Boardroom Coup!

[aftershavedave]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair bet!!

I thought that but I would have been accused of bullying if I would have mentioned it

blimey i'm in trouble now

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair bet!!

blimey i'm in trouble now

I would put the tin hat on now if i were you.

 

[London Irish]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair bet!!

strange bed-fellows those two sentences.

You missed the subordinate clause "because of his track record" then?

 

[Publius Ovidius]

missed it? I dont understand what it means.

 

[aftershavedave]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair bet!!

You missed the subordinate clause "because of his track record" then?

"missed"

 

[Seagull73]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair bet!!

You missed the subordinate clause "because of his track record" then?

His track record has absolutely no bearing on trust, it helps, but is by no-means cut and dried.

What was that promise about no one man should ever have control of the club again? It certainly feels that way at the moment...!

And don't misunderstand that, I am not saying that any other investors is the way forward, all I am saying is do we know who we can trust at the moment, and that doesn't automatically mean we can trust the chairman....

 

[London Irish]

hang on a minute...this is how business works.

we cant attract investors now because we have no assets....when falmer comes up we will have an asset ( and millions of debts) so we will be able to attract investors.

simple really

Not really, you missed out the important bit that the interests of short-term speculators and the long-term business are not necessarily the same.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

That goes without saying though.

At the end of the day Banks will not lend us any money because we have no assets. Ask ROSM and Dwayne.

There is no question of a short term investor is there?

 

[Icy Gull]

. Ask ROSM and Dwayne.

?

Are they an item then?

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Are they an item then?

sshhhh

that wasnt meant to get out

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair bet!!

There is no way that the Argus would have printed a representation of Dick Knight's views from a single "interested" source - that would cost Andy Naylor his business relationship with Knight for ever more. This is the basics of journalism.

I get the impression that the relationship between Naylor and DK reached rock bottom some time back.

Neither of them will say so publicly, of course.

 

[London Irish]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair bet!!

I get the impression that the relationship between Naylor and DK reached rock bottom some time back.

Neither of them will say so publicly, of course.

I hear what you are saying about their personal relationship Lord B and it could well be that they cannot stand the sight each other - but for me, a rock bottom business relationship would be the stewards stopping you going into the Goldstone, not being given a column in the match programme this season

The issue that seems to be at dispute here, from the Realist at any rate, is whether Naylor wilfully mislead Argus readers on Monday by saying that "Knight is strongly in favour of the Scot keeping his job".

For me, there is no way Naylor would have used such categorical language unless he had spoken to Knight off the record or at the very least a source close to him with no axe to grind. If the entire story had been concocted by McGhee from the 19th hole of a golf course and Naylor has been unable for whatever reason to confirm it with the chairman, Naylor would certainly have written something like "Sources within the club backing McGhee claim that Knight is strongly in favour of the Scot keeping his job...."

You would have had just as sensational a story but Naylor would have safeguarded himself against a charge from anyone (including his own bosses) of either wilfully or negligently misleading Argus readers.

And let's be clear - we know in another media context that Dick Knight is not averse to contacting senior editorial managers if he feels he is not being fairly represented

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair bet!!

I get the impression that the relationship between Naylor and DK reached rock bottom some time back.

Neither of them will say so publicly, of course.

Local journos ALWAYS fall out with football club chairmen tho. Look at Gillingham.

 

[Jim in the West]

What I understand (and this is third hand, and therefore not entirely reliable) is that DK is not necessarily supportive of MM, but has taken note of the support which most fans have given MM this season (viz: MM and BB got significant applause from the South Stand on Sunday before kick-off). Perhaps ironically, it seems like it's "fan power" that's keeping MM in his job. After Sunday's debacle I think the balance may have swayed somewhat, with (a) a pathetic attendance, (b) a pathetic team performance, and (c) loads of fans voicing their displeasure, mostly aimed at MM.

If DK was erring on the side of keeping MM in his job before the weekend, that could have changed significantly by yesterday.

And if DK's missus really does read NSC (apparently), then the sentiments expressed on here in the last few days may make a difference....

 

[London Irish]

And if DK's missus really does read NSC (apparently), then the sentiments expressed on here in the last few days may make a difference....

I thought he was famously a widower. Fair play if NSC's coverage reaches that far! (or if he has remarried in recent years).

 

[Pavilionaire]

Relegation will mean the club's income from TV and sponsorship will drop. We will therefore be forced to sell our very best young players.

Knight knows that we can get decent money for the likes of Virgo and Harding while we are in the Championship, but will get peanuts in League 1 or lower.

Therefore, it is crucial we hit the ground running in August with a squad who are competitive. I'm glad to hear there is a debate in the boardroom about whether McGhee is the right man to take us back up again.

There is no way that the board could possibly be united behind McGhee after that abject performance on Sunday.

 

[Icy Gull]

.

There is no way that the board could possibly be united behind McGhee after that abject performance on Sunday.

As long as they accept their share of the responsibilty by not having invested enough in the team and leaving players in limbo re their future , I don't have a problem with them having doubts. Shifting all the blame onto McGhee I have a big problem with. The board are equally as culpable as McGhee for this relegation imo. Not that I'm blaming anyone.

 

[Jim in the West]

I thought he was famously a widower. Fair play if NSC's coverage reaches that far! (or if he has remarried in recent years).

Me too, actually - perhaps "missus" should be read as "other half, married or not"