[diddyuk]

Ok I will start it. Sack the board and the manager lol

[Essex_Spireite]

my sides are practically splitting

[DIFH]

diddyuk, on Aug 8 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

Ok I will start it. Sack the board and the manager lol

Your obviously from NOTTYASH where the other big joker lives eh - what no replies I didn't think so.

[Wooden Spoon]

diddyuk, on Aug 8 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

Ok I will start it. Sack the board and the manager lol

cabbage

[spireite81]

diddyuk, on Aug 8 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

Ok I will start it. Sack the board and the manager lol

pathetic. moron.

[fishini]

diddyuk, on Aug 8 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

Ok I will start it. Sack the board and the manager lol

Who knows what will happen when DA really takes hold of the reins

[Blueprint]

what you mean when he gets rid of the hubbard?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

fishini, on Aug 9 2009, 08:08 PM, said:

Who knows what will happen when DA really takes hold of the reins

Fishi.
Do you honestly think he hasn't full control of the 'reins' now?

Every report i've heard tells me that he's overruled Hubbard at least twice to appoint Sheridan as manager (apparently BH would've given Richardson another year, and preferred Calderwood as his replacement), and come on, be honest: if you'd gambled four million quid in a business would you let amateurs with a fraction of your commitment 'rule the roost'?

[spyright]

MDCCCLXVI, on Aug 9 2009, 10:58 PM, said:

Fishi.
Do you honestly think he hasn't full control of the 'reins' now?

Every report i've heard tells me that he's overruled Hubbard at least twice to appoint Sheridan as manager (apparently BH would've given Richardson another year, and preferred Calderwood as his replacement), and come on, be honest: if you'd gambled four million quid in a business would you let amateurs with a fraction of your commitment 'rule the roost'?

Now now '1866'. At least these amateurs have kept us out of administration (unlike those at a number of other Clubs in recent years) and by 'commitment' I presume you are referring to the size of their financial stake? If not, then I think you are being harsh. Hubbard and the Board may not be everyone's cup of tea but their commitment has got us Dave Allen and a new ground on the way so they've not been a total disaster.

[Duckys Moved]

spyright, on Aug 10 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

Now now '1866'. At least these amateurs have kept us out of administration (unlike those at a number of other Clubs in recent years) and by 'commitment' I presume you are referring to the size of their financial stake? If not, then I think you are being harsh. Hubbard and the Board may not be everyone's cup of tea but their commitment has got us Dave Allen and a new ground on the way so they've not been a total disaster.

I assume he means Financial as well or he has seriously lost the plot.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

MP-Spire, on Aug 10 2009, 06:28 PM, said:

Chris,

Re. commitment on an individual basis, at what point (£) does a debenture benefit the Club rather than the holder?

Firstly, of course i meant financial commitment. To put it simply, no one in their right mind would allow others to make decisions of any magnitude when they themself had gambled four million quid whilst those others had a fraction of that at stake.

And i'm not looking to repeat the same old arguments about who's done what and why. My opinions on the former regime are well documented and maybe the fact that we all recognise that change is a necessity for the club to progress says all that needs to be said.

As for your question, Mike, i'm not entirely sure what you mean. If you're suggesting that some or all of the debentures were structured in a manner that benefits CFC in some way, then i'm more than happy to explore that fact.

[fishini]

Blueprint, on Aug 9 2009, 10:49 PM, said:

what you mean when he gets rid of the hubbard?

Thats the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow

[Wooden Spoon]

MP-Spire, on Aug 10 2009, 08:07 PM, said:

Chris,

Apologies, I wasn't that clear. If you were the Chairman, what size of investment / loan would you be looking for to allow someone to join the Board?

Also, as a Director of the Club, what benefits can be expected?

Your being very simplistic there.

Many issues could influence this, amount of debt, risk involved, other debentures, spread of debentures/risk, priority of loan note holders, financial clout of existing loan note holders, business acumen of new `investors`,approval from the fishmeister...........

[Blueprint]

fishini, on Aug 10 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

Thats the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow

and there's more chance of finding the pot of gold than you getting your wish.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

MP-Spire, on Aug 10 2009, 08:07 PM, said:

Chris,

Apologies, I wasn't that clear. If you were the Chairman, what size of investment / loan would you be looking for to allow someone to join the Board?

Also, as a Director of the Club, what benefits can be expected?

Hmmm; the cynic in me would point out that whilst Ian Yeowart and John Wilkinson's £1/3M package was rejected, whilst individuals apparently bringing far less to the table were embraced, agreeing with the Chairman might take priority over financial considerations.

I tend to agree with 'Death', though: surely it's the overall package an individual has to offer that dictates their entry into the Boardroom. After all, what's the point of a millionaire's involvement if he's unable or unwilling to progress the club? Wouldn't someone possessing the dynamism and ability to grow the business be preferable in the long term? Isn't an individual prepared to purchase shares and therefore a long term stake in the club preferable to another offering only loans and, perhaps, merely seeking a haven for their spare cash?

As for the benefits of being a director, i'd suggest it's a combination of financial, egotistical, simply enjoying the gig, a genuine wish to help, and an emotional attachment to the club. But please don't get me into attributing percentages of these to those involved at CFC!

[moondog]

MDCCCLXVI, on Aug 11 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

Hmmm; the cynic in me would point out that whilst Ian Yeowart and John Wilkinson's £1/3M package was rejected, whilst individuals apparently bringing far less to the table were embraced, agreeing with the Chairman might take priority over financial considerations.

I tend to agree with 'Death', though: surely it's the overall package an individual has to offer that dictates their entry into the Boardroom. After all, what's the point of a millionaire's involvement if he's unable or unwilling to progress the club? Wouldn't someone possessing the dynamism and ability to grow the business be preferable in the long term? Isn't an individual prepared to purchase shares and therefore a long term stake in the club preferable to another offering only loans and, perhaps, merely seeking a haven for their spare cash?

As for the benefits of being a director, i'd suggest it's a combination of financial, egotistical, simply enjoying the gig, a genuine wish to help, and an emotional attachment to the club. But please don't get me into attributing percentages of these to those involved at CFC!

Or Ian Yeowart I notice

[spyright]

fishini, on Aug 10 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

Thats the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow

So it's simple then? All CFC needs to do is get rid of Hubbard and, hey presto, we'll be European champions within 4 years? Care to justify your obsessive dislike (hatred?) of our Chairman? You could start by listing all of his good and all of his bad decisions and deeds - but stick to documented facts please and exclude unfounded/unsubstantiated rumours and opinions.