Derek Chapman has a swipe at DK

[Titanic]

Dick Knight got £400,000 back (and left with some shares) from the £2million he invested which helped save the club.

... I don't think Dick Knight is unreasonable in expecting some of his money back.

Why? Will other fans be getting their Forty Notes, or cash stuck in buckets back?

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Another thing I thought of when I read DC's statement - he appears to be defending himself against criticism that hasn't been levelled at him, at least not by Dick (i.e. that he cashed in on Albion-related projects).

It seems to me that various people at The Amex got jumpy about what Dick might say about them, but hasn't. What does that tell you?

It's yet another case of people having an opinion about the book without actually reading it. Can we have a thread for people who've read the book to discuss it, and another for people who haven't, where they can air preconceptions and recycle thoughts based on a few Argus extracts?

As for the Argus, who are they getting tomorrow? Martin Perry? Marc Sugarman? By the end of this week the entire board will have had their say. Like DK, they have a product to sell.

And speaking of the Argus, does anyone remember this from 2007? Read all the way down to the end and see if a name jumps out at you ....

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1714296.print/

 

[Billy the Fish]

Another thing I thought of when I read DC's statement - he appears to be defending himself against criticism that hasn't been levelled at him, at least not by Dick (i.e. that he cashed in on Albion-related projects).

That's been said plenty of times on NSC, so he must be aware that some people think he did. I guess it seeded like a good time to have his say on a few things.

 

[Beach Hut]

I just hope Tony Bloom maintains his dignified silence and just lets the potless pillock continue to show everyone what he is really about

I am sure he will, man of few words when holding all the aces.

 

[Norman Potting]

I have only just started reading it but there are enough favourable mentions of Liam Brady to confirm his legend status in my mind.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It seems to me that various people at The Amex got jumpy about what Dick might say about them, but hasn't. What does that tell you?

It's yet another case of people having an opinion about the book without actually reading it. Can we have a thread for people who've read the book to discuss it, and another for people who haven't, where they can air preconceptions and recycle thoughts based on a few Argus extracts?

As for the Argus, who are they getting tomorrow? Martin Perry? Marc Sugarman? By the end of this week the entire board will have had their say. Like DK, they have a product to sell.

And speaking of the Argus, does anyone remember this from 2007? Read all the way down to the end and see if a name jumps out at you ....

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1714296.print/

Indeed.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

At no point in the book did I read Dick Knight accusing Derek Chapman of profiting on any Albion-linked projects.

Not sure who that part of The Argus story is aimed at. Certainly not Dick Knight. Although, of course, having admitted to not actually reading the book, Chapman might have his wires crossed. Or he might just be using the platform to set a few things straight, which is, of course, useful. But it does not mean the rebuttals are aimed in Knight's direction.

Seems to be lots of people on here jumping on what people THINK Dick Knight has written or is saying or suggesting, without having actually read the book to find out what he actually does say.

 

[Black Rod]

The most interesting part of all that for me is this:

Suddenly, we had a charmed life. But what I couldn’t understand was that Tony was putting in substantial sums of money and yet he wasn’t even a director of the club. What’s more he had left Dick as the club’s chairman and Dick carried on making decisions like he still owned the club, some of which were made without even c o n - sulting Tony.
This situation carried on until 2009. We were managed by Micky Adams and then Russell Slade. We had a disastrous season. And we nearly went down. This despite Tony providing substantial funds for new players.
By this time Tony had put so much money into the club it dwarfed all other contributions, including those made by Dick.
At this stage, the only sensible solution open to the board was to make Tony the club’s chairman. After all he owned 90% of the club so any decision the board made could only really happen if Tony sanctioned it.

Basically sounds like Bloom was propping the club up but Knight was still running it as a dictatorship, losing the plot with decisions like replacing Wilkins with Adams to the point where the board said enough is enough.

Confirmation of what a fair few of us suspected I imagine.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The most interesting part of all that for me is this:



Basically sounds like Bloom was propping the club up but Knight was still running it as a dictatorship, losing the plot with decisions like replacing Wilkins with Adams to the point where the board said enough is enough.

Confirmation of what a fair few of us suspected I imagine.

The board of directors backed Knight's decision to sack Dean Wilkins with one exception, which was Martin Perry.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

At no point in the book did I read Dick Knight accusing Derek Chapman of profiting on any Albion-linked projects.

Not sure who that part of The Argus story is aimed at. Certainly not Dick Knight. Although, of course, having admitted to not actually reading the book, Chapman might have his wires crossed. Or he might just be using the platform to set a few things straight, which is, of course, useful. But it does not mean the rebuttals are aimed in Knight's direction.

Seems to be lots of people on here jumping on what people THINK Dick Knight has written or is saying or suggesting, without having actually read the book to find out what he actually does say.

This bears repeating but I suspect a lot of posters on Nsc want there to be something controversial so that they can pick it to pieces.

It's like a soap opera on here.

 

[Ernest]

Funny how when Dick Tight was chairman he ran it like it was his own personal club to do how he pleased but then when he was kicked out he squeals about not having one person control the club

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Confirmation of what a fair few of us suspected I imagine.

But what I couldn’t understand was that Tony was putting in substantial sums of money and yet he wasn’t even a director of the club. What’s more he had left Dick as the club’s chairman and Dick carried on making decisions like he still owned the club, some of which were made without even consulting Tony.

I am not sure what the problem was here. If TB has wanted to be a director - I am sure he could have been. If he was happy not to be, and allow DK to keep running it - why would he want consultation on all decisions ?

Just sounds a little odd.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Funny how when Dick Tight was chairman he ran it like it was his own personal club to do how he pleased but then when he was kicked out he squeals about not having one person control the club

"squeals" ........ like in Deliverance ?

 

[B.W.]

"Dick would still enjoy boardroom hospitality, would continue to watch games from the directors’ box with his family, and he would still be invited to all club events.

"But what amazed me was that Dick also asked for money."

Why shouldn't Dick Knight expect some of his £2million back?

As DC explained in the article, he was entitled to the value of the shares, i.e. the square root of nothing.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

At no point in the book did I read Dick Knight accusing Derek Chapman of profiting on any Albion-linked projects.

Not sure who that part of The Argus story is aimed at. Certainly not Dick Knight. Although, of course, having admitted to not actually reading the book, Chapman might have his wires crossed. Or he might just be using the platform to set a few things straight, which is, of course, useful. But it does not mean the rebuttals are aimed in Knight's direction.
.

You are missing the point. He's putting into context, his bemusement / distaste at DK's stance, by making clear that he and others in the same situation, saw things very differently. Had he not added the Adenstar bit, I can absolutely guarantee that somebody on here would have countered that it was 'easy for DC not to want cash back for his shares, when he's trousered millions from the construction projects'. Such things have been written on here many, many times. Good for him, for setting that particular record straight.

 

[B.W.]

Maybe some directors could afford to write off their cash more than Dick Knight could. I don't see how Knight can be criticised for wanting some of the £2million he put in from his own pocket back. Maybe he should have been happy with being allowed in the directors' box on match days and being invited to club events...

... and being paid for his shares anyway...

 

[The Large One]

On the subject of Derek Chapman, there is one part of the book I do know more about, though it doesn't amount to much at all. There is a paragraph about the do (the one where we presented him with his pop-art portrait) after Dick stepped down as chairman which he concludes 'No directors were invited.'

Well, not quite...

I received a call from Clare Chapman (Derek's wife) on the afternoon of the do to ask if there was room for Derek and Clare to attend. Before I could answer, she also said that she knew it was a fans' appreciation do but she felt that Dick wasn't aware of the nature of the evening. She said he was thinking it was more a quiet table for eight in the corner - to which Dick had unilaterally invited the Chapmans to attend.

So a director was invited; Dick invited him.

 

[Monkey Man]

You are missing the point. He's putting into context, his bemusement / distaste at DK's stance, by making clear that he and others in the same situation, saw things very differently. Had he not added the Adenstar bit, I can absolutely guarantee that somebody on here would have countered that it was 'easy for DC not to want cash back for his shares, when he's trousered millions from the construction projects'. Such things have been written on here many, many times. Good for him, for setting that particular record straight.

That's exactly as I read it.

 

[B.W.]

In the book Dick Knight makes it clear it wasn't just about getting HIS cash back. He was keen to make sure a lot of the investors who perhaps could not really afford to just write the cash off but had helped prop up the Albion when they needed it were looked after.

Fair enough. But if you invest in shares, and the value of the shares drops to very little, then you get very little.

 

[drew]

I don't understand this argument - just because you are putting money into a loss making enterprise in an attempt to save it from going under and then an "angel" appears to take over the rescue this somehow disqualifies you from wanting some of what you have put into it back.

It is claimed that BHAFC wasn't worth anything - it was "worth" far more than if it didn't exist.

Will we be critical if TB at some time in the future takes some of the money he has ploughed into the club in such a way that it doesn't threaten the club's future but actually enhances it? Maybe we should tell TB to remove the millions that are in the "Loan Account" and convert this to a gift to the club.

The club wasn't worth anything. It was a loss making business and was about to spend £100m on a new stadium, money that they couldn't get from the banks.

Is Derek Chapman the latest person to have an opinion on what is said in the book without actually having read it?

Where does he say that he has read the book? He has reacted to articles in the media and other 'myths' floating about. He also gives his account on how the club was run under both Knight and Bloom and also gives his impression of when TB actually became the main benefactor to the club, ie 2005.

The board of directors backed Knight's decision to sack Dean Wilkins with one exception, which was Martin Perry.

But I think the issue would have been the sacking of Adams which would appear to have been a unilateral decision by Knight who, at the time, was only chairman in name as he was not the one funding the club!!!

I am not sure what the problem was here. If TB has wanted to be a director - I am sure he could have been. If he was happy not to be, and allow DK to keep running it - why would he want consultation on all decisions ?

Just sounds a little odd.

Do you really find that odd? Don't you think that if you are pumping vast amounts of money into a project then the least you could expect is some discussion about major decisions, eg sacking the manager, appointing new managers etc etc.