Was there really no alternative to handing it all over to a gambler?

[Herr Tubthumper]

I have no doubt that when the moment is right TB will take his money and interest.

I should have written 'when the moment is right TB will secure his investment'. I am not suggesting TB is going to stitch us up or pull the rug from under our feet.

 

[NF9]

The lickers are out of the loop and are crying just f*** off with your whineing and go and support another club you tossers.Tony Bloom has saved this club not Dick Knight

You seem to have a selective memory, seen as without DK there would be no Brighton.
By the way I'm not arguing that its not a move forward I'm just saying people disrespecting the guy should remember this fact.

 

[Billy the Fish]

I know, the credit crunch is called that for a reason. But that doesn't mean that money can't be borrowed at the moment, but merely that it takes more time and effort to do so. Everyone seems to be assuming that it was literally impossible to borrow the money for Falmer but at least one person I've spoken to whose views I respect suggested that it was possible but tougher.

If so, it seems a big risk to me. I can't pretend to be particularly delighted about all this this morning.

So what is your actual motivation for this post? Is it just the way he's made his money that offends you?

If it is just a case of being slightly cautious then fair enough, but use of the word 'spiv' makes me think you have another agenda here. Would you prefer that he made his money in insurance or banking?

Would you seriously rather have a loan that we pay interest on then take money from Bloom?

 

[Man of Harveys]

So what is your actual motivation for this post? Is it just the way he's made his money that offends you?

If it is just a case of being slightly cautious then fair enough, but use of the word 'spiv' makes me think you have another agenda here. Would you prefer that he made his money in insurance or banking?

Would you seriously rather have a loan that we pay interest on then take money from Bloom?

I make that about four questions - my "motivation" for the post (in 12 years of posting on here I never realised one needed any such thing but, erm, if you say so...) was that I had some concern about disregarding the stipulations about one person having overall control of the club so lightly. Yesterday everyone was assuming that it was (wait for it) Bloom or bust and I was wondering aloud - cos that's kinda what this place is for - whether that was necessarily the case. Hope that that's ok.

Incidentally (if anyone actually gives a f***), having read both a post about the exact interest costs each year, which were of course pretty damn chunky, and liking the cut of the new chairman's jib in his interviews, I've softened my initial scepticism a fair bit since yesterday morning. But I'm also keen that my memories of the bad days mean we're extra bloody careful with this precious club and DK's legacy. That's all.

 

[Billy the Fish]

I make that about four questions - my "motivation" for the post (in 12 years of posting on here I never realised one needed any such thing but, erm, if you say so...) was that I had some concern about disregarding the stipulations about one person having overall control of the club so lightly. Yesterday everyone was assuming that it was (wait for it) Bloom or bust and I was wondering aloud - cos that's kinda what this place is for - whether that was necessarily the case. Hope that that's ok.

There's a motivation for every post, weather it's subconscious or not.

It just looked like you were saying his money wasn't good enough for you because of where it came from. I share your concerns about one person having all the power, as would anyone who was around in the ninties, I just didn't see why you needed to call the bloke a spiv.

We will obviously find out in due course how good a chairman he's going to be, but given the family connections I have no reason to doubt his motives as some others have done. That doesn't mean that we as fans can't keep a close eye on things though

 

[perseus]

Dead Cert

He may be a gambler but at least he is a Brighton fan.

Better than flogging the club to the likes of David Gold...

There is not such thing as a dead cert. Gambling is what we all do, some people calculate, some people guess. The latter always lose.

 

[Brovion]

Man of Harveys= prick.

No he's not, but I do think on this issue he's trying to find the cloud in front of the silver lining. Bloom is NOT Archer, he's not even some out-of-towner whose motives could be questioned. Indeed I would say this is the best possible thing that could have happened if the alternatives were borrowing from banks or hoping we got our own Russian petrol spiv.

EDIT: In the 'Inner Circle' thread there is a lengthy post from Insider where he admitted that without Bloom's money the stadium would have been 'delayed'. Make of that what you will.

 

[Lush]

I am slightly concerned that even though Insider has been into the Ask The Club section and answered a whole load of questions, he hasn't answered mine.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I am slightly concerned that even though Insider has been into the Ask The Club section and answered a whole load of questions, he hasn't answered mine.

Has now...

 

[Silent Bob]

Totally agree. And its all good, up to 2023. As you say, its more than a lot of fans can say at the moment, and I guess we should be grateful really. What happens beyond 2023 though, is anybody's guess, other than its fairly safe to say already that we won't be in a position to pay the loans back.

No one is going to build a multi million pound stadium in order to tear it down 10 years later and sell the land.

 

[Lush]

Has now...

It's a pretty reassuring answer. The 'no single person will ever again have a controlling interest' was welcome and reassuring when the new board took over in 1997.

But times change, Bloom has the blessing of the current directors that I, at least, trust implicitly, and I can see the wisdom of the move.

We move on to a new chapter in our history ...

 

[British Bulldog]

What happens beyond 2023 though, is anybody's guess, other than its fairly safe to say already that we won't be in a position to pay the loans back.

One thing is for sure though Tom is that without a morgage and interest to pay to a bank the club gets put in to a position unlike a lot of clubs where we stand to actually make a profit, If the club do make a profit then that's the sort of money that gets banked and accumilates interest and all goes towards paying back some of the money owed to Tony Bloom after 2023.

 

[Storer68]

I just can't believe these threads. Tony Bloom is a businessman, a much more succesful businessman than Dick Knight. Yes your shining Knight has gone, get over it. He was never the man to take us to the next stage, but Bloom is. All this gambler nonsense is just plain crap. Every entrepreneur is a gamber of sorts. But this man is a businessman first and foremost. Stop trying to muddy the waters of what is great news for all Albion fans.

just be careful because a lot of us had similar thoughts about a new regime in 1994involving this lot (and greg Stanley)

 

[Storer68]

Bloom's grandfather was a director (and vice chairmal when he died)
His father was a director
and now he is CHAIRMAN.

I don't think this is likely to go sour because he is not an Albion fan. its in his blood (literally!)

 

[Jim in the West]

I'm in two minds also. Seems to me there's no earthly way the loans will be able to be repaid in 2023, unless we are planning on becoming the most successful football club on the planet by about 2013, and remaining that way for a decade. If that doesn't happen, property developer Mr Bloom might just have got himself a prime piece of real estate at a very reasonable price.

Hoping for the best, obviously, but deeply suspicious that nobody is THAT much of a fan

If you look at most businesses, there's no way they can afford to pay back their loans when they become due - but that doesn't mean they immediately go bust, or have to sell their assets to a property developer. There is a simple solution - the loans are refinanced. If the club is well run over the next 10 - 15 years, there will be banks queuing up to lend us money. The lack of third party funding now is simply a function of the credit crisis and the global economic slowdown.

And if Tony Bloom was looking at turning his £80m into something more from astute property speculation, then there must be several million better opportunities around the world than Falmer - haven't we all just gone through a decade of trying to get permission to build a football stadium.....imagine the planning nightmare of turning it into houses or commercial development! And then factor in the cost of writing off the investment of circa £50m in the stadium which was built just a decade earlier.

I'm afraid these conspiracy theories regarding Tony Bloom's motives are so far fetched they are laughable.

 

[Storer68]

It's a pretty reassuring answer. The 'no single person will ever again have a controlling interest' was welcome and reassuring when the new board took over in 1997.

But times change, Bloom has the blessing of the current directors that I, at least, trust implicitly, and I can see the wisdom of the move.

We move on to a new chapter in our history ...

Hmmm, I would have thought that one person increasing their stake to 75% is hardly a defendable definition of 'no single person will ever again have a controlling interest' which is what we fought so long and hard for in 1997, 1998, 1999 and even up to 2000

But, hey, as long as Dick says its OK who are we to question it.

its just that I seem to recall being told by Bellotti to stop whining and believing stories in the Argus!


But a day after breaking the initial story, The Argus revealed the then Brighton Council had already told Albion the scheme was unacceptable.

A month later, we revealed Albion had sold the Goldstone to developers Chartwell for £7.4 million - a story brazenly dismissed by chief executive David Bellotti, who urged fans to "stop whining and listening to Argus-backed speculation".

After research by chief reporter Paul Bracchi and Albion fan Paul Samrah, The Argus also revealed Archer's controlling shareholding had cost only £56.25 while Greg Stanley's minority share was £43.75 - a total of £100.

Other money injected by Archer and Stanley had been loaned with no personal risk while the value of the ground exceeded the club's debts.

Perhaps even more worryingly, Bracchi and Samrah exposed a change in the rules governing shareholders in the event of the club folding.

For 89 years from 1904, Albion's articles of association had guaranteed any surplus funds from asset sales would be distributed to another local club or charity.

But this clause was omitted from new rules adopted at an extraordinary general meeting on November 23, 1993, shortly after Archer and Stanley took control.

The no-profit clause was eventually reinstated as the new owners described its omission as an "oversight".

In another front page exclusive, The Argus revealed a £600,000 loan from the Stanley Trust had clocked up £131,250 interest against the club in less than three years while Stanley was due another £250,000 as Albion had failed to pay the interest in time.

Bracchi travelled to Archer's home in Mellor, Lancashire, and offered the startled chairman a cheque for £56.25 - the amount he had paid for his shares.

Bellotti banned The Argus and veteran newspaper seller Fred Oliver from the ground, then failed to invite anyone from the paper to a Press conference at which he unveiled plans for a 30,000-seat stadium, sports complex and retail or office development at Toad's Hole Valley, Hove.

Chief sports writer Andy Naylor and I turned up anyway but councillors soon dismissed the scheme because of its large commercial element on a sensitive greenfield site.

Two years earlier, the then Hove Council had granted planning permission for a non-food retail park at the Goldstone, Albion's home for more than 90 years.

Club directors argued planning permission would increase the value of the site, enabling the club to settle urgent tax debts by borrowing more. Archer was a director but did not control the club at that stage.

A report by Hove Council officers quoted the view of East Sussex County Council: "It would be desirable for an acceptable replacement site to be identified and developed before the Goldstone Ground is redeveloped."

Hove officers responded: "The club has declined to...accept a condition limiting the start of development to the opening of facilities elsewhere, although its architects have confirmed in writing it is the firm intention to secure the new facility prior to leaving the Goldstone.

"To impose a condition prohibiting implementation of the permission until the club has relocated ... would not meet the conditions set out in (Government guidance)."

Councillors accepted this advice and Albion managing director Barry Lloyd said the successful application would stay on the backburner "until we find ourselves a new home".

With Albion on the brink of being wound up unless the club settled its tax debts, an emergency meeting of shareholders was held at The Grand hotel, Brighton, on October 28, 1993. It was then Archer and Stanley seized control by setting up a holding company called Foray 585 (foray = sudden attack or raid).

The atmosphere around the Goldstone between 1995 and 1997 reflected an explosive cocktail of anger, desperation and contempt for Archer, Stanley and Bellotti, with pitch invasions, walk-outs, boycotts, marches and petitions, including 6,500 Archer Out! signatures collected through The Argus.

An Argus phone poll suggested 98 per cent of Albion fans would not attend matches at Portsmouth.

The Football League stressed Albion would not be allowed to share a stadium outside Brighton and Hove unless the owners produced "concrete evidence" of the club's future return to the area. Archer and Stanley could not.

Chartwell threw Albion a lifeline by offering to lease back the Goldstone for an extra season at a rent of £480,000 but the company rejected the club's counter-offer of £200,000 and set Albion a deadline of noon on April 30.

With no agreement, Albion faced homelessness and possible extinction going into the match against York on April 27, 1996. Fans invaded the pitch and pulled down both sets of goalposts, forcing the match to be abandoned after 16 minutes.

Less than an hour before Chartwell's deadline, Albion agreed to lease back the Goldstone for a season. Bellotti refused to reveal the rent but it was reported to be £480,000, the initial asking price, suggesting the club could have prevented the abandonment.

When Andy Naylor asked Bellotti if he accepted "any responsibility for what happened on Saturday", Bellotti replied: "If there is one person in this room more responsible for what happened than anyone else, it is The Argus and Andy Naylor."

Bellotti threw Andy and I out of the Press conference.

By the time Dick Knight succeeded Archer as chairman the following year, the club was committed to groundsharing even further away at Gillingham, a round-trip of 150 miles from Brighton and Hove.

At least Knight and his consortium took over a League club as Albion narrowly avoided relegation, fighting back from 11 points adrift to safety after a tense draw at Hereford in May 1997.

But supporters were angered again when I revealed in The Argus Chartwell had sold the Goldstone site for £23.86 million - £16 million more than Archer had negotiated. Fans demanded to know why he had not included a sell-on clause to benefit the club.

Early crowds at Gillingham were dismal and the new board announced plans for a temporary move to Withdean Stadium, although the local athletics stadium would need major improvements to satisfy the Football League.

 

[Lush]

Hmmm, I would have thought that one person increasing their stake to 75% is hardly a defendable definition of 'no single person will ever again have a controlling interest'

It isn't. So - for good reasons perhaps - that rule no longer applies. See the answer to my question in Ask The Club.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

I make that about four questions - my "motivation" for the post (in 12 years of posting on here I never realised one needed any such thing but, erm, if you say so...) was that I had some concern about disregarding the stipulations about one person having overall control of the club so lightly. Yesterday everyone was assuming that it was (wait for it) Bloom or bust and I was wondering aloud - cos that's kinda what this place is for - whether that was necessarily the case. Hope that that's ok.

Incidentally (if anyone actually gives a f***), having read both a post about the exact interest costs each year, which were of course pretty damn chunky, and liking the cut of the new chairman's jib in his interviews, I've softened my initial scepticism a fair bit since yesterday morning. But I'm also keen that my memories of the bad days mean we're extra bloody careful with this precious club and DK's legacy. That's all.

Hear hear, mate. I'm feeling exactly the same

.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

I just hope we don't come in one morning to find a big fat Texan at the gates of Falmer saying "This here's mine now, I won it off your Tony Bloom playin' poker last night. Welcome to the new home of the Brighton Blubbernuts, Europe's premier dodge-ball team!"

Now, that would make me chuckle

Many people on here are head over heels about this acquisition. And I can totally see why. I'm excited, myself, but also have my worries, and I think that is perfectly allowed. I have had my own dealings with Bloom in the past that are well documented on here, dealings which left a nasty taste in my mouth. But that's all in the past, and I trust he proves me very wrong.