OnlyBarnet.com - Barnet FC Fans Forum

letchbee94 wrote:

MCB wrote:

21. Have you now decided that there is no need for a Director of Football at Barnet?

AAK. We have drifted quite a bit since Paul Fairclough retired

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe this is the first time the club has publicly confirmed that Paul Fairclough is no longer with Barnet FC

He said he has retired, though he is still England C manager?

John Still retired too

hoofer2 wrote:

letchbee94 wrote:

MCB wrote:

21. Have you now decided that there is no need for a Director of Football at Barnet?

AAK. We have drifted quite a bit since Paul Fairclough retired

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe this is the first time the club has publicly confirmed that Paul Fairclough is no longer with Barnet FC

He said he has retired, though he is still England C manager?

John Still retired too

hoofer2 wrote:

letchbee94 wrote:

MCB wrote:

21. Have you now decided that there is no need for a Director of Football at Barnet?

AAK. We have drifted quite a bit since Paul Fairclough retired

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe this is the first time the club has publicly confirmed that Paul Fairclough is no longer with Barnet FC

He said he has retired, though he is still England C manager?

John Still retired too

That's cheered me up from a sickness bug I've caught.

Brilliant!

Psycho wrote:I think we're lucky to have TK when you think what's happened to Bury. He's always kept us safe from any financial problems.
.

What by selling the Club’s tangible asset for £13m, moving the money to a different part of the Group, and leaving the Club as a loss making enterprise with no assets other than players it can’t afford to pay off its trading income ?

The whole edifice is structured in a way that leaves the club’s existence entirely dependent on the whims of its owner. That’s fine as long as the owner is committed to keeping the club afloat but a very vulnerable position if the interest level wasn’t there.

As for these Q & As I’m with a Norfolk on this, they are mostly patronising and nauseating. The cobblers about posting tickets out is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.

Hang on, the club didn't own the freehold to Underhill until 2002 so this was hardly a long-standing situation we were in. Moreover, it's all very well owning the freehold but with the club unable to upgrade Underhill to the necessary standard and to be a venue capable of supporting a Football League club it was better to sell the site and use the monies to build a stadium on a site where this was possible.

Hiveoccupier wrote:

Psycho wrote:I think we're lucky to have TK when you think what's happened to Bury. He's always kept us safe from any financial problems.
.

What by selling the Club’s tangible asset for £13m, moving the money to a different part of the Group, and leaving the Club as a loss making enterprise with no assets other than players it can’t afford to pay off its trading income ?

The whole edifice is structured in a way that leaves the club’s existence entirely dependent on the whims of its owner. That’s fine as long as the owner is committed to keeping the club afloat but a very vulnerable position if the interest level wasn’t there.

As for these Q & As I’m with a Norfolk on this, they are mostly patronising and nauseating. The cobblers about posting tickets out is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.

Perhaps, but it's difficult not to get irritated by some of the questions asked ad nauseam. Not this one again and again and again every single year, every Q/A....

rudebwoyben wrote:Hang on, the club didn't own the freehold to Underhill until 2002 so this was hardly a long-standing situation we were in. Moreover, it's all very well owning the freehold but with the club unable to upgrade Underhill to the necessary standard and to be a venue capable of supporting a Football League club it was better to sell the site and use the monies to build a stadium on a site where this was possible.

I’m not sure what this has got to do with the basic point I was making which is that the way things are structured the Club (as opposed to its owner) has no assets and trades at a loss so it can hardly be described as financially secure.

rudebwoyben wrote:Hang on, the club didn't own the freehold to Underhill until 2002 so this was hardly a long-standing situation we were in. Moreover, it's all very well owning the freehold but with the club unable to upgrade Underhill to the necessary standard and to be a venue capable of supporting a Football League club it was better to sell the site and use the monies to build a stadium on a site where this was possible.

I’m not sure what this has got to do with the basic point I was making which is that the way things are structured the Club (as opposed to its owner) has no assets and trades at a loss so it can hardly be described as financially secure.

Hiveoccupier wrote:

rudebwoyben wrote:Hang on, the club didn't own the freehold to Underhill until 2002 so this was hardly a long-standing situation we were in. Moreover, it's all very well owning the freehold but with the club unable to upgrade Underhill to the necessary standard and to be a venue capable of supporting a Football League club it was better to sell the site and use the monies to build a stadium on a site where this was possible.

I’m not sure what this has got to do with the basic point I was making which is that the way things are structured the Club (as opposed to its owner) has no assets and trades at a loss so it can hardly be described as financially secure.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I always understood that when TK took over, he agreed to leave the club debt free if and when he relinquished control.

The same as when he took over then?
Seems fair, really.

Norfolkbee wrote:

Hiveoccupier wrote:

rudebwoyben wrote:Hang on, the club didn't own the freehold to Underhill until 2002 so this was hardly a long-standing situation we were in. Moreover, it's all very well owning the freehold but with the club unable to upgrade Underhill to the necessary standard and to be a venue capable of supporting a Football League club it was better to sell the site and use the monies to build a stadium on a site where this was possible.

I’m not sure what this has got to do with the basic point I was making which is that the way things are structured the Club (as opposed to its owner) has no assets and trades at a loss so it can hardly be described as financially secure.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I always understood that when TK took over, he agreed to leave the club debt free if and when he relinquished control.

TK also agreed to hand over the Club debt free to the Supporters Association if the referendum(which we never had as promised) voted to stay at Underhill.

edgeog wrote:

Norfolkbee wrote:

Hiveoccupier wrote:

rudebwoyben wrote:Hang on, the club didn't own the freehold to Underhill until 2002 so this was hardly a long-standing situation we were in. Moreover, it's all very well owning the freehold but with the club unable to upgrade Underhill to the necessary standard and to be a venue capable of supporting a Football League club it was better to sell the site and use the monies to build a stadium on a site where this was possible.

I’m not sure what this has got to do with the basic point I was making which is that the way things are structured the Club (as opposed to its owner) has no assets and trades at a loss so it can hardly be described as financially secure.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I always understood that when TK took over, he agreed to leave the club debt free if and when he relinquished control.

TK also agreed to hand over the Club debt free to the Supporters Association if the referendum(which we never had as promised) voted to stay at Underhill.

Thankfully that never happened. It would have been Brexit Mark 2.

Hiveoccupier wrote:

Psycho wrote:I think we're lucky to have TK when you think what's happened to Bury. He's always kept us safe from any financial problems.
.

What by selling the Club’s tangible asset for £13m, moving the money to a different part of the Group, and leaving the Club as a loss making enterprise with no assets other than players it can’t afford to pay off its trading income ?

The whole edifice is structured in a way that leaves the club’s existence entirely dependent on the whims of its owner. That’s fine as long as the owner is committed to keeping the club afloat but a very vulnerable position if the interest level wasn’t there.

As for these Q & As I’m with a Norfolk on this, they are mostly patronising and nauseating. The cobblers about posting tickets out is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.

We all better start being nicer to TK then!!!

Becbee - that is funny!!!! I am however still Hopeful Brexit mark 1 wont happen though!!

edgeog wrote:

Norfolkbee wrote:

Hiveoccupier wrote:

rudebwoyben wrote:Hang on, the club didn't own the freehold to Underhill until 2002 so this was hardly a long-standing situation we were in. Moreover, it's all very well owning the freehold but with the club unable to upgrade Underhill to the necessary standard and to be a venue capable of supporting a Football League club it was better to sell the site and use the monies to build a stadium on a site where this was possible.

I’m not sure what this has got to do with the basic point I was making which is that the way things are structured the Club (as opposed to its owner) has no assets and trades at a loss so it can hardly be described as financially secure.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I always understood that when TK took over, he agreed to leave the club debt free if and when he relinquished control.

TK also agreed to hand over the Club debt free to the Supporters Association if the referendum(which we never had as promised) voted to stay at Underhill.

I was there when TK made the promise. He said he would hold a vote in the event that the options were to leave or stay in Barnet and he would hand over the club, debt free, to the supporters if a majority decided to stay.

In reality it was probably a fairly hollow offer because he was offering the club without any assets and it would have been incredibly difficult for supporters to get organised and financed at short notice to take it up.

If he had followed through on the offer and held the vote I am very confident a clear majority of those voting would have supported the move to the Hive, and it would have saved us a lot of pain.

TK's failure to honour his promise to hold the vote was, and still is, seen as a huge breach of trust for some people who were among the club's most dedicated supporters. Having been there when he made the promise it is difficult to understand why he doesn't get this.

foxy wrote:
We all better start being nicer to TK then!!!

Becbee - that is funny!!!! I am however still Hopeful Brexit mark 1 wont happen though!!

If anyone else mentions Brexit on this forum (irrespective if its for or against) I will personally pay to have their finger nails pulled out one at a time without any painkillers! It's bad enough we have had to endure over three years of attempting to re-run the referendum on a daily basis on TV, radio, newspapers etc etc, along with all the associated Parliamentary BS and legal cases without it being dragged into one of my last havens of relative sanity, this FOOTBALL forum!