| Lucketti quits 22:38 - Jan 14 with 48793 views | fitzochris |
News emerging... [Post edited 14 Jan 2018 22:38]
|  |
| |  |
| Lucketti quits on 09:54 - Jan 19 with 2955 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Lucketti quits on 00:09 - Jan 19 by BURYFC_1885 |
A Stewart Day type takes over Rochdale and debts soar, this Day type then orders £50k to the Dale Trust or they lose communication with the board as well as their HQ on the site of the club if they speak out against said chairman.
Please explain RAFCBLUE, what Rochdale fans would do differently in that situation.
I'll await your well thought out response. |
I don't think your question is right around the circumstances of what happened with FB.
In fact, the scenario of "debts soaring" is alien to us. We live within our limited means and pay our bills. That's the massive difference.
In your example, FB was ON the board when SD arrived or at the very least was attending the meetings via representation.
FB had been involved with your club in many ways prior to the arrival of the Chur WITHOUT issue.
What (in my limited understanding) occurs is that to STAY on the board FB is asked to stump up £50k.
What changed?
FB were unwilling, unable or both to stay at the table.
I'd like to think that our Trust would have introduced dialogue and kept that dialogue going. As good and bad as things have been for us over many years respective Chairmen, CEO's and club directors WILL meet our trust.
And for me, it does an awful lot of good. Our trust members aren't paid and volunteer their time and expertise for the enjoyment of this club.
What type of board would want to lose communication with its biggest income source - the fans?
What type of chairman would fret over the hosting of a football forum of opinion and remove funding for those fans?
Not ours.
In fact, if we got an ownership set we didn't trust we'd talk about it and understand it and challenge it.
Lots of things have been challenged when we don't agree via our Trust. It doesn't always get changed but it is a great and impressive thing. |  |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 10:00 - Jan 19 with 2937 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Lucketti quits on 00:00 - Jan 19 by Shun |
To be fair to the Bury fan, he wasn't lauding Lucketti, he was just expressing why the man is seen as a legend at Bury. |
In a team that was ultimately unaffordable and funded by stolen money? That's the trophy that Lucketti picked up.
I have the same issue with Stockport btw. They robbed us of the enjoyment of Wembley with a team they couldn't afford. 3 years later the administration bubble had burst and they had gone south.
It's financial doping at its worst and the game needs rid of those cheating.
I've no problems with clubs with big financial backers - if you make money then you can choose how to spend it.
I've no sympathy with those who run up losses on the never-never and then stiff local businesses when it all goes wrong. | |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 10:16 - Jan 19 with 2889 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Lucketti quits on 08:35 - Jan 19 by aleanddale |
Who really picks the team.
Day.... he certainly puts his two penneth in.... Maybe Lucketti didn't like this.
Also >>
Summed up on Beardyman yesterday a comment along the lines of.....
if we go into admin and "take the hit this season" ( points deduction ) that would be best.... Then we can be league 2 champions in 2018/19.
Have some fookin humility!!!!!!! |
Always planning to cheat the system. Sums the situation up.
They have until the third Thursday in March (15th) to declare that if they want to get it done this season. | |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 10:22 - Jan 19 with 2876 views | TVOS1907 |
| Lucketti quits on 09:36 - Jan 19 by kel |
Given you called everyone on here “tossers” the other week because of one persons post on Beckford I reckon you’ve gotten off quite lightly. And I speak from experience here. [Post edited 19 Jan 2018 9:36]
|
Same here... |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 10:22 - Jan 19 with 2876 views | TVOS1907 |
| Lucketti quits on 09:36 - Jan 19 by kel |
Given you called everyone on here “tossers” the other week because of one persons post on Beckford I reckon you’ve gotten off quite lightly. And I speak from experience here. [Post edited 19 Jan 2018 9:36]
|
| |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 10:36 - Jan 19 with 2843 views | D_Alien |
| Lucketti quits on 02:20 - Jan 19 by kiwidale |
D_Alien behave yourself your an educated man what was that fancy word you used last year vacuous was it?... what I said is "Don't let them bully you" I did not accuse anybody of being a bully although I can see how you got confused. likewise I did not accuse anybody of gloating what I said is "some may gloat" and "this is not a time for gloating" the only person accusing anybody and the only person mistaken is you.
What does leafy mean? [Post edited 19 Jan 2018 5:54]
|
Just read your own post back to yourself to see what it means |  |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 10:54 - Jan 19 with 2800 views | BURYFC_1885 |
| Lucketti quits on 10:00 - Jan 19 by RAFCBLUE |
In a team that was ultimately unaffordable and funded by stolen money? That's the trophy that Lucketti picked up.
I have the same issue with Stockport btw. They robbed us of the enjoyment of Wembley with a team they couldn't afford. 3 years later the administration bubble had burst and they had gone south.
It's financial doping at its worst and the game needs rid of those cheating.
I've no problems with clubs with big financial backers - if you make money then you can choose how to spend it.
I've no sympathy with those who run up losses on the never-never and then stiff local businesses when it all goes wrong. |
Whilst your attitude towards sustainability is commendable, you overstate it as a cloak for bitterness, in my opinion.
It's odd how you don't speak ill of Hereford, Darlington, Chester, Newport et al. Only teams that have had a taste of success it seems.
You're not wrong on the dodgy funding part, but it also reads as very bitter.
The problem with being a Dale fan when you try throwing dirt on other clubs is that you will never win. You support Rochdale, the least successful club in the football league. For all the ill spending going on at Bury, and it is not right, at least we have something to show for it.
This holier than thou attitude would have more weight to it if Rochdale had a history of any kind, then you would be able to flaunt the success of your clubs model. They don't, despite their sustainable approach. This in itself should be questioned.
I do support a sustainable approach, but posts such as these do come across with a hint of jealously when in comes from a Rochdale supporter. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lucketti quits on 13:06 - Jan 19 with 2590 views | dingdangblue |
| Lucketti quits on 10:54 - Jan 19 by BURYFC_1885 |
Whilst your attitude towards sustainability is commendable, you overstate it as a cloak for bitterness, in my opinion.
It's odd how you don't speak ill of Hereford, Darlington, Chester, Newport et al. Only teams that have had a taste of success it seems.
You're not wrong on the dodgy funding part, but it also reads as very bitter.
The problem with being a Dale fan when you try throwing dirt on other clubs is that you will never win. You support Rochdale, the least successful club in the football league. For all the ill spending going on at Bury, and it is not right, at least we have something to show for it.
This holier than thou attitude would have more weight to it if Rochdale had a history of any kind, then you would be able to flaunt the success of your clubs model. They don't, despite their sustainable approach. This in itself should be questioned.
I do support a sustainable approach, but posts such as these do come across with a hint of jealously when in comes from a Rochdale supporter. |
" at least we have something to show for it."
I'm guessing that your attitude will change when you go bust and lose your ground. |  |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 14:20 - Jan 19 with 2479 views | BURYFC_1885 |
| Lucketti quits on 13:06 - Jan 19 by dingdangblue |
" at least we have something to show for it."
I'm guessing that your attitude will change when you go bust and lose your ground. |
The ground cannot, from what I gather, be lost. It's listened as both a community asset and under planning regulations the land can only be used for sport and leisure purposes. | | | |
| Lucketti quits on 14:28 - Jan 19 with 2466 views | judd |
| Lucketti quits on 14:20 - Jan 19 by BURYFC_1885 |
The ground cannot, from what I gather, be lost. It's listened as both a community asset and under planning regulations the land can only be used for sport and leisure purposes. |
It can be lost to Bury FC |  |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 14:40 - Jan 19 with 2440 views | Shun |
| Lucketti quits on 10:00 - Jan 19 by RAFCBLUE |
In a team that was ultimately unaffordable and funded by stolen money? That's the trophy that Lucketti picked up.
I have the same issue with Stockport btw. They robbed us of the enjoyment of Wembley with a team they couldn't afford. 3 years later the administration bubble had burst and they had gone south.
It's financial doping at its worst and the game needs rid of those cheating.
I've no problems with clubs with big financial backers - if you make money then you can choose how to spend it.
I've no sympathy with those who run up losses on the never-never and then stiff local businesses when it all goes wrong. |
Yes, of course, I agree with that. But the Bury fan still wasn't lauding. He wasn't bragging about how they'd been in The Championship and we haven't, he was just explaining why Lucketti is seen as such a legend there, in response I think to someone questioning why he's still spoken of highly despite his terrible results as manager. |  | | |
| Lucketti quits on 14:41 - Jan 19 with 2440 views | BURYFC_1885 |
| Lucketti quits on 14:28 - Jan 19 by judd |
It can be lost to Bury FC |
Well yes, but Bury FC will also be lost in that case.
I presume the council would take control of the stadium and any pheonix type club would rent off the council. | | | |
| Lucketti quits on 14:50 - Jan 19 with 2412 views | dingdangblue |
| Lucketti quits on 14:41 - Jan 19 by BURYFC_1885 |
Well yes, but Bury FC will also be lost in that case.
I presume the council would take control of the stadium and any pheonix type club would rent off the council. |
The council wouldn't own it? Hasn't Stewie borrowed money using the ground as collateral - so whoever's lent you the money would own the ground would they not? | |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 15:03 - Jan 19 with 2366 views | judd |
| Lucketti quits on 14:50 - Jan 19 by dingdangblue |
The council wouldn't own it? Hasn't Stewie borrowed money using the ground as collateral - so whoever's lent you the money would own the ground would they not? |
We could host a Freddie Mercury tribute act show on it - show 'em how it's really done! | |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 15:16 - Jan 19 with 2324 views | dingdangblue |
| Lucketti quits on 15:03 - Jan 19 by judd |
We could host a Freddie Mercury tribute act show on it - show 'em how it's really done! |
Although he wouldn't be able to sing "we are the champions" - coz we've won nowt! (Although it didn't stop that dj at the Town Hall promotion parade that time). | |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 15:17 - Jan 19 with 2320 views | MoonyDale |
| Lucketti quits on 14:41 - Jan 19 by BURYFC_1885 |
Well yes, but Bury FC will also be lost in that case.
I presume the council would take control of the stadium and any pheonix type club would rent off the council. |
The council would have no say as Stewie or one of his companies would own the ground and land it stands on. They may have input as to what it can be used for but am sure the fat lad could throw up a nice sports and conference center to fill his pockets..... |  |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 15:17 - Jan 19 with 2323 views | HK_Dale |
| Lucketti quits on 10:54 - Jan 19 by BURYFC_1885 |
Whilst your attitude towards sustainability is commendable, you overstate it as a cloak for bitterness, in my opinion.
It's odd how you don't speak ill of Hereford, Darlington, Chester, Newport et al. Only teams that have had a taste of success it seems.
You're not wrong on the dodgy funding part, but it also reads as very bitter.
The problem with being a Dale fan when you try throwing dirt on other clubs is that you will never win. You support Rochdale, the least successful club in the football league. For all the ill spending going on at Bury, and it is not right, at least we have something to show for it.
This holier than thou attitude would have more weight to it if Rochdale had a history of any kind, then you would be able to flaunt the success of your clubs model. They don't, despite their sustainable approach. This in itself should be questioned.
I do support a sustainable approach, but posts such as these do come across with a hint of jealously when in comes from a Rochdale supporter. |
So my take on this monologue is that it really boils down to: "Yeah, we shafted a lot of local businesses, paid pennies in the pound, nearly went bust, shook some buckets, but at least we had some success - so what's the problem?!"
You compound this by then saying that the sustainability of the Rochdale model is questionable as, well, Rochdale hasn't had any success.
You should come off you're pedestal mate, the "Bury" approach to getting to the Championship (which is now history repeating itself) is to use monopoly money to fund it. Which is not just morally questionable but also just ethically bad business. In the end it's the local community who suffers, either those who have not / will not be paid for services rendered, or the fans who will no longer have a club to support. |  | | |
| Lucketti quits on 15:17 - Jan 19 with 2321 views | judd |
| Lucketti quits on 15:16 - Jan 19 by dingdangblue |
Although he wouldn't be able to sing "we are the champions" - coz we've won nowt! (Although it didn't stop that dj at the Town Hall promotion parade that time). |
That was a mayor, wasn't it? | |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 15:21 - Jan 19 with 2310 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Lucketti quits on 10:54 - Jan 19 by BURYFC_1885 |
Whilst your attitude towards sustainability is commendable, you overstate it as a cloak for bitterness, in my opinion.
It's odd how you don't speak ill of Hereford, Darlington, Chester, Newport et al. Only teams that have had a taste of success it seems.
You're not wrong on the dodgy funding part, but it also reads as very bitter.
The problem with being a Dale fan when you try throwing dirt on other clubs is that you will never win. You support Rochdale, the least successful club in the football league. For all the ill spending going on at Bury, and it is not right, at least we have something to show for it.
This holier than thou attitude would have more weight to it if Rochdale had a history of any kind, then you would be able to flaunt the success of your clubs model. They don't, despite their sustainable approach. This in itself should be questioned.
I do support a sustainable approach, but posts such as these do come across with a hint of jealously when in comes from a Rochdale supporter. |
"For all the ill spending going on at Bury, and it is not right, at least we have something to show for it."
I'm afraid it's that attitude that is why our clubs and operational styles completely differ. If you watch Rochdale it's ingrained in you from birth that you live within your means.
You can read something in print however you like and try to spin what you see to try and fit. You can't change history and you can't change facts.
You don't see us talking about Hereford, Darlington, Chester, Newport et al because they don't come here.
The least successful club in the football league is currently Forest Green Rovers. To their credit, they are run incredibly well and getting better. We both might be playing them next year.
The honourable things would be for your rabble, on the other hand, would be to go bust ASAP.
Whilst watching your circus gives some of us humour, there are well run, respectable businesses that need paying by your club without needing to file CCJ's.
And facts are facts. The bury promotion to the 2nd tier, twenty years ago, was funded by stolen money.
Theft.
The victims of Eaves crimes took him through the courts. He had to sell all his assets - including the North Wales manor house!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/1999/dec/06/7
Your biggest fan and benefactor taking something (approximately £15m) that didn't belong to them by your biggest fan and then spending it recklessly, some as the Guardian reported on bury FC
The fallout of the Eaves issue was an administration for you.
Bury, placed into administration on 1 March 2002 by their two directors, John Smith and Fred Mason, had debts of around £2.6m, including a £1.35m mortgage secured on Gigg Lane. The High Court allowed the administrator two weeks to raise £370,000, Bury's running costs — mostly players' wages — for the season, or the club would be wound up.
The borrowings of bury are now significant about £2.6m and there is a mortgage on your ground.
So whilst my view on sustainability is commendable, my view on historic theft and misappropriation is at least consistent and robust.
I don't like it and never will.
When clubs stiff ordinary working businesses and people who need the money owed to them then I've no time for that business.
So remind us - how did the current ownership of bury get their hands on the controlling shares and associated voting rights of the club previously owned by FB again? We assume some money changed hands. | |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 15:22 - Jan 19 with 2303 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Lucketti quits on 15:17 - Jan 19 by MoonyDale |
The council would have no say as Stewie or one of his companies would own the ground and land it stands on. They may have input as to what it can be used for but am sure the fat lad could throw up a nice sports and conference center to fill his pockets..... |
They can always play on Lower Gigg. | |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 15:29 - Jan 19 with 2284 views | TVOS1907 |
| Lucketti quits on 15:17 - Jan 19 by judd |
That was a mayor, wasn't it? |
Danny?
#obsessed | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 15:29 - Jan 19 with 2284 views | TVOS1907 |
| Lucketti quits on 15:17 - Jan 19 by judd |
That was a mayor, wasn't it? |
| |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Lucketti quits on 15:50 - Jan 19 with 2244 views | BURYFC_1885 |
| Lucketti quits on 15:21 - Jan 19 by RAFCBLUE |
"For all the ill spending going on at Bury, and it is not right, at least we have something to show for it."
I'm afraid it's that attitude that is why our clubs and operational styles completely differ. If you watch Rochdale it's ingrained in you from birth that you live within your means.
You can read something in print however you like and try to spin what you see to try and fit. You can't change history and you can't change facts.
You don't see us talking about Hereford, Darlington, Chester, Newport et al because they don't come here.
The least successful club in the football league is currently Forest Green Rovers. To their credit, they are run incredibly well and getting better. We both might be playing them next year.
The honourable things would be for your rabble, on the other hand, would be to go bust ASAP.
Whilst watching your circus gives some of us humour, there are well run, respectable businesses that need paying by your club without needing to file CCJ's.
And facts are facts. The bury promotion to the 2nd tier, twenty years ago, was funded by stolen money.
Theft.
The victims of Eaves crimes took him through the courts. He had to sell all his assets - including the North Wales manor house!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/1999/dec/06/7
Your biggest fan and benefactor taking something (approximately £15m) that didn't belong to them by your biggest fan and then spending it recklessly, some as the Guardian reported on bury FC
The fallout of the Eaves issue was an administration for you.
Bury, placed into administration on 1 March 2002 by their two directors, John Smith and Fred Mason, had debts of around £2.6m, including a £1.35m mortgage secured on Gigg Lane. The High Court allowed the administrator two weeks to raise £370,000, Bury's running costs — mostly players' wages — for the season, or the club would be wound up.
The borrowings of bury are now significant about £2.6m and there is a mortgage on your ground.
So whilst my view on sustainability is commendable, my view on historic theft and misappropriation is at least consistent and robust.
I don't like it and never will.
When clubs stiff ordinary working businesses and people who need the money owed to them then I've no time for that business.
So remind us - how did the current ownership of bury get their hands on the controlling shares and associated voting rights of the club previously owned by FB again? We assume some money changed hands. |
Sorry, I stopped reading after you claimed Forest Green were incredibly well ran. They are bankrolled by Dale Vince and are in more debt than Bury. Probably one of the least sustainable clubs in the country. [Post edited 19 Jan 2018 15:51]
| | | |
| Lucketti quits on 15:53 - Jan 19 with 2226 views | BURYFC_1885 |
| Lucketti quits on 09:54 - Jan 19 by RAFCBLUE |
I don't think your question is right around the circumstances of what happened with FB.
In fact, the scenario of "debts soaring" is alien to us. We live within our limited means and pay our bills. That's the massive difference.
In your example, FB was ON the board when SD arrived or at the very least was attending the meetings via representation.
FB had been involved with your club in many ways prior to the arrival of the Chur WITHOUT issue.
What (in my limited understanding) occurs is that to STAY on the board FB is asked to stump up £50k.
What changed?
FB were unwilling, unable or both to stay at the table.
I'd like to think that our Trust would have introduced dialogue and kept that dialogue going. As good and bad as things have been for us over many years respective Chairmen, CEO's and club directors WILL meet our trust.
And for me, it does an awful lot of good. Our trust members aren't paid and volunteer their time and expertise for the enjoyment of this club.
What type of board would want to lose communication with its biggest income source - the fans?
What type of chairman would fret over the hosting of a football forum of opinion and remove funding for those fans?
Not ours.
In fact, if we got an ownership set we didn't trust we'd talk about it and understand it and challenge it.
Lots of things have been challenged when we don't agree via our Trust. It doesn't always get changed but it is a great and impressive thing. |
You have failed to answer the question. Instead again deciding to ramble about the merits of your current chairman. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
