fRed Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 I think Scott Davidson loaned the club £1M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 So you have to hand over copious amounts of cash to your favourite club to be considered a "fan"? ← Nope - I have handed over copious amounts for about 40 years at my meagre level but I do expect a board worth collectively £100 million to sort out a few million debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimtastic Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Nope - I have handed over copious amounts for about 40 years at my meagre level but I do expect a board worth collectively £100 million to sort out a few million debt. ← Be lovely if they did, but I don't think it's very fair or realistic to expect them to do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Be lovely if they did, but I don't think it's very fair or realistic to expect them to do it... ← and why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimtastic Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 and why not? ← For the same reason that I wouldn't *expect* you to hand over a proportion of your savings to the club to help the debts. Just because they're rich, doesn't mean that they automatically have obligations. This kind of private financing happens rarely in football and there are people with substantially bigger personal fortunes working in football than the BCFC board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 They took the job on - they must accept the responsibilities that go with it - Abramovich(?) they are not but they do have more in a year than I can dream about in my lifetime - time to put up or shut up in my book. There will not be a queue to take over if they decide to go but I doubt their collective egos' will allow them to offer the chance to anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimtastic Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 They took the job on - they must accept the responsibilities that go with it - Abramovich(?) they are not but they do have more in a year than I can dream about in my lifetime - time to put up or shut up in my book. There will not be a queue to take over if they decide to go but I doubt their collective egos' will allow them to offer the chance to anyone else. ← Oh come on, Abramovic is a bit of a special case! He's got 7.5 billion quid and has invested a 50th of that in Chelski (£150m). If you look at the current board, I'd imagine they've collective invested a 50th of their (alleged) £100m fortune into the club over the years. Didn't Mr Gooch personally put money behind player purchases during the SD era? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 They took the job on - they must accept the responsibilities that go with it - Abramovich(?) they are not but they do have more in a year than I can dream about in my lifetime - time to put up or shut up in my book. There will not be a queue to take over if they decide to go but I doubt their collective egos' will allow them to offer the chance to anyone else. ← You should look into the alleged £100m wealth before you suggest they put in more cash. The large bulk of SteveL's wealth is in his shares of Hargreaves Lansdown. The majority of the remainder is Archie Gooch and I believe he has a similar stake in a business he used to run (engineering rings a bell?). You'll actually find that their CASH wealth is probably less than a tenth of the figure you quoted. Would you expect them to sell shares in a business they've built up over years to the extent they lose controlling interest in it to give the money to BCFC? Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 please don't raise Goochies name, I remain convinced that he said(paraphrased) "get rid of Davidson and I will invest plenty plus" - or words to that effect - can't say I noticed his huge investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nester Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 SL has a point and he's entitled to say it. He's a good bloke - get off his back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 SL has a point and he's entitled to say it. He's a good bloke - get off his back. ← Of course he is entitled to his view - as I am mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 I think SL was spot on in his article. I won't quote the whole of your comments, but agree completely with what you say. I read the article and came to similar conclusions to you. When reading comments on here I began to doubt that I had read the same words! Seems to me Steve had it about right, there were and still are, many on here who want Tins to fail! How bizarre is that, he manages the team we all support but some won't give him a chance and have been on his back from the very first game. Home games have been worse this season than I can remember in the last few years at least. We had a few bad home games last season and I don't remember the crowd being quite so bad - booing, moaning from the start, booing the team off at half time etc. Either way I can fully understand Steve's anger and frustration, it has been an interesting few weeks reading this forum and seeing such a negative attitude prevail. Anyone would think we were in a relegation battle - get rid of the chairman, sack the manager, players not good enough! Well we still have 10 more games after today and a chance (albeit slim) to get into the top 6. Not a great season but not a complete disaster either. PR and communication has been a problem at the club for a while, the badge "fiasco" maybe illustrates the point that some of us have raised before - more work needed on that one I think! But, how about we do lay off the manager and chairman until the end of the season???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Yawn - SL said anything other than auto promotion would be considered a failure and we ain't going to get that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Yawn - SL said anything other than auto promotion would be considered a failure and we ain't going to get that! ← Don't recall him using quite those words, but yes he and Tins did of course give the impression (through the BCFC media machine) that automatic promotion was the aim. Well what else do you expect them to say???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatWill Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 You got crystal balls mate ? The season aint over yet is it ? maybe this is the sort of thing SL was talking about ? ← You don't need a crystal ball to predict that we're not going to win automatic promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatWill Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Didn't notice the auto bit. But promotion is not out of reach... ← Fair enough - I beg to differ though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Didn't notice the auto bit. But promotion is not out of reach... ← This club my club is a total mess just like the badge, manager,chairman and players you don't know what your doing.3-0 Luton half time :@ who are they :@ sack the board sack the manager Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Really? I have the annual report and would be grateful if you could reference where you get that figure from. I was under the impression that the debt was in the form of loans totalling nearer the £2 million mark. ← You need to look at current liabilities (debts owed and to be repaid within the 12 months following 31/5/04) as well as the longer term debt. You then get a £6.6M debt. Interestingly, when you look at current liabilities, you'll spot that the board are planning to repay part of their directors' loans in the 12 months between 31/5/04 and 31/5/05 despite it being called 2006 debt. They're budgeting to repay themselves £585,910 despite their quote at the AGM that they are "not expecting" to get any of their debt repaid. Explain that to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.