Second relegation from the Prem - the common denominator

[winchester_royal]

So what this thread is basically pointing out...is that a common denominator of the 5 highest finishes this club has ever had is Nicky Hammond?

Cool.

[melonhead]

agreed

[Ian Royal]

I cant see how a supporter ( no ad homs from me, no inverted commas ) cant see the obvious.

Please provide some evidence of whatever is obvious. At the moment this is just baseless accusation. Why should we take you seriously?

You shouldn't.
You should take a long cold look at the last few years in the history of the club and its financial position.
Its not as though the elephant in the room has only just appeared.

It's your assertion, therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence to support it, before anyone needs to provide evidence to refute it.

So far, you've come up with "it's obvious if you look at the club's history and financial position". Which is basically the equivalent of saying "it's obvious that the sky is green if you look at the sky." When it's clear from even a cursory look at the accounts that basically no money has left the club to go into Madejski's pocket, other than when he sold 51% of the club to Anton.

[Tommy Youlden's Ears]

It's like Cluedo...

SJM in the boardroom with the accountant
Nicky Shorey at left back with his three paces - slow, very slow, and stopped at the pub.
Nicky Hammond in France without a clue
Or...errr...us lot?

Maybe it's us. There aren't enough of us. We don't pay as much for tickets as many others. And we don't shout much.

Sack the fans!

[The Goat was fed]

Not for the first time, my Dad (who has an irrational hatred for Nicky Hammond) has brazenly logged on my account and posted utter drivel. I can only apologise.

Personally, I think the common denominator is having less points than 17 other teams in the league.

[Ian Royal]

Not for the first time, my Dad (who has an irrational hatred for Nicky Hammond) has brazenly logged on my account and posted utter drivel. I can only apologise.

Personally, I think the common denominator is having less points than 17 other teams in the league.

[Waylenstreet]

Well first of all I am not going to address strawmen.
I have at no point suggested that SJM personally trousered the money.
And I have made clear that I think no fraudulent activity has gone on.

What I said was that for SJM his involvement was not out of any love of the game..and he has said so himself.
So, he treated the club as another branch of his organisation.
Which meant that when funds were needed the club had to compete against the other parts of his empire.
Unlike some businessman owners he has never treated the club as a discrete entity.
Eventually the strain on his wider organisation was too much and he looked for a way to offload the club.
I hope that A.Z. has an actual interest in the game in and of itself.
Of course it can be argued that SJM stepped in a crucial time. But as time went on I think he repented at leisure.
Whatever his original motivation being the owner of a football club became a burden..it showed more and more with every interview.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Well first of all I am not going to address strawmen.
I have at no point suggested that SJM personally trousered the money.
And I have made clear that I think no fraudulent activity has gone on.

What I said was that for SJM his involvement was not out of any love of the game..and he has said so himself.
So, he treated the club as another branch of his organisation.
Which meant that when funds were needed the club had to compete against the other parts of his empire.

...which implies he took money out of the club to prop up his other businesses.

And that's something there's no evidence of whatsoever.

You've just seen that the club has lost money over the years, added 2+2, and got 83.967 and a spoon.

Unlike some businessman owners he has never treated the club as a discrete entity.

So you have some kind of evidence of him taking money out of the club?

Really. If you are going to say he's used club money for other business, you need to have something a little more convincing than "because it's obvious". Strangely people who've seen the club accounts haven't noticed this obvious movement of funds.

He was also here a good 15 years before there was even potentially any money to take, which makes it a rather weird business plan.

[Waylenstreet]

The POV I am suggesting is far more complex than that.
It has to do with someone for possibly good reasons getting themselves into a situation which did not reward them in ANY way.
As to the money being circulated through the organisation it would be naive to think that doesn't happen..just as it does at many other clubs. This is normal and non problematic.

The issue is that an owner who is a fan of the game has a completely different motivation from one who is doing everyone a favour. And that will effect all kinds of decisions.
That seems so obvious as to need no amplification.


But hopefully things have changed........ Hopefully our third time in the premiership will be of a longer duration.
Over to you Anton.

[St. Brynjar]

Hammond is an excellent asset to the club and has served us well during his time here. Ludicrous to get rid. There's no point looking for a scapegoat.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

As to the money being circulated through the organisation it would be naive to think that doesn't happen..

No. It would be naive to assume losses = money being taken out of the club.

just as it does at many other clubs.

Really? Which clubs?

The issue is that an owner who is a fan of the game has a completely different motivation from one who is doing everyone a favour. And that will effect all kinds of decisions.
That seems so obvious as to need no amplification.

the problem is that you've decided something is "obvious", despite not a shred of evidence to back it up (and plenty to contradict it), and that's the end of your mental journey.

As I said before, there were a good 15 years between him taking over and there being any serious money coming in to even potentially take out. It would seem an utterly bizarre motivation for him to take over the club back then. The income from the club in 1990 was minute compared to his serious businesses.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

There's no point looking for a scapegoat.

I'm not so sure. In fact I blame the scapegoat for most of the mess.

[grey_squirrel]

Blame anyone, then blame this man

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=102252&start=60

In attendance for all of our relegations since 1975

Paul Black OUT!

[RockheadRumple]

SJM saw the club primarily as a means of moving money around his business empire.

eh?

Money laundering.

SJM = Clay Davies.

Corrected for you.

Obligatory gif: