Dick Knight in today's Argus

[Westdene Seagull]

Like he did when everybody down to the toilet cleaner knew what was happening at the club. Sour grapes!

Pot, kettle and black !

 

[BigGully]

Pot, kettle and black !

I think the role of a football chairman demands greater professionalism than any of us random internet forum posters .....

 

[ROSM]

Indeed it does and Dick (like tb now) had a good reputation with other chairmen. I don't know tb's reputation with players and managers but I know dk had a good one with the vast majority of those he dealt with. I think only Wilkins had (justifiably given the circumstances) any long term negative views.

 

[Buzzer]

Assuming it stays as a charity. It cost the club 250gbp last year. It didnt make money but then it isnt supposed to.

Perhaps you can answer this but what's the deal with regards to rental, staff and marketing costs for AITC? Do they pay the club a market rate for rent and advertising? i.e. how 'independent' is it and does it really cost the club nothing? My question isn't loaded - I am just wondering on what basis the club can impose its will on an independent charity.

They've got rid of DK and the other 2 execs were pushed out after significant pressure from the club and arguably unfairly. The AITC is a massive success story and I can't understand how it's not in a much stronger position to rebuff what the club are doing. They've got (or had) very able personnel throughout the charity, they've got the reputation and significant goodwill and numerous awards to their name.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Indeed it does and Dick (like tb now) had a good reputation with other chairmen. I don't know tb's reputation with players and managers but I know dk had a good one with the vast majority of those he dealt with. I think only Wilkins had (justifiably given the circumstances) any long term negative views.

The few chairmen who have commented on TB (Darragh MacAnthony at Peterborough springs to mind) has nothing but praise for him. Bearing in mind his low key approach I doubt if many have strong views on him.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Credit to the Argus for running it. They know the club won't be chuffed, and it doesn't mean they agree with Knight about any or all of it. Their job is to get the interview, it's an agenda-setter.

In the recent past there has been an unwillingness to mess with stories that the club would be unhappy about, hopefully this marks a line in the sand and Argus will probably get more respect as a result in the long run from club. Or a ban (but that is usually a badge of honour anyway).

Knight is a very important figure in the club's history and his views are of interest, you don't have to agree with him about everything to realise that.

 

[LamieRobertson]

It's sad that Dick feels slightly bitter about the way things have turned out at the Albion. However I can sympathise with his viewpoint as AITC was his baby and it is now being moved on from him. However it must be remembered that Dick saved this club and is in my mind the worthiest recipient of the title "Legend" that the club has ever had.

That said, I do feel with everything that has gone on in the past week Tony is finally getting the club run the way he wants it. All the various pieces are finally coming together after learning the lessons of the first two years at the Amex. We now have a grander vision of the future and the infrastructure to achieve it is finally being put in place, and I for one am very excited.

It would be a shame if this thread in particular turned into one filled with name calling and recrimination. Surely it is possible to acknowledge the achievements of the old regime whilst looking forward to our future as a potentially top-flight football club and the necessary changes required to make that happen.

this

 

[Giraffe]

Dick Knight in attention seeking story shocker.

It was inevitable that the club needs to move on. Bloom is doing that.

I agree with Knight over Gus though. Whichever way you look at it it has been handled very badly. Very badly indeed.

But I doubt Tony Bloom will lose much sleep over Dick's comments. They are an irrelevance really.

 

[The Large One]

Perhaps you can answer this but what's the deal with regards to rental, staff and marketing costs for AITC? Do they pay the club a market rate for rent and advertising? i.e. how 'independent' is it and does it really cost the club nothing? My question isn't loaded - I am just wondering on what basis the club can impose its will on an independent charity.

They've got rid of DK and the other 2 execs were pushed out after significant pressure from the club and arguably unfairly. The AITC is a massive success story and I can't understand how it's not in a much stronger position to rebuff what the club are doing. They've got (or had) very able personnel throughout the charity, they've got the reputation and significant goodwill and numerous awards to their name.

The most recent accounts published stated that AITC paid the club £34,000 for various rents (office, machinery etc).

It also states that in the y/e 30 Jun 2010, the AITC cost the club nothing, and in the y/e 30 Jun, it paid £258. What that was for, it doesn't say.

AITC is, financially at least, independent of the club. However, many trustees are also Albion board members.

 

[Buzzer]

The most recent accounts published stated that AITC paid the club £34,000 for various rents (office, machinery etc).

It also states that in the y/e 30 Jun 2010, the AITC cost the club nothing, and in the y/e 30 Jun, it paid £258. What that was for, it doesn't say.

AITC is, financially at least, independent of the club. However, many trustees are also Albion board members.

Cheers matey. So on that basis AITC should have been in a much stronger position than it appears. If the rumours are true that AITC will be dismantled and re-built as something different then perhaps DK should have gone public earlier on this particular point. What did DK have to lose by stating ublicly what the club were trying to do and why he disagreed? On the AITC, DK's reputation is beyond reproach and as Life President he doesn't have to worry about upsetting the board. Do you agree?

 

[ROSM]

The few chairmen who have commented on TB (Darragh MacAnthony at Peterborough springs to mind) has nothing but praise for him. Bearing in mind his low key approach I doubt if many have strong views on him.

I have met a few chairmen who all have said positive stuff about both men. Honest, football people are the kind of comments attributed.

Not so many positives about some other clubs in our division though. I will say no more in case this thread gets taken over by people from croydon

 

[ROSM]

Cheers matey. So on that basis AITC should have been in a much stronger position than it appears. If the rumours are true that AITC will be dismantled and re-built as something different then perhaps DK should have gone public earlier on this particular point. What did DK have to lose by stating ublicly what the club were trying to do and why he disagreed? On the AITC, DK's reputation is beyond reproach and as Life President he doesn't have to worry about upsetting the board. Do you agree?

That's a good point and one I have been mulling for a while. I assume its because he doesn't want to cause a mass exodus from it now and damage the programmes that are in flight. However as I said on another thread a while back, aitc staff are clearly wrllw though of in the peer group given that premier league clubs are taking and shortlisting so many of them for similar but bigger roles.

 

[ROSM]

Perhaps you can answer this but what's the deal with regards to rental, staff and marketing costs for AITC? Do they pay the club a market rate for rent and advertising? i.e. how 'independent' is it and does it really cost the club nothing? My question isn't loaded - I am just wondering on what basis the club can impose its will on an independent charity.

They've got rid of DK and the other 2 execs were pushed out after significant pressure from the club and arguably unfairly. The AITC is a massive success story and I can't understand how it's not in a much stronger position to rebuff what the club are doing. They've got (or had) very able personnel throughout the charity, they've got the reputation and significant goodwill and numerous awards to their name.

As an independent charity it has trustees. Some are club appointed and others are from known local businesses (family life, brighton and Hove jobs etc). Up til now, the trustees have blocked by persuasion and then a vote, to remove dk. Eventually he has just given in - either because he has assurances for the future of it, or because his position has been made untenable (not saying it happened here but inna similar circumstance I saw the parent club remove player support, advertising, free tickets etc) or because he has had enough.

 

[The Large One]

That's a good point and one I have been mulling for a while. I assume its because he doesn't want to cause a mass exodus from it now and damage the programmes that are in flight. However as I said on another thread a while back, aitc staff are clearly wrllw though of in the peer group given that premier league clubs are taking and shortlisting so many of them for similar but bigger roles.

Clearly what?

 

[Scoffers]

I haven't read Dick's comments but from what I know the AITC needed a major shake down

 

[The Large One]

Cheers matey. So on that basis AITC should have been in a much stronger position than it appears. If the rumours are true that AITC will be dismantled and re-built as something different then perhaps DK should have gone public earlier on this particular point. What did DK have to lose by stating ublicly what the club were trying to do and why he disagreed? On the AITC, DK's reputation is beyond reproach and as Life President he doesn't have to worry about upsetting the board. Do you agree?

Not sure what you mean by 'AITC should have been in a much stronger position than it appears'.

Regarding Dick going public earlier, I think that the point is - all the while he was AITC Chairman, he wasn't going to allow any major re-organisation that he would have seen as detrimental to AITC. Therefore, keeping it behind closed doors would have been more prudent.

No point in whinnying about something publicly when you're in a position to do something about it.

 

[ROSM]

Clearly what?

Wasn't it obvious

I meant 'clearly well thought of' but typing on a phone while standing up is not my forte

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The few chairmen who have commented on TB (Darragh MacAnthony at Peterborough springs to mind) has nothing but praise for him. Bearing in mind his low key approach I doubt if many have strong views on him.

The CP chap Browett (sp?) was effusive in his praise and admiration of Bloom, when questioned about him by Palace fans. To quote "I only wish he supported Palace".

 

[ROSM]

The CP chap Browett (sp?) was effusive in his praise and admiration of Bloom, when questioned about him by Palace fans. To quote "I only wish he supported Palace".

Yep, as I said, he is positively viewed by other chairmen.

 

[ROSM]

Wonder what people's views are on this part of the interview:


Knight added: "We still have the unanswered issue of Charlie Oatway, whose suspension is still in the air. It has been over six weeks. To deal with a true servant of the club in that way is absolutely wrong.


* "It's his testimonial this year and he pledged to give 50 per cent of his takings to Albion In The Community. He has already given us several thousands of pounds, but the big one would have been the Liverpool friendly match.


* "That would probably have attracted a crowd of around 20,000 and AITC would have received something like £60,000 from that, which highlights Charlie’s very generous offer, and that match has now been cancelled.


* "They need to resolve the Charlie issue now and resolve it positively for him."