Derek Chapman has a swipe at DK

[blue'n'white]

I have not yet read the book although I will obviously be doing so.
My take on all of this is, and has always been, that Dick Knight saved the club at the time but that Tony Bloom made it a viable proposition for the future.
I'm just thankful that we do still have a club to support and I'm thankful to both of those gentlemen for allowing that to happen - back in the late 90s I was very fearful that I'd have to go elsewhere.
It's a very interesting piece from Mr Chapman though

 

[Monkey Man]

Quotes from Derek Chapman's comment piece:

"I think I’m well placed to make a few observations on the book’s content."

"Anyway, I do wish Dick good luck with his book. Like most lifelong Albion fans, I’m sure I will buy a copy!"

So it sounds like he hasn't read it then. Just the sensational, headline-grabbing, context-lacking bits reproduced elsewhere. Probably not THAT well placed to comment on its content then.

And I am by no means anti-Chapman. I just think it would have been more useful to read his thoughts, observations etc once he had actually read the book. I am sure there are lots of interesting and revealing observations he would have to make but without having actually seen ALL of what Knight had to say it sort of lacks a bit.

Hang on a minute. Derek Chapman is entitled to have a view purely because he lived through all this stuff. He was part of the process and part of the story. He doesn't necessarily need to read the book to be able to make a comment, any more than Dick Knight would have had to read Derek's diaries (if he kept them) before having his own very public say. Chapman isn't offering a review of Knight's book. He's simply engaging in the conversation that the book has stimulated. And if you re-read his comments in the Argus, he isn't picking holes in the text of the book. Just offering his own small account of the era that we know the book deals with.

 

[Simster]

Are you saying I am not entitled to an opinion? Ok then. For what it's worth, I have already read the book.

Yes, that's right - I'm obviously saying you can't have your opinion. That's obviously what I meant by taking umbrage to this daft post:

The book doesn't take a swipe at the club and DC isn't taking a swipe at DK. The Argus are stirring things up.

He clearly is - that's why the Argus printed it.


What I'm actually saying is that rather than rubbishing a discussion forum by likening it to a soap opera for having the temerity to discuss it, you're probably better off staying away from the thread.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

But I think the issue would have been the sacking of Adams which would appear to have been a unilateral decision by Knight who, at the time, was only chairman in name as he was not the one funding the club!!!

According to the book, there was no "sacking" of Adams. He threw in the towel.

 

[B.W.]

I don't understand

Are you suggesting that everyone and every organisation mentioned in the book should have had a preview out of courtesy?

I'm suggesting that Dick should put the club higher up his agenda than his book sales.

 

[symyjym]

Probably the accusations on NSC some time back. I think the word 'trousering' was used on this board to describe how Chapman made a profit from the AMEX construction. Fair play that he's publicaly putting the record straight.

So DC isn't going to profit from building the hotel and student accommodation either? And there is no kudos or portfolio value to him as reference to future construction tenders?

This is as much about real estate bricks and mortar as it is a football club. I’m not saying that it is bad for our club but these wealthy businessmen are not doing it for nothing because they will gain from the project in many ways. The Amex project is one big advert for them and the spinoffs are massive.

Dick Knight did a great job, Bloom taking over was a good move, but for directors to come out painting themselves as altruistic angels just because of a book is just plain daft.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yes, that's right - I'm obviously saying you can't have your opinion. That's obviously what I meant by taking umbrage to this daft post:



He clearly is - that's why the Argus printed it.


What I'm actually saying is that rather than rubbishing a discussion forum by likening it to a soap opera for having the temerity to discuss it, you're probably better off staying away from the thread.

The Argus is so accurate with it's quotes, of course.

Nsc is like a soap opera, not just on this thread.

 

[B.W.]

Quotes from Derek Chapman's comment piece:

"I think I’m well placed to make a few observations on the book’s content."

"Anyway, I do wish Dick good luck with his book. Like most lifelong Albion fans, I’m sure I will buy a copy!"

So it sounds like he hasn't read it then. Just the sensational, headline-grabbing, context-lacking bits reproduced elsewhere. Probably not THAT well placed to comment on its content then.

And I am by no means anti-Chapman. I just think it would have been more useful to read his thoughts, observations etc once he had actually read the book. I am sure there are lots of interesting and revealing observations he would have to make but without having actually seen ALL of what Knight had to say it sort of lacks a bit.

Dick sanctioned those extracts. Surely, RB and DC are entitled to a right to reply to the extracts?

 

[The Large One]

Yes, that's right - I'm obviously saying you can't have your opinion. That's obviously what I meant by taking umbrage to this daft post:

He clearly is - that's why the Argus printed it.

Derek Chapman is clarifying certain things, putting across his version, not so much of events, but more how the boardroom operated. However, when doing so in the context of - according to the Argus - the fact that Dick's book has just come out, it's not unreasonable to think he is replying to Dick's book. In fact, the first paragraph of the Argus piece states just that.

And there's the rub, Dick doesn't make any accusation against Derek in print, so what accusation is Derek justifying himself against, unless he has been told something in error - either accidentally or mischievously - by a third party?

 

[B.W.]

Have you read the book?

No, on its way (to be followed by shares, if Dick thinks I'm worthy! ;-)). I have, however, read the extracts and, like RB abd DC, am entitled to my opinion on those. Well done if you have received your copy, digested every word, and are more informed than me on the books contents at this stage.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Dick sanctioned those extracts. Surely, RB and DC are entitled to a right to reply to the extracts?

Neither DK nor the publishers sanctioned the extracts used on Friday. And the club knows that.

 

[B.W.]

Are you saying I am not entitled to an opinion? Ok then. For what it's worth, I have already read the book.

You are entitled to your opinion, and so is everyone else. Are the extracts not representative of the whole book?

 

[sparkie]

So DC isn't going to profit from building the hotel and student accommodation either? And there is no kudos or portfolio value to him as reference to future construction tenders?

This is as much about real estate bricks and mortar as it is a football club. I’m not saying that it is bad for our club but these wealthy businessmen are not doing it for nothing because they will gain from the project in many ways. The Amex project is one big advert for them and the spinoffs are massive.

Dick Knight did a great job, Bloom taking over was a good move, but for directors to come out painting themselves as altruistic angels just because of a book is just plain daft.

No idea. Just pointing out where the accusations of Chapman trousering funds - which he defended himself against today - came from.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Derek Chapman is clarifying certain things, putting across his version, not so much of events, but more how the boardroom operated. However, when doing so in the context of - according to the Argus - the fact that Dick's book has just come out, it's not unreasonable to think he is replying to Dick's book. In fact, the first paragraph of the Argus piece states just that.

And there's the rub, Dick doesn't make any accusation against Derek in print, so what accusation is Derek justifying himself against, unless he has been told something in error - either accidentally or mischievously - by a third party?

This.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No idea. Just pointing out where the accusations of Chapman trousering funds - which he defended himself against today - came from.

From just one poster on Nsc called rusty redeyes.

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?281803-Dick-Knight

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Derek Chapman is clarifying certain things, putting across his version, not so much of events, but more how the boardroom operated. However, when doing so in the context of - according to the Argus - the fact that Dick's book has just come out, it's not unreasonable to think he is replying to Dick's book. In fact, the first paragraph of the Argus piece states just that.

And there's the rub, Dick doesn't make any accusation against Derek in print, so what accusation is Derek justifying himself against, unless he has been told something in error - either accidentally or mischievously - by a third party?

Stop being obtuse. As already posted (copied below), you understand entirely well, why DC needed to cover that, to put his views on DK's stance into context.

You are missing the point. He's putting into context, his bemusement / distaste at DK's stance, by making clear that he and others in the same situation, saw things very differently. Had he not added the Adenstar bit, I can absolutely guarantee that somebody on here would have countered that it was 'easy for DC not to want cash back for his shares, when he's trousered millions from the construction projects'. Such things have been written on here many, many times. Good for him, for setting that particular record straight.

 

[sparkie]

From just one poster on Nsc called rusty redeyes.

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?281803-Dick-Knight

Yes - that's my point. No one seemed to know what accusations he was responding to.


I'd already linked the same thread as you in an earlier post

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Hang on a minute. Derek Chapman is entitled to have a view purely because he lived through all this stuff. He was part of the process and part of the story. He doesn't necessarily need to read the book to be able to make a comment, any more than Dick Knight would have had to read Derek's diaries (if he kept them) before having his own very public say. Chapman isn't offering a review of Knight's book. He's simply engaging in the conversation that the book has stimulated. And if you re-read his comments in the Argus, he isn't picking holes in the text of the book. Just offering his own small account of the era that we know the book deals with.

I agree, of course he has a brilliant position from which to comment on the goings on at the time. But Chapman does himself refer to making observations on the book's content.

Perhaps I didn't word it quite right. I meant it would perhaps be more useful and interesting for supporters if he had commented having read the book because I am sure he would have some interesting take on it. But as there is nothing in the book attacking him, I don't see why Chapman needs to comment on it as if there was.

In general I do think supporters should hold back a bit until having read the book because it isn't nearly as vitriolic as the headline-grabbing extracts suggest.

I think much of the polarisation being argued on here is probably unnecessary given the book's overall content.

 

[B.W.]

Had I made a conscious decision not to be a director - but I was happy with those running it - I would let them get on with it. Which sounds like it is TB's style. On major decsions it may be welcome to get consulted - but DC did not specify major decisions. He says "some". Anyway not a major point.

Tony was entitled to gain control, he obviously wanted it. Just a shame it took too long to wrestle it from Dick.

 

[B.W.]

I agree. I really don't understand why some folk would be having a panic over the 'revelations' of DK's book; & the debate it has already sparked. Shirley it's better to have knowledge of the various Boardroom shennanigans to formulate your own considered opinion of the people who run - & indeed ran - our football club?

On the contrary, I would say some matters should stay in the boardroom. Gus' misdemeanour's for example.