Swindon Town believes the amount it owes to a company attempting to have it wound up is much lower than claimed.

Centreplate UK are attempting to have Swindon Town Football Company wound-up, claiming the company that runs the County Ground club owes it around £312,000.

They successfully applied to take over a winding-up petition started by AC Sports Wiltshire LLC, also known as Able, after that company’s attempts were dismissed by a judge earlier this year.

But the Robins has said it believes that the amount owed to Centreplate is actually much lower than claimed.

It also revealed that the next court hearing for the petition is later this month, should it not be settled beforehand.

The court has since revealed the next hearing is listed on November 9.

In the October minutes of the Swindon Town Advisory Board, posted on Monday, STFC said: “The Club will continue to contest as it believes the amount due to Centerplate is much lower than claimed, next court hearing due later in October, if not settled beforehand.”

The most recent hearing in London’s Insolvency and Companies Court saw Simon Hunter, who represents Centreplate, seek a substitution order, allowing his company to be inserted into the petition in place of Able.

But he said his client only received information regarding Swindon Town’s dispute over the debt late days earlier, meaning he had not had time to assess it and whether they wish to pursue it.

Mr Hunter said: “If it should be that my client don’t want to go any further, they can pull it without any bother.”

It was also revealed in the short hearing that Able “are probably out of time” to appeal the judge’s decision to dismiss their petition.

At a previous hearing at London’s Insolvency and Companies Court, it was heard that Swindon Town Football Company had entered into a loan agreement with Able in November 2019 of £100,000 with the intention of using the funds to pay overhead costs and staff wages. It was not to be used to pay other creditors.

But on receipt of the funds, Mr Power paid himself back.

Town had argued that the loan agreement was a sham.

Judge Baister said in his ruling: “A fuller story of how the loan was treated from time to time has only emerged as a result of opposition to the petition.

“That leads me to suspect that even more might emerge if full and proper disclosure… is given and the witnesses are cross-examined."