Has Harty lost the plot?

[larus]

BensGrandad, you purport the things that you write as though they are facts, when, all they are is your opinion.

Fact : you cannot know what our fanbase is. Have you carried out any markey survey. No. Please can you advise where this 8,000 c omes from and back it up.

Fact : the figures put forward by other poster, TGC, etc, are evidence of the upturn that is likely, although by no meand guaranteed, when we get a new stadium.

Fact : I know a lot of people who would like to go to games occsionally but don't because of Withdean, and the misconception that there aren't any spare tickets to be had.

Fact : if we were in stadium with a larger capacity, we would be getting bigger crowds, which is more revenue, which in-turn means a bigger playing budget and hopefully a more successful team. This then leads to bigger crowds. I don't think 12,000 is at all an unrealistic figure once ALL effects are included.

You have your own agenda and give the impression of still being sore over the demise of Stanley, Archer, Bellotti. Move on sunshine; I believe that most fans (including those who don't post on NSC) think taht DK & MP are doing a very good job in difficult circumstances.

As for Ian Hart, the slagging off he's taken over this is pathetic. He's Albion through and through. OK, we think he made a mistake last week, but guess what, I'll let you know a little secret, WE ALL DO.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

"As regards the statement about Ian Hart ridding us of A B & S it is a known fact that I worked for Stanley but none the less he outlived his usefulness and became a liability and had to be removed. I have never said that if he was still Chairman we would be in a new stadium what I have said is that if we had a chairman with Archers money we would be in a new stadium by now somewhat different I believe"

In answer to BG point, he is still trotting out the same old crap about Archer's money.

So where was Archers money when he asset stripped the club and sold the Goldstone then?

At the end of the day this is a planning issue we are going through, which BA and his cronies would have had to gone through. If he was that bothered about us, and Stanley for that matter, when the Goldstone was sold, he would have everything in place to build a new stadium, whereas he abandoned us to the wilderness at Gillingham.

 

[BensGrandad]

With due respect to DTG you should take note that I NEVER ever say with BA and his money but always SOMEBODY with that amount of money. i.e If our Chairman whoever it may be had that amount of money we would have had a stadium by now as money talks.

People seem to have lost the plot here whether or not we would have had an average of 12,000 per home game is pure conjecture by EVERYBODY Martin Perry included. I personally doubt it very much as does Harty and may I add the 'unnamed person in the media' who held up 9 fingers as an indication that he believed that we would have got an average of 9,000 per home game over the past 6 seasons when asked on air by Harty.

Whatever the attendance may or may not have been is totally immaterial as is the amount of money that any such attendance would have possibly generated what does matter is the future and the need to build a stadium that can accomodate our ambitions whatever they may be. For me it is to be in The Premiership as soon as possible.

The figure of 25,000 listeners to Hartys phone in is a public audited listening figure

One last point on this issue is that MP said that the crowds would have doubled and so would the merchandise etc as a result of this increase. This again is pure conjecture, granted that figure would have improved, but it is impossible to say by how much. As an example my sons all buy merchandise for them and their families allthough they cannot get a ticket for home games. They wouldnt buy more if they could get tickets as they buy what they want or need now.

 

[sully]

BG you're getting boring now.

You seem to have finally agreed in your last post that the figure you presented as "fact" was in fact "pure conjecture".

The figure of 9,000 given by the unknown media figure by holding up his fingers was how many we would have got on Saturday, not the average over the last 6 seasons.

I think we all agree that we don't actually know what the figure would have been, and never will do.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Taking the last six seasons:

1999/2000 - Euphoric Return From Exile In Gillingham To Brighton
2000/2001 - Promotion Season
2001/2002 - Promotion Season
2002/2003 - Playing One Level Off The Premiership
2003/2004 - Promotion Season
2004/2005 - Playing One Level Off The Premiership


Frankly if that little lot couldn't raise the potential attendance to 12,000 then the town wouldn't deserve to have a professional football club, let alone a new stadium.

 

[Bwian]

One last point on this issue is that MP said that the crowds would have doubled and so would the merchandise etc as a result of this increase. This again is pure conjecture, granted that figure would have improved, but it is impossible to say by how much. As an example my sons all buy merchandise for them and their families allthough they cannot get a ticket for home games. They wouldnt buy more if they could get tickets as they buy what they want or need now.

So we're to use your family as the Albion's economic model are we? Thanks for that-I can sleep well knowing that your sampling of one family in Sussex is what we should base the club's income projections on.

You live in another dimension to the rest of us

 

[Ex Shelton Seagull]

Crowds in the Football League have risen year on year since 1991. I think they may now be something like 40% up on what they were around 12 years ago.

Even 10 years ago the average attendance for this division was some 6,000 lower across the board. 2 clubs in the 94/95 season couldn't even attract an average gate of over 6,000, namely Grimsby and Southend. Southend now attract a higher gate whilst playing 2 leagues below their level in 95. And that's without a new stadium, indeed without any ground improvements at all. It is a fact that every club that has built a new stadium in the last 10 years or so has seen average gates improve. In some cases, such as Huddersfield, Hull and Middlesbrough, these rises have been quite dramatic. There may be dips in that support depending on performances but the average remains higher than those in the old ground.

You may believe that we wouldn't have attracted a 12,000 average gate over the last 6 years but that we could attract it in the future. I would say that if you don't believe we could have got 12,000 average for 2 Championship wins, a play-off final win and 2 seasons of Level 2 football for the first time in 10 years, then you don't believe that we could EVER achieve that number at our current level. As I stated in my previous post, I think that a 12,000 gate is more than achievable with the right marketing and price structure. With modern facilities, pay on the day tickets and a good level of football we can aim for higher than 12,000 IMO. When Liam Brady took over we saw an average gate of nearly 9,000 playing mid-table level 3 football in a crumbling Goldstone, back when League gates as a whole were some 6,000 down on what they currently are. How much more could we have got in a decent venue?

I think that the story was placed in the Telegraph at the clubs request. Why? Because Charlie Hopkins, lawyer for Falmer Parish Council, got up at the inquiry last week and pronounced to the world that we had done well financially at Withdean. That is a blatant lie.

The success of the club on the field may well have diverted people from our plight off it. The simple fact remains that we are losing money every year because we are unable to attract sizeable crowds to home games. The article by Paul Hayward showed in a crude way just what has been lost financially as a result of the blatant blocking tactics of our opponents. The likes of Lewes District Council and their friends have been bleeding this club in a delibrate attempt to kill us off or make us abandon our plans for Falmer.

When we are beating the likes of Sunderland and West Ham we tend to assume that things aren't so bad financially speaking. It is only thanks to the prudent financial management of the board that we didn't hit the buffers a couple of years ago. Now I don't like it when the club and certain supporters make statements about the doom facing us if Falmer is turned down. Maybe I just don't want to believe that the club would shut down as a result. There have been scaremongering headlines before (witness the headlines after the local plan inspector reccomended a no to Falmer, ones like "We have one week to save the Albion") but these are neccesary to keep us on our toes and remind us of the reality behind the scenes off the pitch.

People tend to jump on BG's back when he raises criticism of the board because of his links to Greg Stanley. I don't think it's fair to attack him whenever he questions a statement by the club using the arguement that he is an "apologist" for Archer. He has NOT stated that if Archer was still here we would have a stadium. He HAS said that if we had a wealthy chairman we would have seen faster progress on the stadium front. It is true that money talks, but I believe that our enemies are so fanatically opposed to us that no amount of money could have helped. The only way cash could have helped was if an individual had purchased Brighton Station car-park as a site, a site that I used to think was perfect. The unfortunate fact is that the council wanted that land for housing, not for a stadium and we may have faced a similar battle just to get that brownfield site.

BG has never made any secret about his scepticism about Dick Knight and the current board. Each to their own I say. I think they have achieved absolute wonders and made a few cock-ups. Just like every other board. But don't leap on people when they try and raise questions. It’s vital to keep checks on those at the top. The problem is his cynicism goes too far sometimes. He has spread rumours about financial impropriety that were not true but he has apologised afterwards. Internet message boards are always a hot spot for gossip and conjecture, the trick is to sort the wheat from the chaff. I think that BG and the cynics do have a credibility problem because of their eagerness to find fault with the board. Witness the internet betting scandal a few months back, see the rumours about the play-off money. I think it's a shame that they have damaged themselves with this behaviour because we need people to question those in power.

Ian Hart does a hell of a job with that phone-in, but his eagerness to look for a "story" or an "angle" damages his credibilty like BG. He should always be independent of the club, always be an outside observer. We need independent people checking on the club. Back in our exile years we had 2 major fanzines who had access to the board and regular fan meetings. We seem to have lost that in the last few years because of the success on the pitch and I think that's a shame.

 

[Bwian]

The simple fact remains that we are losing money every year because we are unable to attract sizeable crowds to home games.

You could have said "Because we are unable to accommodate sizeable crowds".

Cardiff showed we can (and will) attract them-Withdean has proven it is incapable of accommodating them. It couldn't even cope with a large number who turned up simply to buy tickets...

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Ian Hart does a hell of a job with that phone-in, but his eagerness to look for a "story" or an "angle" damages his credibilty like BG. He should always be independent of the club, always be an outside observer. We need independent people checking on the club. Back in our exile years we had 2 major fanzines who had access to the board and regular fan meetings. We seem to have lost that in the last few years because of the success on the pitch and I think that's a shame.

With respect, I think that's rubbish. Fanzines now appear trite and disposable and dated as soon as they go to press and appear to be produced for little other reason than to pad out a student-journalist's portfolio or to raise money for the club at a market-researched selling price JUST below the cost of the match programme. When was the last time you learnt something new from a fanzine? Or read something that so much as hinted at wrong-doing within the club? The fanzines are worth ignoring completely.

The phone-in nowadays resembles some kind of corny old Derek Jameson Radio 2 number. Gor blimey innit! About as relevent as the Official Supporters Club.

NSC on the other hand, is a damn sight more responsible and less vicious than of old (tho it has it's moments) and acts as by far the best checking mechanism of dealings within the Albion. No wonder 'Ask the Club' is so keen to get NSC 'onside'. Still the best and only outlet for rumour, scandal and gossip and I for one value the likes of Ben's Grandad floating their conspiracy theories in the open. At least that way they can be shot down by force of reason, and, who knows, one day one of the allegations might just turn out to have a grain of truth. But you'll hear it first on NSC, not on SCR or in a fanzine.

 

[Yorkie]

I think that the story was placed in the Telegraph at the clubs request. Why? Because Charlie Hopkins, lawyer for Falmer Parish Council, got up at the inquiry last week and pronounced to the world that we had done well financially at Withdean. That is a blatant lie.




Are any of the witnesses at this inquiry required to take an oath like they would in a court of law?
Not that that stops people commiting perjury anyway

 

[rool]

NSC on the other hand, is a damn sight more responsible and less vicious than of old (tho it has it's moments) and acts as by far the best checking mechanism of dealings within the Albion.

I'm sorry but that is the most laughable quote on this thread. Most of you are so far up Dick Knight's arse and have your ears closed to any criticism that if another situation of mismanagement was to appear you just wouldn't believe it until it was too late.

Thank goodness people like Harty haven't been bought and are still able to stay detached from club management without their support ever being in doubt.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

I think there is a big difference between being 'up Dick Knight's arse' and realising what a great job he has done.

While I appreciate he has made mistakes, it is impossible to argue that he does not have the club's best interests at heart. This makes people defend him when he is attacked by unsubstantiated rubbish. If people were able to prove what they say then people would listen. However, nobody is able to say anything sensible against Dick Knight and as far as I am concerned he saved our club.

I only heard parts of Ian Hart's phone in on Saturday. However, I heard the interview with Martin Perry where he made it perfectly clear what was meant by the story but Ian Hart still would not understand. To comment on an article without having read it is not a good idea as it can lead to misunderstandings. I also think that when we win 2 home games in a row, the second with such a dramatic winner, that football should be the topic of discussion.

 

[Mustela Furo]

.