Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 13:50:13 GMT
Truth is KP, if either Masters or BSS brought any particular skill set to the Boardroom, they would have been given jobs to do. When I've sold companies in the past I've always handed over all of the staff so that the new people can pay to dispose of the dead wood ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) I guess now that Brian is no longer a director , I can divulge what he said. He was always telling me, and others who bothered asking, that he was rarely invited to any board meetings and that trying to get things done whilst NH was in charge was a fools errand but that he was staying as he had wind of new owners and hoped things would change. I have to be careful with the next part, he had said that the then new owners gave him hope of better communication and of being included but alleged that, if anything, things were worse and my reading of what was said was that he was genuinely worried of the clubs future under the AQ family. I know he has taken a lot of stick over the period he was the SC rep but he sorted several things for me and got permission for my ex to take photos. He did tell me that he feared that the club would split away from the SC and that there really was no point in him being there as he was taking dogs abuse that should have been directed higher up. I always thought highly of Brian, his heart was in the right place and you would always see him, all over different areas of the ground and he would always make time to talk but he made the right decision in leaving as his position was only ever a director in name and , unlike Ken, he was not prepared to carry on when nothing he said was listened to and, again, both SC reps were never privy to anything other than what we get. If I remember correctly he said there were no board meeting as such now as the owners had 92% so didn’t need to hold them. I guess we will only get people from the club at the clubs AGM now. Seems no one from the club was at the SC meeting. Not having it. BSS parachuted in when other people had set the Share Scheme up, I doubt very much that he ever signed a single person up to the Scheme. He knew nothing about the Scheme or the history of the SC. The first time I met the bloke was before a game when he asked me where a particular bar was in the ground, so he didn't even know anything about our own stadium! Total freeloader.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Nov 15, 2019 14:56:30 GMT
Consistent annual losses, compounding at whatever interest is charged on debt, simply means clubs need a new sugar daddy, transfer fees and Cup runs. Clubs don’t need relegation, unnecessary overheads and losses of income. Rovers are like so many other clubs; I don’t even think a new stadium is the/a silver bullet. The football industry at lower league is unsustainable so long as clubs incur debts to artificially keep afloat whilst, in reality, compete in a race to the bottom. That stadium was supposed to have additional income streams attached. Not sure what deal these guys signed up to with Higgs, but it does make you wonder, when they would rather walk away from it and sit in Tent Village losing £2m a year. I think there's probably 2 different things here.
1. A structural problem with the overall sustainability of lower league football that has existed for some time but may finally be reaching some kind of crisis point. You can't help but think that if another couple go the way of Bury in the next 18 months or so there could be a domino effect although that's been rumoured before and never occurred. There is a model for this though - the decline of many Rugby League clubs into Semi-Professionalism about 30 years ago. There was a tipping point where a mass of smaller clubs went from long term financial struggle to complete unsustainability as professional outfits in a pretty short period of time.
2. Rovers continual failure to break out of that system. Not pretending there aren't issues further up the football league chain as well, but it has been pretty obvious for at least the last 5 years that the yawning gap in English football is now between established Championship clubs and the bottom 2 divisions. It's getting harder and harder to make the kind of shift that (with a new stadium) Hull and Swansea made look easy a decade or so ago and it looks increasingly like we have missed that boat.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 15:13:25 GMT
I think you will find that Mr Hamer is on the Hani side of the divide and yes you are correct his current role is to broker a deal so that Hani can get the family their cash back. Wael, Mr Gorringe and the CEO are on the other side. that makes sense, and is aligned with public statements - SH takes care of 'board matters' (the sale), whereas MS/TG/WAQ deal with the day-to-day the basis of rumours of a 'split' in the board implies to me that the split is about more than a (logical) division of roles You are correct.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 15:15:55 GMT
Taking into account that the Supporters Club has little cash or influence, do you think that they should offer their shareholding back to the owners or offer to sell them to the potential new owners?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 15:16:49 GMT
Sorry but I’m a bit confused by this article. We know that Macclesfield are in trouble and have been for some time but this article is from June 2014, over 5 years old so it’s well out of date. All it does is confirm that 5 years ago they were in trouble and they still are. Alkadhi is still there I think and if he thought in 2014 that it was getting better then he’s obviously slightly deluded! UTG! You are winding people up with the macclesfield owners name I hope if not it sounds very familiar
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 15, 2019 15:40:32 GMT
that makes sense, and is aligned with public statements - SH takes care of 'board matters' (the sale), whereas MS/TG/WAQ deal with the day-to-day the basis of rumours of a 'split' in the board implies to me that the split is about more than a (logical) division of roles You are correct. can you say any more about that phil? and is the split mainly between 'we need to get out of this'ers and 'we need to soldier on with this'ers?
|
|
|
Post by Colyton Gas. on Nov 15, 2019 16:10:06 GMT
Macclesfield Town players refuse to play Mansfield unless they are paid owed wages
Share this page Macclesfield Town are 15th in League Two having won five of their 16 league games so far
Macclesfield Town's players have refused to train and say they will not play Saturday's League Two fixture against Mansfield if they are not paid by 18:00 GMT on Friday.
The English Football League charged the club with misconduct on Thursday after they failed to pay players on time.
Although Macclesfield reportedly began paying players and staff this week, BBC Sport understands just three were paid.
Players at the League Two club went on strike last week over unpaid salaries.
The Silkmen went on to field youth and loan players in their 4-0 FA Cup loss to seventh-tier Kingstonian on Sunday after first-team players refused to play.
Meanwhile, Cheshire Police said on Thursday they received a report in relation to a financial matter at the club, however this is separate to the EFL's charge of misconduct.
The EFL had given Macclesfield until 16:00 GMT on Wednesday to provide information after investigating the situation over unpaid wages.
Macclesfield's Leasing.com Trophy tie against Shrewsbury went ahead as planned on Wednesday. Players had been advised not train beforehand because of concerns over health insurance, however the club has since paid the premiums.
Macclesfield have previously been taken to court by players over unpaid wages and, in May, under then-manager Sol Campbell, they considered boycotting the final match of last season for similar reasons.
|
|
bondigas
Joined: December 2017
Posts: 384
|
Post by bondigas on Nov 15, 2019 16:45:16 GMT
The family are obviously realists, one shareholder is a hooked football fantasist who would bankrupt his own family as long as he can play with his football toy.Surround yourself with people who are never going to say no to you 'cos they need a job and you have as in any commercial activity the perfect recipe for a failed business. If they don't find a buyer, what then ? If the family pull the plug, where will the fantasist find the money to pay for the batteries that keeps his toy running.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 16:49:22 GMT
I remember when sol campbell left the club it was stated that he was owed bonus payment money by the club.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 16:54:39 GMT
All the usual anti board drivel which may or may not be true or partly true. But swiss told us the charge against the mem has exceeded the value of the property so it surely must be all over soon?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 17:18:31 GMT
All the usual anti board drivel which may or may not be true or partly true. But swiss told us the charge against the mem has exceeded the value of the property so it surely must be all over soon? I don't see anything anti board just opinions of where the club and its owners appear to be at the moment.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 17:20:02 GMT
can you say any more about that phil? and is the split mainly between 'we need to get out of this'ers and 'we need to soldier on with this'ers? I don't think that there is anything more to add. Your summary appears to be spot on.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 15, 2019 17:21:18 GMT
can you say any more about that phil? and is the split mainly between 'we need to get out of this'ers and 'we need to soldier on with this'ers? I don't think that there is anything more to add. Your summary appears to be spot on. ta interesting times, even if it's more The Wire than The Sopranos
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 18:07:22 GMT
Taking into account that the Supporters Club has little cash or influence, do you think that they should offer their shareholding back to the owners or offer to sell them to the potential new owners? If the legal agreement isn't being honoured, I want back the money I paid in to the Share Scheme.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,334
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 15, 2019 18:37:01 GMT
He has always replied to me but he and Ken (SC) have been blackballed and if what I’ve been told is true then the owners have instructed the influential folk not to divulge any information to either of them. It’s a strange situation if so as I was led to believe the SH was the one tasked with brokering the sale of the club. This had been a problem that was thought to have been dealt with in that there were no leaks but even GC alluded to there being someine talking. Personally, my own experience of SH is one where he was always quick to reply and actually sorted 2 things for me. It now looks like he is there, as a spare part with MS & TG effectively doing what he did or much of it in any case. It would seem he is on the naughty step now. I think you will find that Mr Hamer is on the Hani side of the divide and yes you are correct his current role is to broker a deal so that Hani can get the family their cash back. Wael, Mr Gorringe and the CEO are on the other side. Thank you for confirming my friend. I was pretty sure it was true but have learned to be a little cautious in posting such content
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,473
|
Post by warehamgas on Nov 15, 2019 18:59:36 GMT
Sorry but I’m a bit confused by this article. We know that Macclesfield are in trouble and have been for some time but this article is from June 2014, over 5 years old so it’s well out of date. All it does is confirm that 5 years ago they were in trouble and they still are. Alkadhi is still there I think and if he thought in 2014 that it was getting better then he’s obviously slightly deluded! UTG! You are winding people up with the macclesfield owners name I hope if not it sounds very familiar No. No windup that is his name and as I said I think he is still their majority owner! Enough wind ups on here already. UTG!
|
|