Derek Chapman has a swipe at DK

[Goldstone1976]

For how much longer

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...consultation-shareholder-voting-responses.pdf

Sure. Government can change the reporting requirements in the AR and the rules about Shareholder engagement whenever they wish by amending the Companies Act. Currently, what I posted is true. I posted simply to ensure that people don't think that if they buy a share, they will get more information than if they don't buy a share, because they won't. Neither will they if legislation regarding disclosure of Director's remuneration changes in the future since the way the disclosures will be reported is via the AR, which is in the public domain anyway.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I KNOW some people have made that suggestion.

But this is supposed to be a statement from Derek on his take on extracts of Dick's book. Stuff posted on NSC is a separate issue.

As explained already (repeatedly) the clarification of this issue was essential, in order for DC to put into full context his (financial) relationship with the club, and thus in order to make comparisons with that of DK. You understand this full well - I'm really not seeing the need for you to be so disingenious about it all.

 

[Buzzer]

Is this the same Derek Chapman who phoned me up about a year ago, complaining that Tony Bloom and Paul Barber weren't consulting him about decisions they were making? I seem to remember the crux of his complaint was that the directors who had put "real money" into the club were being sidelined, whereas other directors were being given a greater say in what happened.

And Derek now seems to be back on board with the rest of the board, so what's to worry about?

And there you've probably answered your own question. He had problems and spoke privately with friends about them. The culture change TB brought into the boardroom of BHA was bound to take a while to get used to for some of the old guard. Presumably DC hasn't phoned you recently to express the same concerns so he's settled them and is happy with the way things are run. It's a real shame that DK wasn't able to remain on the Board but perhaps that's the simple answer.

But hey, ho ... I remain grateful to Derek for his role in ensuring that the stadium is awash with real ale

Irrespective of which side you pick in a dispute between DK and DC we owe them both a darn sight more than just bringing beer to the Amex.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

It was in the argus. The same paper that in week 5 of the gus suspension had an article claiming he had turned down an offer of a financial settlement. Then two days later had an article in which they claimed no financial settlement had been offered. So, take it with a pinch of salt (like everything that seems to come from the club (and former club people) these days).

Got it.

 

[Pavilionaire]

What interests me about Derek Chapman's comments is that he declares the club as being broke in 2005 and the admission that the banks were never going to fund the construction of the stadium.

I recall at the time Dick was asked questions about how the stadium was going to be financed and he gave rather vague answers about how he couldn't tell us because that in itself could jeopardise the possibility of the funding. Suffice it to say he alluded to a mix of grants, advertising, sponsorship, naming rights and bank loans. I'm now left with the opinion that had Tony Bloom not financed the project himself it either wouldn't have happened or we'd have had to bring in some sort of Russian oligarch / Middle or Far Eastern business consortium to make it happen. It seems as though Knight began to think he WAS the Albion.

On a minor point re the director's loans I don't begrudge Dick Knight being repaid some of his capital.

 

[B.W.]

Where

Argus extract of his (DK's) book.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Irrespective of which side you pick in a dispute between DK and DC we owe them both a darn sight more than just bringing beer to the Amex.

Absolutely - all those shots of the Amex build taken from the air by DC, for instance. Knowing the price of private aviation, perhaps it's no wonder he wasn't as worried as some about getting his investment in the club back.

 

[B.W.]

As explained already (repeatedly) the clarification of this issue was essential, in order for DC to put into full context his (financial) relationship with the club, and thus in order to make comparisons with that of DK. You understand this full well - I'm really not seeing the need for you to be so disingenious about it all.

Of course he understands, but it doesn't suit his agenda to admit it.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Presumably DC hasn't phoned you recently to express the same concerns so he's settled them and is happy with the way things are run.

As it happens, at the beginning of this season, DC did speak with me (in Dick's Bar) - when he expressed the view that all fans should be pleased to see how the Club is being run at the moment, even if we might take some time to adjust to the fact that it's now a multi-million pound business. I don't disagree.

 

[Buzzer]

Absolutely - all those shots of the Amex build taken from the air by DC, for instance. Knowing the price of private aviation, perhaps it's no wonder he wasn't as worried as some about getting his investment in the club back.

Cheap shot and misses completely my point about being grateful to them all. How DC spends his own money shouldn't be used as a weapon against him with snide comments like yours.

 

[B.W.]

As it happens, at the beginning of this season, DC did speak with me (in Dick's Bar) - when he expressed the view that all fans should be pleased to see how the Club is being run at the moment, even if we might take some time to adjust to the fact that it's now a multi-million pound business. I don't disagree.

Ditto. Some still living in the past tho'. What are Dick's thought on this? Rhetorical question <-- See above for how he's failed to move with the times and Albion's new circumstances.

 

[B.W.]

Cheap shot and misses completely my point about being grateful to them all. How DC spends his own money shouldn't be used as a weapon against him with snide comments like yours.

Spot on.

 

[Acker79]

Got it.

Just researched the last time I posted it, seems there were five days between articles.

There was also a story in the argus a few days later saying no offer had been made.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/10487290.D_Day_looms_for_Poyet/ Sat 15th - "The Argus understands The Uruguayan has already rejected one financial offer to settle the dispute and sever his ties with the club during an exhaustive four-week investigation into his conduct. "
http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/10495880.Poyet_set_for_hearing/ thu 20th - " The Argus understands no financial offer has been made to him to settle his dispute and sever his ties with the club."

That was weird, and just one example of contradictory stories coming out. I doubt the paper would print them if they didn't have a solid source for each story. Clearly, even normally solid sources were sharing conflicting stories. All the more reason to take any single source with a pinch of salt.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Cheap shot and misses completely my point about being grateful to them all. How DC spends his own money shouldn't be used as a weapon against him with snide comments like yours.

If we bar cheap shots then NSC might as well be closed down. And in my cheap, snide way I was attempting to reiterate a point made earlier in this thread that some people might be better able to afford to leave money in the club than others. Good luck to anyone who earns vast amounts of dosh, especially TB.

 

[Buzzer]

If we bar cheap shots then NSC might as well be closed down. And in my cheap, snide way I was attempting to reiterate a point made earlier in this thread that some people might be better able to afford to leave money in the club than others. Good luck to anyone who earns vast amounts of dosh, especially TB.

So you have a pop at the Argus for mischief-making in this very thread and then admit that you're taking cheap shots at one of the directors. Journalists, eh?

In DC's defence - as I've already said - if DK demanded cash for shares then you can understand why DC is upset about it because those shares have no monetary value - a fact that DK was well aware of when converting his debt into shares. But I do also see why DK would have demanded the cash - and I suspect it wasn't a matter of DK needing the money but rather making a very important point to TB. Just my opinion though.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Yes, home and away. He sat with the fans at Doncaster. Didn't you see him there?

Yawn #1

 

[Hungry Joe]

Absolutely - all those shots of the Amex build taken from the air by DC, for instance. Knowing the price of private aviation, perhaps it's no wonder he wasn't as worried as some about getting his investment in the club back.

Yawn #2

 

[Peter Grummit]

Taking a step back, we should remember that many Premiership clubs have Directors who take a hefty salary or 'consultancy fees' out of their clubs by way of remuneration.

This episode reinforces, for me, the generosity of those who have run the club since the dark days. I suspect the highest paid Director referred to in the accounts is Martin Perry who must have worked all hours and done a fantastic job in delivering the Stadium - no-one would begrudge him remuneration commensurate to what is his 'day job' (remember he built Huddersfield for McAlpine). Reading this and other threads, the majority don't begrudge Dick getting at least some of his initial investment back - I know I don't.

As an aside, I have it from an original source that one of the people who put money in at the start - and has never taken it out - is Liam Brady.

PG

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

As an aside, I have it from an original source that one of the people who put money in at the start - and has never taken it out - is Liam Brady.

Not surprised he chipped in.

 

[Creaky]

I don't begrudge any of the directors fees they may be receiving for the work they are doing for the club in exactly the same way that I don't begrudge any payment made to DK - whether that was for shares or in recognition of the years of unpaid hard work and dedication he put into keeping the club afloat.

I just cannot get my head round those who say DK was wrong to ask for some 'compensation' as he stepped down but appear to be quite happy about ongoing payments to the current directors and shareholders.