Time for Knight to Go

[The Large One]

I would willingly come on to a general discussion about BHA and discuss most aspects of thje club but I fully appreciate that trying to argue with DK would be folly for me on air, over a pint in the pub is a different matter.

Why do you say that?

The nature of the conversation is the same, the participants are the same, save for the fact that you can't buy a pint in the studio, and swearing leads to big trouble, and not just a swearbox donation.

 

[BensGrandad]

The difference is that if I said something that I genuinely considered to be the truth but turned out to not be so he would immediately jump on it and use it as the stick with which tio beat me.

An example is if I said I had heard that the reason that DW was sacked was XYZ and that was wrong he would obviously defend it and I would appear stupid because even when being interviewed by Harty or anybody else he is naturally on the attack as a form of defence.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Oh please,leave it alone.

These constant rubbish polls will make absolutely no difference and are probably only started as a wind up.........which might have worked when this subject was first raised when Adam was a lad.

Just accept that whatever you feel - and I accept your right to your opinion - Mr Knight is not going to pack his tent and leave merely because of your views.

Knight could conceivably look at the way the poll has gone here and say that even under difficult times the fans are backing him. So he will stay after all!

 

[The Large One]

The difference is that if I said something that I genuinely considered to be the truth but turned out to not be so he would immediately jump on it and use it as the stick with which tio beat me.

An example is if I said I had heard that the reason that DW was sacked was XYZ and that was wrong he would obviously defend it and I would appear stupid because even when being interviewed by Harty or anybody else he is naturally on the attack as a form of defence.

So what you mean is you don't want to say anything potentially litigious on air?

Quite right, it's one of my concerns about Vulture. Personally, I'd like to ask him 'I heard this, I heard that...' but the truth is I don't want to resort to tittle-tattle when I question him. So if he answers one of those tittle-tattle questions with an answer that would make you feel stupid, why would you want to ask him it in the first place? Is it about saving face or about getting to the bottom of things?

You could argue I went into the interview unarmed with any facts or issues to hit him with, but the point is, I wanted to hear his views first, and challenge him on stuff where I thought he was lying. There were things I didn't properly know, so I asked him...

Where do you think the season has gone wrong? A deliberately open question to ascertain where he sees the issues lie.
How does your Board of Directors work?
How do the Directors get on with each other?
Who is responsible for what?
Who are the individuals responsible to?
Does Tony Bloom have a disproportionate say in the club bearing mind he is not a director not the largest shareholder?
What did you think of the latter day Micky Adams compared to the previous one?
Plus questions about Falmer and the Youth system, and maybe a couple of others I don't recall right now.

With his answers to these, I can't make out he's lying, because I'm not party to information that says otherwise. As I said, you could argue I went into the interview unarmed with any facts or issues to counter him with, or we could just let him say what he says, and let the listeners judge for themselves.

If I'd have asked him 'why did you sack Wilkins?', we'd have got the answers he did eventually give - 'I'm not going to go into that whatsoever...' So what do you do? Push him by asking him 'why not?', or ask him again, fully expecting the same answer. Or move on, bearing in mind time is short on the programme?

There were things I disagreed with him about - his assertion about last year's onfield team compared to this one (him specifically saying that Westlake, Racon and Thomson were the difference). I thought there was more to it than that, but I wanted to drive it more into the behind the scenes stuff, rather than argue the toss about two opinions over central midfield.

Next time, we can pick up on stuff he said in the previous interview, and talk about whatever goes on during the course of the summer. Or anything else that crops up.

 

[BensGrandad]

Do you not feel that had you pushed him further on the Westlake Raccon Thomson situation he would have just said that that was his opinion and would not have got into any debate or argument that you wished to put up to the contrary. So you had no choice but to move on. Me being a normal fan with no radio or media experience, would have argued my point which wouldnt have made good radio hence my comment about holding my own with him over a pint but not on air.

 

[The Large One]

As I said, I thought the midfield from last season was not as important as other issues. So I moved on.

But yes, over a pint (or in his case, a glass of red wine), that could have been debated and it would have been interesting.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

1: In relation to the Dean Wilkins issue, if both parties have signed a confidentiality contract, then you are asking DK to break the law and possibly be sued, just to satisfy your curiosity. bhadebs says she knows the truth, so why not PM her and she will tell you?

2: In relation to Radio Sussex, Harty is sometimes employed by the club, so perhaps he too would be biased, especially as the club were supportive of him over the Lickergate debacle.

1.IF both parties have signed a confidentiality contract- Has Dick stated they have?
I could PM Bhadeb, as you would like that but i would prefer to hear Dick tell us all the TRUTH via the media.

Why does Bhadeb get to you so much if she so far of the mark?

2.I never said Harty would have to host the show Gavin thingymajig would be a neutral failing that let's go all the way and get Jeremy Vine!

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Once again I am telling you Dick did not have any idea as to what the questions were going to be. Dick was NOT primed. How so? I wasn't sure what I was going to ask him myself. All those questions I asked were things I had wanted to know for a while, and asked them at times when I thought were appropriate, even changing the direction of the programme in order to bring it back to a question Dick would probably not have wanted to answer.

I have now had to repeat that I did not show him the questions. Your judgement on this is misplaced. If you don't believe me, then this conversation is over.

I asked Vulture for his list of questions because I need to know that he not going to make a fool of himself or - more pertinently - the show. It's a matter of trust, and my only knowledge of him is from what I read on here, and his demeanour is not especially encouraging. Personally, I would rather have you on the show as you often come across as far more reasonable. As I said before, I would NOT show those questions to Dick first.




Then 'most fans' are completely wrong.

I AM neutral, and I would venture, far more so than yourself insofar as I do not make pre-judgements on the way the club is being run without endeavouring to find things out first. I would say that you (and, presuming you think you speak for 'most fans' ) have got your understanding of how I think the club operates completely wrong. Just because I can speak to Dick does NOT make me some kind of lapdog. You can speak (or correspond) with Dick as much as anyone else, should you wish to.

It actually pisses me off that I feel I need to justify this at all, for it is all complete bollocks. I have not put enough of that sort on thing (i.e. I believe everything the club says) on here for anyone to make that sort of informed judgement. And especially from those people who have not met me.

Those who do know me would know how pissed off I get with the club on a range of issues.

If you think Dick should be on BBC Sussex, I wouldn't disagree, but NOT on the back of what you said there.

I apologies if you felt i came across as not trusting you but it is accentual IMO that it comes across as unrehearsed as possible as the fans can then judge whether they can still give support to Dick as being the no1 Chairman that we have labelled him for so long.
You don't know how much i wish i was wrong about the situation but it's only Dick that can convince fans like me that he still is on top of his game and not just blagging his way through it all.

As for Vulture all though i only see what you see about him i really don't think he would want to make an arse of himself on the radio, he just wants questions answered IMO - and as you can see 37% of NSC have lost faith and believe you me many more are still giving him the benefit of the doubt but only just, i am sure you have already ascertained that.

How do Albion Roars figures compare to BBC Sussex as that would be vital?

 

[The Large One]

I apologies if you felt i came across as not trusting you but it is accentual IMO that it comes across as unrehearsed as possible as the fans can then judge whether they can still give support to Dick as being the no1 Chairman that we have labelled him for so long.
You don't know how much i wish i was wrong about the situation but it's only Dick that can convince fans like me that he still is on top of his game and not just blagging his way through it all.

As for Vulture all though i only see what you see about him i really don't think he would want to make an arse of himself on the radio, he just wants questions answered IMO - and as you can see 37% of NSC have lost faith and believe you me many more are still giving him the benefit of the doubt but only just, i am sure you have already ascertained that.

How do Albion Roars figures compare to BBC Sussex as that would be vital?

Firstly, did you hear the Albion Roar broadcast? If you didn't, the shows are up for the following week, before being replaced by the next show. I have asked that that show be placed on our website archives for anyone to listen again. It is fairly long (53 minutes), and may impinge on the bandwidth (now I'm getting into jargon I don't understand), but hopefully it will be back up soon. What is on that show is completely unrehearsed, aisde from the presenter's intro.

I've no idea about the figures, although just as many people have access to is via the internet as BBC Sussex. Not sure how you would see it as vital. Surely it doesn't matter on what platform Dick says what he says - as long people who want to know can hear it/read it, it oughtn't make any difference.

I too want questions answered, but after a while there comes a time where you have to appreciate that you are getting answers, but not necessarily the ones you want to hear. Dick has sent he won't go into the sacking of Dean Wilkins. I can't MAKE him tell me. If Gavin Thingummyjig can, good for him, and I would humbly defer. He's a pro, I'm not.

But I would say this...
One never knows whether a confidentiality clause has been signed - that in itself would be confidential. However, Dean's silence - and there is no way he has not been asked about this - is just as pertinent as Dick's.

I've PMd bhadeb more than once - I'm sure several people have - and she is keeping tight-lipped, which I find kind of baffling. If she wants Dick to resign - and she has said more than once she does, as have you - and he has been such an arse about this, then surely her cause his best served by revealing all.

She says she is protecting her source, but surely the greater good would be served by letting us know the foul deed Dick is supposed to have done. If the good of the club is to be upheld and enhanced, I'm sure her source wouldn't mind. To me, it doesn't make sense, and I feel she is clearly doing us all a dis-service by keeping this from the public domain. She is, in effect, as culpable as Dick and Dean in this apparent conspiracy of silence.

 

[El Presidente]

I have PM'd Bhadeb and this may come as a surprise, but we have had a courteous and civil conversation on both sides. She has told me her side of the story, and if she wants to say any more then it is her decision as to the truth. She says that she has a source at the club. If that source was at the board meeting, or was present when DW was sacked, then perhaps she does indeed have the truth.

Alternatively she could be being used by someone at the club who has a private agenda against DK and wants to destabilise the board by using her as a conduit to spread mischief. Who knows?

It's a shame that Dean Wilkins can't come clean in the Argus with a statement himself, unless perhaps he is happy with the financial settlement and thinks no good will come of it, or alternatively has signed a confidentiality agreement.

 

[El Presidente]

accentual IMO that it comes across as unrehearsed as possible

What does accentual mean?

 

[fosters headband]

We are just fans having a chat about the Albion on the radio and we try and get other fans and interesting guests on. When Dick Knight was on the show we asked him various Qs regarding the club and Al did ask about the board and the Wilkins/Adams saga, Dick gave the same answer we would have given SCR or the Argus.

I don't see what are the fuss was about personally - some liked the interview, others did not.

All fans are welcomed to get involved with the show, but must remember it's radio, so it's not going to turn into a slanging match.

John

Have you ever invited Dean Wilkins on the show since his sacking? This might make for an interesting show and at least you would appear neutral as Al said you wanted to be in an earlier post.

 

[The Large One]

John

Have you ever invited Dean Wilkins on the show since his sacking? This might make for an interesting show and at least you would appear neutral as Al said you wanted to be in an earlier post.

I can answer that.

We haven't invited him on - but that's not to say we wouldn't.

I'm still not sure what you mean about this 'neutrality' stance you're talking about. If Dick had said anything about Dean's dismissal, we'd have shifted heaven and earth to try and get Dean on, in order for some balance. Not that they should be having a spat played out in the media - very unsavoury. As it is, he made a point of saying nothing so we're still in the dark.

Dick is the chairman and has a mountain of other responsibilities, which we also quizzed him on. Having him on does not mean we're anti-Dean Wilkins.

Similarly, having Dean on does not necessarily mean he would be prepared to talk about his sacking, which having spoken to the fella several times is something I wouldn't mind betting would be the case - not that that is an excuse not to ask him on, of course.

 

[fosters headband]

I can answer that.

We haven't invited him on - but that's not to say we wouldn't.

I'm still not sure what you mean about this 'neutrality' stance you're talking about. If Dick had said anything about Dean's dismissal, we'd have shifted heaven and earth to try and get Dean on, in order for some balance. Not that they should be having a spat played out in the media - very unsavoury. As it is, he made a point of saying nothing so we're still in the dark.

Dick is the chairman and has a mountain of other responsibilities, which we also quizzed him on. Having him on does not mean we're anti-Dean Wilkins.

Similarly, having Dean on does not necessarily mean he would be prepared to talk about his sacking, which having spoken to the fella several times is something I wouldn't mind betting would be the case - not that that is an excuse not to ask him on, of course.

Firstly let me say that I am not questioning yours or the shows neutrality, only as you stated the shows wish to be so. As Dick Knight has been on and asked to comment about the sacking and declined to comment, I thought it would be reasonable to give Dean the same opportunity. Dean may come out and say that he is under a confidentiality agreement with the club and he also cannot comment. At least this will if nothing else, confirm the existence of one and stop people constantly asking for explanations that are never going to be forthcoming.
Also I think Dean’s view on how the season has gone would also be interesting and his opinions on want went wrong for the team to be in this situation.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I have PM'd Bhadeb and this may come as a surprise, but we have had a courteous and civil conversation on both sides. She has told me her side of the story, and if she wants to say any more then it is her decision as to the truth. She says that she has a source at the club. If that source was at the board meeting, or was present when DW was sacked, then perhaps she does indeed have the truth.

Alternatively she could be being used by someone at the club who has a private agenda against DK and wants to destabilise the board by using her as a conduit to spread mischief. Who knows?

QUOTE]

I personally think it's the later and have said as much on here, my reasons are that her posts are very nieve and do more to harm her than it does DK. If I were her I would have a long talk with her source and find out what there motives are ....

I don't believe that DW will ever speak out as I reckon that he has a few skeletons in the closet, hence the agreement.

 

[fosters headband]

QUOTE]


I don't believe that DW will ever speak out as I reckon that he has a few skeletons in the closet, hence the agreement.[/QUOTE]

Has it been established there is such an agreement?

 

[The Large One]

Firstly let me say that I am not questioning yours or the shows neutrality, only as you stated the shows wish to be so. As Dick Knight has been on and asked to comment about the sacking and declined to comment, I thought it would be reasonable to give Dean the same opportunity. Dean may come out and say that he is under a confidentiality agreement with the club and he also cannot comment. At least that this will if nothing else confirm the existence of one and stop people constantly asking for explanations that are never going to be forthcoming.

Also I think Dean’s view on how the season has gone would also be interesting and his opinions on want went wrong for the team to be in this situation.

Fair enough, but it wouldn't need for Dean to go on radio purely to say whether there is a confidentiality agreement. Personally, I think most people would be salivating over a 'piss off-and-tell' exposé, and would not want to hear that he too won't talk about the circumstances surrounding his dismissal.

I do get the feeling that some people are not looking at this from what could be Dean's point of view. His sacking was nearly a year ago. He has had opportunity to give his side of the story to the media. I would give an awful lot of weight the the fact that he hasn't taken that opportunity (either by whether he wants to or whether there really is a 'gentlemen's agreement' or a confidentiality document). Just an opinion, like.

Regarding the other stuff, not unreasonable.

 

[kevinsmith]

Knight will be gone before start of next season. Bloom will not put any further money in as long as he is still there

 

[The Large One]

Knight will be gone before start of next season. Bloom will not put any further money in as long as he is still there

Source?

 

[kevinsmith]

2 of the current directors