Lush
Mods' Pet
IMHO he kept money in the club because it was peanuts to him - but he thought he might able to make more money when the club was turned around by DK, with a new stadium and finally started turning a profit.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
What did Harty say that wound everyone up last night?
- Thread starter just_bhafc
- Start date
El Presidente said:
As you've bravely put yourself out for a flaming, let me join the barbecue....
I've often wondered whether we might have a stadium by now if the council hadn't decided they would simply refuse to do any business (at least publicly) with Archer. Personally, I reckon we would have - he had the finances to make it happen.
Obviously, he wasn't interested in football and had no understanding of it - otherwise he wouldn't have seen selling the Goldstone as a way of achieving his ultimate end i.e. to build a new retail park at Toads Hole Valley and use the Albion's homelessness as a lever for planning permission. If he'd got that development with the stadium as a condition, there might have been no need for Withdean.
I can understand the council objecting to his callous approach, but then they get involved in all sorts of deals with other businesses and sanction all sorts of shite, so why was Archer that much different?
The alternative view, I suppose, is that Archer was only interested in the money from the sale and had no intention of building a ground. But a lot of people who are prominent now did very well out of promoting that theory to the exclusion of all others. The truth is rarely as 'black and white' as it's been made out to be by those who claim to have told us what really went on. Two sides to any story, I say....
He's still a
for sellling the Goldstone though. Anyway, I say 'yes'... take the 48 million. We get a ground and he has less money - the perfect scenario surely.
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,071
True Blue and El Presidente, balanced arguments as there can be regarding Archer, but a simple question if his intentions were not as evil as we all believed them to be in 1995, then why after the sale of the Goldstone was the clause removed from the clubs consitution which stated that if the club went bust, no investor could make a profit from it (bear in mind there was some 7 million kicking around at this point). Ultimately the aim of the 3 stouges was to do a runner with the money from the ground sale. Regarding the plans submitted for Toads Hall, the council planning officer at the time said they had seen more detailed plans for a public loo.
This is in danger of degenerating into an adult discussion. A couple of points
1. The clause removing the 'no profits' clause is damning, and certainly does suggest that Archer had Machiavellian plans.
2. There was not £7 million sloshing around following the sale of the Goldstone, as the bank were owed about £6 million, and we leased the Goldstone back from the new owners for about £350,000. In the final season at the Goldstone we had the highest wage bill in Division 3. All this goes against the asset strippers code of conduct. Once again, there is no way I am promoting Bill Archer, but the situation is not black and white as you say. Without his financial support in the Gillingham years we would probably not have survived.
3. With regards to Lush's comments. They make sense on the face of it, but.......football is a loss making industry. Even with a stadium built, the club will not make any money as the debt burden on the funds borrowed to finance the stadium will wipe out any operating profits. As a businessman, you would not invest in a loss making industry with no security (remember that shareholders are the last people to receive any income when a business makes profits).
So here is my theory for what it is worth. Stanley initially wanted to be a benefactor of the Albion, but being a fickle individual and preoccuped with his other business, lost interest. Archer came on board simply to help out Stanley, stuck a bit of cash in but quickly realised that the Albion was not a long term viable proposition. He has a huge ego and did not want to lost face, so appointed Bellotti as the public face of the club, and fell for Bellotti's lies about the extent of influence with the council in building a new stadium.
The stadium plans never got further than public relations exercises by Bellotti, Archer quickly realising that he (Bellotti) was a bullshitter (again if you read 'Build a Bonfire' it is clear that Bellotti was held in contempt by nearly everyone, not least his wife) and that it was futile to try to build a stadium at Toad's Hole. Again his ego prevented him from a dignified exit from the club handing it across to DK because that would mean admitting failure and defeat.
Has my invitation to the NSC Xmas Bash now been withdrawn for this act of heresy?
1. The clause removing the 'no profits' clause is damning, and certainly does suggest that Archer had Machiavellian plans.
2. There was not £7 million sloshing around following the sale of the Goldstone, as the bank were owed about £6 million, and we leased the Goldstone back from the new owners for about £350,000. In the final season at the Goldstone we had the highest wage bill in Division 3. All this goes against the asset strippers code of conduct. Once again, there is no way I am promoting Bill Archer, but the situation is not black and white as you say. Without his financial support in the Gillingham years we would probably not have survived.
3. With regards to Lush's comments. They make sense on the face of it, but.......football is a loss making industry. Even with a stadium built, the club will not make any money as the debt burden on the funds borrowed to finance the stadium will wipe out any operating profits. As a businessman, you would not invest in a loss making industry with no security (remember that shareholders are the last people to receive any income when a business makes profits).
So here is my theory for what it is worth. Stanley initially wanted to be a benefactor of the Albion, but being a fickle individual and preoccuped with his other business, lost interest. Archer came on board simply to help out Stanley, stuck a bit of cash in but quickly realised that the Albion was not a long term viable proposition. He has a huge ego and did not want to lost face, so appointed Bellotti as the public face of the club, and fell for Bellotti's lies about the extent of influence with the council in building a new stadium.
The stadium plans never got further than public relations exercises by Bellotti, Archer quickly realising that he (Bellotti) was a bullshitter (again if you read 'Build a Bonfire' it is clear that Bellotti was held in contempt by nearly everyone, not least his wife) and that it was futile to try to build a stadium at Toad's Hole. Again his ego prevented him from a dignified exit from the club handing it across to DK because that would mean admitting failure and defeat.
Has my invitation to the NSC Xmas Bash now been withdrawn for this act of heresy?
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,071
Like all matters of history it is open to interpretation. One point I did miss, Archer never invested a penny in the club. The £1.4 million that was 'invested' as part of the deal when Knight came in was in fact the Stanley loan under another name, I think it was put into Archer's name. I agree with you El Presidente that a lot of this mess was down to the fact that Stanley fancied being a benefactor, but got bored when he realised that he could not drink in the director's box.
However one final point, of the debts the club had in 1995 (anywhere between 3.5 - 6m depending on who you belive), nearly all of them could have been restructured, the bank was not calling for repayment, which brings you back to the point of why was the clubs principle asset sold with no replacment on the horizon?
However one final point, of the debts the club had in 1995 (anywhere between 3.5 - 6m depending on who you belive), nearly all of them could have been restructured, the bank was not calling for repayment, which brings you back to the point of why was the clubs principle asset sold with no replacment on the horizon?
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,499
I still find it hard to think of Archer as anything other than a complete *$%£, but El Pres does raise some interesting points.
According to the Times Rich List, he's worth anything from £200 million to £250 million. Unless you're running Man United or Real Madrid, nobody makes money out of football clubs, particularly not struggling 3rd Division ones. Even if the Goldstone sale and Archer's imaginary Toads Hole stadium had come off, surely he wouldn't ever have made that much money personally out of it? Maybe a few million max.
Which is pocket money to someone of his wealth. So I don't think El Pres is entirely unreasonable to wonder if his interest wasn't motivated by the prospect of riches. Maybe he actually did get into it to help out his mate Stanley and things spiralled from here. I'm not saying he'd turn the money down (clearly not, as the removal of the "no profit" clause from the club constutition illustrates), just that I find it hard to believe the (relatively) small amount he stood to make from the stadium and the possible closure of the club could have mattered so much to someone with as much money as him. Especially when he was getting such grief (justifiably at the time). There must have been something else in it for him, otherwise why bother? Maybe we'll never know.
I still think he's a total arse by the way, and I trust Harty has already paid the deposit for the steel band at his funeral. You too, Bellotti...
According to the Times Rich List, he's worth anything from £200 million to £250 million. Unless you're running Man United or Real Madrid, nobody makes money out of football clubs, particularly not struggling 3rd Division ones. Even if the Goldstone sale and Archer's imaginary Toads Hole stadium had come off, surely he wouldn't ever have made that much money personally out of it? Maybe a few million max.
Which is pocket money to someone of his wealth. So I don't think El Pres is entirely unreasonable to wonder if his interest wasn't motivated by the prospect of riches. Maybe he actually did get into it to help out his mate Stanley and things spiralled from here. I'm not saying he'd turn the money down (clearly not, as the removal of the "no profit" clause from the club constutition illustrates), just that I find it hard to believe the (relatively) small amount he stood to make from the stadium and the possible closure of the club could have mattered so much to someone with as much money as him. Especially when he was getting such grief (justifiably at the time). There must have been something else in it for him, otherwise why bother? Maybe we'll never know.
I still think he's a total arse by the way, and I trust Harty has already paid the deposit for the steel band at his funeral. You too, Bellotti...
I had also heard that one of the reasons why the £1.4M was not taken out of the club was because it was earning a very high level of interest - far higher than at a bank. I believe this was highlighted by Paul Samrah when he reviewed the club's books following publication.
Also, and I stand to be corrected, I don't think that Archer was that rich in 1995-6. He might have been a millionaire (just), but the prospect of a £2 or £3M 'killing' just by removing the restrictive clause would have been very appealing.
Also, and I stand to be corrected, I don't think that Archer was that rich in 1995-6. He might have been a millionaire (just), but the prospect of a £2 or £3M 'killing' just by removing the restrictive clause would have been very appealing.
Storer68
New member
£56.25 was the TOTAL amount he PERSOANLLY invested in BHAFC to buy Foray 525.
The goldstone was sold for £7.4m with planning permission (but without development) all this did was wipe out the BHA debt at Barckays, However Abbey Life sold it a year later for £24.2m having constructed the Rtail Park, so perhaps that was
The major loans were done via Greg Stanley;s family trusts with huge penalty calauses for missing repayment dates (which funnily enough Bellotti managed to miss) so on a £1.4 m loan the club ended up paying something close to £2.2m. Stanley then (as I am led to believe) was given the impression that an opportunity to become a key investor in Chelsea was about to become available and rapidly lost interest in putting money into BHA (leaving Archer to carry the financial burden, which he couldn't, which led to the Banks putting pressure for loan servicing). However, Stanley was outbid by Matthew Harding, although he has bought one of the penthouse flats at Chelsea Village.
The goldstone was sold for £7.4m with planning permission (but without development) all this did was wipe out the BHA debt at Barckays, However Abbey Life sold it a year later for £24.2m having constructed the Rtail Park, so perhaps that was
The major loans were done via Greg Stanley;s family trusts with huge penalty calauses for missing repayment dates (which funnily enough Bellotti managed to miss) so on a £1.4 m loan the club ended up paying something close to £2.2m. Stanley then (as I am led to believe) was given the impression that an opportunity to become a key investor in Chelsea was about to become available and rapidly lost interest in putting money into BHA (leaving Archer to carry the financial burden, which he couldn't, which led to the Banks putting pressure for loan servicing). However, Stanley was outbid by Matthew Harding, although he has bought one of the penthouse flats at Chelsea Village.
El Presidente said:
Oh yeah, he really wanted to give it didn't he !
The only reason this came about was because his financial advisors strongly recommended he write this outstanding figure off prior to the flotation of FOCUS (which they were working on at the time). They were extremely concerned about the bad press and old history of dubious financial management associated with his tenure in control of the Albion. They were also wary of fresh protests against his companies as bitter Albion fans learnt of how much he was going to increase his personal wealth as a result of the flotation. Not exactly the best way to court shareholders or get the city on your side.
The flotation of FOCUS has been pulled three times. According to The Sunday Times one of the reasons was that FOCUS have a poor governance record and a history of not paying their suppliers on time. The City, sadly, could not give a shit about the Albion.
El Pres, I never said the city gave a hoot, I said Archers advisors told him to write off HIS interest in the Albion prior to the flotation (which as you rightly say has been aborted) as it could be a very real source of bad press and evidence of suspect financial and business practice. That is why he relenquished his interest, not as a goodwill gesture which is what your post intimated.
No, I have never suggested that it was a goodwill gesture, but a strange one. It could be linked to the flotation, I suspect we will never know.
Perhaps Harty could persuade WA to appear on his show to reveal all one day............
Perhaps Harty could persuade WA to appear on his show to reveal all one day............
El Presidente said:
Not having a go mate, simply when I first read the above I thought it sounded that way. Quite frankly anything I read that makes him sound hard done by drives me mad.
Apologies if that was not what you intended.
I had the misfortune of being involved in numerous official supporters meetings with the jokers in charge at that time and believe me, they were unbelievably frustrating to say the least. It was clear we were being played for mugs. In the end everyone (supporters rep's, fanzine rep's, misc others) jointly withdrew negotiations with them and put our efforts into drawing attention to what was going on and protesting instead.