Signing FF could be Lambert's biggest mistake thus far...

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

It was Bowkett and McNally that saved us from the rocks called Administration that we were heading for two years ago. They also got us a good manager.

[/quote]

---

And that is what post is, Tangible. Utter b*ll*cks. Even if we were close to administration (and I seem to remember we won a libel action on the basis that we weren''t) the credit for regaining financial stability goes to the whole board. And that whole board includes Smith and Jones and all the others, all of whom were Smith and Jones appointees. Including McNally, after whom they went very specifically. And Bowkett, who had to be persuaded to join the board after saying publicly he didn''t want to.

 

Bowkett and McNally may well have drawn up the plan, but they could only do that because Smith and Jones had the good judgment to decide they were the people for the job.

 

[/quote]

1. Didn''t McNally later state (reported by Archant on this web site)  that the club was close to Administration?

2.  If it wasn''t for the holiday from servicing the debt (approx. £2.5m per season) with the bank and the loan notes how do you think the club was going to fund the financing gap while the club was in division one?

3. As for trying to give the credit for regaining financial stability to the whole board, then on that basis Smith and Jones have to take credit for the club being relegated to the third tier of football for the first time in fifty years and the loss of revenue resulting in the need for a holiday from servicing the debt.

4. Given Bowketts comment in the letter (about how the club was being run) about not seeking to be on the board then what do you think was the driver behind persuading him to join the board? 

5. The state of the clubs finances and the need for a businessman with gravitas to persuade the creditors? Do you think the creditors would have listened to the old board?  I don''t think so, thats why I give the credit to Bowkett and McNally.

 

[/quote]

 

1. All incoming administrations (whether it is a company or a government) play up the mess they have inherited. For obvious reasons. Having said that, there is no doubt we were - like many other clubs in English football - in financial difficulties. And if things had carried on then we might have faced administration. But the history of - for example - Sheffield Wednesday - shows that there is a big gap between the public threat and the fact of administration. And - a point you have failed to address - we won a libel action on the basis that we weren''t on the verge of administration. Even putting that to one side, the hard fact is that the financial position left by the old regime was manageable. We know that for a certainty. Because it was managed. We didn''t go into administration. Our debts were not so horrendous that they were not renegotiable. Everything was manageable.

 

2. No-one is denying that. The debt holiday was necessary. I have never said otherwise. My point is that some posters seem to see this as a unique act of business genius that only Bowkett and McNally could have thought of and pulled off. The reality is that in the last few recession years it has been commonplace. You only have to look at Towergate, Cullum''s company, which needed the same kind of manoeuvre. Only more so.

 

3. I am not sure what your point is here. Perhaps you are confusing my position with someone else''s. Or that of an imaginary poster. I have always regarded Smith and Jones as being if not entirely then at least partially responsible for us ending up in the third tier. I put that in a financial and economic context (see my lengthy post on the history of English postwar football) but they made  mistakes that greatly contributed. But since I have always laid blame on the whole board for those failings I can equally credit the whole board with the subsequent successes.

 

4. I think it is highly likely the Bowkett/Bertram letter put Bowkett''s name into Smith and Jones''s mind.

 

5. Yes, I do think the creditors would have listened to the old board, providing the old board had come up with the same debt renegotiation plan. Because, as with Sheffield Wednesday, banks don''t like putting much-loved local institutions into bankruptcy. It is bad for business. Having said that, it is quite possible the creditors put pressure on Smith and Jones to revitalise the board. That is certainly what I would have done had I been Axa or Bank of  Scotland. But it was still Smith and Jones who came up with McNally and then Bowkett. And the whole board that stabilised the club financially.

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

5. ........ Having said that, it is quite possible the creditors put pressure on Smith and Jones to revitalise the board. That is certainly what I would have done had I been Axa or Bank of  Scotland. [/quote]

Interesting how this club has moved forward since the arrival of Bowkett and McNally.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

1. All incoming administrations (whether it is a company or a government) play up the mess they have inherited. For obvious reasons. Having said that, there is no doubt we were - like many other clubs in English football - in financial difficulties. And if things had carried on then we might have faced administration. But the history of - for example - Sheffield Wednesday - shows that there is a big gap between the public threat and the fact of administration. And - a point you have failed to address - we won a libel action on the basis that we weren''t on the verge of administration. Even putting that to one side, the hard fact is that the financial position left by the old regime was manageable. We know that for a certainty. Because it was managed. We didn''t go into administration. Our debts were not so horrendous that they were not renegotiable. Everything was manageable.

[/quote]

I suspect we won the libel action because Bowkett and McNally had already negotiated a £2.5m (approx.) a year holiday from servicing the debt and at that point we had already moved away from the threat of Administration. 

As for renegotiating the debt, do you think the old board had any credibility with the creditors? Hence the need to appoint someone with gravitas, i.e., Bowkett.

 

[nutty nigel 7,513]

What is an undeniable fact is that the club has moved forward at an unprecedented rate under the ownership of Smith, Jones and Foulgar. The appointment of McNally was certainly key to this happening. As was  them subsequently persuading Bowkett to become Chairman.

 

Of course we can''t say for certain if this would have happened had Crafty, Tangie and their ilk had their way and another nasty and vindictive supporters campaign had hounded out Delia Smith. But I strongly suspect it wouldn''t have. I would think a club with no ownership floundering under the guidance of the remaining board members would certainly have been in administration and quite possibly we would be contemplating a season in the fourth division or worse instead of the Premier League.

 

Still, you pay your money and take your choice. And this is only a messageboard. However surely nobody in their right mind would want to be linked with such extreme views in the real world!

 

 

 

[Desert Fox 0]

And the relavence of all this to FF or other GKs is ......????How about starting another clealry labelled thread where this private argument can be carried on and let the rest of us focus forwards on next season.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]And the relavence of all this to FF or other GKs is ......????How about starting another clealry labelled thread where this private argument can be carried on and let the rest of us focus forwards on next season.[/quote]Well said DF... [Y]Maybe Tangy, Crafty, Nutty and Tilly could make up their own thread for their petty debate that nobody is interested in other than Purple?If they are to continue posting on this thread then wouldn''t it be nice for us to hear their views on the goalkeeping situation at the club rather than what happened in the boardroom two years ago?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Desert Fox"]And the relavence of all this to FF or other GKs is ......????

How about starting another clealry labelled thread where this private argument can be carried on and let the rest of us focus forwards on next season.
[/quote]

Well said DF... [Y]

Maybe Tangy, Crafty, Nutty and Tilly could make up their own thread for their petty debate that nobody is interested in other than Purple?

If they are to continue posting on this thread then wouldn''t it be nice for us to hear their views on the goalkeeping situation at the club rather than what happened in the boardroom two years ago?
[/quote]

---

 

One of the fun aspects of this board is actually how threads veer away from the starting topic. And in my defence I have already had my say on the goalkeeping issue, although if I''d known Smudger was going to agree with me...[:$][:P][:$]

 

 

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Desert Fox"]And the relavence of all this to FF or other GKs is ......????

How about starting another clealry labelled thread where this private argument can be carried on and let the rest of us focus forwards on next season.
[/quote]

Well said DF... [Y]

Maybe Tangy, Crafty, Nutty and Tilly could make up their own thread for their petty debate that nobody is interested in other than Purple?

If they are to continue posting on this thread then wouldn''t it be nice for us to hear their views on the goalkeeping situation at the club rather than what happened in the boardroom two years ago?
[/quote]

I gave you my views on the goalkeeping situation Smudger earlier in the thread when you were in full flow with your anti Ruddy rant.....remember?

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Desert Fox"]And the relavence of all this to FF or other GKs is ......????How about starting another clealry labelled thread where this private argument can be carried on and let the rest of us focus forwards on next season.[/quote]Well said DF... [Y]Maybe Tangy, Crafty, Nutty and Tilly could make up their own thread for their petty debate that nobody is interested in other than Purple?If they are to continue posting on this thread then wouldn''t it be nice for us to hear their views on the goalkeeping situation at the club rather than what happened in the boardroom two years ago?[/quote]

I gave you my views on the goalkeeping situation Smudger earlier in the thread when you were in full flow with your anti Ruddy rant.....remember?

[/quote]Yes, I remember... David James.Does this mean that you would bring in James as Number ONE for a year, while Ruddy is our first reserve keeper and Rudd goes out for a seasons experience on loan though?

[Smudger 0]

Still yet to hear Nutty and Tangy''s views on the goalkeeping debate though...Something tells me it may be as easy to get a view on that out of Lapps though (or maybe not)??? [:^)]

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Desert Fox"]And the relavence of all this to FF or other GKs is ......????

How about starting another clealry labelled thread where this private argument can be carried on and let the rest of us focus forwards on next season.
[/quote]

Well said DF... [Y]

Maybe Tangy, Crafty, Nutty and Tilly could make up their own thread for their petty debate that nobody is interested in other than Purple?

If they are to continue posting on this thread then wouldn''t it be nice for us to hear their views on the goalkeeping situation at the club rather than what happened in the boardroom two years ago?
[/quote]

I gave you my views on the goalkeeping situation Smudger earlier in the thread when you were in full flow with your anti Ruddy rant.....remember?

[/quote]

Yes, I remember... David James.

Does this mean that you would bring in James as Number ONE for a year, while Ruddy is our first reserve keeper and Rudd goes out for a seasons experience on loan though?
[/quote]

Ruddy will be our number one next season and James would be the reserve keeper.I know that does not fit with you view Smudger but hey ho there is mine for you.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="Smudger"]Still yet to hear Nutty and Tangy''s views on the goalkeeping debate though...

[/quote]

The Chuckle Brothers AKA The Brothers Grim are far too busy with their Nutty Wars game[;)]

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]And the relavence of all this to FF or other GKs is ......????

How about starting another clealry labelled thread where this private argument can be carried on and let the rest of us focus forwards on next season.
[/quote]

 

Evening Des.... It has absolutely no relevance to FF or other GKs. But it was relevant to the posts made by Crafty and Tangie on this thread. I have no intention of starting a thread, clearly labelled or not, to bring negativity to the board. But I will reply to posts made. It''s not private, it''s a public forum. If the anti-Delia bollox was made to me on a PM I wouldn''t bother answering it.

 

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Desert Fox"]And the relavence of all this to FF or other GKs is ......????

How about starting another clealry labelled thread where this private argument can be carried on and let the rest of us focus forwards on next season.
[/quote]

Well said DF... [Y]

Maybe Tangy, Crafty, Nutty and Tilly could make up their own thread for their petty debate that nobody is interested in other than Purple?

If they are to continue posting on this thread then wouldn''t it be nice for us to hear their views on the goalkeeping situation at the club rather than what happened in the boardroom two years ago?
[/quote]

 

I''m surprised that you of all people have joined the ''Plastic Mod Club'' Smudge[:O] This is a great messageboard that Pete can moderate quite easily on his own. I disagree it''s a petty debate. I think it''s a negative debate and I would much prefer that energy to be moved to something positive.  I think some of the other debates on here are petty and you are probably enthralled by them. But then that diversity of opinion is part of why this messageboard is a good place to be.

 

[Desert Fox 0]

Nutty,

I am simply making a polite request to take it elsewhere – every

time I log on to the FF or similar transfer speculation threads (which admittedly

I am a sucker for), I don’t want to see a pointless debate about something in

the past that clearly is not going to be resolved. It is very very very boring

for the rest of us – get my point?

Yes it is a public forum and you have a right to post, but the

board does have some rules including the ones about not diverting a thread and

endlessly posting about the same issue. Pete''s light touch moderation is relaint upon us all acting like grown ups.

Can I suggest that if you and others want to carry on this

debate, that it does not take place on a thread about transfer speculation. Is

that an unreasonable request to make? . If the thread was labelled “arguments

about the past”, I absolutely promise not to read the thread and leave you in

peace. Alternatively, if everyone agreed to let bygones be bygones, we can all

focus upon next year.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

Nutty,

I am simply making a polite request to take it elsewhere – every time I log on to the FF or similar transfer speculation threads (which admittedly I am a sucker for), I don’t want to see a pointless debate about something in the past that clearly is not going to be resolved. It is very very very boring for the rest of us – get my point?

Yes it is a public forum and you have a right to post, but the board does have some rules including the ones about not diverting a thread and endlessly posting about the same issue. Pete''s light touch moderation is relaint upon us all acting like grown ups.

Can I suggest that if you and others want to carry on this debate, that it does not take place on a thread about transfer speculation. Is that an unreasonable request to make? . If the thread was labelled “arguments about the past”, I absolutely promise not to read the thread and leave you in peace. Alternatively, if everyone agreed to let bygones be bygones, we can all focus upon next year.

[/quote]

OK Des, and it''s a fair point. But it was here that the posts were made. If I replied to them on another thread, clearly labelled so that you could ignore it, even more people would think I was a crackpot than do already.

 

Can I suggest that you just ignore the posts that don''t interest you just like I ignore the ones that don''t interest me. Is that unreasonable? It is a very tedious time on the messageboard for many of us and I have to admit I read very few threads. I am not enthralled by much of the speculation but I can quite understand those of you who are.

 

Bygones will never be bygones until one or two leopards really do change their spots![:)] Well, that''s how I see it anyway. I don''t know about the rest of you. The fact that you are the spokesman for the rest of the posters on this board suddenly makes me feel very lonely Des. I feel like a real Billy Nomates. In fact I''m going to climb the wooden hill with a heavy heart tonight. But when I fall asleep I''ll dream about what could happen if all the enthusiasm shown on here two years ago through negativity could be harnessed again now in a positive way? Could we pack St Andrews Hall to raise money for FONCY or a local charity as we did back then to make negative points? Maybe Smudger could organise a sponsored march from The Murderers? Tangie could make the stickers to promote it and Crafty could mass produce guys to sell for charity next November [|-)][S]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[First Wazzock 902]

With this appearing on the Sky Transfer news, it just wont go away...

News:

Alan Pardew admits he may not keep all three of his senior goalkeepers at Newcastle United next season, with Steve Harper, Tim Krul and Fraser Forster vying for the No.1 jersey at St James'' Park.