Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:19 pm
“I think the club has been run for about twenty years by people who - for varying reasons and in varying ways - haven't really been very interested in the on-pitch performance of the club.
Has anyone else on here read the book, or seen the film, "Thinner" by Stephen King?"John Byrne's Underpants" wrote:I'm not a big believer in these sorts of things but I must admit Im beginning to wonder if there's any truth in it. How much more 'bad luck' can this club take?"Snake" wrote:14. When the Gypsy got ripped off by Kassam
I can't see how this season can be salvaged but another year in the Conference doesn't bear thinking about.
Where do we go from here?
It all started to go wrong when the stadium was hocked in the 70's to fund players and losses."YF Dan" wrote:1) Where did it all go wrong?
2) How much worse can it get?
3) How can we get out of this mess?
4) Will we ever turn the corner?
Answers, suggestions, comments, anything please. Here are my thoughts.
1) It went wrong when Herd overspent, and scarpered.
It started going wrong on the pitch when we sold Matty Elliott. Various other key moments include: Selling Dean Windass when we did the morale sapping damage limitation exercise at Arsenal the drubbing at Hull the frittering of funds on dubious Argentinian players and of course that fateful transfer day madness of Jim Smith.
2) We can still get relegated at least one more division.
3) I have no idea, other than starting again, how it can end positively. Even that is a huge gamble.
4) Please god, yes. This is based on hope, not any expectation.
For us, yes, but not for himself."GodalmingYellow" wrote:But Kassam then ballsed it up by running the club badly
That is true. However, if the future of the club was in imminent danger, do you think he would consider a reduction then? From a purely business perspective, it makes sense to reduce the rent to guarantee some form of income, rather than effectively have a hand in the demise of your tenant with no easy replacement."GodalmingYellow" wrote: Kassam has no reason to agree to a rent reduction, though that avenue really needs to be explored heavily.
As I said in another thread, I thought that the deal had now been done and the question of rent to Mr. Kassam is no longer an issue."Myles Francis" wrote:That is true. However, if the future of the club was in imminent danger, do you think he would consider a reduction then? From a purely business perspective, it makes sense to reduce the rent to guarantee some form of income, rather than effectively have a hand in the demise of your tenant with no easy replacement."GodalmingYellow" wrote: Kassam has no reason to agree to a rent reduction, though that avenue really needs to be explored heavily.
What makes you think that? Why wouldn't Kassam or WPL announce this if it was the case?"A-Ro" wrote:As I said in another thread, I thought that the deal had now been done and the question of rent to Mr. Kassam is no longer an issue."Myles Francis" wrote:That is true. However, if the future of the club was in imminent danger, do you think he would consider a reduction then? From a purely business perspective, it makes sense to reduce the rent to guarantee some form of income, rather than effectively have a hand in the demise of your tenant with no easy replacement."GodalmingYellow" wrote: Kassam has no reason to agree to a rent reduction, though that avenue really needs to be explored heavily.
There are many reasons why announcements are carefully timed, I don't know the background of this decision."Mally" wrote:What makes you think that? Why wouldn't Kassam or WPL announce this if it was the case?"A-Ro" wrote:As I said in another thread, I thought that the deal had now been done and the question of rent to Mr. Kassam is no longer an issue."Myles Francis" wrote: That is true. However, if the future of the club was in imminent danger, do you think he would consider a reduction then? From a purely business perspective, it makes sense to reduce the rent to guarantee some form of income, rather than effectively have a hand in the demise of your tenant with no easy replacement.
How so? Regardless of who we sign, we're not going to get promoted, and we're not going to get relegated."Shoobedoo" wrote:Can't stress enough the importance of the next four weeks. Our very existence may depend on the players he manages - or fails - to sign.
Have to agree with Matt here. Whether Patto can turn things around or not (regardless of promotion which must now be impossible) will be crucial for the season ticket decisions in the summer. If we carry on as we are I can see season ticket sales dropping to less than half the number we have now."Matt D" wrote:becuase if we're not going to get promoted, then it's about building for next season, and not starting with a team that 'needs time to gel' (![]()
.
surely there needs to be some signs that next season we can have a team that can make chances, score goals, and push for promotion to keep some hope at the club, and to give us the best chance of seeing season ticket holders renewing?
No I don't think he would agree a reduction. He would prefer to be able to go to the nearest High Court and have the football covenant restriction removed from the land on the grounds that there was no tenant available to pay a commercial rnet. If he managed that, then he could redevelop the site for housing and make loads of money."Myles Francis" wrote:That is true. However, if the future of the club was in imminent danger, do you think he would consider a reduction then? From a purely business perspective, it makes sense to reduce the rent to guarantee some form of income, rather than effectively have a hand in the demise of your tenant with no easy replacement."GodalmingYellow" wrote: Kassam has no reason to agree to a rent reduction, though that avenue really needs to be explored heavily.