Delia

[TIL 1010 4,737]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]

So the creditors appointed Mr Bowkett and then Mr Bowkett negotiated with the creditors to stave off administration so Mr Bowkett gets the plaudits for negotiating a deal with the people who appointed him?

 

[/quote]

Don''t expect for one minute TCCANARY that you will get a response from the poster who suggested this was the chain of events just in case Delia comes out of this with just one ounce of credit.

[Warren Hill 0]

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

So the creditors appointed Mr Bowkett and then Mr Bowkett negotiated with the creditors to stave off administration so Mr Bowkett gets the plaudits for negotiating a deal with the people who appointed him?

 

[/quote]

Don''t expect for one minute TCCANARY that you will get a response from the poster who suggested this was the chain of events just in case Delia comes out of this with just one ounce of credit.

[/quote]

 

I''ve already asked this with no response, just like I got no response from TFAA on the Holt thread either.

 

His inference on this thread is ludicrous and the fact that he hasn''t responded leads me to believe that what he stated was purely for some sort of juvenile wind up. If his preposterous version of events is genuinely what he believes, I''d hope that he''d put some meat on the bones and explain how it came about.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

TFAA:

Question is, who appointed Mr Bowkett, the Creditors or Delia?

 

I''ll write that in a different way.  Did the Creditors suggest to Delia and MWJ that Mr. Bowkett would make an excellent Chairman?

[/quote]

 

TFAA writes: I will try again. Third time lucky perhaps! What I meant to say was this:In the past I have posed this rhetorical question about whether our lenders forced Bowkett on Smith and Jones. It now occurs to me that there are various ways of interpreting this question.One is that I don''t know the answer and am raising the topic in the genuine hope that another poster will be in the know.Secondly, that I know the answer (that the banks did indeed engineer Bowkett''s arrival) and the device of a rhetorical question is my way of indicating such.Thirdly, that I don''t have a clue either way but am using a rhetorical question to suggest what the answer is, because that is what I - for whatever reason - want posters to believe.Obviously Interpretation One is perfectly innocent and potentially constructive; the other two interpretations less so. So what I now want to make crystal-clear is that the first interpretation is the correct one for posters to trust. Or is it the second? Or is it the third? Now I am getting confused. I''ll get back to you on this.TFAA

[YankeeCanary 0]

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

TFAA:

Question is, who appointed Mr Bowkett, the Creditors or Delia?

 

I''ll write that in a different way.  Did the Creditors suggest to Delia and MWJ that Mr. Bowkett would make an excellent Chairman?

[/quote]

 

TFAA writes: I will try again. Third time lucky perhaps! What I meant to say was this:

In the past I have posed this rhetorical question about whether our lenders forced Bowkett on Smith and Jones. It now occurs to me that there are various ways of interpreting this question.

One is that I don''t know the answer and am raising the topic in the genuine hope that another poster will be in the know.

Secondly, that I know the answer (that the banks did indeed engineer Bowkett''s arrival) and the device of a rhetorical question is my way of indicating such.

Thirdly, that I don''t have a clue either way but am using a rhetorical question to suggest what the answer is, because that is what I - for whatever reason - want posters to believe.

Obviously Interpretation One is perfectly innocent and potentially constructive; the other two interpretations less so. So what I now want to make crystal-clear is that the first interpretation is the correct one for posters to trust. Or is it the second? Or is it the third? Now I am getting confused. I''ll get back to you on this.

TFAA

[/quote]

 

....and fourthly, Tangie is a creditor ( he does read the contracts you know and he must be paid a small amount for doing so, otherwise why would he even bother ). Being a creditor and not having been paid for his services ( would you pay him ) he became concerned at the direction the club was taking and feared he''d never be paid. Therefore, he wrote a letter to the banks suggesting that Mr. Bowkett should be appointed Chairman. Now, Tangie is probing, in a rhetorical way, to find out if anyone is aware of his initiative behind the scenes and might publicize it. Tangie does not want to be caught bragging you know but he does want his just desserts.

 

[lappinitup 629]

Poor Tangy, he''s taken a bigger battering on this thread than Crafty''s ''battered trout'' has.

[Matt Hopkins 0]

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

TFAA:

Question is, who appointed Mr Bowkett, the Creditors or Delia?

 

I''ll write that in a different way.  Did the Creditors suggest to Delia and MWJ that Mr. Bowkett would make an excellent Chairman?

[/quote]

 

TFAA writes: I will try again. Third time lucky perhaps! What I meant to say was this:

In the past I have posed this rhetorical question about whether our lenders forced Bowkett on Smith and Jones. It now occurs to me that there are various ways of interpreting this question.

One is that I don''t know the answer and am raising the topic in the genuine hope that another poster will be in the know.

Secondly, that I know the answer (that the banks did indeed engineer Bowkett''s arrival) and the device of a rhetorical question is my way of indicating such.

Thirdly, that I don''t have a clue either way but am using a rhetorical question to suggest what the answer is, because that is what I - for whatever reason - want posters to believe.

Obviously Interpretation One is perfectly innocent and potentially constructive; the other two interpretations less so. So what I now want to make crystal-clear is that the first interpretation is the correct one for posters to trust. Or is it the second? Or is it the third? Now I am getting confused. I''ll get back to you on this.

TFAA

[/quote]

PurpleCanary you appear on this forum as one with reasonable knowledge of how business works.

TFAA is. I believe a well qualified accountant; they are renowned for being far better with figures than with words.

So why not try and interpret what TFAA is suggesting.

The board up to and including the relegation to Division 1 had not proven very fiscally sound. The debt under their stewardship had risen from 6million to over 23 million.

Many bad decisions were made costing the club millions in lost revenue to retrieve some very bad appointments.

Is it not feasible that the creditors suggested that if the board were to continue getting their support that a higher degree of business acumen should be acquired and even perhaps suggesting a name or two?

Bowketts reputation in the City was well known and respected and perhaps was the very person to retrieve what was at that stage a very dire situation.

That they then moved heaven and earth to persuade him to become chairman and under that position renegotiate the debt was credit to them for at last recognising the long term shortcomings and acting upon them.

Good management and a degree of luck, at last and the rest is history.

Does not that seem a reasonable scenario?

 

[Matt Hopkins 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]Poor Tangy, he''s taken a bigger battering on this thread than Crafty''s ''battered trout'' has.

[/quote]

Was that not your intention lappinitup when you started yet another thread about the board?

You either enjoy causing division on this forum or you seem to have a fixation with a certain celebrity.

With respect I suggest that neither is very healthy.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

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

TFAA:

Question is, who appointed Mr Bowkett, the Creditors or Delia?

 

I''ll write that in a different way.  Did the Creditors suggest to Delia and MWJ that Mr. Bowkett would make an excellent Chairman?

[/quote]

 

TFAA writes: I will try again. Third time lucky perhaps! What I meant to say was this:In the past I have posed this rhetorical question about whether our lenders forced Bowkett on Smith and Jones. It now occurs to me that there are various ways of interpreting this question.One is that I don''t know the answer and am raising the topic in the genuine hope that another poster will be in the know.Secondly, that I know the answer (that the banks did indeed engineer Bowkett''s arrival) and the device of a rhetorical question is my way of indicating such.Thirdly, that I don''t have a clue either way but am using a rhetorical question to suggest what the answer is, because that is what I - for whatever reason - want posters to believe.Obviously Interpretation One is perfectly innocent and potentially constructive; the other two interpretations less so. So what I now want to make crystal-clear is that the first interpretation is the correct one for posters to trust. Or is it the second? Or is it the third? Now I am getting confused. I''ll get back to you on this.TFAA

[/quote]

PurpleCanary you appear on this forum as one with reasonable knowledge of how business works.

TFAA is. I believe a well qualified accountant; they are renowned for being far better with figures than with words.

So why not try and interpret what TFAA is suggesting.

The board up to and including the relegation to Division 1 had not proven very fiscally sound. The debt under their stewardship had risen from 6million to over 23 million.

Many bad decisions were made costing the club millions in lost revenue to retrieve some very bad appointments.

Is it not feasible that the creditors suggested that if the board were to continue getting their support that a higher degree of business acumen should be acquired and even perhaps suggesting a name or two?

Bowketts reputation in the City was well known and respected and perhaps was the very person to retrieve what was at that stage a very dire situation.

That they then moved heaven and earth to persuade him to become chairman and under that position renegotiate the debt was credit to them for at last recognising the long term shortcomings and acting upon them.

Good management and a degree of luck, at last and the rest is history.

Does not that seem a reasonable scenario?

 

[/quote]

 

I understand why this is the case, but you are missing the point of my post. The scenario you have outlined is roughly the one at which TFAA has frequently hinted with his rhetorical question. And it is a perfectly plausible scenario. That the lenders had some role in the boardroom upheaval. Anything from vaguely and gently suggesting there might be changes at one end of the spectrum to effectively forcing Bowkett on Smith and Jones under threat of withdrawing support and sending the club into administration at the other end.This is by no means unknown in big business, albeit normally with listed companies, where powerful organisations such as investment and pension funds that have large shareholdings can exercise that power to enforce change. But it is possible to imagine it happening with unlisted companies, which is what we are. Lenders could use the threat of a withdrawal of financial aid.I am fine with the idea that this might have happened. My objection is to TFAA posing this rhetorical question in order to give the impression this WAS what happened without ever backing that up with anything remotely resembling a fact. If TFAA knows, then he should say so. If he has no idea then he should stop pretending he does.

[YankeeCanary 0]

 

Purple: "If TFAA knows, then he should say so. If he has no idea then he should stop pretending he does."

 

Matt Hopkins: "TFAA is. I believe a well qualified accountant; they are renowned for being far better with figures than with words.

So why not try and interpret what TFAA is suggesting."

 

Which of these two statements leave you cold? Not a difficult choice, is it?

[Crafty Canary 495]

Of course this thread was created with the sole purpose of trying to have a pop at TFAA. He has never claimed to know how Mr Bowkett came to be appointed but raised the rhetorical question of whether the board came to the conclusion a serious businessman was needed to run the club or if they were led to this conclusion as Matt Hopkins has suggested. Needless to say, this doesn''t meet the agenda for why this thread was created.

What we can be certain of was that the ''battered trout'' and her fellow directors led this club to the brink of disaster which Messrs Bowkett, McNally and Lambert were able to rescue it from. After years of poor decision making and even worse managerial appointments was it really just good fortune that led them to Mr Bowkett''s door? We''ll probably never know but it was a remarkable epiphany if it was.  

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]Of course this thread was created with the sole purpose of trying to have a pop at TFAA.[/quote]If Tangy really thought that, why on earth didn''t he simply ignore the thread?I stated quite clearly in my opening post.........."This thread is NOT designed to re-open old arguments but is a simple question......In

view of where the club is at this present time, is there anybody out

there who would still like to see Delia and Michael sell their shares

and walk away?"It couldn''t be clearer, the thread was designed to be a discussion about the here and now, not the past. It was Tangy who unnecessarily brought Bowkett''s appointment four years ago into the debate, so to try to blame me or anybody else is.childish in the extreme.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Matt Hopkins"]

[quote user="lappinitup"]Poor Tangy, he''s taken a bigger battering on this thread than Crafty''s ''battered trout'' has. [/quote]

Was that not your intention lappinitup when you started yet another thread about the board?[/quote]

When things were not so good a few years back, there were hundreds of threads berating the board and Delia in particular. After an astonishing turnaround, are we not entitled to praise them now and again?

[YankeeCanary 0]

 

Not just childish Lapp but make believe.Your original input on this thread was crystal clear and objective.

The recent arrivals distinctly remind me of what we all used to witness in the old western movies. The Indian chief, spoiling for a fight,  sits on top of the mountain shaking his fist and his first utterings to see if it will scare off the enemy. When it doesn''t he sends out his scouting party to shake their lances and let the enemy know what''s what, that the big bad white man,  ( or woman in this case ) left to their own devices, will take the country to ruin. When asked to parley, the Indians respond with "ifs" and "maybe''s" and all kinds of "indian speak" that nobody attending the movies ever understood. In the final analysis, their stance seemed to be built upon either "the past" dictated by the beliefs of their forefathers, or the next world, "the after life" of the happy hunting grounds.

And so it is today, with Tangie and his gang, who have a difficult time simply enjoying the position of the club "in the present" without constantly having to dig into the past. What is truly behind their input, I wonder, that causes them to so harbor such ongoing negativity towards our majority owners?   

[Matt Hopkins 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

 

Not just childish Lapp but make believe.Your original input on this thread was crystal clear and objective.

The recent arrivals distinctly remind me of what we all used to witness in the old western movies. The Indian chief, spoiling for a fight,  sits on top of the mountain shaking his fist and his first utterings to see if it will scare off the enemy. When it doesn''t he sends out his scouting party to shake their lances and let the enemy know what''s what, that the big bad white man,  ( or woman in this case ) left to their own devices, will take the country to ruin. When asked to parley, the Indians respond with "ifs" and "maybe''s" and all kinds of "indian speak" that nobody attending the movies ever understood. In the final analysis, their stance seemed to be built upon either "the past" dictated by the beliefs of their forefathers, or the next world, "the after life" of the happy hunting grounds.

And so it is today, with Tangie and his gang, who have a difficult time simply enjoying the position of the club "in the present" without constantly having to dig into the past. What is truly behind their input, I wonder, that causes them to so harbor such ongoing negativity towards our majority owners?   

[/quote]

 

A clever analogy Yankee but was it not the white man who stole the birthright of the indiginous population?

I do not wish to enter any argument about the past as the present holds far more interest, so why start threads to compare the past? Only Lappinitup knows what his reasons are.

As they say in your part of the world (if in deed you are in America) have a nice day, oh and watch out for the arrows.

 

[Matt Hopkins 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

 

Not just childish Lapp but make believe.Your original input on this thread was crystal clear and objective.

The recent arrivals distinctly remind me of what we all used to witness in the old western movies. The Indian chief, spoiling for a fight,  sits on top of the mountain shaking his fist and his first utterings to see if it will scare off the enemy. When it doesn''t he sends out his scouting party to shake their lances and let the enemy know what''s what, that the big bad white man,  ( or woman in this case ) left to their own devices, will take the country to ruin. When asked to parley, the Indians respond with "ifs" and "maybe''s" and all kinds of "indian speak" that nobody attending the movies ever understood. In the final analysis, their stance seemed to be built upon either "the past" dictated by the beliefs of their forefathers, or the next world, "the after life" of the happy hunting grounds.

And so it is today, with Tangie and his gang, who have a difficult time simply enjoying the position of the club "in the present" without constantly having to dig into the past. What is truly behind their input, I wonder, that causes them to so harbor such ongoing negativity towards our majority owners?   

[/quote]

 

A clever analogy Yankee but was it not the white man who stole the birthright of the indiginous population?

I do not wish to enter any argument about the past as the present holds far more interest, so why start threads to compare the past? Only Lappinitup knows what his reasons are.

As they say in your part of the world (if in deed you are in America) have a nice day, oh and watch out for the arrows.

 

[TCCANARY 263]

Dicky, you need to be careful, there will be some sad t0sspots who will be made even sadder by being compared to Green Giant.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]

TFAA...has never claimed to know how Mr Bowkett came to be appointed but raised the rhetorical question of whether the board came to the conclusion a serious businessman was needed to run the club or if they were led to this conclusion as Matt Hopkins has suggested.

[/quote]

 

 

I must say I am deeply envious that Tangible has a professional PR to issue statements on his behalf. I do feel I need to get out more so I was wondering, Crafty, if you would be able to take me on as a client? I don''t know what your going rate is, given your obviously impressive qualifications, but I normally pay my staff with cases of half-decent Champagne. Would that suit? I imagine you might be worried about a conflict of interest, but Tangible and I tend to post on similar subjects, and I can''t offhand remember us disagreeing on any of them. But then again that might be the Champagne befuddling my memory.

[Warren Hill 0]

Now we are externally debt free, presumably those that appointed Bowkett have been paid, one would also presume ahead of schedule.

So, is Bowkett now surplus to requirements having not been Delia''s man?

Did he pick up a bonus from those that appointed him for getting them their kite back quick sharp?

Who influences the board room now? Without external guidance are we headed for the rocks? After all, Bowkett is "mission accomplished", surely he will seek a fresh challenge rather than rest on his laurels here. There are countless football clubs in perilous debt positions, his expertise and now track record must make him a very attractive proposition for such clubs?

[Crafty Canary 495]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]

TFAA...has never claimed to know how Mr Bowkett came to be appointed but raised the rhetorical question of whether the board came to the conclusion a serious businessman was needed to run the club or if they were led to this conclusion as Matt Hopkins has suggested.

[/quote]

 

 

I must say I am deeply envious that Tangible has a professional PR to issue statements on his behalf. I do feel I need to get out more so I was wondering, Crafty, if you would be able to take me on as a client? I don''t know what your going rate is, given your obviously impressive qualifications, but I normally pay my staff with cases of half-decent Champagne. Would that suit? I imagine you might be worried about a conflict of interest, but Tangible and I tend to post on similar subjects, and I can''t offhand remember us disagreeing on any of them. But then again that might be the Champagne befuddling my memory.

[/quote]

Cases of fully decent champagne such as Krug Grand Cuvee would be entirely acceptable. Let''s start with 2 cases and see how we go.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

I''ll give Delia credit for staying in the background and allowing the excellent Bowkett and McNally to rescue the club.

This followed a period where the club was taken back 50 years when we were relegated to the third tier of football.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

The club''s owners are quite possibly the most respected owners in football. They have guided the club through some extremely difficult times where other club''s owners have failed miserably. No administration or lasting damage occurred under their stewardship. We just experienced an incredible rollercoaster ride including a play-off final, championship win and season in the prem, relegation back to the champs and then to league one followed by successive promotions and two more seasons in the prem. Yet we still have a group of bitter and unhappy posters on here. Back in the real world we are the envy of  so many other comparable clubs. What would the likes of Forest, Coventry or those "ambitious" binners give to have our owners?

 

 

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

I''ll give Delia credit for staying in the background and allowing the excellent Bowkett and McNally to rescue the club.

This followed a period where the club was taken back 50 years when we were relegated to the third tier of football.

[/quote]

 

While you''re in the mood for giving out credit Tangie, during the rapidly approaching record longevity period of our majority owners, how about giving credit for a fourth season in the Premiership about to occur as well as three promotions during their tenure. I know how much you like to benchmark so how does that record compare to the owners performance at one of your favourites, Preston North End. I believe during the past 17 seasons they have been promoted just one single time, and that was from the third level. Not one single season in the Premiership during all that time Tangie. Further, they can presently be regarded as fairly permanent residents of the third level. Still, I do think you should consider sending a note to Delia asking if she has contacted PNE owners on the way things should be done to effectively run a club. Mind you, I wouldn''t hold your breath waiting for a reply.

 

Incidentally, I see you have not been able to bring yourself to answer the very clear question Lapp asked at the outset which was clearly the purpose of the thread. Perhaps you could strain yourself now, even if you have to hold your nose while you do so:

"In view of where the club is at this present time, is there anybody out there who would still like to see Delia and Michael sell their shares and walk away?"

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]

TFAA...has never claimed to know how Mr Bowkett came to be appointed but raised the rhetorical question of whether the board came to the conclusion a serious businessman was needed to run the club or if they were led to this conclusion as Matt Hopkins has suggested.

[/quote]

 

 

I must say I am deeply envious that Tangible has a professional PR to issue statements on his behalf. I do feel I need to get out more so I was wondering, Crafty, if you would be able to take me on as a client? I don''t know what your going rate is, given your obviously impressive qualifications, but I normally pay my staff with cases of half-decent Champagne. Would that suit? I imagine you might be worried about a conflict of interest, but Tangible and I tend to post on similar subjects, and I can''t offhand remember us disagreeing on any of them. But then again that might be the Champagne befuddling my memory.

[/quote]

Cases of fully decent champagne such as Krug Grand Cuvee would be entirely acceptable. Let''s start with 2 cases and see how we go.

[/quote]

 

Oh, if you willing to settle for the likes of Krug then we definitely have a deal! I was afraid you would insist on something much more outré - that lovely de Venoge Louis XV Rosé, for example, or the ''95 Heidsieck Blanc des Millénaires.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]

TFAA...has never claimed to know how Mr Bowkett came to be appointed but raised the rhetorical question of whether the board came to the conclusion a serious businessman was needed to run the club or if they were led to this conclusion as Matt Hopkins has suggested.




[/quote]

 

 

I must say I am deeply envious that Tangible has a professional PR to issue statements on his behalf. I do feel I need to get out more so I was wondering, Crafty, if you would be able to take me on as a client? I don''t know what your going rate is, given your obviously impressive qualifications, but I normally pay my staff with cases of half-decent Champagne. Would that suit? I imagine you might be worried about a conflict of interest, but Tangible and I tend to post on similar subjects, and I can''t offhand remember us disagreeing on any of them. But then again that might be the Champagne befuddling my memory.

[/quote]

Cases of fully decent champagne such as Krug Grand Cuvee would be entirely acceptable. Let''s start with 2 cases and see how we go.

[/quote]

 

Oh, if you willing to settle for the likes of Krug then we definitely have a deal! I was afraid you would insist on something much more outré - that lovely de Venoge Louis XV Rosé, for example, or the ''95 Heidsieck Blanc des Millénaires.

[/quote]

He was offering you a discount as you know me! Lol!

[Warren Hill 0]

Glad to see Tangible has popped back, not addressed any of the questions raised by his claims though.

Is that because there is no flesh to the bones? The unwillingness to expand on his suggestion or indeed substantiate it might lead some to think that it might be a scenario he''d like to envisage or perhaps wishes was true; rather than it being one of any credibility.

Making outlandish claims or conjuring conspiracy theories as an alternative to giving our majority shareholders any credit for our current position is a desperate act, one that says more about the mindset of the poster than a little.

To hold them accountable for our brief sojourn in League One (first time we''d played at that level for fifty years you know...) and the appointments of personnel involved in that relegation but to then absolve them of any credit for our rapid ascent back to the top table smacks of double standards and flies in the face of the evidence available.

If those that bayed for her head those few short years ago had the wherewithal to hold up their hands and admit that they were wrong, that the grass wasn''t greener with the likes of Evans or Gaydamak, that would show them to be people of substance. To continue denouncing them, to fail to recognise their part in our resurgence; that just makes them look like spoiled, petulant children.

One day we''ll get relegated. These same folk will blow the dust off their Delia Out car stickers and claim they were right all along.

How sad is that.