We had talks with Gold?

[Scalexman]

Originally Posted by zztop

Come on, you are stretching your own credibility in your first paragraph.

Just tell me in a few sentences why my initial post was "entirely wrong and entirely innaccurate" (your words). I said "these talks happened when Russo was still Chairman and as we all know now, the Russo's wanted control themselves." The second sentence was my opinion which I thought I had a right to express on a forum. Unless Sullivan and Russo had talks with Watford after 17th December when JR had left and whilst they had a bid on the table for West Ham, I think my first point must be true. Unless JR and the rest of the Board are lying and JR did not make a bid to takeover the Club, then my second point is true. Please just tell me why I am so wrong. A simple explananation will suffice.

I don't want to get into another Russo v Ashcroft debate, its been done to a death (but maybe you havn't noticed) but how do you KNOW that Ashcroft is not in it for profit? You are quite clear in this statement of your intimate knowledge of the workings of the mind of a recluse who lives in Belize! Have you not considered the value of the ground in a future sale.

How am I stretching my credibility? I apologised for my bad wording, and pointed out that I had specifically mentioned the 80s.

To be honest with you, I read your original post as insinuating that Russo had scuppered the possibility of a deal because he wouldn’t have given G+S any power because he wanted it himself. If this is not what you were saying then, again, I apologise. If it is what you were saying then I stand by what I have said, that a) Gold and Sullivan didn’t even consider Watford as viable and b) Russo didn’t have the power to hand over, so couldn’t, in effect, hold it back.

Your second point, I did take as an opinion and of course you have the right to express it on a public forum. In the same context, I reserve the right to reply to that opinion, which is what forums are for. My reply to your opinion is shown in my second paragraph; that Watford were not considered a viable option – this is a fact and has been reported through the media by G+S.

OK, so I don’t KNOW that Ashcroft isn’t in it for the profit from ‘football’ (i.e. football income) and I’m certainly not claiming intimate knowledge in the workings of Ashcrofts mind, if I did have I’d be a multi-millionaire. What I ‘know’ is that the football club, even if it wasn’t in it’s current state, would not be a good investment for anyone who wanted to make a ‘hands-off’ profit on a £10Mil outlay from pure ‘football’ income - how many times has the club made an annual profit in the last 30 years? Where has his initial £4Mil(ish) outlay got him profit-wise? He’s writing it off to buy a bigger stake in a worse investment – i.e. the state the club is in compared to when he first invested.

Sullivan and Gold could see it wasn’t a good investment, even running it themselves, so why would Ashcroft, a far more successful businessman, think that it would be a good ‘football’ profit maker with someone else running it? It doesn’t add up, unless, as I opined in my previous post, it is some sort of benevolence (be it for political or other means – it’s possible). Ashcroft has shown no interest in putting money in to complete the stadium improvements, therefore upping possibilities for additional revenue streams – and before you say it the money from the rights issue is all but gone already.

And frankly, yes, I have considered the value of the ground in a future sale and I find it disturbing, as I’ve also considered the cost of new land in the Watford area and the building of a new stadium – which would almost certainly be greater than the amount gained from selling The Vic.

[TheDon]

I bet Gold would've made sure we had nicer pies.

[Stevohorn]

Originally Posted by TheDon

I bet Gold would've made sure we had nicer pies.

With lots of hot spicy stuffing!

[Stevohorn]

Originally Posted by Smithy

Lol at the 18,000 statement.

Someone post a picture of that guy all by himself in one the stands in the stadium.

Whats funny about the truth?

Wigan have averaged 18K-20K for the four seasons they have been playing in the top flight. Thats compararable with us.





Wigan is a small club from a small town (about the same size as Watford)
They only became a football league club at the end of 70's and have played only 6 seasons in the top half of the League system.

We shouldnt laugh at them.. we should try to emulate them.

[matimbers]

Originally Posted by Stevohorn

Whats funny about the truth?

Wigan have averaged 18K-20K for the four seasons they have been playing in the top flight. Thats compararable with us.





Wigan is a small club from a small town (about the same size as Watford)
They only became a football league club at the end of 70's and have played only 6 seasons in the top half of the League system.

We shouldnt laugh at them.. we should try to emulate them.

But do they live by sustainable means? They seem to sign quite a lot of players each year for relatively hefty fees and must pay fairly decent wages to attract players to that area of the country. I would like to see how long Wigan would last without the support from Dave Whelan himself.

[TheDon]

Wigan are doing really well considering they are a massive rugby town.

[zztop]

Originally Posted by Scalexman

How am I stretching my credibility? I apologised for my bad wording, and pointed out that I had specifically mentioned the 80s. The Birmingham investment was made in 1993 and Sullivan considered Watford before deciding on Birmingham. You are stretching credibility to imply that his consideration of Watford went back 6 years. As I have said, I don't eeven undersatand why you even raised that "consideration" as a way of backing up your point that Watford are not viable now - it is 23 years later, for god's sake!!!

To be honest with you, I read your original post as insinuating that Russo had scuppered the possibility of a deal because he wouldn’t have given G+S any power because he wanted it himself. If this is not what you were saying then, again, I apologise. If it is what you were saying then I stand by what I have said, that a) Gold and Sullivan didn’t even consider Watford as viable and b) Russo didn’t have the power to hand over, so couldn’t, in effect, hold it back.

Thank you Scalexman, I think you are apologising for misinterpreting my post as being "entirely wrong". Your apology is accepted.

Your second point, I did take as an opinion and of course you have the right to express it on a public forum. In the same context, I reserve the right to reply to that opinion, which is what forums are for. My reply to your opinion is shown in my second paragraph; that Watford were not considered a viable option – this is a fact and has been reported through the media by G+S.

I welcome your opinion as long as you don't insinuate I am lying (see above) and don't keep trying to dress up your opinion as fact. How do you KNOW (for example) that Simpson and Ashcroft would not have co-operated with Russo if it was as part of a full takeover?

OK, so I don’t KNOW that Ashcroft isn’t in it for the profit from ‘football’ (i.e. football income) and I’m certainly not claiming intimate knowledge in the workings of Ashcrofts mind, if I did have I’d be a multi-millionaire. What I ‘know’ is that the football club, even if it wasn’t in it’s current state, would not be a good investment for anyone who wanted to make a ‘hands-off’ profit on a £10Mil outlay from pure ‘football’ income - how many times has the club made an annual profit in the last 30 years? Where has his initial £4Mil(ish) outlay got him profit-wise? He’s writing it off to buy a bigger stake in a worse investment – i.e. the state the club is in compared to when he first invested.

If you don't know it, then don't say it, as that IS untruthful.

Sullivan and Gold could see it wasn’t a good investment, even running it themselves, so why would Ashcroft, a far more successful businessman, think that it would be a good ‘football’ profit maker with someone else running it? It doesn’t add up, unless, as I opined in my previous post, it is some sort of benevolence (be it for political or other means – it’s possible). Ashcroft has shown no interest in putting money in to complete the stadium improvements, therefore upping possibilities for additional revenue streams – and before you say it the money from the rights issue is all but gone already.


So are you implying that Ashcroft is investing potentially £12m in Watford as you have discounted all other options. Interesting view, but totally stupid in my opinion. As for the rest of the above paragraph, despite my English A Level (Grade C, unfortunately), I am struggling to understand you point.

And frankly, yes, I have considered the value of the ground in a future sale and I find it disturbing, as I’ve also considered the cost of new land in the Watford area and the building of a new stadium – which would almost certainly be greater than the amount gained from selling The Vic.

Ok, I'll try again. Have you considered that Ashcroft was originally in it for profit, based largely on the value of the Vic, when lumped together with a major re-development of the hospital? Having saved the Club from Admin, he is now in for an extra potential £7.5m, but has the advantage of now having Russo off the Board. It might be, that the opportunity for profit on the ground has passed and that he now wants out and he may sell up. Note, I am not expressing that I know this as fact (unlike you who, is implying you KNOW everyones's thoughts), as I don't. It is just a possibility I have considered.

Finally, I used to sell "Golden Goal" tickets at Watford in the 70's. I would shout out "25p each or 3 for a £1" it was a great little earner as many plonkers bought a £'s worth! I've felt guilty ever since.

[Scalexman]

Originally Posted by Scalexman

How am I stretching my credibility? I apologised for my bad wording, and pointed out that I had specifically mentioned the 80s.
The Birmingham investment was made in 1993 and Sullivan considered Watford before deciding on Birmingham. You are stretching credibility to imply that his consideration of Watford went back 6 years. As I have said, I don't eeven undersatand why you even raised that "consideration" as a way of backing up your point that Watford are not viable now - it is 23 years later, for god's sake!!!
OK, we’ll leave that one then as we’ll never agree on it.

To be honest with you, I read your original post as insinuating that Russo had scuppered the possibility of a deal because he wouldn’t have given G+S any power because he wanted it himself. If this is not what you were saying then, again, I apologise. If it is what you were saying then I stand by what I have said, that a) Gold and Sullivan didn’t even consider Watford as viable and b) Russo didn’t have the power to hand over, so couldn’t, in effect, hold it back.

Thank you Scalexman, I think you are apologising for misinterpreting my post as being "entirely wrong". Your apology is accepted.
So is that confirmation that you were not insinuating that the Russos had scuppered the deal?

Your second point, I did take as an opinion and of course you have the right to express it on a public forum. In the same context, I reserve the right to reply to that opinion, which is what forums are for. My reply to your opinion is shown in my second paragraph; that Watford were not considered a viable option – this is a fact and has been reported through the media by G+S.

I welcome your opinion as long as you don't insinuate I am lying (see above) and don't keep trying to dress up your opinion as fact. How do you KNOW (for example) that Simpson and Ashcroft would not have co-operated with Russo if it was as part of a full takeover?
Sorry, where have I accused you of lying? How can an opinion be considered lying, it’s not possible is it? In fact I agreed that Russo approached G+S for investment. The only one of us that has made accusations of untruths is you (repeatedly), but I’m happy to accept that gracefully.
The Simpson/Ashcroft relationship has been well documented in the local and national media. Again, it’s probably not worth pursuing as we’ll never agree.

OK, so I don’t KNOW that Ashcroft isn’t in it for the profit from ‘football’ (i.e. football income) and I’m certainly not claiming intimate knowledge in the workings of Ashcrofts mind, if I did have I’d be a multi-millionaire. What I ‘know’ is that the football club, even if it wasn’t in it’s current state, would not be a good investment for anyone who wanted to make a ‘hands-off’ profit on a £10Mil outlay from pure ‘football’ income - how many times has the club made an annual profit in the last 30 years? Where has his initial £4Mil(ish) outlay got him profit-wise? He’s writing it off to buy a bigger stake in a worse investment – i.e. the state the club is in compared to when he first invested.

If you don't know it, then don't say it, as that IS untruthful.
I think it's fairly obvious that it's a statement of opinion, but sorry if it confused you. I notice that you address the semantics, not the point raised. No, I don’t KNOW that he isn’t in it for the ‘football’ profit, but the above shows why it should be obvious why (I believe) it isn’t ‘football’ profit he’s investing for.

Part 1

[Scalexman]

Part 2

Originally Posted by Scalexman

Sullivan and Gold could see it wasn’t a good investment, even running it themselves, so why would Ashcroft, a far more successful businessman, think that it would be a good ‘football’ profit maker with someone else running it? It doesn’t add up, unless, as I opined in my previous post, it is some sort of benevolence (be it for political or other means – it’s possible). Ashcroft has shown no interest in putting money in to complete the stadium improvements, therefore upping possibilities for additional revenue streams – and before you say it the money from the rights issue is all but gone already.

So are you implying that Ashcroft is investing potentially £12m in Watford as you have discounted all other options. Interesting view, but totally stupid in my opinion. As for the rest of the above paragraph, despite my English A Level (Grade C, unfortunately), I am struggling to understand you point.
I’m not going to get into a personal battle with you, but to criticise my English in a paragraph that contains the sentence ‘So are you implying that Ashcroft is investing potentially £12m in Watford as you have discounted all other options’ is fairly ironic. What were you trying to say, it’s not at all clear? If you are referring the benevolence statement, then no, I don’t believe it either and think it’s extremely unlikely (but then as I’ve stated, I don’t know what Ashcroft is thinking). I haven’t discounted all other options, as you put it, I’ve just stated an opinion that Ashcroft isn’t in it for profit from football.

Sorry if the paragraph was slightly garbled. What part of the paragraph do you not understand? I’ll break it down:
1. Gold and Sullivan didn’t seriously consider Watford as a viable investment (source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...tal-gains.html)
2. Sullivan and Gold want to run their business themselves
3. Ashcroft is a far more successful businessman – he knows where to find a profit.
4. Ashcroft would be entrusting his investment to someone else.
5. Why would Ashcroft see a company that has made a loss in probably 27 of the last 30 years as a good investment if run as a ‘footballing’ operation?
6. In addition to point 4, the club would need to clear net £10Mil before he starts to actually make money. Something the club has never even nearly done before.
7. Up until the Russos forced his hand Ashcroft showed no interest in either contributing to the maintenance or the improvement of the club (e.g. develop the stadium to increase potential ‘football’ profit).

And frankly, yes, I have considered the value of the ground in a future sale and I find it disturbing, as I’ve also considered the cost of new land in the Watford area and the building of a new stadium – which would almost certainly be greater than the amount gained from selling The Vic.

Ok, I'll try again. Have you considered that Ashcroft was originally in it for profit, based largely on the value of the Vic, when lumped together with a major re-development of the hospital? Having saved the Club from Admin, he is now in for an extra potential £7.5m, but has the advantage of now having Russo off the Board. It might be, that the opportunity for profit on the ground has passed and that he now wants out and he may sell up. Note, I am not expressing that I know this as fact (unlike you who, is implying you KNOW everyones's thoughts), as I don't. It is just a possibility I have considered.

OK, I’ll try again too. I have been at pains to very clearly state that (in my opinion) Ashcroft isn’t in it for FOOTBALL profit. I have also explained why I believe this. Yes, personally I believe that Ashcrofts’ purchase of the club did have something to do with the hospital development – I don’t know what though. Any profit from that surely could not be considered ‘football’ profit, but possibly some sort of building contract, who knows?
It could be that he now wants out, but why underwrite a new rights issue to the tune of £7.5 and potentially increase his shareholding on top of writing off his initial investment? (I can't see the Russos re-buying their shares, can you?). I'm not writing it off as a possibility. If he wanted out couldn’t he just have let the club slide into administration, then just write off the £4Mil(ish). It would probably be cheaper in the long run. Again just an opinion.

As the majority shareholder (and with Simpson) he could have kicked the Russos off the board any time he wanted (but didn’t), so I can't see that this would influence things. It's what they were going to do before the Russos resigned, so it's a possibility.

My opinion on this is that Ashcroft did what he had to do as a businessman. He couldn’t allow a company of his to go into administration, it would be extremely bad for his reputation as a businessman and, more importantly, for his political ambitions. He could also not be seen to ‘lose’ to the Russos in an aggressive takeover by a smaller shareholder. Again, very bad for the reputation. The rights issue was/is the best way to a) resolve the financing issue and avoid admin and b) to ‘see off’ the aggressors. It worked brilliantly, hats off to him.

In regard to the stadium; what I implied was that the only way to profit from selling the stadium/land would be to not buy/build a new one. You can draw your own conclusions from that (and I’m NOT implying that that is Ashcrofts intention).

As I’ve already apologised and clarified the ‘fact’ thing I shouldn’t need to explain it again.

[Scalexman]

Hi zztop,

I've just had a look in the loft - and must apologise again(!), you were right about Gold in ’93 - it was Paul Raymond that looked at the club said the club wasn't viable in 1987-88, not Gold.

I put my hands up to being a c0ck on that one. The obvious connection between the two (and the reason for the mix-up) is their p0rn industry background, which was the big worry at the club at the time.

Doesn't really change anything, but thought I'd better say anyway.

[zztop]

Originally Posted by Scalexman

Hi zztop,

I've just had a look in the loft - and must apologise again(!), you were right about Gold in ’93 - it was Paul Raymond that looked at the club said the club wasn't viable in 1987-88, not Gold.

I put my hands up to being a c0ck on that one. The obvious connection between the two (and the reason for the mix-up) is their p0rn industry background, which was the big worry at the club at the time.

Doesn't really change anything, but thought I'd better say anyway.

Apology accepted again. I suppose that clarifies that my initial post was not "entirely wrong" as you indeed did not have your facts right (as I said in my 2nd post). As for our respective opinions on Russo and Ashcroft, I was pro Russo until 30/11/09 and then over the next 3 weeks I became quite anti Russo. You, even knowing what Russo and Ashcroft have done since 17th December are still clearly pro Russo. If those events can't help persuade you to change, then I have got absolutely no chance. So I'll leave it there.

Your Daily Mail article does not say anything about Watford not being a "viable" option. That is a distortion of the truth. They say that only Charlton left them with a "feeling that they proud of their product at The Valley". In response to that I gave the opinion that, as they met with Watford when Russo was still Chairman and wanting full control, they may have found them a more viable option now that Russo was gone. That is all- its just an opinion!

In my opinion Russo could not have felt that proud of the Club if he was about to resign the Chairmanship and then risk Administration for the sake of waiting for his loan repayment for a few weeks.

[Scalexman]

Originally Posted by zztop

Apology accepted again. I suppose that clarifies that my initial post was not "entirely wrong" as you indeed did not have your facts right (as I said in my 2nd post). As for our respective opinions on Russo and Ashcroft, I was pro Russo until 30/11/09 and then over the next 3 weeks I became quite anti Russo. You, even knowing what Russo and Ashcroft have done since 17th December are still clearly pro Russo. If those events can't help persuade you to change, then I have got absolutely no chance. So I'll leave it there.

Your Daily Mail article does not say anything about Watford not being a "viable" option. That is a distortion of the truth. They say that only Charlton left them with a "feeling that they proud of their product at The Valley". In response to that I gave the opinion that, as they met with Watford when Russo was still Chairman and wanting full control, they may have found them a more viable option now that Russo was gone. That is all- its just an opinion!

In my opinion Russo could not have felt that proud of the Club if he was about to resign the Chairmanship and then risk Administration for the sake of waiting for his loan repayment for a few weeks.

So you’ve changed it from ‘not relevant’ to ‘changing everything’ in the space of a day? Seeing as your first post didn’t mention anything to do with the previous look at the club it doesn’t change a thing. I thought I’d have the good grace to point out my mistake anyway.

You’re making a massive assumption that I am pro-Russo. Read back and you’ll see that I’ve said I could see why they did things, I’ve not said I’ve agreed with them (if you have a look at my post to PYA you’ll see I’m critical of them). The world isn’t black and white, so I don’t need to be pro-Russo or pro-Ashcroft and I’m not either.

Again I’ll ask, can you confirm that your first post was not insinuating that Russo scuppered a deal with Gold and Sullivan? And if it wasn’t, what were you trying to say? Your post said:

Originally Posted by zztop

Unfortunately, these talks happened when Russo was still Chairman and as we all know now, the Russo's wanted control themselves. I think that, if the West Ham move had eventually fallen through, Sullivan and Gold would have seen us as a more viable investment now.

OK, the Russos did want control themselves, so correct if taken out of context with the rest of the sentence. The inference of the whole sentence certainly seems to be that the Russos scuppered a possible deal by not wanting to hand over power – I can’t see it meaning anything else, but am happy for you to explain if it does, as I said in my previous post.

Do we agree that the Russos did not own, nor had control over the majority shareholding of the club? If they didn’t then they didn’t have the power to offer to anyone else (I’ve said this a number of times, but you always seem to avoid commenting on it).

In the second part of the post you say ‘I think that, if the West Ham move had eventually fallen through, Sullivan and Gold would have seen us as a more viable investment now’. This seemed to me to be inferring that the club is more viable now that JR has gone (again, I’m happy for you to correct me). Why is the proposition any different now than it was then? If they bought Ashcrofts controlling interest they would have had control either then or now, the Russos would have been dead wood.

So yes, if your post was written how it reads then it remains wrong in that you appear to be accusing the Russos of scuppering a deal by withholding power they didn’t have.

I believe the Daily Mail article must be yours seeing as you referred to it first

[zztop]

Originally Posted by Scalexman

So you’ve changed it from ‘not relevant’ to ‘changing everything’ in the space of a day? Seeing as your first post didn’t mention anything to do with the previous look at the club it doesn’t change a thing. I thought I’d have the good grace to point out my mistake anyway. Your first post mentioned it, I didn't raise it. I suggest you just check your facts BEFORE posting to criticise someones posts.

You’re making a massive assumption that I am pro-Russo. Read back and you’ll see that I’ve said I could see why they did things, I’ve not said I’ve agreed with them (if you have a look at my post to PYA you’ll see I’m critical of them). The world isn’t black and white, so I don’t need to be pro-Russo or pro-Ashcroft and I’m not either. I admit, I may have misunderstood your defence of the Russo's as being "pro -Russo". I apologise (I think).

My reference to not understanding your point earlier(even though I have an English "A" Level), was not, as you thought, a criticism of your English. I understood your words, but I couldn't understand your point. "A" Level English is about being to interpret a writers view. I was always struggling over what Shakespeare, Keats, Tennyson were actually trying to say. I can now add "Scalexman" to that list. Ok, I now accept that you are in fact "sitting on the fence". This is a quite convenient place to sit, as you can argue with anyone (or no-one).


Again I’ll ask, can you confirm that your first post was not insinuating that Russo scuppered a deal with Gold and Sullivan? And if it wasn’t, what were you trying to say? Your post said:


OK, the Russos did want control themselves, so correct if taken out of context with the rest of the sentence. The inference of the whole sentence certainly seems to be that the Russos scuppered a possible deal by not wanting to hand over power – I can’t see it meaning anything else, but am happy for you to explain if it does, as I said in my previous post. I wouldn't use the word "scuppering" as that implies that a deal was almost done and that would be incorrect.

Do we agree that the Russos did not own, nor had control over the majority shareholding of the club? If they didn’t then they didn’t have the power to offer to anyone else (I’ve said this a number of times, but you always seem to avoid commenting on it). That's because it is irrelevant, I said in my initial post that they WANTED CONTROL. That is different.

In the second part of the post you say ‘I think that, if the West Ham move had eventually fallen through, Sullivan and Gold would have seen us as a more viable investment now’. This seemed to me to be inferring that the club is more viable now that JR has gone (again, I’m happy for you to correct me). Yes, that is my opinion. The clue is in the bit where I said "I think that, if the West Ham move had eventually fallen through, Sullivan and Gold would have seen us as a more viable investment now" (No English "A" Level required there). Why is the proposition any different now than it was then? If they bought Ashcrofts controlling interest they would have had control either then or now, the Russos would have been dead wood. Not true. Ashcroft owns 37% of the Club. 37% is less than 50%. Therefore, if the other majority shareholders either got together (unlikely) or someone else buys their shareholding then Ashcroft (or D & G) would be in the minority. The majority investor, under stock exchange rules, would then have to launch a full takeover. Are these figures clear enough for you? Or do you require a further explanation?

So yes, if your post was written how it reads then it remains wrong in that you appear to be accusing the Russos of scuppering a deal by withholding power they didn’t have. See above

I believe the Daily Mail article must be yours seeing as you referred to it first Please get your facts right! Of the two of us, you were the first to use the Mail article. But it matters not, as we are both capable of reading it and you chose to distort the article to suit your view.

You seem to have made a right "pigs ear" of your late night post. Maybe you were a bit tired.

We should agree to disagree. To summarise,

Before 18th December situation. Russo wants to take over the Club. He is running the Club at a loss of nearly £1m a month and has made several loans secured on the Clubs biggest asset, The Vic, to survive - in his words. He could call in the Loans threatening administration and did so. The Board are split and the Club is in turmoil.

Now, Club is safe from Administration for the time being. Ashcroft has undertaken to support the Club through a Rights Issue and over the next 5 months through to an "almost debt fee status". Other Direcors have expressed their confidence by loaning £500k, unsecured. The Chairman has integrity, would not try and put the Club into Admin (my opinion) and the Board is independent of any major shareholding and everyone appears to be on the same side.

It is my opinion that the latter scenario is more attractive to a buyer than the first scenario. You disagree!

Finally, most of our exchanges over the past few days has been pointless as you have not distinguished between FACTS and your opinion. This meant that a simple two sentence post has turned into a boring exchange of "b******s". D&G have now bought West Ham so it is entiely irrelevant anyway. But, for better exchanges in the future I suggest the two changes be made.

Firstly, when you are expressing a FACT, try and use TRUE FACTS, particularly when criticisng other posts. That would always be a winner for me! You might even win me over without expressing any opinions at all!

Secondly, when expressing an opinion try letting us know as such. I find that expressions such as "in my opinion..." or even "IMO...", or "I think that..." work well. Others used with success on this Board include "It might be that..." and "possibly..." and even a simple "it is my view that..."

How say you?

[PaddingtonsYellowArmy]

Originally Posted by Scalexman

Hi Paddy,

Where am I bashing Ashcroft? I’ve questioned his motives, but isn’t that fair? What do you think his motives are? I did the same thing with Simpson and J+V Russo.do not know his motives but assume to be the watford regen programme ongoing to 2018 with 1 billion squids spend, of which the football club has a part to play.

I can’t quite make out what you’re saying in your first paragraph in regard to the 500K and the 75K, could you re-write it?yeah no probs scaleyman :-) - what i mean is that when GS first took control of the sinking ship, when money was more than tight and we had to sell players - GS had put money in to avoid administration - if you look at the accounts over the first couple of years of his tenure - he was on remuneration of £75k and I am not sure if that was in the 2nd year where i thought he wasn't on anything in the first due to the plight of the club ( but may be wrong). It was only on the promotion to the premiership and the £40/50/60 million windfall that he upped his remeuneration to that level of £500k. My point is Jimbob and bruv wanted or took £500k on a turnover likely to be 2/3rds LESS of the turnover that GS achieved. Wasn’t it GS that took the 500K bonus (on top of his salary)? J+V, as two directors wanted to take £250K each for a club which is realy struggling did we need both on board at half a million - to me that is scandulous and milking, infact creaming - canuts!, is this what you refer to? In my mind this amount was too much, but not nearly as much as the previous two directors and they’d certainly done a far better job of managing the clubs finances.i shall never agree on that - 22/12/09 the bruvs filed for administration = scum canuts.

I can see what you’re saying about a trip to Argentina and I agree, if that’s what happened then it’s outrageous – by the way, when did you start believing what Ollie Phillips had heard about the remuneration pre OP report so it sort of confirms it and the argentina triphad to say? Was it when he started to say what you wanted to hear? previous reply applies

Why didn’t the other shareholders invest? Who? Simpson? Ashcroft? I think we all know why they didn’t invest.why did Mr Fransen put up £500k after the bruvs ucked of? Who else could have invested when the majority shareholders were unwilling to sell if it benefitted the Russos? i do not understand thatWhat could JR offer the investor for their money? Nothing. The takeover was truly naive of them.i agree i think, naive maybe but they IMO had an ulterior motive - and they very nearly succeeded. Remember they would know how and what rewardis likely in the watford regen programme. They also could have got their mits ont he freehold thus charging not only saraens but wfc rent - hmmm £1m per year rent and they'd own the freehold for sale to outside ivestors.I wonder how much they or anyone would pay for the freehold of the vic - jimbob did say Watford have very valuable assets

Do you think the club would have been in a better state if the Russos hadn’t steamrolled their way in?i think a year has been wasted with no benefit to wfc -i believe they have damaged the club with the constant adminsitration game - they managed to bring the clubs shares down to 4p and offered to buy out ashcroft etc at 3p - scumbags - they said that was a good deal - i wonder if they sold there shares at 3p - scumbags My personal opinion is that it would have been in a much worse state if GS and especially Ashton had stuck around.ashton yes, GS no.

So, serious question, if you were in JRs shoes what would you have done?

I don't want to be in that canuts shoes, question to you, why did they get booted off the board the first time?

They have been very disruptive for their own gain, they have brainwashed the fans and local rag and its workforce and they have bullied their way to the chair - remember also they got a large pay off when they were booted out. They only deferred the adminstration, they didn't save us. Absolute canuts, if they ever get close to the boardroom again my support goes.