Dick Knight is on his way out

[1swedegull]

the situation we find ourselves in now is regardless of who is in charge is probably better then some other clubs at the moment.
I dont think 10 years ago if knight hadnt stepped in or at least been behind the take over this club would have survived in any form not even in a lower sussex lead . granted some clubs have come back from the ashes,accrington and aldershot to name two but as has been pointed out newport county ,scarboro and maidstone are no where near being back in the football league.
So as long as the money is there and its well managed and the club thrives to become a side which could be like Hull or Wigan then i dont think it matters whos running the show

 

[Billy the Fish]

Can I ask for some clarification did Bil Archer want the club to collapse, while No one else was on the horizon besides Dick Knight? It seems that is some people's vision of history.


Bill Archer - did he really want the club to collapse? Or has it just been painted that way because he held out for as much money as he could even though the club could have gone to the wall? Was he more interested in getting as much money as he could?

Dick Knight - Was he alone in rescuing the club? Percentage-wise, how much of the consortium was he? Was he just a figure had and nominal financial contributor? What sort of % is he contributing now?

Other potential buyers - I hear that some other groups were interested in buying the club, but Archer refused to let them see the books. DK and his consortium was the only one willing to do a deal without seeing the books. Some people seem to act as if this means if DK didn't buy the club it would cease to exist.

Archer is a business man, surely if none of the potential buyers were willing to buy without seeing the books, he would have caved so that he could make some money instead of letting the club collapse and getting nothing? Especially as the fans were also making his life hell and it would only get worse. Essentially there was a game of bluff, and Knight blinked first, no?


I know "Evil Bill Archer tried to destroy the club until the heroic Dick Knight stood up, alone, to save the club with his bare hands" is a great romantic story, but just how accurate is it?

Read Storers post on page 6 that describes the chain of events pretty accurately.

Archer removed the "non profit" clause from the clubs articles of association and sold the ground without any plans to move anywhere else. In order to pocket the money from the ground the club had to go to the wall. Paul Samrah found out and his plan was foiled, scooby-do style. I'd say that was pretty damning evidence.

The Dick Knight consortium was put togeather by Liam Brady, as far as I remember it was the only offer on the table.

I suggest to anyone questioning what happened between 95 and 98 re-reads Build a Bonfire to find out what it's reallylike to have a chairman who doesn't care about our club

 

[Jim D]

Interesting take. I confess I always thought Archer just wanted us to go away but DK wouldn't let him get away with it and I'd be interested to hear from other people, who were around at the time on their opinion on your post.

I definitely got the impression that Archer would have shed no tears if we had gone bust and folded. By that time he'd already done a deal to sell the ground, had tried to re-write the constitution and (I guess) he would have been happy if everything had disappeared from view. After all, if nobody stepped in and called his bluff then there would have been no real examination of the books and he could have kept on insisting that things were fine but nobody was interested.

I don't think that Archer was malicious in his attempt to kill us off - he was a hard-nosed businessman who exploited our situation for his own advantage. If it hadn't been us then it would have been someone else. In his eyes we were just a way to a quick profit - not bad for £56.

What Archer and his ilk (Richardson at Donny too) have shown us and the rest of the football world is that if you thought you were in trouble it might get a lot worse if you just invite any old carpetbagger into the Boardroom.

Dick Knight was a real lifesaver for the club and undoubtedly the best Chairman we've had since Mike Bamber.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Can I ask for some clarification did Bil Archer want the club to collapse, while No one else was on the horizon besides Dick Knight? It seems that is some people's vision of history.


Bill Archer - did he really want the club to collapse? Or has it just been painted that way because he held out for as much money as he could even though the club could have gone to the wall? Was he more interested in getting as much money as he could?

Dick Knight - Was he alone in rescuing the club? Percentage-wise, how much of the consortium was he? Was he just a figure had and nominal financial contributor? What sort of % is he contributing now?

Other potential buyers - I hear that some other groups were interested in buying the club, but Archer refused to let them see the books. DK and his consortium was the only one willing to do a deal without seeing the books. Some people seem to act as if this means if DK didn't buy the club it would cease to exist.

Archer is a business man, surely if none of the potential buyers were willing to buy without seeing the books, he would have caved so that he could make some money instead of letting the club collapse and getting nothing? Especially as the fans were also making his life hell and it would only get worse. Essentially there was a game of bluff, and Knight blinked first, no?


I know "Evil Bill Archer tried to destroy the club until the heroic Dick Knight stood up, alone, to save the club with his bare hands" is a great romantic story, but just how accurate is it?

If you don't know what you are talking about you should shut up. This is a shocking and ill-informed comment. Read Build a Bonfire - find out about the club you appear to support - then come back and apologise to all the real Brighton fans.

 

[throbinson]

Knight needs to be chairman at Falmer

 

[Icy Gull]

If you don't know what you are talking about you should shut up. This is a shocking and ill-informed comment. Read Build a Bonfire - find out about the club you appear to support - then come back and apologise to all the real Brighton fans.

Harsh, it was a question not a statement of fact.

 

[Knotty]

Harsh, it was a question not a statement of fact.

But it was a loaded question. At least, that's how it reads.

 

[Knotty]

Every dog has his day and the last 12 years have had some great ones and some bad ones. However, it seems there are some on here who would make DK life long chairman irrespective of any decisions/errors he makes.

No-one on here has the right or the power to make DK anything.

Whatever happens to him will be his and/or the board's decision.

 

[drew]

No-one on here has the right or the power to make DK anything.

Whatever happens to him will be his and/or the board's decision.

It's an opinion or have you lost the plot of what a forum is all about. Personnally, I think if the money men move Knight aside he should be given a life presidency for the club but, hey, I'm not one of the money men so according to you I have no right to make such a suggestion!!!!

 

[Knotty]

It's an opinion or have you lost the plot of what a forum is all about. Personnally, I think if the money men move Knight aside he should be given a life presidency for the club but, hey, I'm not one of the money men so according to you I have no right to make such a suggestion!!!!

You have every right to make the suggestion.

I said 'decision' because you said something about fans 'making' him life chairman.

I was being a little pedantic for which I apologise.

 

[Acker79]

But it was a loaded question. At least, that's how it reads.

It wasn't intended to be loaded.

I was a fan at the time, but not an insider, I didn't know the ins and outs (probably still don't, but am more aware of things through NSC, though I tend to take most of it with a pinch of salt), just that the club was in trouble.

When we look back on things, our views are painted by the experience. If we have a bad break up we view our ex-partners as liars, cheaters, evil nasty, whatever, and ignore their good qualities that we fell in love with and enjoyed before things turned sour. If we work hard to win something we often look back and focus on the negatives we had to over come instead of the positives we had to support us.

I was wondering how much of the way things were being described is due to what we went through, and how much is fact.

I'm reluctant to take 'Build a Bonfire' as gospel, because it seems to me to be a fan book, written either by a fan or for the fans and I don't imagine an "Archer was just a hard nosed business man, he's not the evil tyrant Albion fans paint him as" book would sell very well, so the story perpetuates.


I get that any time anyone brings up Archer and isn't urinating on his reputation people get upset, so was kinda expecting some aggressive bitchy responses, but I just wanted a fair appraisal of the situation, if that was ever going to be possible on a fan board.

 

[Acker79]

Read Storers post on page 6 that describes the chain of events pretty accurately.

Archer removed the "non profit" clause from the clubs articles of association and sold the ground without any plans to move anywhere else. In order to pocket the money from the ground the club had to go to the wall. Paul Samrah found out and his plan was foiled, scooby-do style. I'd say that was pretty damning evidence.

The Dick Knight consortium was put togeather by Liam Brady, as far as I remember it was the only offer on the table.

I suggest to anyone questioning what happened between 95 and 98 re-reads Build a Bonfire to find out what it's reallylike to have a chairman who doesn't care about our club

It's just so many people seem to paint it as so much simpler than storer explains, that Bill Archer was a man determined to break the club, that Dick Knight was single-handedly responsible for saving the club, that no one else was interested, that Knight came in and drove off Archer.

Reading Storer's post shows more people involved, shows Archer sticking around a while.

I remembered Brady being involved but had and stilll have no idea what extent his contribution was - did he go to Knight? Did knight come to him? Did Brady have an open evening to get local business men together? Was Brady's contirbution mainly PR, did he invest?

Reading storer's post suggests the club exists because of a consortium (i.e. more than one person, more than just dick knight), because of the mediator, the FA, and because of the Consortium's and Archer's willingness to compromise. Archer may have been driven by making as much money as he could, since he couldn't get it from the sale of the ground he had to sell his shares to make money, he played it tough, tried to get as much as he could, and it was in his interests for the club to not fold. (That reads a lot more sympathetic to Archer than I intended, but I expect I'll still get flamed for not suggesting he is lucifer in disguise).


It just seems too complicated to give sole credit to Knight, as most people do.

 

[The Large One]

It's just so many people seem to paint it as so much simpler than storer explains, that Bill Archer was a man determined to break the club, that Dick Knight was single-handedly responsible for saving the club, that no one else was interested, that Knight came in and drove off Archer.

Reading Storer's post shows more people involved, shows Archer sticking around a while.

I remembered Brady being involved but had and stilll have no idea what extent his contribution was - did he go to Knight? Did knight come to him? Did Brady have an open evening to get local business men together? Was Brady's contirbution mainly PR, did he invest?

Reading storer's post suggests the club exists because of a consortium (i.e. more than one person, more than just dick knight), because of the mediator, the FA, and because of the Consortium's and Archer's willingness to compromise. Archer may have been driven by making as much money as he could, since he couldn't get it from the sale of the ground he had to sell his shares to make money, he played it tough, tried to get as much as he could, and it was in his interests for the club to not fold. (That reads a lot more sympathetic to Archer than I intended, but I expect I'll still get flamed for not suggesting he is lucifer in disguise).


It just seems too complicated to give sole credit to Knight, as most people do.

Knight wasn't alone, of course. But he deserves the vast majority of the credit. Having people like Brady, Perry and others with their expertise in various matters on board was not only wise, it was crucial.

Brady went to Knight (how he knew him I don't know) and suggested putting a team together. Knight had previously been reluctant to get involved because his wife was dying of cancer. Her death freed up - for want of a better term - Knight's abilities to devote more time to working with the consortium.

Archer moved the goalposts time and time again, dragging out the negotiations for over a year. Open letters were sent between the parties, and time after time, Archer refused to honour his promises. He just didn't think Knight was serious. Or if he did, there was no way he was going to allow him to wreck his plans to asset-strip the club.

You are re-writing the slant and giving Archer credit where he deserves none. He had no interest in keeping the Albion as a going concern. Whether he was actively seeking to destroy the club or - as I more suspect - the destruction of the club being unhappy result of whatever his actions might have been is a matter for another debate.

Archer stuck around purely in order to cream as much money off the club as possible. His entire input was £56.25. He placed loans in the club at larcenous rates which he - in a position of being Peter AND Paul - as Chairman of the Albion did not pay back, thereby earning himself a fair bonus in interest at the club's expense.

Archer had no willingness to compromise. The CBI's own resolution arm, the CEDR were brought in by the FA BECAUSE of Archer's unwillingness to compromise. The FA, promising to pick up the tab for this, were shocked and appalled at the £50,000 bill presented to them because of Archer's intransigence.

In the end, Archer was bought out from the club that he had no interest in, aside from bleeding it dry, for £700,000. Legally, he was entitled to £1.4m. Morally he was entitled to nothing.

This was known then, it is known now, and history has not sought to revise its opinion. If you think Archer is due some credit for this, you are sorely sorely mistaken.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

From 1990-1999 I hardly set foot in England and yet lived through those darkest days from afar thanks to friends and regular packages of argus papers et al. There is no doubt in my mind that Dick Knight deserves every piece of credit for the marvellous work he did to save our club. In addition there is no doubt in my mind that Mr Archer is one of two people I would happily put against a wall and shoot. There is no excuse for what he did.

For my part Dick can stay at this club as along as he likes and it will be a very sad day when he finally steps down. At the same time however, I am convinced that the people on the oard may not see eye to eye all the time but are deicated to the success of the Albion. For that reason we need ot support th edecisions they make.

For now... at least

Now is not the time for thinking about conspiracy theories and what bad could come. let's rather see the positives in the Slade article in the Argus and get behind the man so we can get back to where we belong.

 

[Acker79]

You are re-writing the slant and giving Archer credit where he deserves none.

I'm really not trying to re-write history, just explain how I read the info given to me and showing why I want things clarified, how the posts can be read to give Archer that credit, and that doesn't tally up with him as the ultimate evil as others paint him.

He had no interest in keeping the Albion as a going concern. Whether he was actively seeking to destroy the club or - as I more suspect - the destruction of the club being unhappy result of whatever his actions might have been is a matter for another debate.

That's part of what I'm getting at. It's like some people paint him as someone who was hellbent on destroying the club, without giving consideration to your latter theory, it was a side effect of him being a greedy businessman.

This was known then, it is known now, and history has not sought to revise its opinion. If you think Archer is due some credit for this, you are sorely sorely mistaken.

I'm not trying to give Archer credit. I just wanted facts, facts from an impartial eye. I'm not saying fans are wrong to look back on past events and paint them through seagulls tinted glasses or whatever. I just want an accurate picture.

We can look at saturday's result and say we stayed up because of it, and wasn't it dramatic. But we stayed up because we had 52 points, the three we got against Leicester are equally responsible for keeping us up, or the draws against hereford, northampton and tranmere. But that's not nearly as dramatic as a final day showdown, is it?

It's only natural to paint things these ways. The facts are the same, they were then, they are now, that doesn't mean they can't be viewed in a biased way.

I just see conflicting comments on here, some over-simplified, most biased by a Seagulls fan's view.

 

[The Large One]

The events of 13 years ago are of course simply summed up by 'Archer is a wanker, Knight is a hero', and that doesn't over simplify it. One would not have thought that trying to justify what so many of us went through (protests, letter-writing, picketing, petitioning, prison sentences) was necessary.

Your reluctance to read Build A Bonfire is interesting.

Yes, it is a fans' documentary on the times, and as the Foreword in the book acknowledges, some of it is contradictory. However, there are a few pieces of documentary evidence that shows up Bill Archer's behaviour.

 

[Superphil]

I think this is a simple one. Archer wanted to sell the ground and get out with as much money as he could. He very nearly succeeded. He is still one of the richest people in the country. I don't think it needs any more explanation than that.

 

[Man of Harveys]

I think this is a simple one. Archer wanted to sell the ground and get out with as much money as he could. He very nearly succeeded. He is still one of the richest people in the country. I don't think it needs any more explanation than that.

Well said. Jesus H Christ, it's really not that difficult to understand, assuming that one wants to and isn't really indulging in pointless and actually rather offensive revisionism.

Wasn't it Acker79 that was banging on for ages about the steel for Falmer as well, then shut up again once it was announced that it had been purchased? Again, I'm sure that was for academic interest only.

 

[Acker79]

The events of 13 years ago are of course simply summed up by 'Archer is a wanker, Knight is a hero', and that doesn't over simplify it. One would not have thought that trying to justify what so many of us went through (protests, letter-writing, picketing, petitioning, prison sentences) was necessary.

I'm not trying to get anyone to justify what they did. I know it was necessary to save the club.

"Hitler was an evil person, the allied forces were heroes". A true statement, but that doesn't explain the complexities of world war 2, does it?

Your reluctance to read Build A Bonfire is interesting.

Yes, it is a fans' documentary on the times, and as the Foreword in the book acknowledges, some of it is contradictory. However, there are a few pieces of documentary evidence that shows up Bill Archer's behaviour.

My reluctance to read build a bonfire is probably due to several issues, among them the worry of it being something that essentially is "brighton fans are great, Bill Archer is the anti-christ, here's a list of the great things the fans did" instead of "a sober and balanced look at the events, providing deep insight into the complex issues surrounding the events", there's also the idea of being a sheep, when something is popular I tend to avoid it (such as Titanic or Oasis, or Alan Partridge), probably the trouble of getting a copy (or is it still widely available in book stores?), and the hassle of having another book to read.

My reluctance is probably not all that fascinating.

 

[Acker79]

Wasn't it Acker79 that was banging on for ages about the steel for Falmer as well, then shut up again once it was announced that it had been purchased? Again, I'm sure that was for academic interest only.

No. I was banging on about someone else's right to ask about the steel, and how "has the steel been ordered? " isn't sufficiently answered with "everything's on track" .

I shut up when it was answered because... well, the question had been answered, why should I keep going on?