Dick Knight in today's Argus

[Blue Valkyrie]

I really think he should have kept his own council at a time when we are all trying to move on from from a very difficult time at the albion.

Without both Tony and Dick we would now be playing, most probably, at a much lower standard of football in poorer facilities.

Knight is a board member ( I think still ), and Life President of the club. A pretty good position for anyone.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I wouldn't worry LB. It's his jealousy if your involvement per sae he can't let go of.

Quite. It is like a broken record.

 

[ROSM]

We'd still be at Withdean without Tony Bloom's money. It really is as simple as that.

I seem to recall that you were claiming that TB making up any shortfall that DK couldn't raise was always Plan B. Are you now saying that there were alternative funding options still available but that DK let TB fund the entire project, remove him as Chairman and take over full control of the club as his preferred option rather than seek these other finance options you claim were there?

From about 2008, the Albion started issuing convertible loan notes. This was to demonstrate the plan b/ part funding proposals. This was to demonstrate comfort and security to the potential funding partners. I believe tb took up most if not all of these.

As I understand it, the credit crunch reduced the options for funding both in terms of willing partners and also the level they were prepared to lend or indeed lend at. But there were still funding options available but they a) relied on bloom and others as a guarantor and b) were at much higher rates than were sustainable.

So the club were faced with a scaled down stadium option (less quality fit out etc) or if were relying on bloom as a guarantor, whether it would be better to cut out the middle man and have him fund the whole lot. Given how much money we lost despite a sold out stadium in the last couple of years, bottom line is the institution funded version would have meant a worse stadium, worse team etc.

As bloom himself has said, he didn't have the money to fund the stadium himself when we first got planning permission. After the ldc caused delay, he could do more and by the time of funding decisions he could do more again. Since then, when we have needed investment he has been able to give it hence originally planning to put in 65m which is now more like 130m.

It is for the reasons above that I understand knight (i believe reluctantly) stood aside. Realistically though I'm sure the screw was being turned for many months before then.

 

[Buzzer]

there were still funding options available but they a) relied on bloom and others as a guarantor and b) were at much higher rates than were sustainable.

If the option was unsustainable then, de facto, it was not an option.

So the club were faced with a scaled down stadium option (less quality fit out etc) or if were relying on bloom as a guarantor

..but you've previously stated (and I've quoted above) that all remaining options relied on Bloom.

This all serves to reinforce the truth that without Bloom we would have no new stadium; big, small or otherwise. There were no financing options available to Knight that didn't include Bloom and when Bloom took over there were no sustainable external financing options at all.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Knight is a board member ( I think still ), and Life President of the club. A pretty good position for anyone.

He's not a board member. Life president, but that's a purely honorary title.

No truth as far as I know in the rumour that Paul Barber was heading towards the Dick's Bar sign with a stepladder and screwdriver ...

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

From about 2008, the Albion started issuing convertible loan notes. This was to demonstrate the plan b/ part funding proposals. This was to demonstrate comfort and security to the potential funding partners. I believe tb took up most if not all of these.

As I understand it, the credit crunch reduced the options for funding both in terms of willing partners and also the level they were prepared to lend or indeed lend at. But there were still funding options available but they a) relied on bloom and others as a guarantor and b) were at much higher rates than were sustainable.

So the club were faced with a scaled down stadium option (less quality fit out etc) or if were relying on bloom as a guarantor, whether it would be better to cut out the middle man and have him fund the whole lot. Given how much money we lost despite a sold out stadium in the last couple of years, bottom line is the institution funded version would have meant a worse stadium, worse team etc.

As bloom himself has said, he didn't have the money to fund the stadium himself when we first got planning permission. After the ldc caused delay, he could do more and by the time of funding decisions he could do more again. Since then, when we have needed investment he has been able to give it hence originally planning to put in 65m which is now more like 130m.

It is for the reasons above that I understand knight (i believe reluctantly) stood aside. Realistically though I'm sure the screw was being turned for many months before then.

Part of the convertible loan notes issued by the club from May 2008 prior to Knight stepping down were converted into shares that facilitated Tony Bloom becoming a majority shareholder in 2009 and essentially "paid off" the £16M or so that he had put into the club by then to keep it running. The remainder of the 30M, and further such notes, were converted into shares to similarly cover ongoing losses at Withdean post 2009 and, eg the conversion in Sept 2012 indicated in the 2011/12 accounts, to reduce the club's debt associated with the stadium/academy builds.
I remember El Pres did an analysis of what BHA could have expected to borrow based on pre-credit crunch commercial lending criteria and the figure he came up with less than £30M. Based on this and the convertible loan note history I've always viewed Tony Bloom largely funding the stadium and taking a majority shareholding as inevitable - ie this was always the plan.

 

[Return of the Rev]

He's not a board member. Life president, but that's a purely honorary title.

No truth as far as I know in the rumour that Paul Barber was heading towards the Dick's Bar sign with a stepladder and screwdriver ...

BARBERS Brasserie A CUT ABOVE THE REST

 

[ROSM]

If the option was unsustainable then, de facto, it was not an option.



..but you've previously stated (and I've quoted above) that all remaining options relied on Bloom.

This all serves to reinforce the truth that without Bloom we would have no new stadium; big, small or otherwise. There were no financing options available to Knight that didn't include Bloom and when Bloom took over there were no sustainable external financing options at all.

I don't think we are disagreeing.

I'm not saying there wasn't a reliance on tb. Whether it was to the value of 15m which was the value of the convertible loan notes either solely or in conjunction with others (e.g. bill brown the reinsurance chief who was also an investor at the time) or at a greater level either directly as he has done it, or indirectly as a guarantor. There clearly is a difference. And even though he was investing heavily in the club bloom didnt want to be a director at that time.

The comment on sustainability btw is my view based on what we now know about the operation of the stadium.

 

[Buzzer]

...more twattery....

Do you wake up in the morning and think to yourself "How big a **** can I be today?". The level of debate on here is pretty high for NSC standards. Can't you just f**k off with your twattery elsewhere and leave the rest of us to have a semi-serious discussion?

You're an embarrassment.

 

[ROSM]

Part of the convertible loan notes issued by the club from May 2008 prior to Knight stepping down were converted into shares that facilitated Tony Bloom becoming a majority shareholder in 2009 and essentially "paid off" the £16M or so that he had put into the club by then to keep it running. The remainder of the 30M, and further such notes, were converted into shares to similarly cover ongoing losses at Withdean post 2009 and, eg the conversion in Sept 2012 indicated in the 2011/12 accounts, to reduce the club's debt associated with the stadium/academy builds.
I remember El Pres did an analysis of what BHA could have expected to borrow based on pre-credit crunch commercial lending criteria and the figure he came up with less than £30M. Based on this and the convertible loan note history I've always viewed Tony Bloom largely funding the stadium and taking a majority shareholding as inevitable - ie this was always the plan.

Thanks - said it much better than I did. At a stadium build of 60m, 30m direct borrowing and remainder from investment was the best one could hope for. Given the reality of what we have now and what we now know about costs of the operation, that would never have been sustainable.

As I have said, than heavens for tb

 

[Buzzer]

I don't think we are disagreeing.

I'm not saying there wasn't a reliance on tb. Whether it was to the value of 15m which was the value of the convertible loan notes either solely or in conjunction with others (e.g. bill brown the reinsurance chief who was also an investor at the time) or at a greater level either directly as he has done it, or indirectly as a guarantor. There clearly is a difference. And even though he was investing heavily in the club bloom didnt want to be a director at that time.

The comment on sustainability btw is my view based on what we now know about the operation of the stadium.

Fair enough. I'd like to explore this a bit further another time but for now, thanks for the reply. I'm off down the pub.

 

[Parson Henry]

Do you wake up in the morning and think to yourself "How big a **** can I be today?". The level of debate on here is pretty high for NSC standards. Can't you just f**k off with your twattery elsewhere and leave the rest of us to have a semi-serious discussion?

You're an embarrassment.

Easy Buzzer. Just ignore.

I agree that an intellectual debate is quite stimulating but this is an open forum (to a point) and all you need to do is ignore so that atention is not given where is is sought.

 

[Questions]

Do you wake up in the morning and think to yourself "How big a **** can I be today?". The level of debate on here is pretty high for NSC standards. Can't you just f**k off with your twattery elsewhere and leave the rest of us to have a semi-serious discussion?

You're an embarrassment.

Buzzer I have him on ignore so stop quoting him ffs.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

By the fact you agree a critical eye needs to be kept on the club, for what reason ?

Apart from the old guard being eased out

After everything that has happened at our club you seriously don't think a critical eye is required ALL the time ? Wasn't it you that was threatening to take the club to court over the travel subsidy ? Not many of us agreed with your point of view BUT your point of view is what will help keep the club in check.

I'm grateful Bloom stumped up the cash but with so much cash at stake I'm always going to question motives and actions. It's that questioning that will prevent us going back to the bad old days or indeed becoming the next Portsmouth, Cardiff or Blackburn.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Man of Harvey's and Lord Bracknell are making an important point.

It was always said under DK that the club should never again come under a single owner.

Now the club is, in effect, owned by one man, or one family.

I have no doubt that Tony Bloom wants what is best for the club. But a benign dictatorship is still a dictatorship.

If he suddenly decides [and I'm not suggesting that he will] that what is best for the club is to rename Dick's Bar "Barber's," change the kit from blue to red, or double ticket prices, then he can. As Dick Knight could have done, but I think that there the dissenting voices on the board might have been louder.

There may be one or two bitter old souls on here who resent the fact that they no longer have the relationship with those running the club that they did, but I think that's largely in the imagination of Beach Hut and one or two others.

Most sensible people must surely agree with MoH and LB [and Westdene Seagull above] that it's important to question decisions made by the club if we think they're all-advised or just plain wrong.

DK was in a unique position to do that. I fear he has put that position in jeopardy with the timing and tone of his remarks, but we'll see.

 

[goldstone]

Maybe it's just me but...at a time when the club is clearly behaving in a much more autocratic and dictatorial way, seeking to control aspects seen previously way beyond its remit (like the ticket exchange on here, for example), as well as playing fairly fast and loose with employment procedures at the risk of surrendering good-will, threatening these silly writs etc etc etc, and all for the sake of squeezing the last financial pip dry, under the catch-all excuse of this under-explained FFP....then it's absolutely VITAL that someone, anyone exists to cast a critical eye over them and provide something of a reality check. Doing so does not mean they're just embittered.

Despite what the club's more desperate sycophants on here might argue, they're not perfect or flawless, nor IMHO does having coughed up all that dosh for the ground make every subsequent action beyond question or scrutiny. Good on Uncle Dick for speaking up. I hope he continues to. It's important.

I agree with this. We need someone to put forward a different opinion, particularly a well-respected someone.

Tony Bloom has done a great job for this football club. we wouldn't be where we are today without him. But the same can be said of Dick Knight. And where was TB when Dick stepped in to rescue the club?

I have a real soft spot for the "old days", but I also love the way the club is now progressing. My only concern right now is that the club is becoming too much like just another big corporate business. We're not big business, we're the Albion, we're a football club.

 

[Questions]

It was always said under DK that the club should never again come under a single owner.
all the time DK had the voice


There is nothing to suggest that Tony Bloom wants anything but what is best for the club.
precisely so don't panic

However [and I'm not suggesting that he will] if he suddenly decides that what is best for the club is to rename Dick's Bar "Barber's,"
I'd be happy for it to be renamed Tony's bar.

There may be one or two bitter old souls on here who resent the fact that they no longer have the relationship with those running the club that they did,
Oh yes

.

....

 

[Norman Potting]

........................ And where was TB when Dick stepped in to rescue the club?

He would have been 27 in 1997 which (I think) was when DK stepped in. I suspect his business empire was on a fairly modest scale at that time.

 

[Wozza]

Yeah, he was busy making money, thank God.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Personally I think Bloom/Barber have to be big enough to take Knight's comments on the chin - and I am sure they will, even if not happy about it initially.

That's what happens when you become a bigger club and a bigger player, everything is magnified, including the criticism.

Bigger clubs than ours (Liverpool springs to mind) have individuals formerly associated with the club making a virtual living out of criticising the regime in charge, and thankfully we're not there yet. I'm sure Mullers will if we make it to the PL!

If anything it is a bit of a mild wake-up call to Barber and Co. You can't control everything. People aren't mugs. They can think for themselves. And they may not swallow every press release and marketing initiative at face value.

As far as Knight's comments go, great to the Argus for getting and running them. But ultimately people will make their own mind up about content and tone. And they come over slightly bitter IMHO.

DK was a great leader and figurehead and one of 2 or 3 people without whom we wouldn't be where we are. But if you're honest, along the way he could bullsh*t with the best of them as well. I rate Perry very close behind him in the pantheon, if not actually level.