By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Exactly. Are they just putting up with it, to the extent of nearly bankrupting the club - and themselves?
It's something they should be focused on extracting the club from, and make that clear to us all. Do we have anyone with expertise in the fanbase in such matters?
Not a complete solution by any means, but I can remember the days when the players warmed-up for an evening game by the light of a single floodlight. Not a single pylon - a single bulb.
That's my starter solution. There must be others. If we're not using it, we won't have to pay for it.
I thought Simon started off in his normal upbeat manner and as the night went on he seemed totally deflated and, if I'm honest, ill. George Delves spoke well and positively in tough circumstances. Richard Knight seemed at the end of the line with it all. Murray Knight didn't speak. However, what the hell was Jamie Sarsfield playing at? I'm surprised it's not been mentioned more on here but his behaviour was absolutely unfit for any role in any organisation during a public meeting. Can anyone explain why he behaved like this or have any justification for this. My nails nearly burst through the table I felt that awkward during his outbursts.
I recall someone was angrily taken to task for sarcastically laughing during the explanation of how they had tried to woo investors.
The sarcastic/theatrical/attention seeking laughing was in response to SG answering a question on the terms of the loan, where he was open and said it would be subject to 6% interest. SG went on to explain the situation where rates for Commercial Loans are much higher if they can be secured by a football club at all.
I agree JS's tone could have been more professional, but he was absolutely right to take the (super)fan to task. When the tables were turned, said fan had nothing of substance to say and even had the temerity to say he hadn't laughed, despite the entire room having seen and heard it seconds earlier!
The sarcastic/theatrical/attention seeking laughing was in response to SG answering a question on the terms of the loan, where he was open and said it would be subject to 6% interest. SG went on to explain the situation where rates for Commercial Loans are much higher if they can be secured by a football club at all.
I agree JS's tone could have been more professional, but he was absolutely right to take the (super)fan to task. When the tables were turned, said fan had nothing of substance to say and even had the temerity to say he hadn't laughed, despite the entire room having seen and heard it seconds earlier!
It is interesting isn't it. I am thinking about the finance options. Commercial finance would be a no-no for the club in the current financial state and would probably need directors guarantees if anybody was to bite. The rates would be north of 12% and unaffordable.
Richard and Simon said they were borrowing the money and were looking for an interest rate of circa 6% from the club to service that debt. They weren't bothered how long the capital was outstanding so long as the club was paying interest that allowed them to service that debt. At somewhere between 4-6% cost to them they are borrowing it, I can only assume that they are taking out mortgages on their own assets to be able to borrow at those rates. If it is their own family homes then it is remarkable really. I would advise them not to do it - but they see it as the only way to keep the club going. They really are in this up to their elbows and I don't think anybody who understood it thought it was funny. I respect them even more now
The sarcastic/theatrical/attention seeking laughing was in response to SG answering a question on the terms of the loan, where he was open and said it would be subject to 6% interest. SG went on to explain the situation where rates for Commercial Loans are much higher if they can be secured by a football club at all.
I agree JS's tone could have been more professional, but he was absolutely right to take the (super)fan to task. When the tables were turned, said fan had nothing of substance to say and even had the temerity to say he hadn't laughed, despite the entire room having seen and heard it seconds earlier!
I thought Simon started off in his normal upbeat manner and as the night went on he seemed totally deflated and, if I'm honest, ill. George Delves spoke well and positively in tough circumstances. Richard Knight seemed at the end of the line with it all. Murray Knight didn't speak. However, what the hell was Jamie Sarsfield playing at? I'm surprised it's not been mentioned more on here but his behaviour was absolutely unfit for any role in any organisation during a public meeting. Can anyone explain why he behaved like this or have any justification for this. My nails nearly burst through the table I felt that awkward during his outbursts.
Jamie was quite rightly miffed by the supporter heckling Simon as he gave an honest open answer. Don't forget these directors have been through an awful lot together the last couple of years so will stand up quite rightly to any disgraceful behaviour towards them. As Jamie said it's £350k it's an awful lot of money the two directors are willing to risk putting into the business.
It is interesting isn't it. I am thinking about the finance options. Commercial finance would be a no-no for the club in the current financial state and would probably need directors guarantees if anybody was to bite. The rates would be north of 12% and unaffordable.
Richard and Simon said they were borrowing the money and were looking for an interest rate of circa 6% from the club to service that debt. They weren't bothered how long the capital was outstanding so long as the club was paying interest that allowed them to service that debt. At somewhere between 4-6% cost to them they are borrowing it, I can only assume that they are taking out mortgages on their own assets to be able to borrow at those rates. If it is their own family homes then it is remarkable really. I would advise them not to do it - but they see it as the only way to keep the club going. They really are in this up to their elbows and I don't think anybody who understood it thought it was funny. I respect them even more now
For 'interesting', read frightening. But yes, my thoughts pretty much align with yours.
The only bit of ambiguity, which only resonated once I'd got home (and has been mentioned on this thread) was the suggestion by RK that the loans were spending his son's inheritance. I think that was more of a general comment from RK regarding ploughing his (family) into the club.
Offering to loan the club £350,000 of their own money (to be voted on in line with the Morris Resolution) is to be applauded.
Offering to loan the club £350,000 of their own money (to be voted on in line with the Morris Resolution), having taken on a personal loan to make the interest rate even slightly palatable, is to be applauded.
Jamie was quite rightly miffed by the supporter heckling Simon as he gave an honest open answer. Don't forget these directors have been through an awful lot together the last couple of years so will stand up quite rightly to any disgraceful behaviour towards them. As Jamie said it's £350k it's an awful lot of money the two directors are willing to risk putting into the business.
Jimmy Mac had spoken several times about behaviours and attitudes.
As a senior representative of any organisation you should be able to behave better than Mr S did..at an open forum ..behind closed doors..fine.
Pathetic and utterly embarrassing as there was no way that could have been answered. Which the person asking knew was the case.
Full credit to George Delves for fielding the question, despite interruptions as he was answering.
(For anyone reading that may have asked the question, up voting a post doesn't cancel out or remove the down vote originally added. You're welcome.)
As the person who asked the question, I'd agree with a fair amount of the criticism it's received. Although the upvote downvote was routine clumsiness on my part. I'm happy to name and shame myself without the need to communicate like that.
It wasn't a fun question for anyone concerned. It was an embarrassing situation and I certainly didn't enjoy asking the question. I think I used the phrase awkward but necessary when asking it, and I still feel that way. I've no regrets about raising the topic. During the club's recent difficulties, the day to day role of running the club has rested with George. At a time when the board is receiving a lot of flack for operational issues at the club, it genuinely feels relevant to me for him to be brought into that discussion.
I certainly did interrupt him, which was very uncouth of me, but given he started to discuss things like picking teams, which wasn't what I asked, I felt that awkward but necessary feeling again to bring it back to topic.
I appreciated Simon's response, although I actually expected him to say something in support of George's contributions. I didn't personally think it was unanswerable, although I can see why others might.
Anyone who knows me in real life will be well aware that I'm hardly a beacon of sensibility. The topic and the way I went about it might be seen as embarrassing or pathetic by some, fair enough, but the question was entirely genuine.
Do you really know what Delves' job remit is though Tom ? To effectively blame all the ills of the club on one person without knowing for sure that a particular issue is definitely within his sphere of influence is ungenuine on your part IMO.
As the person who asked the question, I'd agree with a fair amount of the criticism it's received. Although the upvote downvote was routine clumsiness on my part. I'm happy to name and shame myself without the need to communicate like that.
It wasn't a fun question for anyone concerned. It was an embarrassing situation and I certainly didn't enjoy asking the question. I think I used the phrase awkward but necessary when asking it, and I still feel that way. I've no regrets about raising the topic. During the club's recent difficulties, the day to day role of running the club has rested with George. At a time when the board is receiving a lot of flack for operational issues at the club, it genuinely feels relevant to me for him to be brought into that discussion.
I certainly did interrupt him, which was very uncouth of me, but given he started to discuss things like picking teams, which wasn't what I asked, I felt that awkward but necessary feeling again to bring it back to topic.
I appreciated Simon's response, although I actually expected him to say something in support of George's contributions. I didn't personally think it was unanswerable, although I can see why others might.
Anyone who knows me in real life will be well aware that I'm hardly a beacon of sensibility. The topic and the way I went about it might be seen as embarrassing or pathetic by some, fair enough, but the question was entirely genuine.
[Post edited 4 Aug 2023 14:07]
Correct me if I am wrong, but having asked your 'question', when Delves attempted to answer, you interrupted cockily with something along the lines of "You don't get to give your own appraisal"? If I heard correctly, then how exactly was that a question of any use? You never questioned the function of the club. You publicly targeted an employee. Totally unacceptable and honestly something straight out of a bury fc forums. If I however misheard you and that wasn't said, I apologise.
I thought Simon started off in his normal upbeat manner and as the night went on he seemed totally deflated and, if I'm honest, ill. George Delves spoke well and positively in tough circumstances. Richard Knight seemed at the end of the line with it all. Murray Knight didn't speak. However, what the hell was Jamie Sarsfield playing at? I'm surprised it's not been mentioned more on here but his behaviour was absolutely unfit for any role in any organisation during a public meeting. Can anyone explain why he behaved like this or have any justification for this. My nails nearly burst through the table I felt that awkward during his outbursts.
Nonsense. Jamie Sarsfield (and others) were angry with the insinuations being made by a sad attention seeker in the audience. JS responded appropriately and in defence of Simon Gauge. I was pleased that he did.
I think both Directors SG and RK are brave men, committing such massive personal funds (in addition to those funds previously supplied) to keep the every day running of the club on an even keel.
No-one can say that an investor will appear this week, next week, next month or whenever. The £350,000 that they are stumping up is a magnificent gesture and if I was doing that, I would also want it secured. I have no argument with that. They also made it clear that the loan is not for any specific period of time, it will exist until the appropriate investor is found.
They made it clear that they were seeking the 'right investor', not just 'any' investor and that there were several NDA's in force and live discussions taking place. I was heartened to hear that, and other details after what seemed an eternity of silence.
It seems to me that both men were sincere in their desire to do the best they can for the club and to see it thrive in the future, but at the moment it needs propping up and they are prepared to fill the gap.
What other options are there, and from who? I don't see a viable alternative to be honest.
“It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooledâ€
Correct me if I am wrong, but having asked your 'question', when Delves attempted to answer, you interrupted cockily with something along the lines of "You don't get to give your own appraisal"? If I heard correctly, then how exactly was that a question of any use? You never questioned the function of the club. You publicly targeted an employee. Totally unacceptable and honestly something straight out of a bury fc forums. If I however misheard you and that wasn't said, I apologise.
TomRAFC has already explained his awkwardness in posing a perfectly valid question to the BoD about performance of an employee
I get that makes some people very uncomfortable, but take the shareholder database issue (for instance). That could create a huge headache for the club and these issues need to be aired. Perhaps those who can't stand heat should avoid kitchens, but in general, the principle of accountability over-rides niceties imo
As the person who asked the question, I'd agree with a fair amount of the criticism it's received. Although the upvote downvote was routine clumsiness on my part. I'm happy to name and shame myself without the need to communicate like that.
It wasn't a fun question for anyone concerned. It was an embarrassing situation and I certainly didn't enjoy asking the question. I think I used the phrase awkward but necessary when asking it, and I still feel that way. I've no regrets about raising the topic. During the club's recent difficulties, the day to day role of running the club has rested with George. At a time when the board is receiving a lot of flack for operational issues at the club, it genuinely feels relevant to me for him to be brought into that discussion.
I certainly did interrupt him, which was very uncouth of me, but given he started to discuss things like picking teams, which wasn't what I asked, I felt that awkward but necessary feeling again to bring it back to topic.
I appreciated Simon's response, although I actually expected him to say something in support of George's contributions. I didn't personally think it was unanswerable, although I can see why others might.
Anyone who knows me in real life will be well aware that I'm hardly a beacon of sensibility. The topic and the way I went about it might be seen as embarrassing or pathetic by some, fair enough, but the question was entirely genuine.
[Post edited 4 Aug 2023 14:07]
You're question included a mention of transfer policy is it possible that this is why GD started talking about team selection?
[Post edited 4 Aug 2023 15:09]
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
TomRAFC has already explained his awkwardness in posing a perfectly valid question to the BoD about performance of an employee
I get that makes some people very uncomfortable, but take the shareholder database issue (for instance). That could create a huge headache for the club and these issues need to be aired. Perhaps those who can't stand heat should avoid kitchens, but in general, the principle of accountability over-rides niceties imo
A perfectly valid question if asked in a proper way. It was worded like a tabloid hack would and had any of the board given the answer the asker was aiming for, it could potentially add to those huge headaches.
A perfectly valid question if asked in a proper way. It was worded like a tabloid hack would and had any of the board given the answer the asker was aiming for, it could potentially add to those huge headaches.
The question, in essence, was about the monitoring of performance i.e. is it happening? The heightened emotions around recent events are something we as fans are used to expressing, including at games, which is pretty public
BJ dealt with these issues directly and with aplomb. His employers could learn from him
TomRAFC has already explained his awkwardness in posing a perfectly valid question to the BoD about performance of an employee
I get that makes some people very uncomfortable, but take the shareholder database issue (for instance). That could create a huge headache for the club and these issues need to be aired. Perhaps those who can't stand heat should avoid kitchens, but in general, the principle of accountability over-rides niceties imo
There wasn't any awkwardness in posing the question. It was gleefully read from a script, including a quip about GD performing his own appraisal.
It wasn't a question asked with an expectation of getting a direct answer, TomRAFC has admitted as much above by saying he expected SG to talk about GD's contributions.
Let's be honest, it wasn't a question at all. It was a pre-planned performance.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
