Tomo Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 He aint happy !!!He has said that he is v unlikely to invest more in the club.What a mess !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fingers Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 but why's he not happy? did he say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted September 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Seems to be working now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted September 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 He was not consulted on tin mans "sacking" ?????When asked about "tin man stepping down" he replied............you better speak to Brian about that.He has resigned as he feels that he has not been able to direct and as a director, that is his job.Sounds like SL AND KD have not exactly kept JL in the picture.Board split as in the Pulis days !!Oh well..................things get even worse for us !Tomo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MT1970 Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Basically said....He was not consulted about BT leaving.Has spoken to BT since he left and he was "asked" to step down.. ie Sacked by SL.He would have kept BT as manager and would have tried to rally everyone behind him.He will remain a shareholder, but not have a seat on the board.Wishes everyone all the best etc etc.Stated that he'd never say never about returning to the board one day.. (maybe hes thinking about a return for Scott D and Co.)BUT....WILL THE LAST PERSON TO LEAVE AG PLEASE TURN OUT THE LIGHTS!!!!I'm off up the pub... When i get back, no doubt John Ward will be back, with Scott Davidson playing a fanfare on his arrival, with the rest of Bros. (or whoever he tinkled the ivories with) flanked by a beaming Tony Robinson dressed as Blackadder.Just a thought... How much cash does the lead singer from Massive Attack have?? He's a season ticket holder in the Dolman.. I bet he's got some loot kicking about under his mattress. He's sold a few trillion albums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted September 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Daddy G and 3D can form the new board and maybe get SD to return to his keyboard. Imagine pre entertainment on match days !!You gotta a laugh, or we will have a "Teardrop" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fingers Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Basically said....He was not consulted about BT leaving.Has spoken to BT since he left and he was "asked" to step down.. ie Sacked by SL.He would have kept BT as manager and would have tried to rally everyone behind him.He will remain a shareholder, but not have a seat on the board.Wishes everyone all the best etc etc.Stated that he'd never say never about returning to the board one day.. (maybe hes thinking about a return for Scott D and Co.)BUT....WILL THE LAST PERSON TO LEAVE AG PLEASE TURN OUT THE LIGHTS!!!!I'm off up the pub... When i get back, no doubt John Ward will be back, with Scott Davidson playing a fanfare on his arrival, with the rest of Bros. (or whoever he tinkled the ivories with) flanked by a beaming Tony Robinson dressed as Blackadder.Just a thought... How much cash does the lead singer from Massive Attack have?? He's a season ticket holder in the Dolman.. I bet he's got some loot kicking about under his mattress. He's sold a few trillion albums.←Wow. That's pretty revealing stuff.I must say, I don't think I've ever seen the club in such a low / mess as it is at present (I was only 5 in 1982...)It's not a happy ship that SL is steering. It was the correct decision for Tinman to leave after the Swansea game: I think his position was untenable then, and I find it odd that the directors should be at each other's throats about this.No doubt more ammunition for the SL out brigade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 When i get back, no doubt John Ward will be back, with Scott Davidson playing a fanfare on his arrivalLaycock was no fan of Ward - he was mightily unhappy about how Wardy threw his toys out of the pram in March 98 when Goater was sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted September 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 In fairness to Ward, he was trying to keep his best players !!Hardly throwing toys out of the pram ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MT1970 Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 No doubt more ammunition for the SL out brigade.←Hope not... If SL was to resign and decide to take his money elsewhere, we WOULD be in the poo. Or just even further in it than we already are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tactical Genius Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Laycock was no fan of Ward - he was mightily unhappy about how Wardy threw his toys out of the pram in March 98 when Goater was sold.←If you were to look at the defining moment in time when the club stopped progressing it would be when Goater was sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCAGFC Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 John Laycocks' comments only go to prove that he knows NOTHING about professional football IMO. BCAGFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 If you were to look at the defining moment in time when the club stopped progressing it would be when Goater was sold.←Couldn't agree more, have said so on numerous occasions - all the man wanted was a wage that reflected his worth as a proven goal scorer. The board feared "revisiting 1982" because it would have encouraged other lesser players to ask for more ... and so they would but most of them could have been released as no great loss ... quite why the main playing asset was sacrificed then a ruddy fortune spent on lesser players in a (failed) attempt to replace him is what triggered the whole sorry saga of 1998. How much cheaper would it have been just to have fed the goat what he wanted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 If you were to look at the defining moment in time when the club stopped progressing it would be when Goater was sold.←Was'nt Akinbuyme bought as a replacement for Goater in the close season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tactical Genius Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Yes, for almost 3 times as much as we received for Shaun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Yes, for almost 3 times as much as we received for Shaun.←I cant remember, but how much did we sell Akinbuyme for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richieb Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Wow. That's pretty revealing stuff.I must say, I don't think I've ever seen the club in such a low / mess as it is at present (I was only 5 in 1982...)It's not a happy ship that SL is steering. It was the correct decision for Tinman to leave after the Swansea game: I think his position was untenable then, and I find it odd that the directors should be at each other's throats about this.No doubt more ammunition for the SL out brigade.←I don't think that it's more ammunition for the anti SL brigade.Strange events, but if JL was wanting BT to stay, then that would have gone against the wave of feeling amoungst fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Robin Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 I don't think that it's more ammunition for the anti SL brigade.Strange events, but if JL was wanting BT to stay, then that would have gone against the wave of feeling amoungst fans. ←richie if laycock wanted tinnion to stay,we are best rid of him what was the guy thinking.well done SL for taking the stance against tinman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tactical Genius Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 The profit made on Akinbiyi is irrelevant. Unless of course you think money is more important than league position.The point is we ended up with a lesser player. It's more than plausible that with Goater we would not have come straight back down in 99. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset_Cider Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Basically said....He was not consulted about BT leaving.Has spoken to BT since he left and he was "asked" to step down.. ie Sacked by SL.He would have kept BT as manager and would have tried to rally everyone behind him.He will remain a shareholder, but not have a seat on the board.Wishes everyone all the best etc etc.Stated that he'd never say never about returning to the board one day.. (maybe hes thinking about a return for Scott D and Co.)BUT....WILL THE LAST PERSON TO LEAVE AG PLEASE TURN OUT THE LIGHTS!!!!I'm off up the pub... When i get back, no doubt John Ward will be back, with Scott Davidson playing a fanfare on his arrival, with the rest of Bros. (or whoever he tinkled the ivories with) flanked by a beaming Tony Robinson dressed as Blackadder.Just a thought... How much cash does the lead singer from Massive Attack have?? He's a season ticket holder in the Dolman.. I bet he's got some loot kicking about under his mattress. He's sold a few trillion albums.←Are massive attack any good though?Bros were awful....... but SD still managed to make a lot of money from them..... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dazzler Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 I cant remember, but how much did we sell Akinbuyme for?←Around 3.5 million to Wolves, but Gillingham had a sell on clause of 40% of any profit we made. As we bought him for around 1.2 million the profit was 2.3 million. sounds good until you take the 40% off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grebes Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 In fairness to Ward, he was trying to keep his best players !!Hardly throwing toys out of the pram !←As we were on the brink of promotion too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Around 3.5 million to Wolves, but Gillingham had a sell on clause of 40% of any profit we made. As we bought him for around 1.2 million the profit was 2.3 million. sounds good until you take the 40% off.←Did we have a sell on clause when wolves sold him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Was'nt Akinbuyme bought as a replacement for Goater in the close season?←Yes, for almost 3 times as much as we received for Shaun.←The profit made on Akinbiyi is irrelevant. Unless of course you think money is more important than league position.The point is we ended up with a lesser player. It's more than plausible that with Goater we would not have come straight back down in 99.←I don't think the profit made on AA is irrelevant, particularly as you've pointed out that he cost about three times as much as Goater. I agree Goater was a better player but AA's scoring feats in that season were probably similar to what Goaters would have been, so I don't agree that we would have stayed up if the Goat had stayed, but its all conjecture anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted September 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Maybe Portishead could join the board with Daddy G and 3D.Its late........................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dazzler Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Did we have a sell on clause when wolves sold him?←Yes, interesting one this. Wolves sold him to Leicester for around 5 million and we had a sell on clause of around 10% of the profit. However, another club had a vested interest in this sale - you guessed it Gillingham, who, not content with 40% of the last profit collected another % (not sure what figure) of the profit of this deal - now that's what you call a sell-on clause. There seems to have been plenty of people with their fingers in the pies of any Ade transfers.Just to leave you with a thought - an ex-manager of Bristol City bought this player from Norwich to Gills, sold this player from Gillingham to us, sold him from us to Wolves and bought him from Palace? to Stoke. Although obviously he would not have benefited financially from any of these deals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted September 22, 2005 Report Share Posted September 22, 2005 Yes, interesting one this. Wolves sold him to Leicester for around 5 million and we had a sell on clause of around 10% of the profit. However, another club had a vested interest in this sale - you guessed it Gillingham, who, not content with 40% of the last profit collected another % (not sure what figure) of the profit of this deal - now that's what you call a sell-on clause. There seems to have been plenty of people with their fingers in the pies of any Ade transfers.Just to leave you with a thought - an ex-manager of Bristol City bought this player from Norwich to Gills, sold this player from Gillingham to us, sold him from us to Wolves and bought him from Palace? to Stoke. Although obviously he would not have benefited financially from any of these deals!←I think our clause with Wolves when he moved to Leicester was 20 or 30%. You're right that we had to give some of that money to Gillingham.Also, interestingly enough after Pulis left here he tried to claim that he was due money from Gillingham - a percentage of the profit they got when Pulis as City manager sold him to Wolves. Because, under his contract at Gillingham he had a proportion of any transfer funds received, and he was manager when they sold us Akinbiyi.I believe Gillingham told him in no uncertain terms which orifice to shove that in.Unsurprising to hear he was dismissed from Stoke for failing to exploit the foreign transfer market - I can't imagine the bonuses were as good!Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest routabout Posted September 22, 2005 Report Share Posted September 22, 2005 I think our clause with Wolves when he moved to Leicester was 20 or 30%. You're right that we had to give some of that money to Gillingham.Also, interestingly enough after Pulis left here he tried to claim that he was due money from Gillingham - a percentage of the profit they got when Pulis as City manager sold him to Wolves. Because, under his contract at Gillingham he had a proportion of any transfer funds received, and he was manager when they sold us Akinbiyi.I believe Gillingham told him in no uncertain terms which orifice to shove that in.Unsurprising to hear he was dismissed from Stoke for failing to exploit the foreign transfer market - I can't imagine the bonuses were as good!Nibor←Yup, there's a justified hate figure if ever I saw one. Pulis is without doubt one of the greediest, most unscrupulous toe-rags to have ever been involved in football, with the possible exception of El Tel. Pulis has had just about everyone over, that he has ever had dealings with. It was sweet indeed, to see him thrown out on his ear at Stoke. I hope he gets sued by somebody and gets some of his own medicine. Bankrupt the sleazy little git and reduce him to running a snack bar somewhere. Then we can all go and 'pay him a visit'. Now that's what I would call justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tactical Genius Posted September 22, 2005 Report Share Posted September 22, 2005 I don't think the profit made on AA is irrelevant, particularly as you've pointed out that he cost about three times as much as Goater. I agree Goater was a better player but AA's scoring feats in that season were probably similar to what Goaters would have been, so I don't agree that we would have stayed up if the Goat had stayed, but its all conjecture anyway.←No, you're mistaking volume of goals with goals of import. Without doing any research and working from memory a lot of Ade's goals were consolation goals. He missed hatfuls of chances when the scores were level or we were one goal behind. Goater had a cooler head and the goals he scored during his time here won more points for us, he wouldn't wait until 0-2 before finding the target.Like you say all conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzed Posted September 22, 2005 Report Share Posted September 22, 2005 Couldn't agree more, have said so on numerous occasions - all the man wanted was a wage that reflected his worth as a proven goal scorer. The board feared "revisiting 1982" because it would have encouraged other lesser players to ask for more ... and so they would but most of them could have been released as no great loss ... quite why the main playing asset was sacrificed then a ruddy fortune spent on lesser players in a (failed) attempt to replace him is what triggered the whole sorry saga of 1998. How much cheaper would it have been just to have fed the goat what he wanted?←At the time it came down to a tale of two Cities, Manchester and Bristol. There was and still is no comparison.No amount of money would have kept Shaun Goater at BCFC with MCFC sniffing around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.