bwfcfan5 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 You can't be suggesting he did all this for his employees? They aren't his employees. If I go and buy shares in a company the staff don't become my employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 If Deano and his merry men make hundreds of them redundant this summer will he also be labelled a cunt? If/When we get relegated there will simply have to be redundancies made, if anybody can't see this then they really are simpletons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boby Brno Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 But didn't the staff get paid ?They did but don't interrupt another meaningless argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_darby Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 They aren't his employees. If I go and buy shares in a company the staff don't become my employees.Far too simplistic an argument that a few of you are rather smugly relying on to try and belittle Tomski and Saul.. If you went and bought a few hundred shares in BP today, you couldn't sack the CEO and reinstate Tony Hayward, because as a Minority shareholder you have no control. Eddies Davies wasn't just a shareholder was he? He was an owner. Do you really feel he had no influence on PG and the board of Directors? Stop hiding behind legal arguments of shareholder and director responsibility ( trust me I have to know them) and get real; ED controlled BWFC with PG and he therefore had an obligation towards the employees of BWFC Legal, moral, ethical....whatever, but it's a sad state of affairs if anyone believes that the owner of a football club owes nowt to Doris the tea lady Very sad indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GudniB Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) They aren't his employees. If I go and buy shares in a company the staff don't become my employees. Tax bill wasn't Eddie's either. But wasn't it Eddie who arranged property sales so that the staff got paid whilst he held his nerve and arranged for the club to be handed over as a going concern? What a honey pot BWFC has been for HMRC over the last ten years. Despite their sabre rattling (pour encourager les autres), it was in the interests of HMRC that BWFC remained a going concern. Eddie knew it,Trevor Birch knew it, Hilary Stonefrost knew it and I expect they made sure the judge knew it too, if he didn't know it already. Eddie surely would have wanted to hand the club over to folk with a bit more wool on their backs than Holdsworth and Anderson but in the end it was a poor deal or no deal. Edited March 17, 2016 by GudniB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bolty58 Posted March 17, 2016 Members Share Posted March 17, 2016 Kinell, some of you sad sacks still bleating on? Are you incapable of looking towards a brighter dawn? All this bollocks will be completely forgotten within a couple of years when we are hoisting a championship trophy. This is football, not A grade accountancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwfcfan5 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Far too simplistic an argument that a few of you are rather smugly relying on to try and belittle Tomski and Saul.. If you went and bought a few hundred shares in BP today, you couldn't sack the CEO and reinstate Tony Hayward, because as a Minority shareholder you have no control. Eddies Davies wasn't just a shareholder was he? He was an owner. Do you really feel he had no influence on PG and the board of Directors? Stop hiding behind legal arguments of shareholder and director responsibility ( trust me I have to know them) and get real; ED controlled BWFC with PG and he therefore had an obligation towards the employees of BWFC Legal, moral, ethical....whatever, but it's a sad state of affairs if anyone believes that the owner of a football club owes nowt to Doris the tea lady Very sad indeed. Ah, on that we agree. I suppose it is a question of where he draws the line. Pay the staff each month? The players? I'm sure he felt morally responsible but at the same time he had to stop putting money in at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birch-chorley Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) You can't be suggesting he did all this for his employees?Not at all But along with stopping the big playing contracts a couple of years ago the non playing budget should have also been cut back with redundancies If he'd have done that back then he'd have been labelled a cunt Instead those staff kept their jobs for another couple of years and are still getting paid to this day They were paid late for one or two months, which although is very difficult for the staff surely that's better than being made redundant 2 years earlier? I just think whatever he did he would have been labelled a cunt As Sweep says - I can only see large scale redundancies this summer to try and balance the books Would that make Deano a cunt? If Deano instead tries to keep them all in a job for as long as he can and we hit troubled waters again in another 12 months and they get paid late again is he a cunt then? It's a fucking hard decision to make whichever way he goes with it I feel for the non playing staff I really do, I've been through something very similar in other industries (as have many on here i'd imagine) so you can empathise with them Edited March 17, 2016 by birch-chorley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GudniB Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) Kinell, some of you sad sacks still bleating on? Are you incapable of looking towards a brighter dawn? All this bollocks will be completely forgotten within a couple of years when we are hoisting a championship trophy. This is football, not A grade accountancy. Interesting you should use the word 'bollocks'.The Hillsborough report shows that the chairman of Sheffield Wednesday used the same word in criticising the actions of Assistant Chief Constable Bob Goslin (son of ex-Wanderer Harry Goslin) for his efforts in averting a potential disaster at the Leppings Lane end at an FA Cup semi-final in 1981. 'Bollocks - no one would have been killed' said chairman McGee. Not quite the same context, but chairman McGee seemed to be 'looking towards a brighter dawn' and the continuance of big matches at Hillsborough. Unfortunately it was a lot darker when exactly eight years later, 96 Liverpool supporters lost their lives at the same end of the same ground. Understanding the present and learning from history seems to me to be quite a good idea even if its of no interest to some. Edited March 17, 2016 by GudniB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Tonge moor green jacket Posted March 17, 2016 Site Supporter Share Posted March 17, 2016 Far too simplistic an argument that a few of you are rather smugly relying on to try and belittle Tomski and Saul.. If you went and bought a few hundred shares in BP today, you couldn't sack the CEO and reinstate Tony Hayward, because as a Minority shareholder you have no control. Eddies Davies wasn't just a shareholder was he? He was an owner. Do you really feel he had no influence on PG and the board of Directors? Stop hiding behind legal arguments of shareholder and director responsibility ( trust me I have to know them) and get real; ED controlled BWFC with PG and he therefore had an obligation towards the employees of BWFC Legal, moral, ethical....whatever, but it's a sad state of affairs if anyone believes that the owner of a football club owes nowt to Doris the tea lady Very sad indeed. Fair point. Equally fair though is the fact that he's been keeping the club going for a good while. As has been stated, he could have pulled the plug on spending far sooner. Has to be a cut off point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomski Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Far too simplistic an argument that a few of you are rather smugly relying on to try and belittle Tomski and Saul.. If you went and bought a few hundred shares in BP today, you couldn't sack the CEO and reinstate Tony Hayward, because as a Minority shareholder you have no control. Eddies Davies wasn't just a shareholder was he? He was an owner. Do you really feel he had no influence on PG and the board of Directors? Stop hiding behind legal arguments of shareholder and director responsibility ( trust me I have to know them) and get real; ED controlled BWFC with PG and he therefore had an obligation towards the employees of BWFC Legal, moral, ethical....whatever, but it's a sad state of affairs if anyone believes that the owner of a football club owes nowt to Doris the tea lady Very sad indeed. Thank you and well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Cheese Posted March 17, 2016 Site Supporter Share Posted March 17, 2016 Kinell, some of you sad sacks still bleating on? Are you incapable of looking towards a brighter dawn? All this bollocks will be completely forgotten within a couple of years when we are hoisting a championship trophy. This is football, not A grade accountancy. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GudniB Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Fair point. Equally fair though is the fact that he's been keeping the club going for a good while. As has been stated, he could have pulled the plug on spending far sooner. Has to be a cut off point. Just been reading Big Sam's book. Its a really interesting read but I wanted to try to get his take on things whilst he was manager. Eddie had helped stabilise the club but he didn't start putting in serious money until after Sam left and then, more by necessity than design. Sam's era was hugely successful on the playing and recruitment front but, unless he has just forgotten, he doesn't seem to have had much of a handle on the overall finances. He owned shares and was close to the action but where, for example, did he get the idea that the Reebok had cost anything like £100m (page 126)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Carlos Posted March 17, 2016 Moderators Share Posted March 17, 2016 I'd argue signing Anelka was fairly serious money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalcolmW Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Just been reading Big Sam's book. Its a really interesting read but I wanted to try to get his take on things whilst he was manager. Of course there are events which he remembers somewhat selectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traf Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Of course there are events which he remembers somewhat selectively. And others (cash-laden envelopes etc) he probably denies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
land_and_sea Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) What if instead he had made half of them redundant 2 years a go in a cost cutting exercise to bring our outgoings more in line with income? Would he have been more a cunt or less a cunt? Surely trying to keep them employed as long as possible counts for something? If Deano and his merry men make hundreds of them redundant this summer will he also be labelled a cunt? I just thInk it would of been nice to have given some notice. I hope Deano does in the future. Eddie should never have been so completely unorganized. Edited March 17, 2016 by land_and_sea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GudniB Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 I'd argue signing Anelka was fairly serious money. You are right, that was serious money but it was bank borrowing. Eddie must have guaranteed it, though. He put in £3.5million in the year Sam left for the academy naming rights but the really big stuff came later and it was all about maintaining/re-gaining Premiership status. Of course there are events which he remembers somewhat selectively. Its Sam's story so you would expect it to be his side of it all. But when you balance it all out Sam did a great job for BWFC and Eddie supported the club with an embarassing amount of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwfcfan5 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 You are right, that was serious money but it was bank borrowing. Eddie must have guaranteed it, though. He put in £3.5million in the year Sam left for the academy naming rights but the really big stuff came later and it was all about maintaining/re-gaining Premiership status. Its Sam's story so you would expect it to be his side of it all. But when you balance it all out Sam did a great job for BWFC and Eddie supported the club with an embarassing amount of money. At the time I'm sure it was stated by Phil Gartside that the money for Anelka came from Eddie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radcliffe white Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Kinell, some of you sad sacks still bleating on? Are you incapable of looking towards a brighter dawn? All this bollocks will be completely forgotten within a couple of years when we are hoisting a championship trophy. This is football, not A grade accountancy. correct, it's amazing how many experts we have on the clubs finances, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traf Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 At the time I'm sure it was stated by Phil Gartside that the money for Anelka came from Eddie. That was said. It was also said that Eddie kept the profit from the deal too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GudniB Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 At the time I'm sure it was stated by Phil Gartside that the money for Anelka came from Eddie. Effectively it did come from Eddie, but the money was provided, not by a loan or gift from Eddie, but by increasing the bank loans. The bank wouldn't have lent the money without a guarantee and it could only have come from Eddie. The £3.5million Eddie paid for academy naming rights covered the whole of the interest on the bank borrowing (i.e.the amount that was stlil owed from the building of the Reebok plus the amounts spent on player contracts like Anelka and Faye). Eddie was supposed to get a share of any profit on the sale of Anelka (possibly Faye as well) but it looks like he never got it. Eddie used his own money (through Moonshift) to pay off the outstanding bank loans in 2009/10. By this time the amount owing to Moonshift had grown to £85m (including £6.5m of unpaid interest). Sorry if all this is too complex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GudniB Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 That was said. It was also said that Eddie kept the profit from the deal too. Both the 2013 and the 2014 Annual Reports show that Moonshift was owed £2,832,474 in respect of a player success fee. Everything points to that being wholly or mainly in respect of Nicolas Anelka and that it has remained unpaid since Anelka was sold to Chelsea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_darby Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 At the time I'm sure it was stated by Phil Gartside that the money for Anelka came from Eddie. PG also stated (over and again) that we were fine financially and the debt to ED wouldn't affect us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eavesy Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 PG also stated (over and again) that we were fine financially and the debt to ED wouldn't affect us Which is probably true if he was always going to write off the £170m and we could have stayed in the premiership to cover expenditure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.