Transfer rumours !

I agree up to a point, Rammy but Gartside's the sort of character who will always (deservedly in my view) attract this sort of criticism.

He was only too happy to shove his face in front of any available camera when times were good and he seemed to court the limelight with his ridiculous ideas when he was trying to raise his profile as a serious player within the English FA. (The two tier Premier League nonsense and inviting Rangers & Celtic to join the league.)

However, now that times are lean, he's done a disappearing act worthy of David Copperfield and when he does deign to briefly pop out from his bunker, all we've had are the odd "Don't worry, everything's fine" messages that are now wearing very thin.

Everything patently isn't fine and we're in a real mess.

And who has presided over our rapid decline into financial oblivion?

Him.

And he's personnally made plenty of money out of BWFC Plc whilst doing it.

Throw into the mix the judge's comments about his character and how his questionable relationship with the truth made him a less than trustworthy witness when he was in court recently, and you can see why he's such a magnet for abuse.

Yes, his job is a difficult one and (Manda aside) I doubt there's anyone on here who could effectively carry out the duties of Chairman of a modern professional football club, but he's brought a lot of the abuse on himself in my opinion and most of it is well deserved.

spot on Breaders 

Breadman wrote:I agree up to a point, Rammy but Gartside's the sort of character who will always (deservedly in my view) attract this sort of criticism.

He was only too happy to shove his face in front of any available camera when times were good and he seemed to court the limelight with his ridiculous ideas when he was trying to raise his profile as a serious player within the English FA. (The two tier Premier League nonsense and inviting Rangers & Celtic to join the league.)

However, now that times are lean, he's done a disappearing act worthy of David Copperfield and when he does deign to briefly pop out from his bunker, all we've had are the odd "Don't worry, everything's fine" messages that are now wearing very thin.

Everything patently isn't fine and we're in a real mess.

And who has presided over our rapid decline into financial oblivion?

Him.

And he's personnally made plenty of money out of BWFC Plc whilst doing it.

Throw into the mix the judge's comments about his character and how his questionable relationship with the truth made him a less than trustworthy witness when he was in court recently, and you can see why he's such a magnet for abuse.

Yes, his job is a difficult one and (Manda aside) I doubt there's anyone on here who could effectively carry out the duties of Chairman of a modern professional football club, but he's brought a lot of the abuse on himself in my opinion and most of it is well deserved.

But isn't Gartside an employee just like anyone else? Isn't he simply a pawn for Eddie Davies.

Eddie Davies didn't get rich by being an idiot so why keep Gartside on if he's not doing exactly as requested?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Breadman wrote:I agree up to a point, Rammy but Gartside's the sort of character who will always (deservedly in my view) attract this sort of criticism.

He was only too happy to shove his face in front of any available camera when times were good and he seemed to court the limelight with his ridiculous ideas when he was trying to raise his profile as a serious player within the English FA. (The two tier Premier League nonsense and inviting Rangers & Celtic to join the league.)

However, now that times are lean, he's done a disappearing act worthy of David Copperfield and when he does deign to briefly pop out from his bunker, all we've had are the odd "Don't worry, everything's fine" messages that are now wearing very thin.

Everything patently isn't fine and we're in a real mess.

And who has presided over our rapid decline into financial oblivion?

Him.

And he's personnally made plenty of money out of BWFC Plc whilst doing it.

Throw into the mix the judge's comments about his character and how his questionable relationship with the truth made him a less than trustworthy witness when he was in court recently, and you can see why he's such a magnet for abuse.

Yes, his job is a difficult one and (Manda aside) I doubt there's anyone on here who could effectively carry out the duties of Chairman of a modern professional football club, but he's brought a lot of the abuse on himself in my opinion and most of it is well deserved.

But isn't Gartside an employee just like anyone else? Isn't he simply a pawn for Eddie Davies.

Eddie Davies didn't get rich by being an idiot so why keep Gartside on if he's not doing exactly as requested?

Exactly Nat... he is the accounting genius who inflates the numbers owed to Eddie through totally legal methods.  If he had done a poor job at that, he would have been fired.

Gartside and Davies pull all the strings. Everyone else does as they're told.

I'm eagerly awaiting Johnnys grilling of this pair so we can all get the answers we want.

Bwfc1958 wrote:Gartside and Davies pull all the strings. Everyone else does as they're told.

I'm eagerly awaiting Johnnys grilling of this pair so we can all get the answers we want.

I would seriously do it.  in a totally professional manner of course.  i'm not a complete fuckwit all the time!

y2johnny wrote:

Bwfc1958 wrote:Gartside and Davies pull all the strings. Everyone else does as they're told.

I'm eagerly awaiting Johnnys grilling of this pair so we can all get the answers we want.

I would seriously do it.  in a totally professional manner of course.  i'm not a complete fuckwit all the time!

I don't doubt you for a second mate. Get them emails sent so the great and the good of nuts can sort out some probing questions. If he refuses you can threaten him. Tell him boncey will send him 5 Bruce forsyth dvds every day for the rest of his life. We'll soon have our answers.

Not sure what your point is there, Nat.

We can only assume that ED is happy with Gartside (for the reasons cited above by Obs), but that doesn't mean he's off the hook in my book.

"I was merely following orders" wasn't a valid defence at Nuremberg after the war and nor should it be now.

It all depends on your stance regarding Eddie Davies, I suppose:

Altruistic benefactor who has bankrolled the club at great personal cost or shady front for an unnamed consortium who has used Gartside's undoubted talents as an accountant to create a portfolio of property and interests around BWFC which have been used to move money around and artificially increase their (the consortium's) wealth on paper.

I dunno, I just make bread......

Breadman wrote:Not sure what your point is there, Nat.

We can only assume that ED is happy with Gartside (for the reasons cited above by Obs), but that doesn't mean he's off the hook in my book.

"I was merely following orders" wasn't a valid defence at Nuremberg after the war and nor should it be now.

Not saying Gartside is blameless by any means, but he seems to take all the stick while people seem to bow at the feet of Eddie Davies.

But chances are Gartside is doing exactly what Davies wants.

Fully agree with that.

Which is why I'm in the second camp regarding ED.

Bwfc1958 wrote:

y2johnny wrote:

Bwfc1958 wrote:Gartside and Davies pull all the strings. Everyone else does as they're told.

I'm eagerly awaiting Johnnys grilling of this pair so we can all get the answers we want.

I would seriously do it.  in a totally professional manner of course.  i'm not a complete fuckwit all the time!

I don't doubt you for a second mate. Get them emails sent so the great and the good of nuts can sort out some probing questions. If he refuses you can threaten him. Tell him boncey will send him 5 Bruce forsyth dvds every day for the rest of his life. We'll soon have our answers.

Careful.  Now I'm awake.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

boltonbonce wrote:

Bwfc1958 wrote:

y2johnny wrote:

Bwfc1958 wrote:Gartside and Davies pull all the strings. Everyone else does as they're told.

I'm eagerly awaiting Johnnys grilling of this pair so we can all get the answers we want.

I would seriously do it.  in a totally professional manner of course.  i'm not a complete fuckwit all the time!

I don't doubt you for a second mate. Get them emails sent so the great and the good of nuts can sort out some probing questions. If he refuses you can threaten him. Tell him boncey will send him 5 Bruce forsyth dvds every day for the rest of his life. We'll soon have our answers.

Careful.  Now I'm awake.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That's not creepy at all.......

y2johnny wrote:

Bwfc1958 wrote:Gartside and Davies pull all the strings. Everyone else does as they're told.

I'm eagerly awaiting Johnnys grilling of this pair so we can all get the answers we want.

I would seriously do it.  in a totally professional manner of course.  i'm not a complete fuckwit all the time!

Take your new mate AD with you, if all else fails, the thumbscrews will get us answers.

Norpig wrote:spot on Breaders 

Not quite. There's only one "n" in personally - although there are 2 in personnel. Pedantry at it's finest.

I think that people are generally supportive of Davies because regardless of his level of involvement in running the club, what is indisputable is the vast amount of money he has invested and continued to invest despite worsening debt. Without him there would have been no Premier League or European adventure in the first place.

MartinBWFC wrote:

y2johnny wrote:

Bwfc1958 wrote:Gartside and Davies pull all the strings. Everyone else does as they're told.

I'm eagerly awaiting Johnnys grilling of this pair so we can all get the answers we want.

I would seriously do it.  in a totally professional manner of course.  i'm not a complete fuckwit all the time!

Take your new mate AD with you, if all else fails, the thumbscrews will get us answers.

The guy is seriously mental. Mental in a serious way like he needs help


He is the biggest tool i have ever come across

Whether it's fat phil's fault or not ....he is the chairman ...and therefore responsible for the disaster at this club.  In any regular business he would be long gone. If this were a public company with shareholders they would have had a public hanging by now.  If other officials are incompetent within the club he should have fired them years back...that's also his job.
Ultimately Big Eddie holds the bag....... I admit I can't fathom that lad out ..... imagine if you or I owned a football club and let these tossers run it. 

wanderlust wrote:

Norpig wrote:spot on Breaders 

Not quite. There's only one "n" in personally - although there are 2 in personnel. Pedantry at it's finest.

I think that people are generally supportive of Davies because regardless of his level of involvement in running the club, what is indisputable is the vast amount of money he has invested and continued to invest despite worsening debt. Without him there would have been no Premier League or European adventure in the first place.

Ah, but has he though?

His personal wealth when he bought the club (although not known for definite) was generally believed to be about £70 million.

He then paid 10p in the pound when he snapped up (under basically a compulsory purchase order) everybody else's shares, so it's not like he took control by paying £40 million for the club - it must have been a lot less than that.

We then had ten or so years in the Prem and if you take £20 million per season earned in TV money / prize money, that gives us a nice round £200 million in income. (Forget shirt and ticket sales for a minute.)

And "we" are now £180 million in debt.

So have we really blown £380 million + whatever ED has invested?

I just can't see that, so I'm left doubting that ED has invested much at all really because if he'd chosen to stick, let's say, £40 million of his own money into the club, that'd mean we'd pissed £420 million away over the last few years.

And that's a lot of poke......

And let's not forget that when his "lump sum" investments have been made public (£8 million to get Anelka) he got that back more or less straight away plus interest.

It just doesn't stack up for me.

(Top marks for the the pedantry, by the way - I applaud you, sir.) 

Breadman wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Norpig wrote:spot on Breaders 

Not quite. There's only one "n" in personally - although there are 2 in personnel. Pedantry at it's finest.

I think that people are generally supportive of Davies because regardless of his level of involvement in running the club, what is indisputable is the vast amount of money he has invested and continued to invest despite worsening debt. Without him there would have been no Premier League or European adventure in the first place.

Ah, but has he though?

His personal wealth when he bought the club (although not known for definite) was generally believed to be about £70 million.

He then paid 10p in the pound when he snapped up (under basically a compulsory purchase order) everybody else's shares, so it's not like he took control by paying £40 million for the club - it must have been a lot less than that.

We then had ten or so years in the Prem and if you take £20 million per season earned in TV money / prize money, that gives us a nice round £200 million in income. (Forget shirt and ticket sales for a minute.)

And "we" are now £180 million in debt.

So have we really blown £380 million + whatever ED has invested?

I just can't see that, so I'm left doubting that ED has invested much at all really because if he'd chosen to stick, let's say, £40 million of his own money into the club, that'd mean we'd pissed £420 million away over the last few years.

And that's a lot of poke......

And let's not forget that when his "lump sum" investments have been made public (£8 million to get Anelka) he got that back more or less straight away plus interest.

It just doesn't stack up for me.

(Top marks for the the pedantry, by the way - I applaud you, sir.) 

And there is a lot more revenue stream on top of that too. Dont forget we had a few seasons finishing higher up the table and even getting into europe twice. A few decent cup runs. And like you said ticket sales and merchandise over a ten year period would be quite substantial. All the years we had in the prem i think the revenue could quite easily have been 450mill+.

Breadman wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Norpig wrote:spot on Breaders 

Not quite. There's only one "n" in personally - although there are 2 in personnel. Pedantry at it's finest.

I think that people are generally supportive of Davies because regardless of his level of involvement in running the club, what is indisputable is the vast amount of money he has invested and continued to invest despite worsening debt. Without him there would have been no Premier League or European adventure in the first place.

Ah, but has he though?

His personal wealth when he bought the club (although not known for definite) was generally believed to be about £70 million.

He then paid 10p in the pound when he snapped up (under basically a compulsory purchase order) everybody else's shares, so it's not like he took control by paying £40 million for the club - it must have been a lot less than that.

We then had ten or so years in the Prem and if you take £20 million per season earned in TV money / prize money, that gives us a nice round £200 million in income. (Forget shirt and ticket sales for a minute.)

And "we" are now £180 million in debt.

So have we really blown £380 million + whatever ED has invested?

I just can't see that, so I'm left doubting that ED has invested much at all really because if he'd chosen to stick, let's say, £40 million of his own money into the club, that'd mean we'd pissed £420 million away over the last few years.

And that's a lot of poke......

And let's not forget that when his "lump sum" investments have been made public (£8 million to get Anelka) he got that back more or less straight away plus interest.

It just doesn't stack up for me.

(Top marks for the the pedantry, by the way - I applaud you, sir.) 

Breadman has succinctly told us why Gartside is still here.  He is the financial wizard behind the legal manipulation of monies... including depreciation, off-shore accounts, land holdings, commercial development, and most of all, making ED happy.  Perhaps the results lately have not been good for the club, but it's only an investment.  What is more important is how the balance sheet looks to ED... and I'm sure Gartside has done nothing less than a brilliant job at that.

wanderlust wrote:

Norpig wrote:spot on Breaders  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Not quite. There's only one "n" in personally - although there are 2 in personnel. Pedantry at it's finest.

.....................................................................................................................................................................


Not so fast, Wander! I can top that pedantry! "It's" with an apostrophe can only mean "It is " or "it has" 
Without an apostrophe, "its" = "belonging to it"   

Eg: It's lost its smell.

Now, if we can just get Sluffy to recognise the difference between "as" and "has"..........