Clarification from Paul Barber on Dick Knight Selling his shares

[B.W.]

The little extracts I've read of the book smack of a man that feels aggrieved that having done 90% of the work he wasn't allow to finish it. But as others have said, Tony Bloom was stumping up the £100m to pay for the ground, in his shoes I'd want to be chairman and owner too and without him doing that there would be no ground. It just comes across a little bit bitter from Dick to be honest.

This. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Sorry, Dick, but you need to let it go.

 

[Jim D]

And who was it who turned up in Archer's team of two, to do battle with Dick Knight on the occasion that Knight first met Archer?

Not Greg Stanley, not David Bellotti, but ... Ray Bloom.

I have no knowledge of the reality of the situation here but it seems to me that, if you're going to have a spy in the opposition's camp, the best sort of spy is one who they trust.

 

[B.W.]

I agree with you to some extent, but what Dick said last night at the book signing was that he would have been quite happy for Bloom to have started as Vice Chairman, and for Dick to hand over Chairmanship to Bloom in due course - he had envisaged a symbolic handover at the first match at the stadium (either Spurs or Doncaster), with Dick them stepping down. But Bloom wanted the chairmanship from day one. Personally, I think that what Dick wanted would have been a reasonable compromise -- let Dick see through the stadium project to completion and then hand over the running of the board and club to the man who'd stumped up the dosh.

Nonsense. Tony pumped in the cash. He had EVERY right to be chairman whenever he wanted to be chairman, as a condition of stumping up. Dick always liked to be the centre of attention, and sounds like a bitter old man because he didn't get the chance to lord it over the first game at the Amex.

 

[B.W.]

I think if I was sitting there at Withdean saying look the banks won't give us any money, I tell you what I'll pay for it all, all £100m, then another £20m on training facilities, then a further £8m per year for god knows how long just to keep the club afloat, all on top of what I'd already put into the club, I would probably want to run the show and make sure it was done properly. You really can't blame Bloom for wanting that. And Dick Knight should have gracefully accepted that, however galling it must have been.

Seconded

 

[B.W.]

Dear Lord, he really needs to get over this doesn't he. Clearly Perry was trying to be kind and let him face up to reality. He shouldn't be having a pop at him now.

Too right! Dick, you need to let this go, mate, or you will start damaging your own fantastic legacy.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

Very sad state of affairs.
Guess Dick knew the ramifications of writing this book and the bad feeling it would cause between him and his old mukkas who he fought the long battle with.
He has set his record straight and will get some cash in the bank for his troubles. Good luck to him and for his chosen path. Just a bit sad that a life president is unwelcome in the directors box. You make your bed I s'pose....

 

[soistes]

Nonsense. Tony pumped in the cash. He had EVERY right to be chairman whenever he wanted to be chairman, as a condition of stumping up. Dick always liked to be the centre of attention, and sounds like a bitter old man because he didn't get the chance to lord it over the first game at the Amex.

It's not nonsense. I entirely agree that TB had every right to do what he did, and I've never suggested otherwise. All I'm suggesting is that, given the history, and DK's unchallenged role in it, a possibly more gracious/generous approach would have been the compromise of letting DK at least see it through to the completion of the Amex and the start of the season before exercising that right. TB would still, in the latter case, have been at the helm from then on, through the crucial stage of running the club in its new form at the new stadium. However, I absolutely accept that TB did nothing "wrong" in any strict sense, and I also realise that you don't get to be as rich as he is by being gracious/generous in such circumstances; rather you do it by ruthlessness.

 

[Simster]

It's not nonsense. I entirely agree that TB had every right to do what he did, and I've never suggested otherwise. All I'm suggesting is that, given the history, and DK's unchallenged role in it, a possibly more gracious/generous approach would have been the compromise of letting DK at least see it through to the completion of the Amex and the start of the season before exercising that right. TB would still, in the latter case, have been at the helm from then on, through the crucial stage of running the club in its new form at the new stadium. However, I absolutely accept that TB did nothing "wrong" in any strict sense, and I also realise that you don't get to be as rich as he is by being gracious/generous in such circumstances; rather you do it by ruthlessness.

Why should he?

Knight had 12 years running things, and by and large the best wishes of our fans. The time to step aside was there and then, not to expect favours after he failed to get us a stadium using his own business model. This idea of handing the keys over ceremonially at the first game was nothing but a massage of his own ego.

 

[symyjym]

It's not nonsense. I entirely agree that TB had every right to do what he did, and I've never suggested otherwise. All I'm suggesting is that, given the history, and DK's unchallenged role in it, a possibly more gracious/generous approach would have been the compromise of letting DK at least see it through to the completion of the Amex and the start of the season before exercising that right. TB would still, in the latter case, have been at the helm from then on, through the crucial stage of running the club in its new form at the new stadium. However, I absolutely accept that TB did nothing "wrong" in any strict sense, and I also realise that you don't get to be as rich as he is by being gracious/generous in such circumstances; rather you do it by ruthlessness.

Agree with all of this. TB chose the right time to go all in after planning permission was granted and Brutus happily danced to his tune. Maybe too merrily for DK's liking.

 

[The Large One]

And what experience did the potless pillock have in 1997 ?

Of running a football club - none.

Of running people-oriented businesses, in need of good communication, strategies and planning - about 30 years' experience.

Tony has sound business acumen of course, but it's not in the same realm. However, together, him and Dick could have been dynamite.

 

[Beach Hut]

At a meeting over 10 years ago, Knight said once the stadium was built he would want more fans to become shareholders. That statement was backed by all other directors at that time. They can't surely change their mind now?

Oh yes they can like they have about travel being purchased as an add on as opposed to compulsory.

This must be the dying embers for the Dick Lickers

 

[The Large One]

Oh yes they can like they have about travel being purchased as an add on as opposed to compulsory.

This must be the dying embers for the Dick Lickers

You had a nice time at his leaving do, didn't you?

 

[Hungry Joe]

Dick always was an egomaniac, one of the more unpleasant people connected with the club I've met over the years. We can now add bitter to that. He achieved great things for us, there's no denying that, which makes it more the pity that he's chosen to throw the muck now. But alas, those blinded by their cozy relationship to the 'great man' during the Withdean Years will always deny his faults and try and have him as some kind of Saint.

 

[Commander]

Tony has sound business acumen of course, but it's not in the same realm. However, together, him and Dick could have been dynamite.

Never in a million years would that have worked. Two completely different characters.

Oh yes they can like they have about travel being purchased as an add on as opposed to compulsory.

This must be the dying embers for the Dick Lickers

Oh my God you are still going on about that you moaning, tight old dullard.

 

[Beach Hut]

You had a nice time at his leaving do, didn't you?

It was OK (the I love Dick T-shirt was funny) and he was quite pleasant company last night but come off it, it is over time to move on................

 

[Beach Hut]

Never in a million years would that have worked. Two completely different characters.



Oh my God you are still going on about that you moaning, tight old dullard.

The point is very clear, the question was they (the Board) can't change something 10 years ago where as they changed something after a year - who is the dullard now ?

 

[Ernest]

I have HEARD Hollywood are INTERESTED in making a FLIM of the book entitled 'The EGO has LANDED'.

 

[symyjym]

I have HEARD Hollywood are INTERESTED in making a FLIM of the book entitled 'The EGO has LANDED'.

You're a fine one to talk about egos

 

[Beach Hut]

I have HEARD Hollywood are INTERESTED in making a FLIM of the book entitled 'The EGO has LANDED'.

 

[paddy]

Indeed. If individual fan shareholders turn up at the AGM, it will simply be another fan's forum. There's nothing wrong with that, and, personally, I think it's a laudable aim for fans to be shareholders in their clubs (as I do employees holding shares in their employers), but absolutely nothing would change.

In terms of voting on resolutions, the vote will go something like: "Resolution 1: I have ~90% [minimum] in favour. All those against? 0.05%. OK, resolution carried. Resolution 2 ......". Repeat ad nauseam.

Exactly. In fact, the formality of it will mean less of an opportunity to engage with the board than at a fans forum.

However, it might not even get to this. If the shares being offered are in a private company then there would be no AGM. The requirement to hold an AGM (and even the concept of an AGM) was abolished for private companies in the Companies Act 2006. Most will still hold a general meeting once a year to get some standard resolutions passed like giving the board authority to allot new shares. However, in theory, the company could not hold a general meeting for a number of years. Further, it would be exceptionally difficult for fans to force the directors to hold a GM since under CA 2006 you need 5% of the shareholders to send a s303 notice and it appears as though DK's shareholding is less than that.