|
|
Topic Originator: brian
Date: Fri 16 Aug 17:59
I realise the other threads are getting quite long so they may get closed before viewers have problems reading.
I also notice a new club update and thought other threads may get too big š¤¦āāļø
https://dafc.co.uk/club-update-16-08-2024
Post Edited (Fri 16 Aug 18:05)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parathletic
Date: Fri 16 Aug 18:11
Quote:
NewPoster2024, Fri 16 Aug 17:02
The problem is, a lot of these "concerns" were something that had already been answered, or a rumour that came from some guy on the internet or something someone said in the pub.
Just the other day people on here were demanding answers because the board were trying to "fleece" fans by introducing a third strip. People were demanding answers because some random posted some utter nonsense claiming we were going into administration. People have just made up numbers, claiming staff are on Ā£160,000. Someone was claiming we hadn`t paid a supplier Ā£1,000.
Those aren`t legitimate concerns. They`re stupid rumours spread by idiots, and they don`t deserve answers.
The club finished 6th last season, despite many injuries, yet the entire time this forum was filled with people demanding answers. There was anger and fury all over the place. Yet, we had just been promoted, were trying to consolidate and were dealing with an injury crisis.
We have an incredibly entitled fan base that seem to think we deserve to be in a better place than we are. However, our fan base turns on the club and the staff whenever they get the opportunity. Ross McArthur`s tyres being slashed, and him being spat on and abused in the streets being a prime example.
We`ve spent the past 4 years with a toxicity brewing which at times has seemed to be motivated by xenophobia and parochialism. From day one, these investors have been clear about their strategy. They wanted to take a different approach. People keep on demanding answers, but the answers were already there - and have been since the beginning.
I have serious doubts anyone will want to invest, with our support as it is.
I think the more legitimate concerns were the loss of large sums of money, the inability to sign a goalkeeper, going from talk of a big summer to the manager being disgruntled within a few weeks, the manager speaking out about lack of communication within(doctor issue),why can`t we compete with Forfar and Cove?, the decision for the reserves to play at Spartans, the removal of Pars TV away games etc-these aren`t hypothetical and from a PR point of view many could have been handled much better.
They don`t seem willing to take ownership for any of their mistakes and look to pass the buck.In their statement we had to endure relegation but no mention of their own poor appointments.They admit that when we got relegated they saw it as nearly impossible to execute a long term plan-but they persevered anyway? Then we `famously` got promoted and they are claiming boys that came through Fife Elite as their own product!
They were `encouraged` to make the investment in the academy by many around the club-surely any businessmen worth their salt do their own due diligence?
They admit that the squad needs to be strengthened for reasons of both quality and depth.Why wait until we are out the cup and the league is underway to admit that? In a way they are legitimising the concerns of the fans whilst running away at the same time.We didn`t have a strong enough squad at the beginning of last season either and that`s why they had to spend again in January.With the benefit of hindsight coupled with that statement it's obvious they have wanted out for a while.
Post Edited (Fri 16 Aug 18:23)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: cammypar 1995
Date: Fri 16 Aug 18:26
Quote:
parathletic, Fri 16 Aug 18:11
Quote:
NewPoster2024, Fri 16 Aug 17:02
The problem is, a lot of these "concerns" were something that had already been answered, or a rumour that came from some guy on the internet or something someone said in the pub.
Just the other day people on here were demanding answers because the board were trying to "fleece" fans by introducing a third strip. People were demanding answers because some random posted some utter nonsense claiming we were going into administration. People have just made up numbers, claiming staff are on Ā£160,000. Someone was claiming we hadn`t paid a supplier Ā£1,000.
Those aren`t legitimate concerns. They`re stupid rumours spread by idiots, and they don`t deserve answers.
The club finished 6th last season, despite many injuries, yet the entire time this forum was filled with people demanding answers. There was anger and fury all over the place. Yet, we had just been promoted, were trying to consolidate and were dealing with an injury crisis.
We have an incredibly entitled fan base that seem to think we deserve to be in a better place than we are. However, our fan base turns on the club and the staff whenever they get the opportunity. Ross McArthur`s tyres being slashed, and him being spat on and abused in the streets being a prime example.
We`ve spent the past 4 years with a toxicity brewing which at times has seemed to be motivated by xenophobia and parochialism. From day one, these investors have been clear about their strategy. They wanted to take a different approach. People keep on demanding answers, but the answers were already there - and have been since the beginning.
I have serious doubts anyone will want to invest, with our support as it is.
I think the more legitimate concerns were the loss of large sums of money, the inability to sign a goalkeeper, going from talk of a big summer to the manager being disgruntled within a few weeks, the manager speaking out about lack of communication within(doctor issue),why can`t we compete with Forfar and Cove?, the decision for the reserves to play at Spartans, the removal of Pars TV away games etc-these aren`t hypothetical and from a PR point of view many could have been handled much better.
They don`t seem willing to take ownership for any of their mistakes and look to pass the buck.In their statement we had to endure relegation but no mention of their own poor appointments.They admit that when we got relegated they saw it as nearly impossible to execute a long term plan-but they persevered anyway? Then we `famously` got promoted and they are claiming boys that came through Fife Elite as their own product!
They were `encouraged` to make the investment in the academy by many around the club-surely any businessmen worth their salt do their own due diligence?
They admit that the squad needs to be strengthened for reasons of both quality and depth.Why wait until we are out the cup and the league is underway to admit that? In a way they are legitimising the concerns of the fans whilst running away at the same time.We didn`t have a strong enough squad at the beginning of last season either and that`s why they had to spend again in January.
Exactly this we lost around 70k with being unprepared for the cup starting. A competition which the bod and management team wanted to go far in as it would support our income. The fact we risked and continue to risk Mehmet without a backup is nothing short of gross negligence. We have a right to be concerned and to say the concerns have been validated is as laughable as the statement released yesterday.
c'mon the pars
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Par
Date: Fri 16 Aug 18:40
If the club need cash is it too early for fans to start buying from the club shop or other means of giving cash to the club, or will that money also disappear into the black hole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 16 Aug 18:51
If owners of football clubs were to bail out solely due to criticism from fans then almost every club in the country would be up for grabsā¦It is a nonsense statement designed to deflect from their own incompetence, shortsightedness, naivety and poor communication.
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DrumRoad
Date: Fri 16 Aug 18:53
The timing of the GMBH announcement concerns me from a financial point of view.
The club has just banked somewhere north of Ā£500,000 for season & lounge tickets & likely another chunk from various sponsors.
Will these funds remain within the club? (are these the funds āin their entiretyā that GMBH have promised as āresources to be made available to the rest of the club & managementā going forward)ā¦ā¦ because the club are going to need it
2022/23 League one Winners
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Fri 16 Aug 19:04
Quote:
DrumRoad, Fri 16 Aug 18:53
The timing of the GMBH announcement concerns me from a financial point of view.
The club has just banked somewhere north of Ā£500,000 for season & lounge tickets & likely another chunk from various sponsors.
Will these funds remain within the club? (are these the funds āin their entiretyā that GMBH have promised as āresources to be made available to the rest of the club & managementā going forward)ā¦ā¦ because the club are going to need it
I doubt it. They loaned the club money a couple of years ago instead of buying shares. I imagine they`ll want those loans repaid. They`ve gambled, lost and want their money back.
That`s the way I see it, more than happy to be proven wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 16 Aug 19:31
Quote:
DrumRoad, Fri 16 Aug 18:53
The timing of the GMBH announcement concerns me from a financial point of view.
The club has just banked somewhere north of Ā£500,000 for season & lounge tickets & likely another chunk from various sponsors.
Will these funds remain within the club? (are these the funds āin their entiretyā that GMBH have promised as āresources to be made available to the rest of the club & managementā going forward)ā¦ā¦ because the club are going to need it
3000 season tickets averaging at Ā£220 comes to Ā£600,000 .
Someone`s screwed the fans over and the board get all sensitive when questions are asked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stanza
Date: Fri 16 Aug 19:41
" ..... They loaned the club money a couple of years ago instead of buying shares. I imagine they`ll want those loans repaid. They`ve gambled, lost and want their money back."
That`s not really what happened, though. In 2022 GmbH provided interest-free, unsecured capital to DAFC Ltd in exchange for a Convertible Loan Note (CLN). AFAIK GmbH cannot simply ask for that capital to be returned - instead they have the right, at any time within five years of issue, to convert the CLN into new shares in DAFC so as to increase GmbHās stake in DAFC to 80%.
This was all explained at the time and is still available on the DAFC website.
https://dafc.co.uk/board-statement-11-01-2022/
What I think is likely is that GmbH will seek to recover some of their money by converting the CLN into shares, which will give them a controlling interest* in DAFC Ltd that will be a more attractive proposition to prospective buyers than GmbH`s current minority holding.
*Having a controlling interest (>75%) will give the new buyers the right to run the club as they want, so no need for supporter representation at Board level or PUCIC oversight, for instance. In other words, pretty much back to the pre-administration era, except for the stadium ownership.
Post Edited (Fri 16 Aug 19:42)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Fri 16 Aug 19:46
Quote:
Stanza, Fri 16 Aug 19:41
" ..... They loaned the club money a couple of years ago instead of buying shares. I imagine they`ll want those loans repaid. They`ve gambled, lost and want their money back."
That`s not really what happened, though. In 2022 GmbH provided interest-free, unsecured capital to DAFC Ltd in exchange for a Convertible Loan Note (CLN). AFAIK GmbH cannot simply ask for that capital to be returned - instead they have the right, at any time within five years of issue, to convert the CLN into new shares in DAFC so as to increase GmbHās stake in DAFC to 80%.
This was all explained at the time and is still available on the DAFC website.
https://dafc.co.uk/board-statement-11-01-2022/
What I think is likely is that GmbH will seek to recover some of their money by converting the CLN into shares, which will give them a controlling interest* in DAFC Ltd that will be a more attractive proposition to prospective buyers than GmbH`s current minority holding.
*Having a controlling interest (>75%) will give the new buyers the right to run the club as they want, so no need for supporter representation at Board level or PUCIC oversight, for instance. In other words, pretty much back to the pre-administration era, except for the stadium ownership.
I would hope that the ability to convert to shares would become invalidated on their desire to sell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DrumRoad
Date: Fri 16 Aug 20:03
Topic Originator: Stanza
Date: Fri 16 Aug 19:41
āHaving a controlling interest (>75%) will give the new buyers the right to run the club as they want, so no need for supporter representation at Board level or PUCIC oversight, for instance. In other words, pretty much back to the pre-administration era, except for the stadium ownershipā
Stanza, Iām sure I read somewhere that GMBH had/has the option to buy the stadium/ground from the existing owners PUEEP ie since the Articles of Association were ripped up on their arrivalā¦ā¦ā¦.. I might of course just have had a nightmare!
If that is right? DAFC will be in a considerably worse position than pre-administration in my opinion
2022/23 League one Winners
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: arpar
Date: Fri 16 Aug 20:15
Quote:
DrumRoad, Fri 16 Aug 20:03
Topic Originator: Stanza
Date: Fri 16 Aug 19:41
āHaving a controlling interest (>75%) will give the new buyers the right to run the club as they want, so no need for supporter representation at Board level or PUCIC oversight, for instance. In other words, pretty much back to the pre-administration era, except for the stadium ownershipā
Stanza, Iām sure I read somewhere that GMBH had/has the option to buy the stadium/ground from the existing owners PUEEP ie since the Articles of Association were ripped up on their arrivalā¦ā¦ā¦.. I might of course just have had a nightmare!
If that is right? DAFC will be in a considerably worse position than pre-administration in my opinion
I think they can take an option on the stadium but there are barriers to any sale etc unless suitable facilities for the club are found elsewhere.
Not really sure how much 80% in the club is actually worth. If they are losing money every season who is going to want to pay money to take that off their hands?
ETA Actually the stadium option was in the original deal and had to be completed by May this year. That deal was ultimately cancelled when the loan announcement was made and I don't think they have any shares in the company that owns the stadium.
Post Edited (Fri 16 Aug 20:22)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DulochConvert
Date: Fri 16 Aug 21:30
What are the losses though?
I said it a few years back that there plan was to off set the costs of the training ground as loses which they then subsidised in soft loans, therefore giving them full control of the club and can then just recover there investment by sell it.
Hopefully the grants they received to help fund it prohibits this but time will tell, these charlatans havenāt really invested anything into the club which is why we are in the current situation.
They knew that we would be getting close to 1m for Nisbet which they couldnāt take out, so used that to run the club with removing the working capital to the training ground as there exit plan
Post Edited (Fri 16 Aug 21:33)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Alter Ego
Date: Fri 16 Aug 22:05
Can I ask who owns the stadium now? I presume this has nothing to do with the Germans??
Mon the Pars!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: fcda
Date: Fri 16 Aug 22:08
Quote:
DulochConvert, Fri 16 Aug 21:30
They knew that we would be getting close to 1m for Nisbet which they couldnāt take out, so used that to run the club with removing the working capital to the training ground as there exit plan
Really need to stop with these consultancy theories.
EDIT: auto correct! Should read:
Really need to stop with these conspiracy theories.
Post Edited (Sat 17 Aug 08:51)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Alter Ego
Date: Fri 16 Aug 22:20
I just hope these investors donāt have a hold on EEP and can sell the ground etc?
Mon the Pars!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DulochConvert
Date: Fri 16 Aug 22:31
Topic Originator: fcda like
Date: Fri 16 Aug 22:08
Quote:
DulochConvert, Fri 16 Aug 21:30
They knew that we would be getting close to 1m for Nisbet which they couldnāt take out, so used that to run the club with removing the working capital to the training ground as there exit plan
Really need to stop with these consultancy theories.
There consultants are probably on 100k plus and part of the problem!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Fri 16 Aug 22:31
Quote:
fcda, Fri 16 Aug 22:08
Really need to stop with these consultancy theories.
Not to mention the conspiracy theoriesā¦
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Alter Ego
Date: Fri 16 Aug 23:02
Who owns the stadium at EEP? Does the Germans have a % in this?
Mon the Pars!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 16 Aug 23:12
Quote:
Alter Ego, Fri 16 Aug 23:02
Who owns the stadium at EEP? Does the Germans have a % in this?
No. It`s owned separately. This was one of the things made clear at the start after people seemed to think the consortium wanted EEP to build houses on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Fri 16 Aug 23:36
Quote:
Stanza, Fri 16 Aug 19:41
" ..... They loaned the club money a couple of years ago instead of buying shares. I imagine they`ll want those loans repaid. They`ve gambled, lost and want their money back."
That`s not really what happened, though. In 2022 GmbH provided interest-free, unsecured capital to DAFC Ltd in exchange for a Convertible Loan Note (CLN). AFAIK GmbH cannot simply ask for that capital to be returned - instead they have the right, at any time within five years of issue, to convert the CLN into new shares in DAFC so as to increase GmbHās stake in DAFC to 80%.
This was all explained at the time and is still available on the DAFC website.
https://dafc.co.uk/board-statement-11-01-2022/
What I think is likely is that GmbH will seek to recover some of their money by converting the CLN into shares, which will give them a controlling interest* in DAFC Ltd that will be a more attractive proposition to prospective buyers than GmbH`s current minority holding.
*Having a controlling interest (>75%) will give the new buyers the right to run the club as they want, so no need for supporter representation at Board level or PUCIC oversight, for instance. In other words, pretty much back to the pre-administration era, except for the stadium ownership.
So, pretty much what I said then. You used the technical term for what I just called a loan. Where we differ is what we predict they will do.
From the article on COWS it says:
The key terms of the CLN are as follows:
āŖļøit is interest-free;
āŖļøit is unsecured;
āŖļøat any time within five years of issue, it can be converted into new shares in DAFC so as to increase GmbHās stake in DAFC to 80%; and
āŖļøif it has not been converted into new DAFC shares within five years, DAFC can redeem the Convertible Loan Note by issuing that same number of new shares to GmbH.
So "the key terms" not all of them. If there`s the option for them to call it in at their discretion would you expect them to be up front about it?
I did a quick search then scan of an article on BDO`s website. It says this:
If a CLN does not get converted into equity, the issuer will need to repay the loan at maturity. However, if the loan note is converted into equity, then no further repayment is required. The repayment condition may be either automatic or at the choice of the investor. Common events of automatic repayment include insolvency related events of default, failure to repay or convert before a set date and material breaches by the issuer. If an automatic repayment event is triggered, the notes will need to be repaid immediately.
That`s a fairly general thing, the details of this one might be something very different. Who knows, it might just be that they walk away honourably having tried and failed at something. Thursday`s petulant statement doesn`t give me any hope of anything like that. Quite the opposite in fact.
They didn`t commit to shares three years ago, why would they now after they`ve said they`re wanting to sell the ones they do have? It`ll be a buyers market, the CLN will be worth more than the shares.
Another scenario is they use the debt in the CLN as the sweetener to a potential buyer to offload their current shareholding.
I hope I`m wrong, but I think we`re going to end up paying for their failed experiment and in more ways than one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stanza
Date: Fri 16 Aug 23:51
The stadium owners are PUEEP Ltd, a small group of Pars Patrons who bought the ground from the administrators, and rent it to DAFC Ltd. This was all published at the time on the DAFC website and is still available. It all gets explained every few years on this forum too, when someone thinks houses are about to be built on the centre circle. :)
https://archive.dafc.co.uk/pdf/Pars_United_Q&A_East_End_Park.pdf?
And yes, there is an option for GmbH to buy EEP, but I think that expires in less than a year and I`m doubtful if GmbH would want to take on more financial commitments if they are trying to cut down on expenditure..
_________________
 Support Dunfermline Athletic Disabled Supporters` Club (DADSC) when you shop online with one of 8000 firms: https://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dadsc[
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DulochConvert
Date: Sat 17 Aug 00:23
Stanza
From reading the original takeover information GmbH didnāt take up the extra share offer within the stipulated time so they donāt have a option on the EEP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stanza
Date: Sat 17 Aug 01:33
Quote:
I would hope that the ability to convert to shares would become invalidated on their desire to sell.
Quote:
Absolutely not. They have the right irrelevant of intentions. They put the money they are well within their rights to take the shares
Correct - or, instead of converting the loan into shares themselves, they could just sell on to the new owner the right to convert the loan into shares.
_________________
Support Dunfermline Athletic Disabled Supporters` Club (DADSC) when you shop online with one of 8000 firms: https://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dadsc[
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Back_oh_the_net
Date: Sat 17 Aug 05:18
I have had a few people at work who have zero interest in football read that abomination of a statement put out on Thursday and even they canāt understand why painting the fans as the bad guys is the way to go when they are trying to sell up
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PeterHu50
Date: Sat 17 Aug 08:28
Quote:
Back_oh_the_net, Sat 17 Aug 05:18
I have had a few people at work who have zero interest in football read that abomination of a statement put out on Thursday and even they canāt understand why painting the fans as the bad guys is the way to go when they are trying to sell up
Out of pure spite. Their little plan failed, theyāve made the situation much worse for the club and theyāre choosing to blame the fans. After all, it canāt have been their mistake, surely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: fcda
Date: Sat 17 Aug 08:48
Quote:
Luxembourg Par, Fri 16 Aug 22:31
Quote:
fcda, Fri 16 Aug 22:08
Really need to stop with these consultancy theories.
Not to mention the conspiracy theoriesā¦
Lol. Thanks Lux, that`s what I meant. F`in auto correct!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Higgys Mohawk
Date: Sat 17 Aug 10:06
Hopefully there wonāt be any long term financial constraints from the academy and training ground.
If/when we get new owners they will likely want to move in a different direction than the current owners, but the club may be tied into longer term commitments. I guess weāll find out about that when the club is sold.
Will be an uncertain time until we get a buyer and they outline their plans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OorWullie
Date: Sat 17 Aug 12:25
Iām going to keep banging this drum, Iām afraid.
The main reason that GmbH have pulled out is that they have lost 2 million quid in two years.
Our ceo must accept the blame for this but I can see heās already distancing himself from them. A clever move that might fool someā¦
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 17 Aug 12:51
`Distancing himself` by aligning with the other three Scottish-based directors? Do you think they would be happy with him being a co-signatory to their statement if they thought he knew their intentions? Despite the GMBH statement there are still a lot of unanswered questions, including what the CEO`s remit was, but you have obviously made your mind up on that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: fcda
Date: Sat 17 Aug 12:52
Quote:
OorWullie, Sat 17 Aug 12:25
Iām going to keep banging this drum, Iām afraid.
The main reason that GmbH have pulled out is that they have lost 2 million quid in two years.
Our ceo must accept the blame for this but I can see heās already distancing himself from them. A clever move that might fool someā¦
Get that you don`t like him but think it`s unfair to blame him for the losses, unless you have some insight into the inner dealings at the club.
If the board approves the budget that`s not just on him. If he`s made spending errors, or if his plan on how to use the budget has caused the losses, that`s on him but only those on the inside will know that level of detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MinnesotaAndy
Date: Sat 17 Aug 13:12
Normally when you part company, you do so with the minimal of fuss. ( I resign... My last working day will be...) You certainly avoid making recriminations as it serves no purpose to create bad feelings.
I found the GMBH statement disappointing. Why try and control the narrative when you have decided to sell up? Simply say you have decided to sell up but will work hard for the club until a buyer is found.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: weemike
Date: Sat 17 Aug 13:16
Quote:
MinnesotaAndy, Sat 17 Aug 13:12
Normally when you part company, you do so with the minimal of fuss. ( I resign... My last working day will be...) You certainly avoid making recriminations as it serves no purpose to create bad feelings.
I found the GMBH statement disappointing. Why try and control the narrative when you have decided to sell up? Simply say you have decided to sell up but will work hard for the club until a buyer is found.
Because they don`t want to admit that their pockets are not deep enough to run a first team and build the infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DunfyDave
Date: Sat 17 Aug 13:17
OorWullie has valid points.
On his second point, it would be prudent for fans to be cautious of the current board under the circumstances but should not be a priority.
On his first point, I think he is pretty much spot-on.
To declare losses of Ā£1m for 2 years running to then appoint a CFO and within weeks pull the plug and put the club up for sale reeks of financial insecurity. The CFO has obviously advised them of their predicament and they have taken evasive action and tried to blame the fans.
Most fans seemed supportive of the academy and trying something different but not to the massive detriment to the first team which was acknowledged in the GMBH statement - So what the hell was the problem then?
Bottom line, was always the finances!
I would like to add that the GMBH statement would put-off potential buyers and make their sale more problematic. They have done themselves no favours here which is concerning me as I suspect the club will be footing the bill for this sorry little episode for years to come.
DunfyDave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: SharpPar
Date: Sat 17 Aug 13:31
Quote:
OorWullie, Sat 17 Aug 12:25
Iām going to keep banging this drum, Iām afraid.
The main reason that GmbH have pulled out is that they have lost 2 million quid in two years.
Our ceo must accept the blame for this but I can see heās already distancing himself from them. A clever move that might fool someā¦
What do you know about the CEO that the rest of us dont? Please allude to it as otherwise it just seems a personal vendetta where youāre having a go anytime you can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OorWullie
Date: Sat 17 Aug 17:46
The club has lost Ā£2m in two years. Who is running the club on behalf of GmbH.?
Surely you canāt be that naive ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 17 Aug 18:02
If he was responsible for losing the first Ā£1m did the owners leave him to it to run up another Ā£1m? I also can`t believe the German directors weren`t in receipt of sufficient information in either year to indicate what the annual results would be.
I don`t really like speculating about club affairs without being in full possession of the facts but when posters make claims that are based on no sold information it`s difficult not to intervene.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OorWullie
Date: Sat 17 Aug 18:10
Letās assume this is a company that makes nuts and bolts. It loses 2 million quid. Doesnāt the ceo have to carry the can ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 17 Aug 18:39
It`s not `a company that makes nuts and bolts` and we don`t know what his remit was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: alwaysaPar
Date: Sat 17 Aug 19:00
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 18:39
It`s not `a company that makes nuts and bolts` and we don`t know what his remit was.
His remit is to clearly run the company on behalf of the owners
The job title CEO sort of makes that clear..........š¤£
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: cammypar 1995
Date: Sat 17 Aug 19:07
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 18:39
It`s not `a company that makes nuts and bolts` and we don`t know what his remit was.
I doubt the remit was to squander another Ā£1m? He clearly didn`t make adjustments required and had put the club in the shocking position we find ourselves in now. CEO chief executive officer Basically in charge of the operation and he has failed it`s really that simple.
c'mon the pars
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DrumRoad
Date: Sat 17 Aug 19:11
OorWullie, David Cook is the eyes & ears on the ground for GMBHā¦..ā¦ā¦. That was from his own lips more than once
They are his paymasters so why would that not be the case
2022/23 League one Winners
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OorWullie
Date: Sat 17 Aug 19:16
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 18:39
It`s not `a company that makes nuts and bolts` and we don`t know what his remit was.
Now you are being obtuse
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OorWullie
Date: Sat 17 Aug 19:18
Quote:
DrumRoad, Sat 17 Aug 19:11
OorWullie, David Cook is the eyes & ears on the ground for GMBHā¦..ā¦ā¦. That was from his own lips more than once
They are his paymasters so why would that not be the case
Well, heās made a right bottom of it as they now want to pull out
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Par4ages
Date: Sat 17 Aug 19:35
Personally donāt think meggle wouldāve had any say on dictating tactics or who to play as with anyone with a vested interest in the team I am sure he wouldāve suggested things in their weekly discussions. I would hope that McPake would listen but make his own decisions but it is more than obvious they have hamstrung him by dictating the size of the squad and a very restricted budget.
Donāt think the budget has been spent with much success but thatās another argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 17 Aug 20:14
Back to the role of the CEO -
Football is a much more fickle business than your normal `nuts and bolts` company. For example, who could have foreseen the extent of last season`s injuries? What would have been the financial impact of that? I imagine medical insurance has its limits and at some point the club has to pay for the treatment. My recollection is that specialist advice was sought ASAP and followed. How can anyone `control` that to any significant extent? Then the decision has to be taken as to whether you seek to replace the long-term injured to help us through the rest of the season. That doesn`t come cheaply either.
This forum seems to love the idea of a `scapegoat` or a `bogeyman` - somebody who can be held responsible for all the club`s ills. We`ve already had one thread criticising Thomas Meggle`s role at the club - although no one is exactly sure what it was! Sometimes things don`t work out the way you expect them to, sometimes you make mistakes but get away with them but other times you don`t - and sometimes things happen that are outside your control. You know, like it is on the football field sometimes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Socks
Date: Sat 17 Aug 20:14
Regardless of what David Cook`s powers have been over the last two years, he has been employed as the principal official of the club in that period. He is the figurehead. When you have someone in such a position, part of the deal is that they become accountable. When previous driectors have done the job on a voluntary basis there was room for movement in that but when it`s a salaried post I don`t think that applies. In general, a big part of the CEO`s job in any company is to take the blame - it`s just part of the deal. They generally earn large salaries but know they can be horsed out if things are going badly.
Things have been going very badly at DAFC in recent times. Given his position, he surely can`t stay on much longer.
In reading through all the posts, there was a comment about people who were never enthused by the events of 2020 being delighted at this week`s news. I was one of the sceptics at that time - I could never really work out what was in it for them and that question is one that has never been satisfactorily answered and always left nagging doubts in my mind. And as one of those sceptics, I can say I am not happy in any way. I`m seriously concerned at how this might work out and what becomes of the club from here.
I think they probably had honest intentions at the outset, but now that they`ve made public their desire to get out with their pathetic and petulant statement on Thursday, I`m worried as to just how hard they might want to **** us over to get back as much of their money as possible. Someone else mentioned being worried at the timing of it - I share this concern. Given that it`s felt that we don`t have a pot to pee in of late, the biggest concern for me is that this summer`s income from season tickets and the Edwards transfer is just going to repaying some of the loans made, leaving us to try and run the club on a much smaller amount of money than normal.
I don`t know if that`s the case, very few of us can possibly know. But given the lack of real information, the only real option is to try to put together what we do know to find something plausible. And we`ve been here before - too much of this just fels very similar to the end of the Masterton years.
I haven`t used the word `betrayal` before in public in this context, but that`s how the events of 2020 felt to me at the time. I really liked that we got to the point in 2013 where no one party could have a controlling interest, so we couldn`t have a Masterton situation again. I was saddened that the PST gave the takeover their unconditional backing, and I decided then that I would never again be a member.
I really wanted it all to work out, but the risk was always that something would go wrong and we`d be back to where we were in 2012. And here we are, back at the point with huge uncertainty.
It really depends how much of their money they want back. If it`s a small part and they`re willing to pass to local people, perhaps including fans groups for an
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Socks
Date: Sat 17 Aug 20:15
It really depends how much of their money they want back. If it`s a small part and they`re willing to pass to local people, perhaps including fans groups for an amount that recognises the shares are worth very little, fair enough. If they try to get it all and effectively leave without having funded anything, things could be very difficult.
I`m so scunnered with it all just now, to the point where part of me thinks that moving to somewhere like Shetland and giving up on the club seems a good idea. But most of me says that this is my club, not theirs. It measn too much to too many people to give up on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: alwaysaPar
Date: Sat 17 Aug 20:23
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 20:14
Back to the role of the CEO -
Football is a much more fickle business than your normal `nuts and bolts` company. For example, who could have foreseen the extent of last season`s injuries? What would have been the financial impact of that? I imagine medical insurance has its limits and at some point the club has to pay for the treatment. My recollection is that specialist advice was sought ASAP and followed. How can anyone `control` that to any significant extent? Then the decision has to be taken as to whether you seek to replace the long-term injured to help us through the rest of the season. That doesn`t come cheaply either.
This forum seems to love the idea of a `scapegoat` or a `bogeyman` - somebody who can be held responsible for all the club`s ills. We`ve already had one thread criticising Thomas Meggle`s role at the club - although no one is exactly sure what it was! Sometimes things don`t work out the way you expect them to, sometimes you make mistakes but get away with them but other times you don`t - and sometimes things happen that are outside your control. You know, like it is on the football field sometimes?
Most CEOs implement contingency plans, rather than wait then react
Proactive plans , especially in a business like football should be imperative given the unpredictable nature of the business
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 17 Aug 20:28
What would be the nature of these contingency plans and wouldn`t they too come at an additional cost?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OorWullie
Date: Sat 17 Aug 20:29
Thank you, Socks. I was basically saying that the head of the organisation has to be responsible for the performance of the company, but wee eck chooses to go off on a tangent.
Re the other part of your post, I agree too. This just seemed to me some fanciful, idealistic idea, probably drawn up by Meggle, who then got his pals in to support him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: alwaysaPar
Date: Sat 17 Aug 20:30
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 20:28
What would be the nature of these contingency plans and wouldn`t they too come at an additional cost?
Questions that only a CEO could answer.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OorWullie
Date: Sat 17 Aug 20:31
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 20:28
What would be the nature of these contingency plans and wouldn`t they too come at an additional cost?
A contingency plan could be to scrap certain projects therefore not all contingency plans would come at an additional cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 17 Aug 20:46
`Certain projects` - the sort of phrase a keyboard warrior makes knowing they`re not responsible for any decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The Boss
Date: Sat 17 Aug 20:51
Great post Socks. Pretty much agree with it all. This is a real low point for many of us. I never thought weād be back to a 2012/13 situation but here we are.
I like black and white (dreaming of black and white)
You like black and white
Run run away
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Sat 17 Aug 20:57
Apologies if it sounds like Iām repeating myself but what galls me from their statement was the audacity to attach blame for their failings to the very support who made sure the club didnāt end in 2012. Just feels like a kick in the teeth.
āBuffyās Buns are the finest in Fifeā, J. Spence 2019ā
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OorWullie
Date: Sat 17 Aug 21:09
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 20:46
`Certain projects` - the sort of phrase a keyboard warrior makes knowing they`re not responsible for any decisions.
You are being obtuse again
You stated that contingency plans would come at an additional cost. Iām pointing out that doesnāt need to the case
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 17 Aug 21:21
Obtuse seems to be a favourite word. I don`t see any point in debating the position of someone at the club when we don`t know for sure what his remit was. I`ve said my piece.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: weemike
Date: Sat 17 Aug 21:22
Quote:
buffy, Sat 17 Aug 20:57
Apologies if it sounds like Iām repeating myself but what galls me from their statement was the audacity to attach blame for their failings to the very support who made sure the club didnāt end in 2012. Just feels like a kick in the teeth.
It was either that or admit they don`t have enough money. All it probably takes it for one of the 4 to say no, and the whole thing has collapsed.
Post Edited (Sat 17 Aug 21:23)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: alwaysaPar
Date: Sat 17 Aug 21:34
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 21:21
Obtuse seems to be a favourite word. I don`t see any point in debating the position of someone at the club when we don`t know for sure what his remit was. I`ve said my piece.
Yet you fail to recognise what a CEOs remit is even though it has been plainly explained to you......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Indiapar
Date: Sat 17 Aug 21:53
Words can be very powerful so you have to choose them carefully. You also have to be careful not to read too much nto things.
My personal take on this is that this is a statement from the directors perspective. Whether you agree or disagree its their view looking through the lens of directors and investors. It may not be what fans want to hear, but it`s important to reflect on what theycarecsaying here. For me, the golden thread of the message is very simply that they have a different vision, and therefore, there is no point in continuing.
On the other side of the argument, if you embark on any journey, particularly a long one, there are always signposts showing you the way along the route. This is irrespective of whether you know the way or not they serve as a reminder and reinforce your understanding and belief that you are hoing in the right direction. When you hit roadworks, there are signs before you get there telling you the lanes have been reduced and what the speed limit is. I use this analogy in terms of communication. You need to regularly communicate your vision and increase the levels and constraints when there are diversions and bumps along the way.
I agree with the statement that it`s an emotional sport. That`s because it`s a very human centric activity that needs to recognise there are people involved in every part of the process, be it fans, management, or the players. There are no mechanical processes that attach certainty to it, i.e., you can not put something in at one end and guarantee a product comes out at the other. The sport has a culture with traditions of thinking. Wworldviews, vested interests, hopes, and aspirations. The directors have tried to bring about a paradigm shift in the way football has operated in Scotland for many years. It`s not easy to do by any means, but if that`s your vision, you really have to be aware of these human centric issues. I feel that`s where things for me have not really hit the mark. Failures are rarely down to one single issue, be it supporters` feelings, management performance, players` performance, funding, or the system employed on the park. It`s more complex than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parathletic
Date: Sat 17 Aug 21:56
Quote:
alwaysaPar, Sat 17 Aug 21:34
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 21:21
Obtuse seems to be a favourite word. I don`t see any point in debating the position of someone at the club when we don`t know for sure what his remit was. I`ve said my piece.
Yet you fail to recognise what a CEOs remit is even though it has been plainly explained to you......
A CEO`s remit varies from business to business and is set by the board of directors. It`s impossible to know what responsibilities/instructions he was given unless you have been in discussions or seen his contract.
If he wasn`t implementing the strategy that was asked of him, I`m sure he would have been out of the door by now.Why would the investors sit back and watch him lose their money without acting if he was culpable? Was it Cook`s idea to build the academy where lots of planning costs were incurred or to sack managers, resulting in pay-offs? The investors knew they would be losing money in League One and agreed to a budget to get us out of the league-that had nothing to do with Cook(read the annual accounts update for 22/23)
I`m not claiming he has done a good job either as I, like the majority of fans, don`t know what was asked of him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: alwaysaPar
Date: Sat 17 Aug 22:10
Quote:
parathletic, Sat 17 Aug 21:56
Quote:
alwaysaPar, Sat 17 Aug 21:34
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 21:21
Obtuse seems to be a favourite word. I don`t see any point in debating the position of someone at the club when we don`t know for sure what his remit was. I`ve said my piece.
Yet you fail to recognise what a CEOs remit is even though it has been plainly explained to you......
A CEO`s remit varies from business to business and is set by the board of directors. It`s impossible to know what responsibilities/instructions he was given unless you have been in discussions or seen his contract.
If he wasn`t implementing the strategy that was asked of him, I`m sure he would have been out of the door by now.Why would the investors sit back and watch him lose their money without acting if he was culpable? Was it Cook`s idea to build the academy where lots of planning costs were incurred or to sack managers, resulting in pay-offs? The investors knew they would be losing money in League One and agreed to a budget to get us out of the league-that had nothing to do with Cook(read the annual accounts update for 22/23)
I`m not claiming he has done a good job either as I, like the majority of fans, don`t know what was asked of him.
Which was my original point......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rigger Al
Date: Sat 17 Aug 22:17
We need to re group as a club ,as fans and back whatever is needed to get through ti`s. We have d I d it before and ffs we can do it again .Let`s stop this negativity and make positive steps
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parathletic
Date: Sat 17 Aug 22:23
Quote:
alwaysaPar, Sat 17 Aug 22:10
Quote:
parathletic, Sat 17 Aug 21:56
Quote:
alwaysaPar, Sat 17 Aug 21:34
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 21:21
Obtuse seems to be a favourite word. I don`t see any point in debating the position of someone at the club when we don`t know for sure what his remit was. I`ve said my piece.
Yet you fail to recognise what a CEOs remit is even though it has been plainly explained to you......
A CEO`s remit varies from business to business and is set by the board of directors. It`s impossible to know what responsibilities/instructions he was given unless you have been in discussions or seen his contract.
If he wasn`t implementing the strategy that was asked of him, I`m sure he would have been out of the door by now.Why would the investors sit back and watch him lose their money without acting if he was culpable? Was it Cook`s idea to build the academy where lots of planning costs were incurred or to sack managers, resulting in pay-offs? The investors knew they would be losing money in League One and agreed to a budget to get us out of the league-that had nothing to do with Cook(read the annual accounts update for 22/23)
I`m not claiming he has done a good job either as I, like the majority of fans, don`t know what was asked of him.
Which was my original point......
My point is you don`t know his remit and neither does anyone on this thread, so how anyone can explain it is a mystery. He may be responsible for a lot of the commercial stuff, but I don`t know how much of a decision maker he is on football related matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: king lad
Date: Sat 17 Aug 22:35
I`ve read the statement over again for the first time since Thursday. It really is shambolic and full of contradictions. I actually think most fans have been reasonable and patient time and again with the vision of the academy/training ground. The owners clearly though, have little to no understanding of Scottish football and how competitive these leagues are with just 10 teams, if you misstep at your level as we did with appointing the likes of Peter Grant and signing duds then you get punished quickly.
They`ve completely jeopardised the most important aspect of any football club which is the first team. Allowing squad stagnation and keeping on players that aren`t of the requisite quality to push the club on. Surely as owners you`d want to improve the off-field infrastructure and the league positioning simultaneously to garner more fans, better prize money, sponsors etc? Did they really just expect they could get away with adding no resources to the first team and the rest of the league would just get worse? Or, that our senior players who have proven they can`t carry us at this level would magically develop into leading championship footballers?
It`s funny that on the back of both the fans and manager/captain complaining that the squad is too light (leading to the manager not being able to rotate, make quality substitutions which has meant players sustaining injuries or being rushed back too soon) they almost reluctantly admit they were wrong without apologising for their own blatant mistake! For all that they hark on about responsibility and accountability, it`s been extremely rare for them to live up to their own standards they expect of those that support the club.
It`s in the interest of all parties that they move on and hopefully find new owners who yes, can make the club sustainable in the sense of promoting youth (both locally and externally signing the likes of Otoo, Edwards, Nisbet who can be sold on). But also backs the first team to an adequate level with ambitions to make it back to the premiership so that the club is prepared for years like this where the championship is essentially a wide open race with no club able to completely outspend the entirety of the league as Ross county, Kilmarnock, Dundee united etc have all done in recent years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: alwaysaPar
Date: Sat 17 Aug 22:37
Quote:
parathletic, Sat 17 Aug 22:23
Quote:
alwaysaPar, Sat 17 Aug 22:10
Quote:
parathletic, Sat 17 Aug 21:56
Quote:
alwaysaPar, Sat 17 Aug 21:34
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 21:21
Obtuse seems to be a favourite word. I don`t see any point in debating the position of someone at the club when we don`t know for sure what his remit was. I`ve said my piece.
Yet you fail to recognise what a CEOs remit is even though it has been plainly explained to you......
A CEO`s remit varies from business to business and is set by the board of directors. It`s impossible to know what responsibilities/instructions he was given unless you have been in discussions or seen his contract.
If he wasn`t implementing the strategy that was asked of him, I`m sure he would have been out of the door by now.Why would the investors sit back and watch him lose their money without acting if he was culpable? Was it Cook`s idea to build the academy where lots of planning costs were incurred or to sack managers, resulting in pay-offs? The investors knew they would be losing money in League One and agreed to a budget to get us out of the league-that had nothing to do with Cook(read the annual accounts update for 22/23)
I`m not claiming he has done a good job either as I, like the majority of fans, don`t know what was asked of him.
Which was my original point......
My point is you don`t know his remit and neither does anyone on this thread, so how anyone can explain it is a mystery. He may be responsible for a lot of the commercial stuff, but I don`t know how much of a decision maker he is on football related matters.
His remit as per every CEO is to run the company on behalf of the owners
He is responsible for reporting back to the owners on how their plans and wishes are being carried out
Whatever these tasks are doesn`t detract from what his job title and therefore remit is
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parathletic
Date: Sat 17 Aug 22:44
He is obviously carrying out what they have asked of him then, or he wouldn`t be in the job? He ultimately isn't making the decisions that have cost us money.
Post Edited (Sat 17 Aug 22:46)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Sat 17 Aug 22:47
Quote:
buffy, Sat 17 Aug 20:57
Apologies if it sounds like Iām repeating myself but what galls me from their statement was the audacity to attach blame for their failings to the very support who made sure the club didnāt end in 2012. Just feels like a kick in the teeth.
I know. Pretty disgusting.
They are blaming us for their failures. They spoke about long term plans but failed to account for short term challenges. Feels like because itās no perfect weāll walk away. Theyāll never have any success in football IMO
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: alwaysaPar
Date: Sat 17 Aug 22:48
Quote:
parathletic, Sat 17 Aug 22:44
He is obviously carrying out what they have asked of him then, or he wouldn`t be in the job? He ultimately isn`t making the decisions that have cost us money.
Correct, you would think so
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Sat 17 Aug 22:49
Quote:
alwaysaPar, Sat 17 Aug 22:37
Quote:
parathletic, Sat 17 Aug 22:23
Quote:
alwaysaPar, Sat 17 Aug 22:10
Quote:
parathletic, Sat 17 Aug 21:56
Quote:
alwaysaPar, Sat 17 Aug 21:34
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 21:21
Obtuse seems to be a favourite word. I don`t see any point in debating the position of someone at the club when we don`t know for sure what his remit was. I`ve said my piece.
Yet you fail to recognise what a CEOs remit is even though it has been plainly explained to you......
A CEO`s remit varies from business to business and is set by the board of directors. It`s impossible to know what responsibilities/instructions he was given unless you have been in discussions or seen his contract.
If he wasn`t implementing the strategy that was asked of him, I`m sure he would have been out of the door by now.Why would the investors sit back and watch him lose their money without acting if he was culpable? Was it Cook`s idea to build the academy where lots of planning costs were incurred or to sack managers, resulting in pay-offs? The investors knew they would be losing money in League One and agreed to a budget to get us out of the league-that had nothing to do with Cook(read the annual accounts update for 22/23)
I`m not claiming he has done a good job either as I, like the majority of fans, don`t know what was asked of him.
Which was my original point......
My point is you don`t know his remit and neither does anyone on this thread, so how anyone can explain it is a mystery. He may be responsible for a lot of the commercial stuff, but I don`t know how much of a decision maker he is on football related matters.
His remit as per every CEO is to run the company on behalf of the owners
He is responsible for reporting back to the owners on how their plans and wishes are being carried out
Whatever these tasks are doesn`t detract from what his job title and therefore remit is
I think itās hard for us to know what his remit was because in reality we donāt really know what their plans were. Theyāve called it to early. Iām actually wondering if Cook knows what their end goal was now theyāve put their stake up for sale.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Par4ages
Date: Sat 17 Aug 22:55
Good or bad the question now has to be can the club afford to keep cook now.What the Germans do next with regards to the clubs overheads of which cook is a big one should give us a clue just how quickly they want out and how bad the financial state is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OorWullie
Date: Sat 17 Aug 23:22
I believe Cook is on a rolling contract therefore it would cost them money to pay him off. Better to just sell up and let the new owners pay him off
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sun 18 Aug 06:54
Quote:
OorWullie, Sat 17 Aug 23:22
I believe Cook is on a rolling contract therefore it would cost them money to pay him off. Better to just sell up and let the new owners pay him off
I don`t think there will be a mad scramble to buy the Pars. We`re not exactly a sleeping giant with a massive potential, even if we are punching below our weight just now. Any prospective buyer will want to see the books and they`re probably not a good look.....
Eta. Great post from Socks at 20.14 yesterday.
Not your average Sunday League player.
Post Edited (Sun 18 Aug 06:59)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsmad68
Date: Sun 18 Aug 06:59
From Socksā post, there is something that we need to focus on and what happens next. There is a large uncertainty in what the ownership means to the club moving forward. Is there anything that can be done to bring clarity to where we are and drive this impossible situation to have some clarity. What has happened has happened, but do we as a supporter group want to take back some control and ask for some clarity and where would that start or begin. The current owners will now be a stain in DAFC history, just as Masterton was, but letās not let this define the club and the supporters and letās try to wrestle some clarity and where we go from here and what that means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Raymie the Legend
Date: Sun 18 Aug 08:58
My hope is that the owners would like to cut their losses and get out asap?
If thatās the case, then they might be prepared to sell for much less than they bought it for?
We might see a consortium of well off Parsā fans come together ?
It`s bloody tough being a legend
Ron Atkinson - 1983
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: cammypar 1995
Date: Sun 18 Aug 09:10
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 20:14
Back to the role of the CEO -
Football is a much more fickle business than your normal `nuts and bolts` company. For example, who could have foreseen the extent of last season`s injuries? What would have been the financial impact of that? I imagine medical insurance has its limits and at some point the club has to pay for the treatment. My recollection is that specialist advice was sought ASAP and followed. How can anyone `control` that to any significant extent? Then the decision has to be taken as to whether you seek to replace the long-term injured to help us through the rest of the season. That doesn`t come cheaply either.
This forum seems to love the idea of a `scapegoat` or a `bogeyman` - somebody who can be held responsible for all the club`s ills. We`ve already had one thread criticising Thomas Meggle`s role at the club - although no one is exactly sure what it was! Sometimes things don`t work out the way you expect them to, sometimes you make mistakes but get away with them but other times you don`t - and sometimes things happen that are outside your control. You know, like it is on the football field sometimes?
So the club has lost Ā£2Million in the last 2 years I don`t think it`s unreasonable that fans are questioning the person accountable. It has nothing to do with scapegoating if the club is losing so much money the CEO has to be held accountable.
c'mon the pars
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsmad68
Date: Sun 18 Aug 10:06
Quote:
Raymie the Legend, Sun 18 Aug 08:58
My hope is that the owners would like to cut their losses and get out asap?
If thatās the case, then they might be prepared to sell for much less than they bought it for?
We might see a consortium of well off Parsā fans come together ?
Hi Raymie, it would be good to consider what happens next. Not sure if any supporters groups or if there is any interest to get a discussion going. My personal opinion is not to throw good money after bad. Anything to be done is to make sure the current owners are gone and that the club moves forward with visibility and whether the supporters want to retain more ownership of the club going forward. These are a starter for ten discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Sun 18 Aug 10:26
Perhaps Friday`s new poster guy could offer us his insight? I appreciate he has nothing whatsoever to do with GmbH*, but he seemed more on their wavelength than most of us so his thoughts might prove beneficial.
* BTW, not really the owners
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parathletic
Date: Sun 18 Aug 10:49
Quote:
cammypar 1995, Sun 18 Aug 09:10
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 17 Aug 20:14
Back to the role of the CEO -
Football is a much more fickle business than your normal `nuts and bolts` company. For example, who could have foreseen the extent of last season`s injuries? What would have been the financial impact of that? I imagine medical insurance has its limits and at some point the club has to pay for the treatment. My recollection is that specialist advice was sought ASAP and followed. How can anyone `control` that to any significant extent? Then the decision has to be taken as to whether you seek to replace the long-term injured to help us through the rest of the season. That doesn`t come cheaply either.
This forum seems to love the idea of a `scapegoat` or a `bogeyman` - somebody who can be held responsible for all the club`s ills. We`ve already had one thread criticising Thomas Meggle`s role at the club - although no one is exactly sure what it was! Sometimes things don`t work out the way you expect them to, sometimes you make mistakes but get away with them but other times you don`t - and sometimes things happen that are outside your control. You know, like it is on the football field sometimes?
So the club has lost Ā£2Million in the last 2 years I don`t think it`s unreasonable that fans are questioning the person accountable. It has nothing to do with scapegoating if the club is losing so much money the CEO has to be held accountable.
I don`t see how he is accountable if he is following instructions from the owners? The club lost money as the investors decided to pursue the academy despite them admitting in their statement that they realised their long-term plan wasn`t viable when we got relegated. Was it too late to turn back by that point? If it wasn`t, why did they continue whilst increasing ongoing overheads? I`m still unclear how much it is going to cost us year on year and that is a concern for me-I`m sure any prospective owner would want to see some projections on that, too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
