Derek Chapman has a swipe at DK

[Hungry Joe]

Have I spent any time on this thread 'defending' Dick or getting offended by criticism of him?

Have I spent any time on this thread or the other DK one being black and white?

 

[Danny-Boy]

Financially, it wasn't.
If our club becomes worthless again, and some rich person turns up to save it, then I would be critical of TB if he wants his money back. If, however, our club has a good ground still, and is worth a lot of money, then I would expect TB to want a fair price for it.

Why should anyone expect to sell something for more than it's worth? TB has spent over £150m - why should he have had to also pay more than the club was worth to buy it in the first place? What if TB had said 'I'll pay you all what it's worth - nothing, and then spend £150m making it great' and Dick had said 'no thanks, we're doing great as we are'?

If TB walked away from the club, or more tragically, like the former Chelsea Chairman boarded the wrong helicopter, how much would the stadium be worth then on the open market? And could the club afford to buy it?

 

[ROSM]

I don't know why people feel the need to make these statements. The implication seems to be that if you disagree with DK that you don't think he's as you describe. DC pays tribute to DK in that article too. It's not a black and white issue.

I understand your point - perhaps i shouldnt have said it. I suppose I was second guessing that whenever I have spoken positively of dick knight in the past, that there are some who assume it means I don't like or support Tony Bloom. Given that there are many on here that see the article as being a black or white issue, I was trying to put my view that I don't think it is.

I agree with most of Dick Knights views in his book. There are however some things he has said I don't agree with (such as offering to have tb as a vice chair until the new stadium).

I don't agree with some things Derek Chapman has said in his article, but I do agree with most. I picked up on a couple that I commented on but thought I should make it clear that it doesn't mean I'm anti him

 

[The Large One]

Have I spent any time on this thread or the other DK one being black and white?

Apologies for the use of 'black and white' - not the correct term. It was picking up from Buzzer's phrase people needing to justify their opinions when Dick is part of the equation.

However, while I don't find it offensive, I did wonder why you were moved enough to post 'Yawn' to a response to a response to a question about DK's match attendance. The bloke said Dick was at Doncaster - how is that boring? I'm not asking you to justify it, it's merely an inner curiosity.

You're quite barbed about his character despite (or maybe even because), as you say yourself, you only ever meeting him twice, and each time you say that opinion was based on a look. Also, you've talked of an 'Inner Circle' who will defend DK to the hilt, and are blinded by their cozy relationship. In talking to a fair few of the 'Inner Circle' last week, many aren't too impressed with his treatment of certain individuals. Nor, on a separate note, am I. In other words, this 'coziness' - if it was ever there - doesn't really count for anything.

My overall point is, I feel your criticism of Dick is a bit unfair. We're all entitled to our opinions, of course, but there appears to be an equal and opposite sense of disdain in some quarters for Dick compared to the so-called 'Inner Circle'. Somewhere in between is the reality. We all know what he's like - dear God he treated Bill Swallow in ways I wouldn't want to be treated at times - but there appears to be an over-sensitivity about over-sensitivity from all sides.

 

[Buzzer]

I understand your point - perhaps i shouldnt have said it. I suppose I was second guessing that whenever I have spoken positively of dick knight in the past, that there are some who assume it means I don't like or support Tony Bloom. Given that there are many on here that see the article as being a black or white issue, I was trying to put my view that I don't think it is.

I agree with most of Dick Knights views in his book. There are however some things he has said I don't agree with (such as offering to have tb as a vice chair until the new stadium).

I don't agree with some things Derek Chapman has said in his article, but I do agree with most. I picked up on a couple that I commented on but thought I should make it clear that it doesn't mean I'm anti him

Fair enough.

 

[Stat Brother]

Apologies for the use of 'black and white' - not the correct term. It was picking up from Buzzer's phrase people needing to justify their opinions when Dick is part of the equation.

However, while I don't find it offensive, I did wonder why you were moved enough to post 'Yawn' to a response to a response to a question about DK's match attendance. The bloke said Dick was at Doncaster - how is that boring? I'm not asking you to justify it, it's merely an inner curiosity.

You're quite barbed about his character despite, as you say yourself, you only ever meeting him twice, and each time you say that opinion was based on a look. Also, you've talked of an 'Inner Circle' who will defend DK to the hilt, and are blinded by their cozy relationship. In talking to a fair few of the 'Inner Circle' last week, many aren't too impressed with his treatment of certain individuals. Nor, on a separate note, am I. In other words, this 'coziness' - if it was ever there - doesn't really count for anything.

My overall point is, I feel your criticism of Dick is a bit unfair. We're all entitled to our opinions, of course, but there appears to be an equal and opposite sense of disdain in some quarters for Dick compared to the so-called 'Inner Circle'. Somewhere in between is the reality. We all know what he's like - dear God he treated Bill Swallow in ways I wouldn't want to be treated at times - but there appears to be an over-sensitivity about over-sensitivity from all sides.

For me the problem stems from the 2 posters, I have seen, calling out everybody and anybody else who dare say a bad word against DK, over the share issue and then the further revelations.

This has instantly got many backs up, esp those of us who all but idolise DK for what he did, but feel he could have 'left' the Albion in a more dignified way.

This is what's lead to the battle lines being drawn, and opinions becoming more entrenched.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Apologies for the use of 'black and white' - not the correct term. It was picking up from Buzzer's phrase people needing to justify their opinions when Dick is part of the equation.

However, while I don't find it offensive, I did wonder why you were moved enough to post 'Yawn' to a response to a response to a question about DK's match attendance. The bloke said Dick was at Doncaster - how is that boring? I'm not asking you to justify it, it's merely an inner curiosity.

You're quite barbed about his character despite, as you say yourself, you only ever meeting him twice, and each time you say that opinion was based on a look. Also, you've talked of an 'Inner Circle' who will defend DK to the hilt, and are blinded by their cozy relationship. In talking to a fair few of the 'Inner Circle' last week, many aren't too impressed with his treatment of certain individuals. Nor, on a separate note, am I. In other words, this 'coziness' - if it was ever there - doesn't really count for anything.

My overall point is, I feel your criticism of Dick is a bit unfair. We're all entitled to our opinions, of course, but there appears to be an equal and opposite sense of disdain in some quarters for Dick compared to the so-called 'Inner Circle'. Somewhere in between is the reality. We all know what he's like - dear God he treated Bill Swallow in ways I wouldn't want to be treated at times - but there appears to be an over-sensitivity about over-sensitivity from all sides.

The yawn was not at DK being at Doncaster, but the 'did you not see him' bit which I read as being a sarcastic dig ala 'surely you must have been there yourself in order to pose such a silly question'. That's exactly the sort of stuff that gets up a lot of people's noses. I usually enjoy reading Not Andy Naylor's posts, but on this subject he seems to have gone a bit DK luvy at times. The second yawn was because it was a cheap shot, again fairly out of character, which further leads me to the conclusion that some people, including yourself, do really have a problem when people criticise DK. Not Andy Naylor has put that in more context since, happy to move on.

I maintain that based on my personal experience of DK he's not necessarily someone I'd warm to. Being ignored and looked at like you're something he's trodden in when you go up to try and shake the hand and have a chat with someone who you consider to be a hero would have a lasting affect on most people. I'm guessing he didn't like the look of me, being a 20-something skinhead as I was at the time. I have since spoken to other people who have less than complimentary things to say about how DK behaved towards them, and it is widely acknowledged that he has an ego problem. I can contrast that with the way TB treated me, chalk and cheese.

The point is that I, and others, have felt the need to have to qualify any criticism with what doesn't need spelling out, that we all owe DK a huge debt. We have been mainly made to feel we have to do that due to the responses from those who have made no secret that they know DK well, and that comes across as a bit super fan and arrogant at times. Maybe I am a bit over sensitive to that myself, and have read more into some posts than is intended. But that is just a symptom of what I see as a rather unhealthy attitude on here, whereby certain posters views are given more credence due to being part of the Falmer for All team, when in point their closeness to DK and the main players is probably part of the problem when trying to be objective.

Anyway, it's all a load of nonsense really isn't it. I've managed to bore the **** out myself..........again.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I usually enjoy reading Not Andy Naylor's posts, but on this subject he seems to have gone a bit DK luvy at times. The second yawn was because it was a cheap shot, again fairly out of character, which further leads me to the conclusion that some people, including yourself, do really have a problem when people criticise DK.

If you'd helped Dk to write the book in question, I guess you would bristle at criticism of its content?

 

[LamieRobertson]

The yawn was not at DK being at Doncaster, but the 'did you not see him' bit which I read as being a sarcastic dig ala 'surely you must have been there yourself in order to pose such a silly question'. That's exactly the sort of stuff that gets up a lot of people's noses. I usually enjoy reading Not Andy Naylor's posts, but on this subject he seems to have gone a bit DK luvy at times. The second yawn was because it was a cheap shot, again fairly out of character, which further leads me to the conclusion that some people, including yourself, do really have a problem when people criticise DK. Not Andy Naylor has put that in more context since, happy to move on.

I maintain that based on my personal experience of DK he's not necessarily someone I'd warm to. Being ignored and looked at like you're something he's trodden in when you go up to try and shake the hand and have a chat with someone who you consider to be a hero would have a lasting affect on most people. I'm guessing he didn't like the look of me, being a 20-something skinhead as I was at the time. I have since spoken to other people who have less than complimentary things to say about how DK behaved towards them, and it is widely acknowledged that he has an ego problem. I can contrast that with the way TB treated me, chalk and cheese.

The point is that I, and others, have felt the need to have to qualify any criticism with what doesn't need spelling out, that we all owe DK a huge debt. We have been mainly made to feel we have to do that due to the responses from those who have made no secret in hiding that they know DK well, and that comes across as a bit super fan and arrogant at times. Maybe I am a bit over sensitive to that myself, and have read more into some posts than is intended. But that is just a symptom of what I see as a rather unhealthy attitude on here, whereby certain posters views are given more credence due to being part of the Falmer for All team, when in point their closeness to DK and the main players is probably part of the problem when trying to be objective.

Anyway, it's all a load of nonsense really isn't it. I've managed to bore the **** out myself..........again.

Well thought out post imho

 

[The Large One]

The second yawn was because it was a cheap shot, again fairly out of character, which further leads me to the conclusion that some people, including yourself, do really have a problem when people criticise DK. Not Andy Naylor has put that in more context since, happy to move on.

I've seen a barrage of criticism over the past few days of Dick. A fair whack of it is perfectly reasonable - even if I don't agree with some or all of it.

It's the nonsense and re-writing history which - as you put it - gets up my nose.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Also, you've talked of an 'Inner Circle' who will defend DK to the hilt, and are blinded by their cozy relationship. In talking to a fair few of the 'Inner Circle' last week, many aren't too impressed with his treatment of certain individuals. Nor, on a separate note, am I. In other words, this 'coziness' - if it was ever there - doesn't really count for anything.

My overall point is, I feel your criticism of Dick is a bit unfair. We're all entitled to our opinions, of course, but there appears to be an equal and opposite sense of disdain in some quarters for Dick compared to the so-called 'Inner Circle'. Somewhere in between is the reality. We all know what he's like - dear God he treated Bill Swallow in ways I wouldn't want to be treated at times - but there appears to be an over-sensitivity about over-sensitivity from all sides.

Very much what I've found. Knowing someone doesn't mean being blind to their faults. And as for the opinions of whoever helped DK finish his book, I'd remind you of the saying "No man is a hero to his own valet."

Tony Bloom is a far more private person than DK and - because of the geography of the Amex, which means he doesn't get to bump into people before and after games - less of a known quantity to almost all of us. But I did once notice that he dunks his biscuits, and how can you not warm to such a man?

 

[Hungry Joe]

It's the nonsense and re-writing history which - as you put it - gets up my nose.

Well I certainly don't think I've done any of that.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Very much what I've found. Knowing someone doesn't mean being blind to their faults. And as for the opinions of whoever helped DK finish his book, I'd remind you of the saying "No man is a hero to his own valet."

Tony Bloom is a far more private person than DK and - because of the geography of the Amex, which means he doesn't get to bump into people before and after games - less of a known quantity to most us us, including me. But I did once notice that he dunks his biscuits, and how can you not warm to such a man?

A nice spot, indeed. As to the veracity of your assertion: if the biscuits were Rich Tea, TB is very clearly a class act. If however they were, say, chocolate hobnobs, the man's clearly a wrong 'un

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

A nice spot, indeed. As to the veracity of your assertion: if the biscuits were Rich Tea, TB is very clearly a class act. If however they were, say, chocolate hobnobs, the man's clearly a wrong 'un

Ah, now you're asking. Pretty sure they weren't Hobnobs of any description. It was at the Paul Barber unveiling at the Amex, so it was a selection of biscuits provided by the caterers, possibly Azure at the time. It might have been a Bourbon ...

 

[The Large One]

Well I certainly don't think I've done any of that.

I don't think you have either.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Ah, now you're asking. Pretty sure they weren't Hobnobs of any description. It was at the Paul Barber unveiling at the Amex, so it was a selection of biscuits provided by the caterers, possibly Azure at the time. It might have been a Bourbon ...

I thought this thread had established already that the positing of maybes, hypotheses and opinions is open to abuse, disdain and hostility. Have you learned nothing? Facts are what is required. Failing facts, unsubstantiated BS will do.

Bourbon, huh? Pretty much bang in the middle of a Rich Tea and a chocolate hobnob. I think that's a cautious, wary thumbs up from me, giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'll watch his dunking habits carefully in future though for any signs of slippage from the current barely acceptable level.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Quotes from Derek Chapman's comment piece:

"I think I’m well placed to make a few observations on the book’s content."

"Anyway, I do wish Dick good luck with his book. Like most lifelong Albion fans, I’m sure I will buy a copy!"

So it sounds like he hasn't read it then. Just the sensational, headline-grabbing, context-lacking bits reproduced elsewhere. Probably not THAT well placed to comment on its content then.

And I am by no means anti-Chapman. I just think it would have been more useful to read his thoughts, observations etc once he had actually read the book. I am sure there are lots of interesting and revealing observations he would have to make but without having actually seen ALL of what Knight had to say it sort of lacks a bit.

Why do people keep saying that Derek Chapman hasn't read the book? All he's saying is that he hasn't bought his own copy. Having a small pile of them on hand in the office would be one of the perks of being a director of Brighton & Hove Albion.

 

[blue2]

DK saved the club when no one else would and somehow kept it going TB took that on and is rebuilding the club literally from the ground up with out either of these Albion heroes we would not be where we are today

DK is selling a book he's a salesman always was always will be with out his selling ability we would not have been able to attract the level of managers we did this is all a storm in a tea cup

TB is BHAFC without him we have TB is the future the future is bright and very blue and white

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

I thought this thread had established already that the positing of maybes, hypotheses and opinions is open to abuse, disdain and hostility. Have you learned nothing? Facts are what is required. Failing facts, unsubstantiated BS will do.

Bourbon, huh? Pretty much bang in the middle of a Rich Tea and a chocolate hobnob. I think that's a cautious, wary thumbs up from me, giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'll watch his dunking habits carefully in future though for any signs of slippage from the current barely acceptable level.

But if the caterers had failed to prvide Rich Tea, a Bourbon could have been the best available option. And I only said it might have been a Bourbon, though I'm pretty sure it was a chocolate biscuit of some type.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Not naughty. Fair dealing in legal terms. And also likely to boost book sales rather than harm them, as I'm sure Dick knows very well.

I do know that DK was distraught when he heard, the afternoon before, the day of the Burgess Hill book signing, what the Argus was intending to do. Efforts were made to stop them doing what they did.