"Community Club"

[Tooting Gull]

Just purely on the thread topic, I think the phrase 'Community Club' is a bit cheesy, reminds me of 'Peoples Princess' for some reason - and that's not a positive thing.

We are no more and no less a community club than most. In fact you could argue that if we were more important to the wider community we wouldn't be having this Falmer nightmare.

 

[Dandyman]

Just purely on the thread topic, I think the phrase 'Community Club' is a bit cheesy, reminds me of 'Peoples Princess' for some reason - and that's not a positive thing.

We are no more and no less a community club than most. In fact you could argue that if we were more important to the wider community we wouldn't be having this Falmer nightmare.

I blame the Duke of Edinburgh.

 

[BensGrandad]

Could you tell us therefore what happened in the boardroom last week which was different to what was agreed in the summer which forced Dick Knight to sack McGhee? What was it that so panicked him?

I would assume and I have no more knowledge than you or anybody else that the fans reaction indicated to DK that there was unrest and rather than face a 'possible' confrontation with his fellow directors he took the decision to sack MM. That is my interpretation of the timing of the sacking, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Bromley shrimp]

Just purely on the thread topic, I think the phrase 'Community Club' is a bit cheesy, reminds me of 'Peoples Princess' for some reason - and that's not a positive thing.

We are no more and no less a community club than most. In fact you could argue that if we were more important to the wider community we wouldn't be having this Falmer nightmare.

Agree - I sort of picture us in the Southwick mould when that particular spin gets trotted out.

 

[London Irish]

Just purely on the thread topic, I think the phrase 'Community Club' is a bit cheesy, reminds me of 'Peoples Princess' for some reason - and that's not a positive thing.

It's OK in the proper context, a Community Stadium, the Albion in the Community programme (Study Centre etc). As a fig leaf to sack a manager, it jarred a little.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

For heaven's sake ...

I never suggested that the main reason for sacking MM was that DK wanted to win a boardroom battle, or that MM is a victim of nothing but boardroom politics.

He was sacked because DK felt is was right to sack him.

Or is that too complicated a theory?

 

[Lady Bracknell]

Still prefer the dastardly plot option but haven't a clue as to why. Too complicated probably.

 

[BensGrandad]

Lord B yours and my views as to why DK thought it the right thing to do at that time differ, nothing complicated in that. We must just agree to differ. I am sure that there are people who will agree with your view and simarly people will agree with mine.

 

[The Large One]

Lord B yours and my views as to why DK thought it the right thing to do at that time differ, nothing complicated in that. We must just agree to differ. I am sure that there are people who will agree with your view and simarly people will agree with mine.

Probably, but the latter aren't allowed to vote.

 

[attila]

Interesting.
I don't think Dick was 100% behind McGhee in the summer, and
a few games into this season a first reassessment of the situation was always going to be made.

Let's remember that Dick, Martin et al are there because of the supporters in the first place: if we hadn't done what we did in the 90s it's very doubtful that the Albion would still exist. I know for a fact that he will never forget that and that what the supporters think is fundamentally important to him. Of course he listens to us. And no, I don't just mean the 'inner circle.' For many/most of us, including Dick in my interpretation, the Revell substitution summed up in one single act everything that McGhee had been doing wrong for some while: it had been going on for a while, but that was the last straw. The spontaneous chants and booing from all over the ground concentrated his mind still further: the need to revitalise the situation, turn the gates round, and not least get a healthy and unified turnout for the rally next Sunday. That's my take on it.

 

[Dave the OAP]

I suppose its the "famler Community Stadium Project" as that gives us some sort of moral high ground in that we can say that Falmer is not just for the supporters of teh club, but for the community at large ( always a bit tenuous buy hey...)

DK's decision to sack MM based on the premis that the fans had seemly had enough and as we are a community club, he took our views into account is a very strange use of the phrase and i havent the faintest idea what he meant by it!......I know Ed and others suggested that when the idea of a supporter on the board was muted , the supporters club rejected the idea as we were very transparent anyway and also fans forums were to be held regularily therefore we would all be told what is going on anyway.

Well I thought we fought Archer and Bellotti to install a consortium led by real fans of the club. Yet, DK takes a decision on his own to sack MM? Did he consult his fellow directors? i assume he did. Whilst i understand he is chairman, he is NOT AN AUTOCRACY!!!! We had one of them before!

If suddenly we see pots of money been made available to the new manager whoever that may be, then that will say 1. Why did not MM get this money last year to keep us up and 2. if players come here, then perhaps MM was the problem after all.

I am not sorry to see MM go, however I do feel very sorry that the money he brought into the club with sales of Cullip, Virgo, Currie, harding etc never really saw their way into team strengthening, rather the black hole that seems to be never ending.

 

[Easy 10]

These were Dick Knights comments on 10th May, soon after it had been agreed that McGhee would be staying on:

"Mark has got clubs - including ourselves - promoted from League One before and is being given every chance to do so again. For the good of the club, I am very pleased that agreement has been reached. We are shaping up to the realities of life outside the Championship. Mark and his staff are fully aware of the challenge ahead."

And McGhee said:

"We are in the middle of a transitional period on and off the pitch. The squad is changing and we intend to improve it further with some experienced playing additions. Those additions, along with a crop of young players coming through, should give us a realistic platform to mount a challenge next season."

So what changed since then ? Although Knight is citing "fan power" for this sacking, I don't buy it. I think the primary reason why MM got his marching orders was again his abject failure during the transfer window to bring anyone in. That on top of the failure in the January window, and the subsequent Spring loan window that passed us by with zero reinforcements when they were so DESPERATELY needed, left McGhee hanging by a thread. A thread that snapped when August 31st came and went after a shambolic effort at getting in reinforcements.

The usual suspects will claim that the board didn't make enough funds available for McGhee to bring anyone in. But clubs on smaller budgets than ours, clubs who wern't in a position to offer £150k in transfer fee's, still managed to wheel and deal in the transfer market to bring in players. Thats probably the single most CRUCIAL ability of a lower-league manager to be able to do, and McGhee had clearly lost that ability.

When the results started to slide, and the fans started making their feelings known, those were probably the deciding factors in DK's decision. But I think ther seeds of McGhee's dismissal were sown primarily through his failure in the last 2 transfer windows, and the state the squad has been left in as a direct result.

 

[The Large One]

DK's decision to sack MM based on the premis that the fans had seemly had enough and as we are a community club, he took our views into account is a very strange use of the phrase and i havent the faintest idea what he meant by it!......I know Ed and others suggested that when the idea of a supporter on the board was muted , the supporters club rejected the idea as we were very transparent anyway and also fans forums were to be held regularily therefore we would all be told what is going on anyway.

I don't think it was so much the supporters' club rejecting it as the supporters rejecting it. Although 'fans representative on the board' sounds wonderful and progressive and democratic, it is also full of the kind of nightmares you would only ever find on a Stock, Aitken & Waterman record.

Well I thought we fought Archer and Bellotti to install a consortium led by real fans of the club. Yet, DK takes a decision on his own to sack MM? Did he consult his fellow directors? i assume he did. Whilst i understand he is chairman, he is NOT AN AUTOCRACY!!!! We had one of them before!

DK took the final decision to sack Mark McGhee knowing full well he had the backing of the board to do so. However, as I understand it, he did consult/inform the board first, and I don't suppose there would have been too many dissenters.

 

[Dave the OAP]

I don't think it was so much the supporters' club rejecting it as the supporters rejecting it. Although 'fans representative on the board' sounds wonderful and progressive and democratic, it is also full of the kind of nightmares you would only ever find on a Stock, Aitken & Waterman record.

Sorry Alan I am not as witty as you. What exactly does that mean?

 

[Dave the OAP]

So what changed since then ? Although Knight is citing "fan power" for this sacking, I don't buy it. I think the primary reason why MM got his marching orders was again his abject failure during the transfer window to bring anyone in. That on top of the failure in the January window, and the subsequent Spring loan window that passed us by with zero reinforcements when they were so DESPERATELY needed, left McGhee hanging by a thread. A thread that snapped when August 31st came and went after a shambolic effort at getting in reinforcements.

Ok I understand what you are saying, however that doesnt explain the Bob Booker sacking. If MM was the one charged with bringing in players ( and I thought that DK did the transfer wheeling and dealing!!!) then a) what did BB actually do to get himself sacked and b) was he sacrificed to save money?

 

[rool]

Ok I understand what you are saying, however that doesnt explain the Bob Booker sacking. If MM was the one charged with bringing in players ( and I thought that DK did the transfer wheeling and dealing!!!) then a) what did BB actually do to get himself sacked and b) was he sacrificed to save money?

My theory on the BB sacking is that there may have been alternative managers prepared to take the job in the past but may have wanted their own staff to come in. DK had always insisted that the new manager works with the current assistant manager.

Either that or he now has nothing new to offer and some new voices and ideas are needed with this set of players

 

[Bozza]

Ok I understand what you are saying, however that doesnt explain the Bob Booker sacking. If MM was the one charged with bringing in players ( and I thought that DK did the transfer wheeling and dealing!!!) then a) what did BB actually do to get himself sacked and b) was he sacrificed to save money?

How does sacking someone save money? Don't you pay up the length of their contract?

 

[The Large One]

Sorry Alan I am not as witty as you. What exactly does that mean?

What I mean is... one, there are certain aspects of day-to-day management of the club which either the shareholding board members won't want you to hear (e.g. player discipline, personal issues etc), in which case why would only one fan be party to that information, and not be allowed to pass it on.

Secondly, 'a fans' representative' is going to have to cater for such a diverse range of opinions and thoughts, that they could never be truly representative of the fans. If they take on board one set of opinions and not the other (even if the 'other' ends up being completely potty), they run the risk (if not the high probability) of not being considered truly representative.

That person would then be pilloried, accused of being a club puppet, too close to the story, and theereby utterly ineffective. Like I said - the stuff of nightmares.

My point is, what would we be trying to achieve by having a fans' representative on the board? More openness? For instance, I suspect people on here might want to have known the day-to-day shenanigans between McGhee and Leon Knight. Or McGhee and CKR. I believe that that kind of openness would be incredibly discourteous and indiscrete, not to say ultimately destructive.

We have a level of openness with the club which many other clubs (probably most clubs) don't enjoy, and I think one which many take for granted. True, at times, I'd like to hear some more information, even if it is dull and mundane stuff, but someone, somewhere must strike a balance, and I think this club doesn't make too bad a job of it.

 

[The Large One]

How does sacking someone save money? Don't you pay up the length of their contract?

I don't think Booker ever worked with a contract - but I could be wrong.

 

[El Presidente]

So what changed since then ? Although Knight is citing "fan power" for this sacking, I don't buy it. I think the primary reason why MM got his marching orders was again his abject failure during the transfer window to bring anyone in. That on top of the failure in the January window, and the subsequent Spring loan window that passed us by with zero reinforcements when they were so DESPERATELY needed, left McGhee hanging by a thread. A thread that snapped when August 31st came and went after a shambolic effort at getting in reinforcements.

The usual suspects will claim that the board didn't make enough funds available for McGhee to bring anyone in. But clubs on smaller budgets than ours, clubs who wern't in a position to offer £150k in transfer fee's, still managed to wheel and deal in the transfer market to bring in players. Thats probably the single most CRUCIAL ability of a lower-league manager to be able to do, and McGhee had clearly lost that ability.

I think you are being harsh on MM.

He did sign GNW at the arse end of last season, but remember we also had McShane and Henderson (initially on loan) via the loan system, along with the three French lads and Turienzo and Molango who were both signed by DK over the head of MM.

He was initially unable to sign any more players when the season ended as the board was in turmoil, so that even the existing squad were not offered contracts until it was finalised.

DK hates agents with a passion, and this further complicated issues. I am not saying that DK is wrong to hate these weasels, but it makes the job of the manager more difficult.

The 'broken man' and 'commumnity club ' stuff is however a smokescreen for the fact that DK saw that the fans were turning against him as well as MM, and so MM was made a scapegoat.