, it marked a significant shift in tone: a sign that the group was prepared to press the club more forcefully, and perhaps lay the foundations for bringing the question of ownership further into the debate in the future.

The club’s response was lengthy, blunt and evidently irritated. It read as though Morfuni had taken the Trust’s criticism as a personal slight. The statement accused the Trust of misrepresenting key points and said it wanted to give supporters a more balanced picture. But a closer look at its arguments suggests the response was itself flawed.

Both sides are firmly convinced of their position. For many supporters, though, it is difficult to understand why this apparent Cold War is developing: what lies beneath the dispute, the history behind it and the interests shaping it.

Ultimately, the responding statement does not resolve those concerns. In several places, it sidesteps them. And some of its own claims warrant closer scrutiny.

The response - whether attributable to the club or Morfuni - was confident and sharp. And it was built around a simple charge: that the Trust has presented opinion and speculation as fact.

It contained factual points that are entirely acceptable. The club has continued to operate with owner funding. The Nigel Eady Will did not require the County Ground to be bought or supporters to be given ownership rights. The club does participate in fan engagement operations.

But the statement also misses the point in places, provides assertions without great evidence in others, and on occasion misrepresents reality.

No wonder fans are split on the issue.

It is important to try to scythe through the weeds here, and present the to-and-fro with clarity.

So, what follows is a section-by-section analysis of what the statement said, with inaccuracies challenged, and an alternative reading of the situation provided.

The below quotes directly from the statement, before digging into each citation. The direct quotes can be found in bold and italics.

Should you wish to refer back to the entire club response, it is available by clicking this link.

“The assertion that the Club has ‘lost its soul’ is a disservice to the staff, players, volunteers, supporters and community partners who work every day to make Swindon Town stronger.”

“While results and progress have not always met expectations, to suggest there is no passion, no hope and no commitment within the Club is simply wrong.”

Often, the current Town leadership is accused of not listening to the substance of what they are being told. And there is a clear example within the statement, in the passage about Swindon having ‘lost its soul’. The statement takes clear offence to a premise which it itself has created out of thin air: that there is no passion, hope or commitment inside the club. That is not the complaint the Trust were making.

A committed workforce and a disillusioned fanbase can exist at the same time. The Trust’s point was about how following Town feels to supporters: the sense that the club they care about has become disconnected, joyless and short of hope. It wasn't an accusation that every employee has stopped caring. By answering the latter, the statement avoided the former. Overlooking the genuine sentiment growing around the Town community is one of the mistakes this ownership makes repeatedly.

It is one thing to be stubborn and full of self-conviction, as Morfuni is - and has used to his success in his other businesses - it is another to find yourself in bother because of those characteristics, and not have the requisite level of introspection to realise you might need to change.

Morfuni and the club are entitled to challenge rhetoric. They should also be able to recognise the distinction between their own commitment and the experience of the people in the stands. Calling that experience ‘hopeless’ or ‘irresponsible’ does not make it disappear. Hope is a judgement supporters form from what they see, what they are told and whether promises are followed through.

“Millions of pounds have been invested to sustain Swindon Town Football Club and support its ambitions. These are not the actions of an owner who has abandoned the Club.”

“Much of the debt referenced by critics was inherited from previous ownership regimes. This included approximately £8million of historic debt.”

“Much is made of ownership, yet very little attention is given to the realities of football club finances. Swindon Town continues to operate because it has an owner willing to fund it.”

Okay, let's try to give attention to the realities of this club's finances.

Morfuni’s funding has undoubtedly helped Town pay bills and continue trading. In a football club where ordinary income does not cover all costs, money from an owner or related companies can provide the platform on which tickets, hospitality and sponsorship are sold. Without the cash, the Robins may not have been able to keep operating. Administration was a real risk in 2021, it was avoided. That was because of Morfuni. This is real support, and it would be wrong to dismiss it as meaningless.

But ‘investment’ is doing a lot of work in the club’s statement, and in the eyes of unhappy fans. As it has for a while.

In a broad sense, a loan can be an investment: money is advanced to support a business. In the company’s accounts, though, a loan is a liability. It has to be repaid under its terms. Equity is different: it absorbs losses and does not create the same repayment claim. An interest-free loan, like those we are told have been made to the club by Morfuni's companies, is cheaper than an interest-bearing one, but it remains debt.

A debenture can secure that debt against assets, and Morfuni has registered two against the club in the past six months - one of which has now been settled in full.

Over the duration of his reign, Morfuni and the senior Swindon leadership have talked long and hard about the pursuit of "sustainability". It is still not clear exactly how they plan to achieve this, or what it even looks like.

The latest accounts available cover the year to May 2025. Swindon reported turnover of £7.285m, total expenditure of about £10.1m and a net loss of around £2.57m. The club also received about £2.75 million in ownership funding during that year. The independent financial review described the club as technically insolvent (as so many football clubs, insanely, now are). The accounts show a business whose annual income did not cover its reported spending. It is still failing to find sustainability. But is it getting closer?

Turnover rose from £4.33m in 2020/21 to £7.285m in 2024/25, an increase of roughly 68 per cent. The consumer price index (CPI, a statistical measure that tracks the average change of core consumer prices over time) rose by about a quarter over the same period. In a sense, then, Swindon’s revenue growth did outpace headline inflation. But there are caveats.

The starting year, which ended before Morfuni took control, was heavily affected by Covid restrictions. CPI is also not necessarily a good indicator for the inflationary pressures felt by football clubs, who must deal with wages, matchday staffing, utilities, catering, travel, pitch maintenance and construction costs, among others. But the club is also losing more money each year. The steady increase in income has not yet meant a self-sustaining business.

The accounts identify £1.96m of loans from Axis Football Investments, a company controlled by Morfuni. The wider funding has been routed through companies in which he is the sole or majority shareholder, rather than through personal loans from him. The club and Trust have since referred to further lending and a debenture, while the latest public acknowledgement of owner-related support is around £12m.

Informed estimates cited by the Trust and other sources put the total higher, at about £14m. The Moonraker has separately reported that Morfuni has been providing roughly £2.5m to £3m a year towards operational costs, and that some funding has come from third parties as well as his own businesses. This was confirmed as being the case when Morfuni had to pay a third-party back for a loan which aided with the repayment of a previous debenture.

Morfuni says that his companies' loans into Town have not carried, and do not carry interest.

The club says the historic debt it inherited was around £8m, and repaying those creditors was evidently crucial to Morfuni being able to disassociate with the old. Yet, it is now evident that he has relied on other creditors to do so, at least in part. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul keeps the lights on and the chimney puffing. But the question is "what happens next?"

Which loans replaced them? How much is owed now, to whom, on what terms, and against which assets? Debt has been dealt with, allowing the club to function. But that does not mean the club is without liability.

The nature of Morfuni's investment, in loans, impacts his capacity to spend on football. This is a business decision, and his prerogative, but worth noting.

The EFL’s Salary Cost Management Protocol sets rules about which funding can support player and manager costs. Loans are not allowed within the calculation, unlike equity investment. When we look at the likes of Salford City, it is this financial loophole which allows a club with meagre support to outfight clubs four or more times the size - like Swindon - in the transfer market.

Can lending underwrite turnover? Yes. But is that support building towards something, or simply allowing water to be trod?

“While everyone would welcome increased revenues, commercial growth and on-field success, these things take time and require stability, not perpetual conflict.”

Of course, the statement is right to point to the pressures on costs. Since 2021, we have all faced sharp price rises. A club’s operating costs are not insulated from any of that.

The Moonraker has previously reported on the pure cost impact of Employer's National Insurance and minimum wage hikes, at a business that relies so heavily on casual labour, especially on matchdays.

But these points alone cannot explain Swindon’s financial position in the round. Turnover grew faster than CPI between 2021 and 2025, yet the club still spent considerably more than it earned in 2024/25.

The cost-base is changing - perhaps driven by an increase in playing budget. Is commercial income improving at the speed necessary to cover it, or is it simply requiring Morfuni and his companies to cover more costs in the form of loans?

“The Trust refers to a disconnect between supporters and the Club. We recognise that some supporters are frustrated and we take those concerns very seriously. However, it is simply inaccurate to suggest the Club has not prioritised supporter engagement.”

The statement's list of fan and community initiatives, while giving the air of a grumpy teenager, should not be waved away. Hospital visits, Community Foundation activity, ticket access, facilities for kids, special needs, the elderly and disabled fans, and improvements to general infrastructure can all have real value.

The club says it delivered more than 176 community engagements last season and provided more than 3,000 tickets to the Foundation this season. This is good engagement.

The list is less persuasive when it tries to make simple devices of governance, stadium maintenance, and concepts which have yet to be delivered as proof of community engagement.

Let's take a closer look, starting with the Advisory Board.

The AB is a valuable mechanism which is still yet to be widely adopted across the EFL, and ticks boxes both from a league perspective and from that of the fan lobby. That is a credit to the club. But an Advisory Board is only as good as its operation.

A previous model included supporter questions collected through more than one group and answers published with the minutes. The revised format is smaller, and the broader Q&A has fallen away. The Trust has also raised concerns about delays and disagreements over the wording of minutes.

The one-time commitment to publish minutes within seven days has been disregarded. The Moonraker has previously reported on disputes over how the meetings have been characterised. It is possible for an advisory board to be a good idea and for supporters to experience its current form as opaque. The existence of the channel does not answer whether people feel heard through it.

The Joint Venture Board is another example where the history matters. Creating a 50/50 partnership between the Club and Trust to acquire the County Ground was a significant act of community and supporter involvement. It gave supporters a stake in the ground’s future. The board that now manages the joint venture is, however, a governance body: it deals with the freehold, lease, maintenance and development of the stadium. Counting its routine management meetings as an ongoing fan-engagement initiative overstates what those meetings are for.

The Junior Reds Room is an excellent facility for young supporters. My six-year-old loves it, and it has given him a gateway to the club. But it is not a new invention, and the Official Supporters Club’s own account describes its role in launching and sustaining the room: buying equipment, contributing to refurbishment and providing volunteer time. It also credits Caroline Lane and her team, without whom the concept would vanish. This is a shared achievement involving staff and supporters, not a project that can fairly be attributed to the current ownership alone.

The Sensory Room was driven by Lane, and also required significant contributions from fan groups and local business. The Moonraker has funded equipment, in addition to sponsoring the terrific space last season. It has been a collaborative success, which it would not be right for any one party to claim.

The proposed Gaming Room is exactly that, a proposal. While it has been scoped out and designed, it is still not yet real. Its inclusion here was the equivalent of sticking "part-time retail assistant" on a CV for a graduate role in fintech. Laughably irrelevant.

How many family fun days have actually taken place since 2021? The statement lists these in the plural. Again, my six-year-old was thrilled to meet the players in the summer. But let's be honest with ourselves, this was a first attempt.

The Legends Lounge, the club shop and the digital screen all have potential benefits for supporters. But - and this is a considerable but - their main purpose is to drive diversified revenues. The screen was a gift to the club, but it is not legible to much of the stadium. And how much value do those who can view it clearly derive from a rotation of meerkat adverts and team logos?

There is a wider question of delivery. Supporters have criticised delays to facility work, including the Legends Lounge refurbishment and the shop frontage; one reported opening was followed by remedial work after the floor coating caused problems. This is the sort of issue which impacts on whether fans trust the club to deliver what it promises. The club may see this as unfair, and another example of an innocent mistake. But they are again missing the sociology around all this.

Swindon’s community work is important, but it also sits within a much wider EFL landscape. Clubs across the divisions run foundations, school programmes, hospital visits, access initiatives and family events. Fifty-four clubs achieved better grading in the 2025/26 EFL Family Excellence Scheme than Swindon. Town were one of 16 teams - interestingly including Wrexham - who recorded bronze. They have been bronze for three seasons. The engagement is there, but others are better at it (for now, at least).

“Under Clem Morfuni’s ownership, the Women’s Team has been brought fully in-house and based at the County Ground. This commitment has helped strengthen the women’s programme, culminating in promotion last season and providing a platform for future growth.”

There has been meaningful progress in the women’s programme. The teamnow plays at the County Ground and won promotion last season. Those are tangible achievements, not merely symbolism.

But the programme’s development has also relied on supporters, be that financially or via volunteer support. It has also been built over years by dozens of important individuals. Again, this is an example of community success, in which the club has played an important role. It is not right for any individual to claim it outright.

“The Will did not direct that the funds be used to purchase a football ground, nor did it impose any requirement that supporters be granted ownership rights. The beneficiary identified within the Will was Swindon Town Football Club, with the intention that the funds support the Football Club itself.”

“Clem Morfuni’s proposal to gift 50% of any future ground ownership structure to supporters was a voluntary and unprecedented gesture designed to create a lasting partnership between the Club and its fanbase. It was neither demanded by, nor derived from, the terms of the Will.”

The subject of Nigel Eady's benevolence, and the purchase of the County Ground, is one of the most critical flashpoints in this exchange.

Eady left a significant sum in his will for the good of football in the region, much of which was eventually used in the joint ownership of the stadium.

Yet the dynamics of this partnership, how it came about, how it was delivered, and who should take the credit continues to run rings aroud the fanbase.

The club is right on one narrow point: the will did not require the County Ground to be purchased, nor did it require supporters to receive ownership rights. But the statement goes further, saying the beneficiary identified in the will was Swindon Town Football Club, with the intention that the money support the club itself. The use of "the" as the definite article here is telling. It is also wrong.

The Moonraker has had sight of the will and can confirm that it identifies other possible beneficiaries, including county football associations and charities promoting football in the region.

The precise wording defines the beneficiaries as follows:

"Swindon Town Football Company Limited (“the Club”).

"Any professional football club formed following the liquidation of Swindon Town Football Company Limited and located within the Borough of Swindon or within ten miles of the County Ground.

"The County Football Association for each of Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire (“the Associations”).

"Any charity founded by or connected with the Club for the Club’s benefit or to promote football in the Swindon area, including the training of young players."

Frankly, it should have been pretty obvious that there were more beneficiaries than the club. After all, the Foundation - a separate entity - benefited from Eady's philanthropy to build the terrific dome, under which hundreds of children now learn the game.

In its statement, criticising the Trust for inaccuracies, the club's failure to recognise the true intention is striking.

The statement frames Morfuni sharing 50 per cent of the ground-ownership structure as a "voluntary and unprecedented gesture". This is true, but it would not be right for any individual other than Nigel Eady to be credited for this purchase. That money would not have been available to Town - under Morfuni's ownership or anyone else's - for the purchase of the County Ground were it not in a vehicle that had the fans in the passenger seat. Swindon Borough Council simply would not have sold, had that split not been in place.

“On redevelopment, the Club remains committed to improving the Nigel Eady County Ground and delivering a sustainable future for supporters and the wider community. Meaningful redevelopment requires investment, planning and broad stakeholder support. Progress is achieved through collaboration, not political point-scoring.”

“It is worth noting that, despite frequently commenting on redevelopment matters, the Trust has never publicly backed the Club’s development proposals.”

“It is also worth noting that the Trust has not contributed financially towards the architectural, surveying or professional costs associated with the redevelopment proposals.”

The Club is factually correct that Trust STFC did not publicly endorse its Don Rogers Stand proposal. But the Trust could not simply make that decision on behalf of its members. Its rules require a 75 per cent vote in favour, with at least 50 per cent participation. Turnout was 955 of 1,263 eligible members. There were 478 votes in favour; 717 were needed. The proposal failed, despite almost half of those who voted supporting it.

That is not the same as saying the Trust refused to engage. The Trust held consultations, gathered questions and later put forward a proposed safety net: protections around project funding and enforceable commitments on delivery.

The July 2025 joint-venture minutes record discussion of those safeguards and Morfuni’s objection to commitments that could allow the Trust to force changes to the scheme. That is relevant context for the club’s claim that constructive support would improve the chances of redevelopment.

The club says the Trust did not contribute to architects, surveyors or other professional costs. That is true. The club is developing the proposal and would carry those costs.

But the Trust is not the operator of the football club, and it does not automatically receive the hospitality income projected from the scheme. Nor would it benefit in any increase in the value of the club that the ownership may enjoy with an improved facility. Imagine the looks the Trust would get if, down the line, they went in search of a dividend.

The project has been reported at around £3m, with a six-year return target based on additional hospitality and commercial revenue. The Trust’s member feedback in the joint-venture minutes raised questions about payback, funding reliability and the business plan. A request for safeguards is not automatically obstruction. In fact, it is constructive criticism.

“The reality is straightforward. The Club’s leadership is not perfect, and mistakes will be made, as they are at every football club. However, to portray the current situation as hopeless or beyond repair is both inaccurate and irresponsible.”

“Supporters are entitled to their views, and constructive criticism will always have an important place in football and our Football Club. However, genuine progress is built on facts, collaboration and a shared desire to move forward together.”

The statement contains real achievements and real support. Yet, at the same time it sounds like the frustrated musings of a man who has leant an acquaintance £14m and still found himself unloved. Most of us might feel the same way if we somehow found ourselves in the same situation, but would we be able to honestly try to establish why?

Some parting words, which might be helpful in this pursuit.

A loan can keep the doors open and leave the company with a larger liability. A renovated room can improve matchday while also being a commercial asset. A board can meet regularly while supporters still find its answers too thin. A women’s team can win promotion while relying on volunteer and supporter backing.

None of this proves bad faith. It does, however, mean that the club’s case should be judged by outcomes as well as intentions. Increasingly, that is what's happening.

The club says it wants a shared desire to move forward. That can't be created by writing a list and asking fans to accept that the relationship is healthy.

Swindon’s supporters can recognise the work of staff, volunteers and players while still feeling that the club is losing touch with them. They can accept that Morfuni’s loans have kept the business operating while asking whether debt is a good route to sustainability. And they can back a better County Ground while asking who carries the risk and who benefits.

The statement’s most revealing omission was not a single disputed fact or figure.

It was the absence of any real measure of whether supporters believe the club is listening.

That is among the questions the Trust raised.

Until the club answers those questions with evidence, the argument about Swindon’s future will remain where it is now: a he-said, they-said with no sign of reconciliation.