|
|
Post by Big Ern on Feb 24, 2020 18:56:40 GMT 1
What I cant quite fathom is this.
Say we were a middling league 1 side with relatively little debt and we were taken over by a man who threw millions at us, took us to the premier league and then upon relegation took all the money back he had invested. The club then were saddled with a legacy of players worth zilch, a huge hemorrhaging wage bill, a disenfranchised fanbase and facing a return to where we started. Would you say said club were any better off and would you say the owner deserved to take his money back out?
What if this ultimately leads to us being in more debt than we started because the fan base dwindles and the players cant be shifted. Was the chairman right to take his money back then?
|
|
|
|
Post by impact on Feb 24, 2020 19:49:27 GMT 1
What I cant quite fathom is this. Say we were a middling league 1 side with relatively little debt and we were taken over by a man who threw millions at us, took us to the premier league and then upon relegation took all the money back he had invested. The club then were saddled with a legacy of players worth zilch, a huge hemorrhaging wage bill, a disenfranchised fanbase and facing a return to where we started. Would you say said club were any better off and would you say the owner deserved to take his money back out? What if this ultimately leads to us being in more debt than we started because the fan base dwindles and the players cant be shifted. Was the chairman right to take his money back then? If the choice is 12k watching Malvin Kamara in the 3rd tier or 20k watching Karlan Grant in the 2nd, I'll take the latter thanks. |
|
wigster
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,344
|
Post by wigster on Feb 24, 2020 20:13:25 GMT 1
What I cant quite fathom is this. Say we were a middling league 1 side with relatively little debt and we were taken over by a man who threw millions at us, took us to the premier league and then upon relegation took all the money back he had invested. The club then were saddled with a legacy of players worth zilch, a huge hemorrhaging wage bill, a disenfranchised fanbase and facing a return to where we started. Would you say said club were any better off and would you say the owner deserved to take his money back out? What if this ultimately leads to us being in more debt than we started because the fan base dwindles and the players cant be shifted. Was the chairman right to take his money back then? If the choice is 12k watching Malvin Kamara in the 3rd tier or 20k watching Karlan Grant in the 2nd, I'll take the latter thanks. What if it was a forward line of Quaner, Campbell and Kachunga playing Accrington ? |
|
|
|
Post by impact on Feb 24, 2020 20:30:21 GMT 1
If the choice is 12k watching Malvin Kamara in the 3rd tier or 20k watching Karlan Grant in the 2nd, I'll take the latter thanks. What if it was a forward line of Quaner, Campbell and Kachunga playing Accrington ? It isn't. But it's still better than seeing Luke Beckett and Phil Jevons playing on a cabbage patch at home. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Ern on Feb 24, 2020 21:41:13 GMT 1
What I cant quite fathom is this. Say we were a middling league 1 side with relatively little debt and we were taken over by a man who threw millions at us, took us to the premier league and then upon relegation took all the money back he had invested. The club then were saddled with a legacy of players worth zilch, a huge hemorrhaging wage bill, a disenfranchised fanbase and facing a return to where we started. Would you say said club were any better off and would you say the owner deserved to take his money back out? What if this ultimately leads to us being in more debt than we started because the fan base dwindles and the players cant be shifted. Was the chairman right to take his money back then? If the choice is 12k watching Malvin Kamara in the 3rd tier or 20k watching Karlan Grant in the 2nd, I'll take the latter thanks. The point I'm making is that I dont see how people are defending the chairman taking all his money back when we could ultimately be left worse off than before he started. Dean Hoyle himself used to say that he was a custodian and that the fans were the lifeblood. It just goes to show that even the noblest of people have a price |
|
|
|
Post by impact on Feb 24, 2020 22:12:55 GMT 1
If the choice is 12k watching Malvin Kamara in the 3rd tier or 20k watching Karlan Grant in the 2nd, I'll take the latter thanks. The point I'm making is that I dont see how people are defending the chairman taking all his money back when we could ultimately be left worse off than before he started. Dean Hoyle himself used to say that he was a custodian and that the fans were the lifeblood. It just goes to show that even the noblest of people have a price I'm really struggling to see how we'll be worse off than when he started. We now have: Shares in our stadium back A proper training ground Fans behind the goal More fans in the ground with great ticket prices A much higher quality and better valued squad A better stadium Huge improvements behind the scenes to the coaching and scouting setup Financially stablity A proper pitch Memories to last a lifetime We're miles ahead than where we were before he took over. |
|
|
|
Post by Headless Chicken on Feb 24, 2020 22:24:27 GMT 1
The point I'm making is that I dont see how people are defending the chairman taking all his money back when we could ultimately be left worse off than before he started. Dean Hoyle himself used to say that he was a custodian and that the fans were the lifeblood. It just goes to show that even the noblest of people have a price I'm really struggling to see how we'll be worse off than when he started. We now have: Shares in our stadium back A proper training ground Fans behind the goal More fans in the ground with great ticket prices A much higher quality and better valued squad A better stadium Huge improvements behind the scenes to the coaching and scouting setup Financially stablity A proper pitch Memories to last a lifetime We're miles ahead than where we were before he took over. Irony is, I'm less pissed off than I was, partly because of some of the shit counterarguments to yours 🤣 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 14:12:02 GMT 1
The point I'm making is that I dont see how people are defending the chairman taking all his money back when we could ultimately be left worse off than before he started. Dean Hoyle himself used to say that he was a custodian and that the fans were the lifeblood. It just goes to show that even the noblest of people have a price I'm really struggling to see how we'll be worse off than when he started. We now have: Shares in our stadium back A proper training ground Fans behind the goal More fans in the ground with great ticket prices A much higher quality and better valued squad A better stadium Huge improvements behind the scenes to the coaching and scouting setup Financially stablity A proper pitch Memories to last a lifetime We're miles ahead than where we were before he took over. And an academy that's producing players of value which should in theory enable us to be self sustainable, which was always Dean's goal |
|
|
|
Post by thesingaporeterrier on Feb 25, 2020 16:04:54 GMT 1
I have been banned three times in the past for raising the idea that the club was not being run well. The last time I was banned I dared to say that the investment in the training facilities was more
to benefit the owner than the club. Anyhow.
It went wrong when the club started to talk about the ‘Yorkshire club’. This is a nice identify. But, it is not a way to run a business. We were up against seasoned Premier League business folk. I am sorry, but we waded into it thinking we had found the secret sauce.
I have read all the arguments on this board. I have seen nothing to dissuade me from thinking we have wasted a chance in a lifetime and spunked it all on the ancillary businesses living off the Premier League. They have taken us to the cleaners.
Just my opinion, but I think Dean got very ill and there was no-one in his family willing to take on Town. Just my opinion, but I don’t think he wanted to pass it onto someone who would not pay him back.
So, we are left with someone who agreed to pay him back and the parachute payments will be used to do this.
The three-transfer window is not three windows to get us back to the Prem. It is three windows to offload the Prem wages. We will be left with 5-6 Championship players and the rest of the squad will be a mix of seasoned pros, youth and punts.
I don’t care if the pitch is better and the training ground is better. This is not a legacy. This is simply moving with the times.
Doesn’t stop me supporting Town.
Feel free to disagree
|
|
|
|
Post by thesingaporeterrier on Feb 25, 2020 16:41:38 GMT 1
I wanted to say....I wish we had hired people with experience of the Premier League. Not players, management. We did not have the know-how. This was the basis the comments when I was banned.
|
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Feb 26, 2020 22:15:28 GMT 1
What I cant quite fathom is this. Say we were a middling league 1 side with relatively little debt and we were taken over by a man who threw millions at us, took us to the premier league and then upon relegation took all the money back he had invested. The club then were saddled with a legacy of players worth zilch, a huge hemorrhaging wage bill, a disenfranchised fanbase and facing a return to where we started. Would you say said club were any better off and would you say the owner deserved to take his money back out? What if this ultimately leads to us being in more debt than we started because the fan base dwindles and the players cant be shifted. Was the chairman right to take his money back then? Yes it’s his money The club is not in that state |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Feb 27, 2020 13:51:46 GMT 1
What I cant quite fathom is this. Say we were a middling league 1 side with relatively little debt and we were taken over by a man who threw millions at us, took us to the premier league and then upon relegation took all the money back he had invested. The club then were saddled with a legacy of players worth zilch, a huge hemorrhaging wage bill, a disenfranchised fanbase and facing a return to where we started. Would you say said club were any better off and would you say the owner deserved to take his money back out? What if this ultimately leads to us being in more debt than we started because the fan base dwindles and the players cant be shifted. Was the chairman right to take his money back then? Yes it’s his money The club is not in that state does he deserve to take his money back? has he the right to take his money back? Its HIS money!! He has the right and deserves to do what he chooses with it! How fucking clueless and entitled would you have to be to think 'Sorry dean, its your money and everything, but you don;t deserve to have it back' ! |
|
|
|
Post by brighousebandbred on Feb 27, 2020 16:42:29 GMT 1
Yes it’s his money The club is not in that state does he deserve to take his money back? has he the right to take his money back? Its HIS money!! He has the right and deserves to do what he chooses with it! How fucking clueless and entitled would you have to be to think 'Sorry dean, its your money and everything, but you don;t deserve to have it back' ! I hope in life your not so angry and righteous to those around you I pity you if so, just put your point across instead of trying to be so aggressive people are more likely to listen rather than thinking arsehole immediately. It’s irrelevant of the argument / conversation. Anyone would think your taking this personally it’s just a conversation. |
|
wigster
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,344
|
Post by wigster on Feb 27, 2020 17:11:10 GMT 1
Yes it’s his money The club is not in that state does he deserve to take his money back? has he the right to take his money back? Its HIS money!! He has the right and deserves to do what he chooses with it! How fucking clueless and entitled would you have to be to think 'Sorry dean, its your money and everything, but you don;t deserve to have it back' ! Cap'n - nobody seems to be saying it's not his money. Nobody is saying he doesn't have a right to take it back. What people are debating is - the effect of his taking it back - the effect of his taking it back apparently so quickly - the "deal" with PH that seemed to get him his money back so quickly (DH himself said he'd had other offers) - you can't blame people for wondering why DH chose to approach PH - the apparent change in approach from DH "loaning" Town the money - did he say "I don't expect to get it back" - and now getting it back apparently very quickly. (There may be lots of reasons for this but people can still comment on it) - the resulting position that Town now seem to find themselves in - after 2 years Premier league and tens of £millions incoming, we are "already" over budget this season - the overall legacy of Dean Hoyle. For many posters, rightly or wrongly, DH is viewed in a different light now to what he was 2/3 years ago. - as we've agreed, football's never straightforward, but people are saying that if DH is responsible for the promotion/Premier league etc then he also has to take some responsibility for the bloody awful managerial appts/incoming transfers, present position etc. One can argue that some of this is none of our business, we have no right to know, NDAs are nowadays commonplace etc but it is OUR club - not literally - and we have a right to express opinions, frustrations and doubts. Would you accept that Town's approach to the supporters is possibly not as informative as it used to be ie very few people have a clue what's happening behind the scenes, financially etc etc ? I personally have, on this board, praised Dean Hoyle for years and years. You have every right to disagree but nowadays my support is nowhere near as unqualified, to put it mildly. There may be lots of totally valid and understandable reasons why certain things have happened, but surely we have a right to comment on the effect of these things without the sarcasm and "fucking clueless" comments. Normally your posts are a lot more reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Feb 27, 2020 17:41:01 GMT 1
does he deserve to take his money back? has he the right to take his money back? Its HIS money!! He has the right and deserves to do what he chooses with it! How fucking clueless and entitled would you have to be to think 'Sorry dean, its your money and everything, but you don;t deserve to have it back' ! Cap'n - nobody seems to be saying it's not his money. Nobody is saying he doesn't have a right to take it back. What people are debating is - the effect of his taking it back - the effect of his taking it back apparently so quickly - the "deal" with PH that seemed to get him his money back so quickly (DH himself said he'd had other offers) - you can't blame people for wondering why DH chose to approach PH - the apparent change in approach from DH "loaning" Town the money - did he say "I don't expect to get it back" - and now getting it back apparently very quickly. (There may be lots of reasons for this but people can still comment on it) - the resulting position that Town now seem to find themselves in - after 2 years Premier league and tens of £millions incoming, we are "already" over budget this season - the overall legacy of Dean Hoyle. For many posters, rightly or wrongly, DH is viewed in a different light now to what he was 2/3 years ago. - as we've agreed, football's never straightforward, but people are saying that if DH is responsible for the promotion/Premier league etc then he also has to take some responsibility for the bloody awful managerial appts/incoming transfers, present position etc. One can argue that some of this is none of our business, we have no right to know, NDAs are nowadays commonplace etc but it is OUR club - not literally - and we have a right to express opinions, frustrations and doubts. Would you accept that Town's approach to the supporters is possibly not as informative as it used to be ie very few people have a clue what's happening behind the scenes, financially etc etc ? I personally have, on this board, praised Dean Hoyle for years and years. You have every right to disagree but nowadays my support is nowhere near as unqualified, to put it mildly. There may be lots of totally valid and understandable reasons why certain things have happened, but surely we have a right to comment on the effect of these things without the sarcasm and "fucking clueless" comments. Normally your posts are a lot more reasonable. The poster Allan was replying to did question his right to take it back. Questioned whether he 'deserved' to have his money back .. thus my fucking clueless comment. The effects of DH being paid back his money ( whatever amount that is . nobody on here actually knows ) over what time ( again nobody on here actually knows ) are obvious, but this incessant bleating that a man has stopped financing the club with tens of millions of his money, like its his duty to indefinitely continue doing that, is getting really tiresome. Somebody the other day was saying he shouldn;t take his money back because he received a lot of praise whilst we went from mid table league 1 up to the prem !! Like he should have run away if anyone wanted to pat him on the back FFS. People loved him whilst he was pumping in a large chunk of his wealth into the club and providing us with the best era in 50 years for no personal return at all ( its cost him millions whatever happens ) , but now he isn;t all of a sudden hes a zero to be seen in a different light. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Ern on Feb 27, 2020 18:16:27 GMT 1
Yes it’s his money The club is not in that state does he deserve to take his money back? has he the right to take his money back? Its HIS money!! He has the right and deserves to do what he chooses with it! How fucking clueless and entitled would you have to be to think 'Sorry dean, its your money and everything, but you don;t deserve to have it back' ! Because he made the decision to spaff it up the wall on overpaid useless shite. Not Huddersfield Town FC. Couldnt give a toss what you think, throw profanities around all you want but yes I question the decision to take all his money back at once. Left us in the shit |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Feb 27, 2020 18:30:25 GMT 1
Thing is ern, he didn;t choose the overpaid useless shite but even if he had, it wouldn't make any difference to him being entitled to his money.
And you have no idea at all whether hes taking all his money back or that hes taking it all back at once. No idea at all.
But by all means carry on tantruming about it like a spoilt brat at Christmas whos expensive presents aren't good enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Headless Chicken on Feb 27, 2020 18:45:38 GMT 1
Usual DATM, people sounding like they're at one daft extreme or the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Ern on Feb 27, 2020 19:02:36 GMT 1
Thing is ern, he didn;t choose the overpaid useless shite but even if he had, it wouldn't make any difference to him being entitled to his money. And you have no idea at all whether hes taking all his money back or that hes taking it all back at once. No idea at all. But by all means carry on tantruming about it like a spoilt brat at Christmas whos expensive presents aren't good enough. How dare you  |
|
|
|
Post by brighousebandbred on Feb 27, 2020 19:41:56 GMT 1
Captain slapper, your tone to many on here is aggressive tone it down as it is you that comes over childish and like a spoilt brat. It’s a forum where the topic is bound to bring up differing opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Up the Duff. on Feb 27, 2020 19:52:58 GMT 1
does he deserve to take his money back? has he the right to take his money back? Its HIS money!! He has the right and deserves to do what he chooses with it! How fucking clueless and entitled would you have to be to think 'Sorry dean, its your money and everything, but you don;t deserve to have it back' ! Cap'n - nobody seems to be saying it's not his money. Nobody is saying he doesn't have a right to take it back. What people are debating is - the effect of his taking it back - the effect of his taking it back apparently so quickly - the "deal" with PH that seemed to get him his money back so quickly (DH himself said he'd had other offers) - you can't blame people for wondering why DH chose to approach PH - the apparent change in approach from DH "loaning" Town the money - did he say "I don't expect to get it back" - and now getting it back apparently very quickly. (There may be lots of reasons for this but people can still comment on it) - the resulting position that Town now seem to find themselves in - after 2 years Premier league and tens of £millions incoming, we are "already" over budget this season - the overall legacy of Dean Hoyle. For many posters, rightly or wrongly, DH is viewed in a different light now to what he was 2/3 years ago. - as we've agreed, football's never straightforward, but people are saying that if DH is responsible for the promotion/Premier league etc then he also has to take some responsibility for the bloody awful managerial appts/incoming transfers, present position etc. One can argue that some of this is none of our business, we have no right to know, NDAs are nowadays commonplace etc but it is OUR club - not literally - and we have a right to express opinions, frustrations and doubts. Would you accept that Town's approach to the supporters is possibly not as informative as it used to be ie very few people have a clue what's happening behind the scenes, financially etc etc ? I personally have, on this board, praised Dean Hoyle for years and years. You have every right to disagree but nowadays my support is nowhere near as unqualified, to put it mildly. There may be lots of totally valid and understandable reasons why certain things have happened, but surely we have a right to comment on the effect of these things without the sarcasm and "fucking clueless" comments. Normally your posts are a lot more reasonable. Spot on... |
|
|
|
Post by detox on Feb 27, 2020 20:11:20 GMT 1
I don't think it helped that most fans thought Dean had 'given' the money to the club, and at that time certainly wasn't saying it was just a loan...indeed I seem to recall him saying he didn't expect the money back.. this was Dean, giving up some of his wealth because he was a town fan, a very rich town fan, and could afford to spend millions on our club.. Having said that, had we stayed in the PL for several years, and making millions profit I don't think anyone would have moaned had Dean been taking back a few million each year pay himself back. Also, in deciding to sell the club many probably thought he'd get his cash back then from some billiomaire new owners, and we'd all be ok about that too. So I don't think it's so much the fact he is getting his cash back, as the manner and circumstances of it that seems to have rattled a few cages. I do understand the cash was shown in the town accounts as loans, obviously this is how it's done to comply with various regs. No, I think the circumstances of our relegation, the total spaffing away of £40m+ on players who to be blunt, were useless ..the dismal legacy of us being in another relegation fight and, not least, the fact he gave the club away to a mate who it is alleged has no real money of his own , in a deal that was contrived in such a way as to ensure the loans were repaid out of the profits from our PL venture.
Of course it's the club that owes the money to Dean, and had Dean stayed on he could quite easily have sanctioned the loan repayments himself, but he didn't..he brought Phil in to do that as part of a deal that saw no cash injection into the club in any form, and no 'apparent' price paid for the 75% of the shareholding.It 'feels like' a bit of a crafty back handed way of doing things. I'm not arguing over the merits or not of Dean being entitled to his loans being repaid, it's more how it was done or should I say how it appears to have been done. maybe we'll know more when the accounts come out, but at the moment we see what was a PL team last year in a massive scrap to avoid dropping to the 3rd tier and it's galling for all of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Feb 27, 2020 20:37:51 GMT 1
Captain slapper, your tone to many on here is aggressive tone it down as it is you that comes over childish and like a spoilt brat. It’s a forum where the topic is bound to bring up differing opinions. Aggressive? LOL My tone is that of someone with the taste of vomit in their mouth reading some of the entitled claptrap on this thread, all based on things people don;t even have any knowledge about at all. If he ever reads this thread, and i hope he doesn;t, he might wish hed never bothered and the 5000 who'd still have turned up could have enjoyed the last 12 years watching L1 and 2 dross and getting excited about the latest Malvin Kamara big money signing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2020 20:46:33 GMT 1
I don't think it helped that most fans thought Dean had 'given' the money to the club, and at that time certainly wasn't saying it was just a loan...indeed I seem to recall him saying he didn't expect the money back.. this was Dean, giving up some of his wealth because he was a town fan, a very rich town fan, and could afford to spend millions on our club.. Having said that, had we stayed in the PL for several years, and making millions profit I don't think anyone would have moaned had Dean been taking back a few million each year pay himself back. Also, in deciding to sell the club many probably thought he'd get his cash back then from some billiomaire new owners, and we'd all be ok about that too. So I don't think it's so much the fact he is getting his cash back, as the manner and circumstances of it that seems to have rattled a few cages. I do understand the cash was shown in the town accounts as loans, obviously this is how it's done to comply with various regs. No, I think the circumstances of our relegation, the total spaffing away of £40m+ on players who to be blunt, were useless ..the dismal legacy of us being in another relegation fight and, not least, the fact he gave the club away to a mate who it is alleged has no real money of his own , in a deal that was contrived in such a way as to ensure the loans were repaid out of the profits from our PL venture. Of course it's the club that owes the money to Dean, and had Dean stayed on he could quite easily have sanctioned the loan repayments himself, but he didn't..he brought Phil in to do that as part of a deal that saw no cash injection into the club in any form, and no 'apparent' price paid for the 75% of the shareholding.It 'feels like' a bit of a crafty back handed way of doing things. I'm not arguing over the merits or not of Dean being entitled to his loans being repaid, it's more how it was done or should I say how it appears to have been done. maybe we'll know more when the accounts come out, but at the moment we see what was a PL team last year in a massive scrap to avoid dropping to the 3rd tier and it's galling for all of us. your point about the accounts which are due end of march may well clear a few misconceptions and guess work |
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Feb 27, 2020 21:05:38 GMT 1
does he deserve to take his money back? has he the right to take his money back? Its HIS money!! He has the right and deserves to do what he chooses with it! How fucking clueless and entitled would you have to be to think 'Sorry dean, its your money and everything, but you don;t deserve to have it back' ! Because he made the decision to spaff it up the wall on overpaid useless shite. Not Huddersfield Town FC. Couldnt give a toss what you think, throw profanities around all you want but yes I question the decision to take all his money back at once. Left us in the shit Do you have inside knowledge? In the shit? Who says, supported by what facts |
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Feb 27, 2020 21:10:00 GMT 1
Captain slapper, your tone to many on here is aggressive tone it down as it is you that comes over childish and like a spoilt brat. It’s silting a forum where the topic is bound to bring up differing opinions. I understand the frustration .....it gets to me too. People with no knowledge spout rubbish, if it was informed fine but it’s not Bit old fashioned but I don’t like insulting people for fun |
|
|
|
Post by brighousebandbred on Feb 27, 2020 23:10:10 GMT 1
Captain slapper, your tone to many on here is aggressive tone it down as it is you that comes over childish and like a spoilt brat. It’s a forum where the topic is bound to bring up differing opinions. Aggressive? LOL My tone is that of someone with the taste of vomit in their mouth reading some of the entitled claptrap on this thread, all based on things people don;t even have any knowledge about at all. If he ever reads this thread, and i hope he doesn;t, he might wish hed never bothered and the 5000 who'd still have turned up could have enjoyed the last 12 years watching L1 and 2 dross and getting excited about the latest Malvin Kamara big money signing. Constant anger , calm yourself or one day you will make yourself very ill.. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Feb 27, 2020 23:58:13 GMT 1
I haven;t got to anger yet. Im still on bewilderment and distain.
|
|
|
|
Post by royrace on Feb 28, 2020 11:25:56 GMT 1
I don't think it helped that most fans thought Dean had 'given' the money to the club, and at that time certainly wasn't saying it was just a loan...indeed I seem to recall him saying he didn't expect the money back.. this was Dean, giving up some of his wealth because he was a town fan, a very rich town fan, and could afford to spend millions on our club.. Having said that, had we stayed in the PL for several years, and making millions profit I don't think anyone would have moaned had Dean been taking back a few million each year pay himself back. Also, in deciding to sell the club many probably thought he'd get his cash back then from some billiomaire new owners, and we'd all be ok about that too. So I don't think it's so much the fact he is getting his cash back, as the manner and circumstances of it that seems to have rattled a few cages. I do understand the cash was shown in the town accounts as loans, obviously this is how it's done to comply with various regs. No, I think the circumstances of our relegation, the total spaffing away of £40m+ on players who to be blunt, were useless ..the dismal legacy of us being in another relegation fight and, not least, the fact he gave the club away to a mate who it is alleged has no real money of his own , in a deal that was contrived in such a way as to ensure the loans were repaid out of the profits from our PL venture. Of course it's the club that owes the money to Dean, and had Dean stayed on he could quite easily have sanctioned the loan repayments himself, but he didn't..he brought Phil in to do that as part of a deal that saw no cash injection into the club in any form, and no 'apparent' price paid for the 75% of the shareholding.It 'feels like' a bit of a crafty back handed way of doing things. I'm not arguing over the merits or not of Dean being entitled to his loans being repaid, it's more how it was done or should I say how it appears to have been done. maybe we'll know more when the accounts come out, but at the moment we see what was a PL team last year in a massive scrap to avoid dropping to the 3rd tier and it's galling for all of us. Nail on head. We had the unbelievable highs of promotion, beating Man U, the club on the world stage, stuff we'd all dreamed of for years but sadly the real legacy of the PL, ie three years of parachute money, seems to have evaporated. That part is a huge part of the pull of the PL, ie as a club like Town you know relegation is likely but you also know your club is going to be propelled into the big hitters in the championship for a few years to come and has the potential to become established; a la Burnley, and improve its status for years to come. The deal seems to have removed all of that potential (and a huge part of the benefit of promotion) and we are where we are facing consecutive relegations. I suspect the plan is perhaps to pay off loans early and then really have another go in years two and three but its not exactly going well at the moment and we're a bit of bad luck away from ending up back in league one. The plan was also to start this season with Siewart in charge and with a 4th division right back and midfielder and a non league winger. I think we're all hoping the planning has improved somewhat. To be honest I find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't be a little bit pissed off about the way things have turned out. Its not just the financial aspects either or the way the deal was done, seems the club well and truly lost the plot post Chelsea and the decision making has been utterly baffling at times. I do think though that if we can survive and keep the managers on board we'll finally turn the corner. |
|
|
|
Post by dewsburyterrier on Feb 28, 2020 12:16:12 GMT 1
In 2009 DH made the decision to put money into the club to sign players that would see us have a chance in getting out of League 1. For the next few years he continued in that vein, through until we had two promotions. It is a fair question to ask if , having made the choice to increase wages and transfer fees from taking over as chairman, that he should stand the cost of his own decision. It IS his money and it WAS a loan so he has the right to take back his loan. I just worry that, having been lauded as the Chairman that took us into the Premier League through his leadership, he may be remembered by some as the former Chairman that took us back down. FWIW I don't think that but many will, sadly.
|
|
