Clarification from Paul Barber on Dick Knight Selling his shares

[Not Andy Naylor]

I agree with you to some extent, but what Dick said last night at the book signing was that he would have been quite happy for Bloom to have started as Vice Chairman, and for Dick to hand over Chairmanship to Bloom in due course - he had envisaged a symbolic handover at the first match at the stadium (either Spurs or Doncaster), with Dick them stepping down. But Bloom wanted the chairmanship from day one. Personally, I think that what Dick wanted would have been a reasonable compromise -- let Dick see through the stadium project to completion and then hand over the running of the board and club to the man who'd stumped up the dosh.

I agree that this would have been a reasonable compromise, but only until a big decision came up that they disagreed about. For example if, say, Tony demanded the sacking of Russell Slade but Dick opposed it, then what? Would Dick have done it against his own inclinations and passed it off as his decision? Would Tony have forced the issue? I can't see how it would have worked when push came to shove.

 

[Ernest]

That's one way of looking at it. But it ignores the question of what exactly does the Chairman of a football club do.

Stuff like building up a relationship with the big names in the game, realising that there's more to running a football club than paying for the stadium, establishing a rapport with the fans ...

DK had genuine concerns about TB's inexperience in these matters and felt that a DK/TB "double act" would have been a better way to go about it - leading in time to TB taking over as Chairman.

And what experience did the potless pillock have in 1997 ?

 

[Commander]

Maybe it would have saved the DK a lot of trouble and money if the Bloom family stepped up to the plate in 1997? Where were they then?

Well Tony Bloom was only 27 then, so I somehow doubt he had the kind of capital he has now.

It wasn't the fact that Bloom would take over as Chairman that DK found "galling", it was the fact that he wanted to do so immediately and without any discussion. As the book makes clear, DK decided that it was in the best interests of the Club and the fans to give way to Bloom's demands - although he hints that other (high risk) options were available to him.

It just sounds like an ego issue. Bloom had the means to build the Amex and take the club forward, Knight didn't. Why would Bloom want anything less than full, immediate control? If I was paying for, and building a stadium then I would want to be in total charge of it. And why would Knight find it galling seeing his beloved club finally realise it's aim for the last 15 years, just because someone else had done what he couldn't do? Everyone knows the role he played in getting us there, why should he be allowed to take the glory for the final, and arguably main, hurdle that he couldn't get us over himself?

I haven't read the book so maybe this is a bit harsh, but hinting that he had other options seems a bit 'playground' to me. I don't believe he did.

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

That's one way of looking at it. But it ignores the question of what exactly does the Chairman of a football club do.

Stuff like building up a relationship with the big names in the game, realising that there's more to running a football club than paying for the stadium, establishing a rapport with the fans ...

DK had genuine concerns about TB's inexperience in these matters and felt that a DK/TB "double act" would have been a better way to go about it - leading in time to TB taking over as Chairman.

I would suggest that Tony Blooms has proved those concerns were wrong.
The club is a massive business compared to what Dick had to deal with.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

You can't really argue with someone that has put £180,000,000 into the club and is putting in more every month.

And maybe that's a problem. Share ownership by fans would at least allow us to argue - or rather, sensibly raise concerns if we have any -at an AGM.

 

[BensGrandad]

Has it been forgotten that like many others TB kept us afloat at Withdean with his input of cash without which we wouldnt have lived to see The Amex. The chance to take over as chairman was his to take whenever he wished and he could have done so at Withdean but possibly chose to let DK carry on with The Amex as he was up to date with everything and everybody connected with its build and taking over as chairman then would possibly have rocked the boat too much

 

[Westdene Seagull]

And maybe that's a problem. Share ownership by fans would at least allow us to argue - or rather, sensibly raise concerns if we have any -at an AGM.

Indeed - and even if DK's sale doesn't go through it is something the club should do.

Has it been forgotten that like many others TB kept us afloat at Withdean with his input of cash without which we wouldnt have lived to see The Amex.

Agreed but it doesn't make him beyond questioning.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I agree that this would have been a reasonable compromise, but only until a big decision came up that they disagreed about. For example if, say, Tony demanded the sacking of Russell Slade but Dick opposed it, then what? Would Dick have done it against his own inclinations and passed it off as his decision? Would Tony have forced the issue? I can't see how it would have worked when push came to shove.

Yes, I agree with both sentiments.

The Chairman would normally have the final say, though he would of course pay due attention to what the major shareholder's opinion was. A way around that would be to draw up an agreement in advance that specified in which situations the major shareholder would have the final say (there's nothing to stop a business coming up with any agreement to cover such things). However, that would be very clunky.

In my experience, any incoming new major shareholder would insist on the Chairmanship as a condition of putting the money in.

It is regrettable that DK didn't get the "theatre" (his word) of handing over "the keys" at the first home game, but it's entirely normal practice that he didn't.

TB doesn't seem to have made that bad a fist of being Chairman, though he has undoubtedly done the job in a very different way to DK.

 

[Commander]

Has it been forgotten that like many others TB kept us afloat at Withdean with his input of cash without which we wouldnt have lived to see The Amex.

That does seem to get forgotten a lot. A lot of people seem to have it as Knight kept us afloat from 1997 - 2009 and then Bloom from 2009-2013. That's not quite the case.

 

[Simster]

That's one way of looking at it. But it ignores the question of what exactly does the Chairman of a football club do.

Stuff like building up a relationship with the big names in the game, realising that there's more to running a football club than paying for the stadium, establishing a rapport with the fans ...

DK had genuine concerns about TB's inexperience in these matters and felt that a DK/TB "double act" would have been a better way to go about it - leading in time to TB taking over as Chairman.

It's the only way of looking at it. It's nothing but egotistical nonsense on the part of DK to suggest Bloom shouldn't be running the show as soon as he liked, given that he's chucked hundreds of millions at the club, and given the fact that DK was unable to deliver on a stadium after TWELVE years without him.

And as Ernest points out, where was DK's experience in this field before 1997?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

And what experience did the potless pillock have in 1997 ?

I would suggest that Tony Blooms has proved those concerns were wrong.
The club is a massive business compared to what Dick had to deal with.

Two examples of what hindsight has to offer.

Back in 1997, no-one expected DK's chairmanship to deliver successive promotions and a string of top managers. All we were hoping for at the time was survival.

And, back in 2009, we fans were only interested in getting the stadium built. Even today, there are those who question whether the drive to maximise income has delivered quite the football club we would want.

 

[Ernest]

It's the only way of looking at it. It's nothing but egotistical nonsense on the part of DK to suggest Bloom shouldn't be running the show as soon as he liked, given that he's chucked hundreds of millions at the club, and given the fact that DK was unable to deliver on a stadium after TWELVE years without him.

And as Ernest points out, where was DK's experience in this field before 1997?

You could say Tony Bloom had more experience than Dick Tight did when he took over seeing as Harry & Ray Bloom were on the board for years and for Tight to say he needed to teach Tony Bloom to me would have been f**king insulting

 

[Tooting Gull]

That's one way of looking at it. But it ignores the question of what exactly does the Chairman of a football club do.

Stuff like building up a relationship with the big names in the game, realising that there's more to running a football club than paying for the stadium, establishing a rapport with the fans ...

DK had genuine concerns about TB's inexperience in these matters and felt that a DK/TB "double act" would have been a better way to go about it - leading in time to TB taking over as Chairman.

It's a real tough one this for any genuine Albion fan because ideally you would want neither of these guys' noses put out of joint.

But I just feel that it was getting to the stage where Knight's 'concerns' were a bit like me having concerns about what Cameron is doing. He's in power. I have to accept that, even if I don't like it.

 

[Buzzer]

And maybe that's a problem. Share ownership by fans would at least allow us to argue - or rather, sensibly raise concerns if we have any -at an AGM.

I disagree, it will just be like a plc AGM - a PR exercise, free tea and biscuits and nothing much said or decided. Any concerns that fans have or will have can already be expressed at the many fans' forums that Barber and Bloom attend and we sure as hell didn't need to be shareholders in 1997 to rise against a hostile board.

DK is giving fans the illusion of a say in how the club will be run but it's just that an illusion. A 1% stake spread around 2000 people will not change any decision the board makes one iota.

 

[symyjym]

Well Tony Bloom was only 27 then, so I somehow doubt he had the kind of capital he has now.

I said the Bloom family could have taken the responsibility of saving the club from going out of business. That's regardless of the fact it ended up with TB taking it over as the final result.

The point is the Bloom family had been connected with the Albion for decades and DK was the new guy on the block. Saving the Albion could have been a Bloom family initiative but only DK stepped up to the plate. We are talking survival, not building the Amex here.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I said the Bloom family could have taken the responsibility of saving the club from going out of business. That's regardless of the fact it ended up with TB taking it over as the final result.

The point is the Bloom family had been connected with the Albion for decades and DK was the new guy on the block. Saving the Albion could have been a Bloom family initiative but only DK stepped up to the plate. We are talking survival, not building the Amex here.

And who was it who turned up in Archer's team of two, to do battle with Dick Knight on the occasion that Knight first met Archer?

Not Greg Stanley, not David Bellotti, but ... Ray Bloom.

 

[Buzzer]

Even today, there are those who question whether the drive to maximise income has delivered quite the football club we would want.

"Drive to maximise income"? Barber and Bloom are trying to build a self-sustaining football club. The club has had to change its business model away from the Withdean days so that its long-term future is secure. That's the football club I want. Don't you?

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

I disagree, it will just be like a plc AGM - a PR exercise, free tea and biscuits and nothing much said or decided. Any concerns that fans have or will have can already be expressed at the many fans' forums that Barber and Bloom attend and we sure as hell didn't need to be shareholders in 1997 to rise against a hostile board.

DK is giving fans the illusion of a say in how the club will be run but it's just that an illusion. A 1% stake spread around 2000 people will not change any decision the board makes one iota.

I don't think anyone, least of all DK, has suggested that a few shares will give anyone a say in how the club is run. Have they?

 

[Creaky]

It's the only way of looking at it. It's nothing but egotistical nonsense on the part of DK to suggest Bloom shouldn't be running the show as soon as he liked, given that he's chucked hundreds of millions at the club, and given the fact that DK was unable to deliver on a stadium after TWELVE years without him.

And as Ernest points out, where was DK's experience in this field before 1997?

That's fine with hindsight and to date everything has turned out well - in fact better than well - but who knew how well it would turn out before TB was handed total control over the club?

It's easy to forget just how bad it can get when a "wrong'un" is in control.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

"Drive to maximise income"? Barber and Bloom are trying to build a self-sustaining football club. The club has had to change its business model away from the Withdean days so that its long-term future is secure. That's the football club I want. Don't you?

Of course. But fans are entitled to question some of the details. For example, the catering arrangements that seem to be selling 1901 Club customers short - to the point that sales volumes have crashed.