John Still retired tooletchbee94 wrote:He said he has retired, though he is still England C manager?MCB wrote: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 FC21. 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
Chairman's Q&A
Re: Chairman's Q&A
-
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: 24 Jan 2011, 18:20
Re: Chairman's Q&A
hoofer2 wrote:John Still retired tooletchbee94 wrote:He said he has retired, though he is still England C manager?MCB wrote: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 FC21. 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
BeesPod - Best in Non League podcast 2023
https://linktr.ee/beespod
Member of Bring Barnet Back campaign.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557502963938
https://linktr.ee/beespod
Member of Bring Barnet Back campaign.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557502963938
Re: Chairman's Q&A
That's cheered me up from a sickness bug I've caught.hoofer2 wrote:John Still retired tooletchbee94 wrote:He said he has retired, though he is still England C manager?MCB wrote: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 FC21. 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
Brilliant!
-
- Posts: 4329
- Joined: 02 Feb 2011, 16:59
Re: Chairman's Q&A
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 ?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.
.
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.
- rudebwoyben
- Posts: 8940
- Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 18:53
- Location: Seven Sisters, London N15
Re: Chairman's Q&A
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.
Re: Chairman's Q&A
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....Hiveoccupier wrote: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 ?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.
.
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.
-
- Posts: 4329
- Joined: 02 Feb 2011, 16:59
Re: Chairman's Q&A
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.
-
- Posts: 4329
- Joined: 02 Feb 2011, 16:59
Re: Chairman's Q&A
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.
-
- Posts: 4394
- Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 09:43
Re: Chairman's Q&A
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.Hiveoccupier wrote: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.
-
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: 03 Jun 2017, 09:22
Re: Chairman's Q&A
The same as when he took over then?
Seems fair, really.
Seems fair, really.
Re: Chairman's Q&A
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.Norfolkbee wrote: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.Hiveoccupier wrote: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.
Re: Chairman's Q&A
Thankfully that never happened. It would have been Brexit Mark 2.edgeog wrote: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.Norfolkbee wrote: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.Hiveoccupier wrote: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.
Re: Chairman's Q&A
We all better start being nicer to TK then!!!Hiveoccupier wrote: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 ?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.
.
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.
Becbee - that is funny!!!! I am however still Hopeful Brexit mark 1 wont happen though!!
-
- Posts: 4329
- Joined: 02 Feb 2011, 16:59
Re: Chairman's Q&A
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.edgeog wrote: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.Norfolkbee wrote: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.Hiveoccupier wrote: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.
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.
Re: Chairman's Q&A
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!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!!