Dick Knight knows NOTHING...

[Man of Harveys]

In the cases of Savage and Hammond, they both had deals on the table that they chose not to sign, essentially because they wanted more money. DK's position was (and always has been) that he will not be held to ransome and will not break the wage structure at the club to accomodate the demands of players and their agents. That IS good chairmanship.

I believe its largely thanks to that strict policy that we have avoided being the next Luton, Bournemouth, Rotherham (well, take your pick). Yes it means we'll lose some players, and miss out on others. But it also means the club is kept on a relatively even keel, and I think most people appreciate what is more important.

That's exactly it and anyone who disagrees with that is a thick and short-termist c*nt.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Why would it be a dig? Of course it is a compliment.

The wording was not that clear.

Just wanted it clarified.

Thanks.

 

[Knotty]

I've said it before - its easy to take for granted the fact this club hasn't wound up in administration, and considering the UNIQUE problems its had to cope with, I think its a bloody miracle. DK and the board deserve ENORMOUS credit for keeping the club above water over the last ten years. No other club in the League has had to play its home games 50-odd miles away for two years, then pay millions to have an athletics track developed into a "football ground", then fund an eight year battle to get permission granted for a stadium. In the great scheme of things, any misguided criticism of the board for not securing the signings of the likes of Savage, Hammond and O'Callaghan during this time can be taken with the contempt it deserves.

We're not out of the woods yet, but this board has done an outstanding job getting us this far, and I have every faith in them to deliver the goods now. They've not let us down yet.

Agree completely.

 

[BigGully]

In the cases of Savage and Hammond, they both had deals on the table that they chose not to sign, essentially because they wanted more money. DK's position was (and always has been) that he will not be held to ransome and will not break the wage structure at the club to accomodate the demands of players and their agents. That IS good chairmanship.

I believe its largely thanks to that strict policy that we have avoided being the next Luton, Bournemouth, Rotherham (well, take your pick). Yes it means we'll lose some players, and miss out on others. But it also means the club is kept on a relatively even keel, and I think most people appreciate what is more important.

Dont agree. the 'wont be held to ransome' is an emotive term that nearly always rallies support.

But its a little selective when at the same time he gets held to ransome by Murrays previous club and agent as he parts with £300,000 of Tony Blooms money.

He was getting held to 'ransom' by Savage for maybe an extra £200 per week or by Hammond by a £1000 per week. DK wouldnt budge on that financial committment, but was happy to be held to 'ransome' by Murray and his advisers for £300,000 transfer fee and sizeable weekly wage per week.

So take your pick which one held DK to ransome and which one was part of his 'strict policy' or 'not so strict policy' !!!

 

[Knotty]

Dont agree. the 'wont be held to ransome' is an emotive term that nearly always rallies support.

But its a little selective when at the same time he gets held to ransome by Murrays previous club and agent as he parts with £300,000 of Tony Blooms money.

He was getting held to 'ransom' by Savage for maybe an extra £200 per week or by Hammond by a £1000 per week. DK wouldnt budge on that financial committment, but was happy to be held to 'ransome' by Murray and his advisers for £300,000 transfer fee and sizeable weekly wage per week.

So take your pick which one held DK to ransome and which one was part of his 'strict policy' or 'not so strict policy' !!!

You are guessing at the figures for Savage and Hammond and you are assuming that he was held to ransom by Murray.

If he considered the fee and wages for Murray to be worth it, he was not held to ransom at all.

 

[Easy 10]

Dont agree. the 'wont be held to ransome' is an emotive term that nearly always rallies support.

But its a little selective when at the same time he gets held to ransome by Murrays previous club and agent as he parts with £300,000 of Tony Blooms money.

He was getting held to 'ransom' by Savage for maybe an extra £200 per week or by Hammond by a £1000 per week. DK wouldnt budge on that financial committment, but was happy to be held to 'ransome' by Murray and his advisers for £300,000 transfer fee and sizeable weekly wage per week.

So take your pick which one held DK to ransome and which one was part of his 'strict policy' or 'not so strict policy' !!!

Who says he was held to ransome by Murrays club and agent ? Just because there was a large (for us) transfer fee involved, doesn't mean we were "held to ransome" at all. In each individual case, DK and the board have to make a judgement call on whether what they are being asked to pay is good value and within our budget. And DK has never made any secret that there IS a budget in place, but it still has to be used sensibly.

Both Savage and Hammond were making demands to be the highest players at the club. In Hammonds case, the deal he was offered would have made him the highest paid player, but that still wasn't enough for him, so we said goodbye. And I doubt very much whether Murray has come here on megabucks - again, he's agreed to a wage within the clubs overall wage structure. If he hadn't, he wouldn't be here.

Giving in to players and agents demands is the road to ruin. The club is operating within a playing budget and clearly isn't prepared to breach that for anyone. Do you not think thats the way to run things ?

 

[Digweeds Trousers]

Without wishing to be shot at dawn for daring to ask - how do we actually know that the club is on 'an even keel'?

A mate of mine who supports Luton said that they had no inkling that the problems were that big - of course once the rumour mill began then thingsd very quickly came out of the woodwork.

But up until then it was very much business as usal - and then BANG.

Actually chaps we are now in the clag - these are the reasons why - the club is doing everyhting to sort out. Few weeks later administration, people leaving, board falling apart and disaster.

This is NOT a suggestion that anything is untoward at The Albion - just simply saying that one never knows what will happenregardless of how prudent one wishes to be.

I work in corporate financing - and I can tell you now that servicing debt and satisfying creditors is all very well - but the credit crunch hits - and all of a sudden creditors want to reasses their cash collection and terms and conditions - if you don;t have the cash - in goes a winding up order and shite hits the fan.

Again - over simplfying it but I think there is alkot of criticism being pointed at some of the other clubs boards without us knowing what exactly has led to thi.

It is not as simple as - you spent too much and now you can't repay.

All apart from LEeds who deserve to be closed !!

 

[sten_super]

Without wishing to be shot at dawn for daring to ask - how do we actually know that the club is on 'an even keel'?

A mate of mine who supports Luton said that they had no inkling that the problems were that big - of course once the rumour mill began then thingsd very quickly came out of the woodwork.

But up until then it was very much business as usal - and then BANG.

Actually chaps we are now in the clag - these are the reasons why - the club is doing everyhting to sort out. Few weeks later administration, people leaving, board falling apart and disaster.

This is NOT a suggestion that anything is untoward at The Albion - just simply saying that one never knows what will happenregardless of how prudent one wishes to be.

I work in corporate financing - and I can tell you now that servicing debt and satisfying creditors is all very well - but the credit crunch hits - and all of a sudden creditors want to reasses their cash collection and terms and conditions - if you don;t have the cash - in goes a winding up order and shite hits the fan.

Again - over simplfying it but I think there is alkot of criticism being pointed at some of the other clubs boards without us knowing what exactly has led to thi.

It is not as simple as - you spent too much and now you can't repay.

All apart from LEeds who deserve to be closed !!

You'd hope that if us (or any such sensible club) would not spend £300k on a new striker in January if there was any inkling of a problem (and given DK and the boards excellent fiscal management thus far, I think its fair to say they would not do so)!

 

[Easy 10]

Without wishing to be shot at dawn for daring to ask - how do we actually know that the club is on 'an even keel'?

I guess it boils down to trust. We are solvent, trading, filing the accounts annually, adding carefully to the squad, not in trouble with the taxman, paying the wages, and seem to have a board that are running a tight ship. In the last month, we've also had PriceWaterhouseCoopers endorsing the clubs business plan for the stadium - I doubt they'd put their names to it if the club was teetering on the brink of an administration precipice.

Whilst we're not exactly FLUSH with money, I don't see anything suggesting there are any fundemental urgent problems at the moment.

 

[Yorkie]

Didn't we have to outbid two other clubs for Murray?

Lots of people on Nsc have inspected the club accounts (there have been debates on here quite often about it) and highlighted possible problems (like the buses when the bill was sent to the wrong addess and the tax man coming after the PAYE) so it's not as if fans are unaware of anything going wrong.
Despite being called lickers or whatever, people are still wary of what can go wrong and do watch out.
The fact that so many turned up at Hove Town Hall shows there isn't a lot of apathy amongst the fans.

 

[Woodingdean Gull]

A few more sensible threads like this wouldn't go amiss.

Easy10, agree with all you've said mate, well put.

 

[Easy 10]

Cheers Woody. Just seems like common sense to me.

 

[sir albion]

Without wishing to be shot at dawn for daring to ask - how do we actually know that the club is on 'an even keel'?

A mate of mine who supports Luton said that they had no inkling that the problems were that big - of course once the rumour mill began then thingsd very quickly came out of the woodwork.

But up until then it was very much business as usal - and then BANG.

Actually chaps we are now in the clag - these are the reasons why - the club is doing everyhting to sort out. Few weeks later administration, people leaving, board falling apart and disaster.

This is NOT a suggestion that anything is untoward at The Albion - just simply saying that one never knows what will happenregardless of how prudent one wishes to be.

I work in corporate financing - and I can tell you now that servicing debt and satisfying creditors is all very well - but the credit crunch hits - and all of a sudden creditors want to reasses their cash collection and terms and conditions - if you don;t have the cash - in goes a winding up order and shite hits the fan.

Again - over simplfying it but I think there is alkot of criticism being pointed at some of the other clubs boards without us knowing what exactly has led to thi.

It is not as simple as - you spent too much and now you can't repay.

All apart from LEeds who deserve to be closed !!

The first question sums up most on here as i don't know any club that has 12 million debts yet is run properly apart from us

I always thought a stabled club had very little debt,so the club isn't being run properly looking at thoat stat

 

[Man of Harveys]

I'm more convinced than ever that the windy-arsed complainers on here, according to whom nothing that the club does is ever good enough and who know everything better, including planning procedures, fork-provision etc are in fact PLANTS by DK and MP to enable everyone with a brain to point out the board's achievements. It's totally out of order, sack the board etc etc.

 

[Easy 10]

A large proportion of the "debt" (you say £12m but I've not see this figure anywhere as fact) is loans from current Directors that are not, in effect, having to be serviced. I understand the Directors will have those loans converted to shares in the stadium holding company (although I'm no great authority on all this - Lord B or someone can probably give the definitive).

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

In the last month, we've also had PriceWaterhouseCoopers endorsing the clubs business plan for the stadium - I doubt they'd put their names to it if the club was teetering on the brink of an administration precipice.

However, it's another company and not the football club (ie BHA plc) that will build and will own the Falmer stadium?

 

[Easy 10]

However, it's another company and not the football club (ie BHA plc) that will build and will own the Falmer stadium?

The stadium will be built by whichever company emerges from the current tendering selection process, but they won't have an ongoing interest once its built. My understanding is that a seperate stadium holding company will be set up, on which some or all of the current Directors and MP will sit, but again I'm not 100% on this, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[BigGully]

Who says he was held to ransome by Murrays club and agent ? Just because there was a large (for us) transfer fee involved, doesn't mean we were "held to ransome" at all. In each individual case, DK and the board have to make a judgement call on whether what they are being asked to pay is good value and within our budget. And DK has never made any secret that there IS a budget in place, but it still has to be used sensibly.

Both Savage and Hammond were making demands to be the highest players at the club. In Hammonds case, the deal he was offered would have made him the highest paid player, but that still wasn't enough for him, so we said goodbye. And I doubt very much whether Murray has come here on megabucks - again, he's agreed to a wage within the clubs overall wage structure. If he hadn't, he wouldn't be here.

Giving in to players and agents demands is the road to ruin. The club is operating within a playing budget and clearly isn't prepared to breach that for anyone. Do you not think thats the way to run things ?

It is all spin, I am afraid guys.

We are all supposed to cheer as our Chairman swipes down those greedy players and agents that the management wants and then goes and negotiates with an agent and player whom he buys for £300,000 and a likely biggish weekly wage.

You cheer him twice but actually it doesnt really add up on the 'principle scale'

We dont work on real budgets coz we are skint, there is no money.

Thankfully we work on the whims of Board Members and our Chairman.

I as a fan am grateful, that DK is not quite as financailly constrained as some here would like to think.

I see a team that travels first class, flies mid weeks to games, pay competitive wages and bonuses and pays £300,000 for an untested striker.

A club that leases its training facilities for somewhere in the region of £10,000 per month and has a beautiful state of the art stadium costing £50,000,000 happening very soon and running at a £2,000,000 loss.

Evereytime I go to Withdean I cant get over the staffing, leased portacabins, leased ground and offices and wonder how much must this all cost ?

All to cater for 4-5,000 paying customers.

So dont be so naive to think that we are so bloody prudent and are not like those 'silly' other clubs, because we are not .

Although we celebrate the fact that we can do all those things and wish it to continue, we continue to trust that everything will be ok, just like Bournemouth did.

 

[Ernest]

It is all spin, I am afraid guys.

We are all supposed to cheer as our Chairman swipes down those greedy players and agents that the management wants and then goes and negotiates with an agent and player whom he buys for £300,000 and a likely biggish weekly wage.

You cheer him twice but actually it doesnt really add up on the 'principle scale'

We dont work on real budgets coz we are skint, there is no money.

Thankfully we work on the whims of Board Members and our Chairman.

I as a fan am grateful, that DK is not quite as financailly constrained as some here would like to think.

I see a team that travels first class, flies mid weeks to games, pay competitive wages and bonuses and pays £300,000 for an untested striker.

A club that leases its training facilities for somewhere in the region of £10,000 per month and has a beautiful state of the art stadium costing £50,000,000 happening very soon and running at a £2,000,000 loss.

Evereytime I go to Withdean I cant get over the staffing, leased portacabins, leased ground and offices and wonder how much must this all cost ?

All to cater for 4-5,000 paying customers.

So dont be so naive to think that we are so bloody prudent and are not like those 'silly' other clubs, because we are not .

Although we celebrate the fact that we can do all those things and wish it to continue, we continue to trust that everything will be ok, just like Bournemouth did.

Well put but this will go straight over the lickers heads as they refuse to see another point , in fact they will be still be full of shit in 2019 congratulating Dick Tight as we begin our 20th season at Withdean

 

[Yorkie]

I see a team that travels first class, flies mid weeks to games, pay competitive wages and bonuses and pays £300,000 for an untested striker.

I see a team that travels by coach to the majority of games. They only fly when they have a very long distance to travel (it was for a Saturday game) and have another game only 3 days later.
You haven't the foggiest idea what the wages and bonuses are as even the players don't know what other players are earning.
An untested striker who is already gaining points for us.

Your spin is worse than the clubs.