[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on May 29 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

Apologise?

Tell you what: when Bazza apologises for all the deadlines that came and went, not to mention the various excuses that were trotted out when all the time it was because Dave Allen couldn't extracate himself from Hillsborough, i'll apologise for suggesting this was the case.

and so you should.
the delays were not 'all the time' because DA couldn't extracate himself from Hillsborough. I'm not quite sure how the truth could have been conveyed to us fans without jeopardising very delicate negoatiations with the league. How would you have played it?.

[Gazza]

MDCCCLXVI, on May 29 2009, 03:19 PM, said:

Apologise?

Tell you what: when Bazza apologises for all the deadlines that came and went, not to mention the various excuses that were trotted out when all the time it was because Dave Allen couldn't extracate himself from Hillsborough, i'll apologise for suggesting this was the case.

When Bazza also apologises for unilaterally appointing Lee Richardson, the subsequent relegation, and the two wasted seasons his protege inflicted on us, then i'll apologise for stating that he was the wrong man from day one.

And when Bazza apologises for the hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of pounds that decision has cost the Club, i'll apologise for not holding him up as the Saint others seem to think he is.

Fair enough?

MDCCCLXVI have you ever bought a house and set the moving date only for 1 little thing to go wrong that was totally out of your hands? Well using your theory it was your fault for setting that date in the 1st place.

As for the millions of pounds that Ma as cost the club, could I please ask where that figure comes from?

What about the simple fact that we ARE going to have a new ground after what some 40 years, what about the simple fact that Ma as got somebody to invest (with or without intrest) 6 million quid when loads of other investors are looking to jump ship and leaving clubs in a the thick brown stuff.

OK I think we can all accept the fact that Rico was a bad mistake but as I see it Rico got the nod from Roy Mc as well. Oh by the way I've made more than 1 mistake in the past 2 years and the only thing wrong with hindsight is that it aint there when you need it.

Lets just try and stick together for once and look forward to what could potentially be very exciting times both on and off the pitch, just picking my coat up and going to look for that hindsight stuff again.

[Wooden Spoon]

dazcarrlegend, on May 29 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

.... for all of the abuse you have given him

I have repeatedly said `ma` deserves praise for the situation the club now finds itself in.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on May 29 2009, 10:47 PM, said:

and so you should.
the delays were not 'all the time' because DA couldn't extracate himself from Hillsborough. I'm not quite sure how the truth could have been conveyed to us fans without jeopardising very delicate negoatiations with the league. How would you have played it?.

Well, instead of repeatedly issuing deadlines (like your own inferrence that the 'new era' would begin last October, or any of Hubbard's "the new owner won't be revealed until we get planning permission...the land is handed over...January...etc...etc"), i'd have said something like 'The prefered bidder has commitments he needs to free himself from and until that happens he can't be revealed'.

Simple as that.

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on May 30 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

Well, instead of repeatedly issuing deadlines (like your own inferrence that the 'new era' would begin last October, or any of Hubbard's "the new owner won't be revealed until we get planning permission...the land is handed over...January...etc...etc"), i'd have said something like 'The prefered bidder has commitments he needs to free himself from and until that happens he can't be revealed'.

Simple as that.

there wouldn't have been a new owner if we hadn't got planning permission or been given the land, so he definitely didn't delay those.
Interesting. You'd have said something like people on here did say, but you chose not to believe them.

[Mr.Spireite]

isleaiw, on May 29 2009, 10:32 PM, said:

but as we all know there are two sides to the truth and only seeing one is an opinion not the truth...

3 actually........

One persons side....
The other persons ....

And then , the actual truth.

[spyright]

death, on May 30 2009, 12:02 PM, said:

I have repeatedly said `ma` deserves praise for the situation the club now finds itself in.

Indeed you have 'death' but then you tend to argue on the basis of looking at some evidence and then forming an opinion rather than simply starting from a predetermined position. There are some though who simply refuse to accept even the possibility that Hubbard might actually get something right or do something good for the Club and they are the ones that this thread was originally aimed at. It's sad that they can't see that their fanatical dislike of the man means many other posters give little or no weight to their opinion (even on those occasions when they have a valid point) because of this lack of objectivity. Like many, I don't regard Hubbard as perfect or as some sort of saint but it is childish to refuse to give him some praise over the progress on the new ground and the Allen investment just because a few dates in the original timetable weren't met as a result of circumstances beyond his personal control.

[Town_Fan]

spyright, on Jun 1 2009, 12:52 PM, said:

Indeed you have 'death' but then you tend to argue on the basis of looking at some evidence and then forming an opinion rather than simply starting from a predetermined position. There are some though who simply refuse to accept even the possibility that Hubbard might actually get something right or do something good for the Club and they are the ones that this thread was originally aimed at. It's sad that they can't see that their fanatical dislike of the man means many other posters give little or no weight to their opinion (even on those occasions when they have a valid point) because of this lack of objectivity. Like many, I don't regard Hubbard as perfect or as some sort of saint but it is childish to refuse to give him some praise over the progress on the new ground and the Allen investment just because a few dates in the original timetable weren't met as a result of circumstances beyond his personal control.

Apart from the obvious one who are the "some who simply refuse to accept even the possibility that Hubbard might actually get something right"?

[Wooden Spoon]

spyright, on Jun 1 2009, 12:52 PM, said:

Indeed you have 'death' but then you tend to argue on the basis of looking at some evidence and then forming an opinion rather than simply starting from a predetermined position. There are some though who simply refuse to accept even the possibility that Hubbard might actually get something right or do something good for the Club and they are the ones that this thread was originally aimed at. It's sad that they can't see that their fanatical dislike of the man means many other posters give little or no weight to their opinion (even on those occasions when they have a valid point) because of this lack of objectivity. Like many, I don't regard Hubbard as perfect or as some sort of saint but it is childish to refuse to give him some praise over the progress on the new ground and the Allen investment just because a few dates in the original timetable weren't met as a result of circumstances beyond his personal control.

1) I cant just praise him for the sake of, I have criticised him in the past. You can only look at the evidence before you and form a judgement. I criticised the `gamble` statement when CFC was top 10 in league one. I criticised his decision not to sack LR after lincoln. Regarding the club changing, most important event since 1871 though, `ma` has done well.

2) If `ma` gave fishini his own gold plated seat with a free lifelong season ticket he would still be wrong. Thats life. Some people have an opinion and wont change it due to things they have seen or heard.

3) Chris often raises the candle stick maker theme, in his posts regarding the current set up. Its one I agree with. They dont have the money, or the `modern approach` to change. Indeed sometimes Saltergate is used as a reason not to anything.

4) The timetable thing. IMO it was often out of `ma` hands, with him waiting at the end of a phone for some good news. The timing wasnt so important to me, getting the land for free, and then a £6million investment was. We have waited for decades for a new ground, so a few extra months wont have made any difference.

In summary.

Yes `ma` hubbard has made mistakes, sometimes shows an ultra conservative attitude, and isnt exactly cutting edge and dynamic. However he has dekivered a planning permission for the new ground, a piece of land on which to build it for free, and a wealthy bloke with a cheque for £6,000,000.

Overall I reckon he can pleased with himself.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on May 30 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

there wouldn't have been a new owner if we hadn't got planning permission or been given the land, so he definitely didn't delay those.
Interesting. You'd have said something like people on here did say, but you chose not to believe them.

I think we both know the point i was making.

Even until recently we were told that building was delayed until May because of 'expert advice'.

Well it's now June, so why hasn't work begun?

That's right, because we had to wait until Allen's money was 'signed, sealed and delivered'.

Just as some of us have said all along.

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on Jun 1 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

I
That's right, because we had to wait until Allen's money was 'signed, sealed and delivered'.

Just as some of us have said all along.

yep, including the Chairman, who said the money would need to be in the bank beforehand.

So yes, at last, you are right about summat. The start has been delayed. Look no further for blame than the FL who have been a: wetting themselves for fear of setting precedents, and b: giving priority to the Southampton shambles over us.

[Brimington Barry]

dim view, on Jun 1 2009, 09:30 PM, said:

yep, including the Chairman, who said the money would need to be in the bank beforehand.

So yes, at last, you are right about summat. The start has been delayed. Look no further for blame than the FL who have been a: wetting themselves for fear of setting precedents, and b: giving priority to the Southampton shambles over us.

As I understand it, Southampton are in deep financial trouble; the FA has to attend to them as priority.

If CFC were in similar difficulty, would you tolerate any FA dalliance over some new stadium elsewhere?

You know the answer's no

Baz

[J Blues]

i thank Barrie for the good things he has brought to this football club and his hard work to bring in a invester and get the new stadium underway.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on Jun 1 2009, 09:30 PM, said:

yep, including the Chairman, who said the money would need to be in the bank beforehand.

So yes, at last, you are right about summat. The start has been delayed. Look no further for blame than the FL who have been a: wetting themselves for fear of setting precedents, and b: giving priority to the Southampton shambles over us.

So why did Hubbard and those that seek to defend his every action trot out a litany of deadlines, then another litany of excuses when those deadlines passed?

Or have you forgotten about the "expert advice" that dictated the build should begin in May...

[dim view]

Brimington Barry, on Jun 2 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

As I understand it, Southampton are in deep financial trouble; the FA has to attend to them as priority.

If CFC were in similar difficulty, would you tolerate any FA dalliance over some new stadium elsewhere?

You know the answer's no

Baz

I know sweet FA, or is it FL?.

I'm agreeing that their plight is worse than ours, and I'm cool about the delay.

[Wooden Spoon]

MDCCCLXVI, on Jun 2 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

So why did Hubbard and those that seek to defend his every action trot out a litany of deadlines, then another litany of excuses when those deadlines passed?

Or have you forgotten about the "expert advice" that dictated the build should begin in May...

Chris, we have the investment, we have a bloke who has bought £4,000,000 worth of shares. I dont understand what the issue is.

[Spired]

death, on Jun 2 2009, 07:02 PM, said:

Chris, we have the investment, we have a bloke who has bought £4,000,000 worth of shares. I dont understand what the issue is.

Sorry Chris but I agree with Death here.

This thread should have more apologies on it.

Personally i don't apologise for saying he should have sacked Rico over a year ago...and for maintaining he was a bad appointment from the start.

But what is far more important than that is that he has delivered in an very unlikely scenario...most impressively during a recession!!!

Well done barrie...i apologise for my picture of a bloke in a beige suit with his head in the sand

Sorry.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

death, on Jun 2 2009, 07:02 PM, said:

Chris, we have the investment, we have a bloke who has bought £4,000,000 worth of shares. I dont understand what the issue is.

Agreed.

And, as i've previously stated, if our club now makes genuine progress Hubbard deserves a pat-on-the-back for eliciting that investment.

However the thread is about apologies, so my 'issue' is with those suggesting critics should offer some sort of contrition whilst the Board remain blameless.

Remember the FA's public apology in the wake of McClaren's exit?

[Wooden Spoon]

MDCCCLXVI, on Jun 3 2009, 04:33 PM, said:

Agreed.

And, as i've previously stated, if our club now makes genuine progress Hubbard deserves a pat-on-the-back for eliciting that investment.

However the thread is about apologies, so my 'issue' is with those suggesting critics should offer some sort of contrition whilst the Board remain blameless.

Remember the FA's public apology in the wake of McClaren's exit?

At best then, all you reckon `ma` needs to say sorry for is appointing LR on a 2 year deal?

[Skywalker]

death, on Jun 1 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

1) I cant just praise him for the sake of, I have criticised him in the past. You can only look at the evidence before you and form a judgement. I criticised the `gamble` statement when CFC was top 10 in league one. I criticised his decision not to sack LR after lincoln. Regarding the club changing, most important event since 1871 though, `ma` has done well.

2) If `ma` gave fishini his own gold plated seat with a free lifelong season ticket he would still be wrong. Thats life. Some people have an opinion and wont change it due to things they have seen or heard.

3) Chris often raises the candle stick maker theme, in his posts regarding the current set up. Its one I agree with. They dont have the money, or the `modern approach` to change. Indeed sometimes Saltergate is used as a reason not to anything.

4) The timetable thing. IMO it was often out of `ma` hands, with him waiting at the end of a phone for some good news. The timing wasnt so important to me, getting the land for free, and then a £6million investment was. We have waited for decades for a new ground, so a few extra months wont have made any difference.

In summary.

Yes `ma` hubbard has made mistakes, sometimes shows an ultra conservative attitude, and isnt exactly cutting edge and dynamic. However he has dekivered a planning permission for the new ground, a piece of land on which to build it for free, and a wealthy bloke with a cheque for £6,000,000.

Overall I reckon he can pleased with himself.

There are also some supporters who still feel that Chesterfield football club could have a successful future by staying at Saltergate. These are the same fans that have such ‘high expectations’ on the field. The ground is an out of date relic that symbolises the out of date approach to marketing and promoting the club. £20 for a guaranteed view with an obstruction, years old car posters left up in stinking toilets and expensive pies. I personally can’t wait for the new ground and its modern facilities. Hopefully the input of a highly successful business man (Dave Allen) will rub off on our club and demonstrate that failure off the pitch will not be tolerated.

I’ve been critical of some of the decisions made by BH over the years and do not feel I have anything to apologise for, but the hard work that has gone into improving the fortunes of the club off the field should be acknowledged and applauded.