What do BIAS think?
- Thread starter Leicester Bee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 233
- Views 5K
Brickie Chap
Muppet Hunter
What do BIAS think?
SamBee said:
Sambee,
The negotiations are to secure control of the club. Until agreements are locked down with the bank and Altonwood the trust cannot catergorically state that will be the case, just the aim of the fundraising initiative.
Russell
Active member
What do BIAS think?
Brickie Chap said:
Great news! Let's start a cricket club when BFC goes tits up
King Bee
Former BU board member, working in pharma land
What do BIAS think?
Russell said:Great news! Let's start a cricket club when BFC goes tits up
they say history repeats itself, does Brentford football club wind up to its original roots, playing cricket on Kew Green?
Boston Bee
Well-known member
What do BIAS think?
OK, someone in the know that doesn't feel like talking in code want to tell me (and surely others) what the heck is going on.
What do BIAS think?
Leicester Bee said:
Leicester,
There will never be 100% agreement as long as there are two or more persons posting on this board. The best we can hope for is a recognition of some basic realities.
There were extensive discussions of the situation from the time Ron announced he was ceasing any further funding support for increases in the overdraft in January 2002, and various scenarios explored during the first six month option period from March 2002 to September 2002.
PR campaigns against Noades started with the 'No to Woking campaign' and had been going on for two years with the end result that an agreement of sale was entered into on Griffin Park in July 2002. It was then and is now just water off a ducks back - to expect debt write offs as a consequence of some negative PR is just blowing in the wind in this kind of situation. Ron is not and never was a Brentford fan.
The bottomline I think is this. If anyone wants to play poker, that's fine if they are using their own money. If they want to gamble with the future of the club and put the stadium in the pot, than that really would be cause for some public hangings in the forecourt of Griffin Park.
The debt can only be reduced by generating surplus profits. Any profit, outside of windfall income, generated by football clubs at this level inevitably goes into the playing squad. If you are in the top six you need to push for promotion, if you are in the top half of the table you need to push for a play-off spot, if you are in the bootom half you need to keep clear of the relegation spots, if you are in the bottom four you need to get out.
Gate receipts have increased by around £200k over the last two years as a result of increased prices and improved gates, but the money has been needed to boost the playing squad budget and has not been available for debt repayment.
The board increased the playing budget at the start of this season beyond what the club could really afford. Without the cup run, everything would have gone pear shape. But you can't argue with success, the investment in Martin Allen paid off and I have no objection to a bit of luck when it comes our way. Every business needs it at times.
What do BIAS think?
Luton Bee said:
Luton Bee,
We spent a lot of time on this and the final recommendations from the review were based on the consensus view of the BU board.
Probably the most contentious area of debate was whether the BU board had the right/authority to implement recommendations that might conflict with the vote of BU members in general meeting. The outcome, rightly in my view, was no and we would need to get the approval of members to make any major/constitutional changes to the way the trust conducted it's affairs.
The forum provides an opportunity for members to put views and opinion across to the BU board and will form part of the ongoing process of translating feedback into BU policy.
Mr Cynical
Moderator
Brickie Chap
Muppet Hunter
Russell
Active member
What do BIAS think?
JoeBourke said:
And if a bit of luck didn't come our way, BFC would have gone to the wall right? Noades took us to the edge of ruin with this same strategy... oh I can't be bothered
What do BIAS think?
Russell said:And if a bit of luck didn't come our way, BFC would have gone to the wall right? Noades took us to the edge of ruin with this same strategy... oh I can't be bothered
If this was happening at QPR then we'd be dancing in the streets.
Can you imagine the headlines "Fans bankrupt own club after Noades hands them the keys" :mad2:
Joe,
Obviously BU knew all about this, why didn't they replace the Financial Director given this reckless behaviour! If anyone wants to play poker, that's fine if they are using their own money. If they want to gamble with the future of the club, then that really would be cause for some public hangings in the forecourt of Griffin Park!!!
Brickie Chap
Muppet Hunter
What do BIAS think?
You really couldnt make it up.
Anyone reckon JM & SC will vote themselves bonus payments in light of the financial performance this season
Anyone reckon JM & SC will vote themselves bonus payments in light of the financial performance this season
What do BIAS think?
Russell said:And if a bit of luck didn't come our way, BFC would have gone to the wall right? Noades took us to the edge of ruin with this same strategy... oh I can't be bothered
It's a valid criticism, Russell. Although, I hope the directors would not have left BFC go to the wall for the sake of a couple of hundred thousand. Last years budget was based on operating just within the overdraft limit. The problem with that policy is that advance season ticket money is spent when received. From next year the budgets should keep the advance season ticket funds in reserve, leaving enough headroom in the overdraft to cover the close season.
What do BIAS think?
Banana said:
If this was happening at QPR then we'd be dancing in the streets.
Can you imagine the headlines "Fans bankrupt own club after Noades hands them the keys" :mad2:
Joe,
Obviously BU knew all about this, why didn't they replace the Financial Director given this reckless behaviour! If anyone wants to play poker, that's fine if they are using their own money. If they want to gamble with the future of the club, then that really would be cause for some public hangings in the forecourt of Griffin Park!!!
It's the real world, Banana. Martin Allen had just pulled off a small miracle and needed the maximum possible funds made available for his playing squad. The board went as far as they could, up to the limit of the overdraft, in backing him. A risk for sure but one that paid off and not one that increased the clubs borrowing limits during the season or threatened the clubs security. Without the cup run, shortfall funding for the close season would have been needed.
What do BIAS think?
Let's wind the clock back and replace the words "Martin Allen" with "Ron Noades" and inserting the words "did not" before "paid off"JoeBourke said:
And if I may gently point out that "Without the cup run, shortfall funding for the close season would have been needed which would have increased the clubs borrowing limits during the close season or threatened the clubs security."
fan-****ing-tastic
What do BIAS think?
There is a risk in all of this that we forget we are a football club which has a "duty" maybe not a fiscal duty but a "moral" duty to its long suffering fans to try to do as well as it can on the pitch.
Arguably, we have had better teams than we had this year but not many of us could dispute that in reality we had a great chance of promotion until the second half of the play off semi.
Martin Allen may not be the finished article but surely he was worth backing so long (and this is crucial) as that backing did not jeopardise the very future of the club. I cant see that the modest budget increase he was given (which seems to have raised some peoples hackles) has jeopardised our future and it was a risk worth taking that ultimately failed. Well it might have failed if the increased revenue from the play offs and higher crowds in the run in didn't cover the extra expense in player wages. It has though, so even if we failed on the pitch, off the pitch, we have not failed.
Banana (and others) seem to suggest that it was a risk too far but the £140k + we got from the play offs and the 9k + crowd in the last couple of matches have surely outweighed any marginal budget increase.
We gambled. MA lost. The team lost. The fans lost. But surely the FD, Steve Callen didn't lose did he ????. Who would realistically not support a similar strategy next year if we are in the same position.
OK we are skint (ish) but we are a football club and our income depends on results, excitement , play offs etc. If we settle for mid table mediocrity as Mr Banana and others seem to suggest we must then we have no opportuntiy to increase income in the last 1/3 of the season in the way we have this year.
Do not ever lose sight of what we are all here for. A balanced budget means f**k all to most fans but a winning team means they will return and the budget will then balance as a result. Call it Catch 22 in reverse if you like but thats the way it is. We cant afford to speculate funds we don't have but the very modest above budget figures being criticized here are surely par for the course in any football club.
if you want to support a sporting association that never overspends its budget and has no aspirations or ambitions, go down the local bowls club or learn chess. If you want to support a league football club this sort of thing goes with the territory.
I for one have no issue whatsoever in the board sticking their neck out ever so slightly to back this manager. Those that do object should be more honest about their motives.
Arguably, we have had better teams than we had this year but not many of us could dispute that in reality we had a great chance of promotion until the second half of the play off semi.
Martin Allen may not be the finished article but surely he was worth backing so long (and this is crucial) as that backing did not jeopardise the very future of the club. I cant see that the modest budget increase he was given (which seems to have raised some peoples hackles) has jeopardised our future and it was a risk worth taking that ultimately failed. Well it might have failed if the increased revenue from the play offs and higher crowds in the run in didn't cover the extra expense in player wages. It has though, so even if we failed on the pitch, off the pitch, we have not failed.
Banana (and others) seem to suggest that it was a risk too far but the £140k + we got from the play offs and the 9k + crowd in the last couple of matches have surely outweighed any marginal budget increase.
We gambled. MA lost. The team lost. The fans lost. But surely the FD, Steve Callen didn't lose did he ????. Who would realistically not support a similar strategy next year if we are in the same position.
OK we are skint (ish) but we are a football club and our income depends on results, excitement , play offs etc. If we settle for mid table mediocrity as Mr Banana and others seem to suggest we must then we have no opportuntiy to increase income in the last 1/3 of the season in the way we have this year.
Do not ever lose sight of what we are all here for. A balanced budget means f**k all to most fans but a winning team means they will return and the budget will then balance as a result. Call it Catch 22 in reverse if you like but thats the way it is. We cant afford to speculate funds we don't have but the very modest above budget figures being criticized here are surely par for the course in any football club.
if you want to support a sporting association that never overspends its budget and has no aspirations or ambitions, go down the local bowls club or learn chess. If you want to support a league football club this sort of thing goes with the territory.
I for one have no issue whatsoever in the board sticking their neck out ever so slightly to back this manager. Those that do object should be more honest about their motives.
What do BIAS think?
Banana said:
I dont regard going from £0 to -£4.5m in 3 seasons as being the same as risking a couple of hundred grand this year . Do you??
Noades "risk" wasn't a gamble it was financial suicide. This year it was worth the risk (and paid off ) even if you say it didn't. We may not have been promoted but we benefited financially from the "investment" in terms of gate and TV money.
As I said, anyone who criticises the board for a minor risk which paid off has another agenda. There is plenty they can be criticised for , this is not one of those things.
If the club turn round tomorrow and say they will slash the playing budget to meet only the most pessimistic gate reciepts target, I won't be the only one stampeding from the ground, there will be a long queue.
If you are one of the minority who would rather that the balance between ambition and financial prudence tipped so far to the negative that we never won a game then perhaps the chess club would be a good starting point for you. Would you like their number?
chippendale
Active member
What do BIAS think?
JoeBourke said:
This has been known for sometime, why the surprise. BFC/BU were lucky that the gamble paid off this year. What about next? Is the playing budget back to a level that is sustainable or has some of this years windfull been ring fenced for next years playing budget.
What do BIAS think?
JoeBourke said:
Or if you happen to be the Managing Director who gambled with the future of the club and put the stadium in the pot then you continue to be invited to Griffin Park and Brentford away games as a guest of the Bees United formed BFC board and new CEO and freeload your way around the country. But I forgot........this is a "non issue" isn't it now........???
Brickie Chap
Muppet Hunter
What do BIAS think?
JTofBFC said:
You cant slag Noades off for doing exactly what Callen & Co sanctioned in the last few months.
There is no middle ground on this.
We are either in the sh*t financially or we're not. If SC & co feel we are ok, can they stop people harrassing fans for money every minute of the day
What do BIAS think?
If they meant that the ground has to be sold then yes I do.JTofBFC said:
"investment", "risk", "gamble", "financial suicide" - have you been using a thesaurus
"minor risk" "another agenda" righty-ho!
I think you've just won the argument lol
What do BIAS think?
Last November I was advised that the probability was that BFC would run out of money in January 2005 and I was being sounded out on whether I would be prepared to stump up a six figure sum to keep it going. The answer was yes of course I would but as a critic of the original budget (which I believed was sailing too close to the wind) then I thought that as the BFC board were seemingly playing with other peoples monies and not their own they should review their own positions.
This of course was one month after I had been reading that Graham Hall had just joined the board and "was in a daze at all of the good news".......yeah right!!!!!
My bank balance was rescued as we obtained the draw at Ashton Gate and the finances were relieved from that point.
The issue is that then as now these "minor risks" as JTofBFC calls them are always to someone else's pension fund and savings accounts not to those that make the decisions.
This of course was one month after I had been reading that Graham Hall had just joined the board and "was in a daze at all of the good news".......yeah right!!!!!
My bank balance was rescued as we obtained the draw at Ashton Gate and the finances were relieved from that point.
The issue is that then as now these "minor risks" as JTofBFC calls them are always to someone else's pension fund and savings accounts not to those that make the decisions.
Bee H
Brouilly Guzzler
What do BIAS think?
Bees United ? - Bloody great failure imho !
Completely missed Leicester's point there Joe "Griffingate" was available at that time to highlight how Noades had destroyed this Club etc., etc., and BU should have completed a due diligence exercise when they took over the running of the Club BUT we were never aware of the conditions laid out by Noades to allow BU to take over. Presumably these were ;
1 to cough up some money to pay the wages as Noades money had run out having spent £2.6m on Surrrey National Golf Club's new clubhouse
2 not to ask any questions
3 not to look back in the books (despite us already knowing that Waddington had received over £100k from BFC but not knowing what for as he works for Altonwood)
4 not to argue with him, question him or show him in a bad light
The only response given at the time was that it was better to still have a Club and to put up with it - but then that same Board go and do this ;
{QUOTE=Joe Bourke]
The board increased the playing budget at the start of this season beyond what the club could really afford. Without the cup run, everything would have gone pear shape. [/QUOTE]
So John Mac let Noades off the hook and we had two more years. Personally, I would have dragged that **** Noades through the gutter exposing him for what he'd done rather than have two years before our own fans sent it under.
Admit it Joe, BU have failed. They never got the message across, any steeple fund barometer should have been out at the time, BU should never have sanctioned Signy's idiotic programme ramblings saying everything's okay - instead we had two men grateful for a job making sure we didn't go over the overdraft limit rather than working to reduce the debt. The debt was always going to come back and bite us on the ar$e but those in charge failed miserably in their duties. I sincerely hope that way-out-of-his-depth MacGlashan doesn't try to portray himself as some kinda hero for the alleged Barratt deal, so much more could and should have been done in the last two years and you damn well know it !
JoeBourke said:
Completely missed Leicester's point there Joe
"Griffingate" was available at that time to highlight how Noades had destroyed this Club etc., etc., and BU should have completed a due diligence exercise when they took over the running of the Club BUT we were never aware of the conditions laid out by Noades to allow BU to take over. Presumably these were ;1 to cough up some money to pay the wages as Noades money had run out having spent £2.6m on Surrrey National Golf Club's new clubhouse
2 not to ask any questions
3 not to look back in the books (despite us already knowing that Waddington had received over £100k from BFC but not knowing what for as he works for Altonwood)
4 not to argue with him, question him or show him in a bad light
The only response given at the time was that it was better to still have a Club and to put up with it - but then that same Board go and do this ;
{QUOTE=Joe Bourke]
The board increased the playing budget at the start of this season beyond what the club could really afford. Without the cup run, everything would have gone pear shape. [/QUOTE]
So John Mac let Noades off the hook and we had two more years. Personally, I would have dragged that **** Noades through the gutter exposing him for what he'd done rather than have two years before our own fans sent it under.
Admit it Joe, BU have failed. They never got the message across, any steeple fund barometer should have been out at the time, BU should never have sanctioned Signy's idiotic programme ramblings saying everything's okay - instead we had two men grateful for a job making sure we didn't go over the overdraft limit rather than working to reduce the debt. The debt was always going to come back and bite us on the ar$e but those in charge failed miserably in their duties. I sincerely hope that way-out-of-his-depth MacGlashan doesn't try to portray himself as some kinda hero for the alleged Barratt deal, so much more could and should have been done in the last two years and you damn well know it !
beesbeesbarmyarmy
Isn't it? Hmm?
What do BIAS think?
Originally Posted by JoeBourke
The board increased the playing budget at the start of this season beyond what the club could really afford. Without the cup run, everything would have gone pear shape. But you can't argue with success, the investment in Martin Allen paid off and I have no objection to a bit of luck when it comes our way. Every business needs it at times.
----------------------------------------
I cannot believe this. Truly flabbergasted.
Is that like saying:
I have £500 quid left, if I lose it I will lose my house, wife and kids, and I have bills to pay, so i'm gonna go to Vegas and stick it all on a poker game. I don't mind a bit of luck if it comes my way. And the best thing is I borrowed this £500 off my mate abee! Jesus Christ!
The board increased the playing budget at the start of this season beyond what the club could really afford. Without the cup run, everything would have gone pear shape. But you can't argue with success, the investment in Martin Allen paid off and I have no objection to a bit of luck when it comes our way. Every business needs it at times.
----------------------------------------
I cannot believe this. Truly flabbergasted.
Is that like saying:
I have £500 quid left, if I lose it I will lose my house, wife and kids, and I have bills to pay, so i'm gonna go to Vegas and stick it all on a poker game. I don't mind a bit of luck if it comes my way. And the best thing is I borrowed this £500 off my mate abee! Jesus Christ!
Last edited:
Boston Bee
Well-known member
What do BIAS think?
Can anyone explain this to me without using code? I feel like "your ordinary fan" here, knowing SFA. Are we deciding who to sell the ground to (C&M vs Barratts; factions; Thursday meeting 'news!') or are we NOT because that only happens once we've had some fruition?
Seems to contradict
JoeBourke said:
Seems to contradict
Gee Bee in another thread said:As far as I can make out Barratts have offered a price to buy GP, and so have C&M. Brickie, B2B & TheFatcd seem to be inidcating that in their view (or DW that is) C&M deal is the better option for BFC.
C&M are also the company that purchased the Sportsmark site and would appear to be a much smaller developer than Barratts, and Barratts therefore may have more ready cash available up front and more clout localy if having to get affordable housing % downwards.
Guess we will find out more Thursday.
Boston Bee
Well-known member
What do BIAS think?
With all respect to everyone hammering away at JoeBourke over the (you could say) irresponsible outlays to MA this season, I think we're all looking back and are not in the moment. It was decision making to give MA those funds and he repaid their faith. Yes it was risky (I know it was risky). But it was repaid many times over.
Now, taking over BFC/Griffingate/due dilligance/etc. That was appallingly bad decision making. They were told that at the time.
Banana said:It was an "investment"
Now, taking over BFC/Griffingate/due dilligance/etc. That was appallingly bad decision making. They were told that at the time.
What do BIAS think?
beesbeesbarmyarmy said:
I think that Joe Bourke has explained far more succinctly than I ever could why some of the er........"wealthy investors" are not just content to scribble out six figure cheques and let the existing board run with them.
When Bee H and I told you at the turn of the year that without the cup run "everything would have gone pear shaped" we received the usual warm responses and "Gods Chosen" was rammed down our throats.........now you've read it from Joe Bourke.
beesbeesbarmyarmy
Isn't it? Hmm?
What do BIAS think?
Boston Bee said:
With all due respect to you Boston Bee, without the cup run the lights at GP would be out now. ie, if Salako's free kick at Ashton Gate had gone wide, the consequences wouldn't bear thinking about, would they?
Are we going to do the same this season, only to draw Notts Forest in the first round?
Boston Bee
Well-known member
What do BIAS think?
No question, it was alarmingly cavalier. I don't disagree at all. But I also remember all the calls for us to give MA the money he needs to compete. There's a whiff of hypocracy in it all. We were cheering on those decisions at the time. All I'm saying.
beesbeesbarmyarmy said:
What do BIAS think?
Very confused 
I thought the budget given to MA at the beginning of the season was based on Steve Callens report, that inidctaed no projected cup runs were within the budget. A 6K average crowd was the basis of the income for budget. Which early part of the season was looking rather high.
I then understood that the budget was increased when extra income from the cup run could be included.
I thought the budget given to MA at the beginning of the season was based on Steve Callens report, that inidctaed no projected cup runs were within the budget. A 6K average crowd was the basis of the income for budget. Which early part of the season was looking rather high.
I then understood that the budget was increased when extra income from the cup run could be included.
Bee H
Brouilly Guzzler
What do BIAS think?
Gee Bee said:Very confused
I thought the budget given to MA at the beginning of the season was based on Steve Callens report, that inidctaed no projected cup runs were within the budget. A 6K average crowd was the basis of the income for budget. Which early part of the season was looking rather high.
I then understood that the budget was increased when extra income from the cup run could be included.
Further proof that us lesser mortals have been fed sh1t by our fellow fans who reckon they're in control - the whole world is full of muppets !!!
What do BIAS think?
JTofBFC said:
Erm........well I certainly objected JTofBFC and I had two motives..........the first of course was to try and bring down Bees United which has been my mission for years........
and the second because I knew full well that I was likely to be receiving the phone calls and emails when the monies ran out........Is that honest enough for you........
beesbeesbarmyarmy
Isn't it? Hmm?
What do BIAS think?
Boston Bee said:
Not wanting to take a holier than thou stance here, and though I didn't post it on here, I was of the opinion that none of the extra revenue should have been put back in to the the playing squad.
People who live on the poverty line don't go to the ritz when they win a tenner on the lottery.
Brickie Chap
Muppet Hunter
What do BIAS think?
Boston Bee said:
I think you'll find that the fans that knew a little more than Joe Public were calling for the extra funds to go into the OD.
As it is SC & JM played God with our Club and got lucky this time but still did enough to be removed from their positions of trust IMO.
They are simply not up to the job. How many Cup runs have we enjoyed over the years? Do you honestly think any prudent lender will want to do business with people who take risks like this? And if we arent dealing with a prudent lender we are likely to be dealing with no more than a money shark...in which case...turn the lights out now...
Luton Bee
Gone
- Joined
- 6 Apr 2000
- Messages
- 7,174
- Reaction score
- 20
What do BIAS think?
Boston Bee said:
Not in any way having a pop at you Boston but the whiff of hypocracy is in blaming Noades, Hargraves et all for the clubs ills due to their policy of speculate to accumulate, then following a simular policy ourselves (even if on a much smaller scale)
Boston Bee
Well-known member
What do BIAS think?
Ok. I made it up. People weren't calling on the board to release funds to MA. I take it all back.
Resume the sanctimonious pillorying as scheduled.
Resume the sanctimonious pillorying as scheduled.
Luton Bee said:
rebus
On my final warning
What do BIAS think?
abee said:
This is what amazes me. They must have balls of steel to a first dismiss what abee was saying and then put a paw up in the air to him for cash to keep the club going - THIS IS NOT HOW YOU RUN A BUSINESS!!
The current BU model to eventually control BFC is a busted flush. Serious change is needed before GP is sold off and we end up like Brighton & HA.
Brickie Chap
Muppet Hunter
What do BIAS think?
markbfc said:
SC is getting paid to make sure he retains the phone numbers of supporters like abee...you really couldnt make it up
King Bee
Former BU board member, working in pharma land
What do BIAS think?
markbfc said:
I almost get to the point of blubbing
when I read posts like this, god knows how abee and BeeH react. For ****s sake, Joe admit mistakes were made, draw a line over this, remove JM's powers and move forward otherwise eternally be damned.Do you not appreciate the irony of the situation? Both JM and others were routinely dissmissing my and others concerns throughout the last couple of years, putting it down to jealousy or vested interests, and now you're cap in hand to the very people you were dismissive to? I know one of the investors who you've contacted that wants nothing to do with the current regime, such is his dislike of what has happened.
It is ****ing ridiculous
Boston Bee
Well-known member
What do BIAS think?
Joe told me last night that there'll be no sale until some fruition happens (post 42). And as no one seems to be willing to discuss the whole C&M/Barratts thing, I'm assuming everything is fine.
Are we ****ing selling GP to C&M/Barratts or not?!?
markbfc said:
Pauly Paul
The Bee at Hull's Guildhall
What do BIAS think?
Boston Bee said:
A small point that might have affected negotiations but I believe Cllr Ron Bartholomew (Syon) is a director at Barratts.
Brickie Chap
Muppet Hunter
What do BIAS think?
Pauly Paul said:
....and havent the likes of JM & BB always claimed they have very close and good relations with the local authority...although of course when push has come to shove(ala GP re-furb) this has proved to be total b***ocks
Boston Bee
Well-known member