MAVERICK

[Lumps]

Our resident river boat gambler  (watches reference soar over the heads of many of the under 30's with no memory of the seminal James Garner western series) now appears to be the sole remaining counter-revolutionary poster on here.

As until recently I was expressing some similar sentiments, and getting a similar kicking, I thought I'd take the opportunity to bang on a bit about whats now becoming clear to me and why.

1. I had some real doubts about the theories that were being expressed regarding BP's decision to sever his ties with the club after the plane crash. Despite a few people claiming that there was some huge conspiracy to push him out of the club, "that would all come out" I'm still not really any the wiser.

For what it's worth my assumption has always been that the working relationships at the club were not exactly sweetess and light, and post ploughing into a field from a great height face first, the man just thought he could do without the aggravation. I didn't blame him

I got a bit arsey because I got sick of people posting on here as if they actually knew the facts of the matter. Now, I appreciate that, particularly in the light of the developments around the FC, a few of you probably do. But there were about 20 who at the time were talking as if they'd been at every bleeding board meeting.

2. It's always been clear to me that the club was not well run. Once we'd got the major debt under control through the CVA, had got costs down by reducing the wage bill on both the playing and non-playing side, and upped the ticket prices to the fucking stupid levels they were at for the last few years, I could not understand how we were still losing a fucking fortune every year.

One thing I wasn't comfortable with however, was the assumption from just about everybody that posted here, that they knew what the problem was, and that he was of greek extraction.

I couldn't understand how so many people seemed to have an intimate enough understanding of the working relationships at the club to take sides, laying all fault at the feet of one man, or one man and a woman.

I didn't know any of the people involved. I'd heard and read very little in terms of public statements from most of them, although Mark D's posts on here certainly counted in his favour.

I didn't feel able to pick sides based on a consensus of opinion on a internet forum, which at the time was the only place even implying there were sides to pick from.

I know that some of you do know Mark D personally, and others were in the lucky position of knowing those individuals well enough to take what they said on trust. I don't really know any of you.


What's changed?

1. In the end of the last row I had on here about these issues, Mark D made some fairly guarded comments that were enough to make clear that something was very wrong about the way the operational side of the club was organised. Any organisation that deliberately marginalises it's CEO , particulary with regard to financial information is on fucking dodgy ground.

2. BP's back and prepared to have another pop. And what's more, despite being as diplomatic as he can be, he's made it fairly clear that he did have some problems with Mike D.

and most importantly:

3. The board's recent behaviour is utterly contradictory. Up until about 6 weeks ago, from outside, with no first hand knowledge, their statements were fairly credible.

* Bill's departure was expained something along the lines of what I'd assumed anyway, but glossing over the internal tension and stressing the health issues.
* The troubles as a result of the overspend made some sort of sense - SSW's people had pulled back from the playing side and the purse strings had been loosened on on the assumption BP's further investment was going to be forthcoming  - now it wasn't you could understand a bit of panic, SSW had been stuck cleaning up the mess after our last board after all.
* And through it all we kept being told that SSW was keen for any other investors to weigh in, and if they wanted the whole club they could have it.


I believed most of that. Because there's enough truth in it to be credible.

But lately:

* We have a financial crisis so they have to give the club secretary the push, but they can appoint a couple of salaried directors on loads more money at the same time
* They've paid the CVA for this year, when they haven't
* They're looking at a £600,000 overspend but they have the money to pay this years CVA if they wanted to
* They don't have the money for the big CVA payment next year, but there's no crisis and hints that we may spend money in the window
* There are suddenly other parties interested in investing in the club. When Mike D has failed to find any for the last 4/5 years, they turn up by magic when a takeover is mooted
* Despite claiming to have offered to sell the club to BP a few months ago they're not prepared to negotiate a sale with him now.
* Their statements around the ground redevelopment are frankly laughable.

Frankly I've lost faith altogether.

My doubts still have been expressed by others, including, oddly Maverick himself.

This can go two ways. Negotiation, with the potential for an investment by BP, and SSW retaining some interest in the club. OR a fight. I know BP's made all the right noises around the former option, but frankly I think it's already too late for that.

I said on here a few weeks ago that some of the language that had been used in this debate was not going to be helpful. I know that most of these post were not from Trust members, and I know there was some care taken to insulate the Wills family from criticism. But as I said at the time the basic message "we respect you and all you've done for the club, but the people you choose to associate with and employ are a bunch of money grubbing crooks" wasn't likely to go down well.

In conclusion:

I think the idea  that everyone can all get on for the sake of the club and pitch in together is probably a pipe dream.
I also think the current board have no fucking intention of selling to the FC.
And as a result it's going to take more than bright clothing to get bring about a change.

I'll join the trust and support the FC, but despite your current work I can't help but think there'll be more than one chorus of sack the board before all this is over.

That's what Maverick has to accept I'm afraid. The nice friendly route is already closed. Time to pick sides. Any more time on that fence will get you splinters in your arse.

[TalkTalk]

:thumbs:

Fair play Lumps.

I might have called you a tool but the er, enormous size of your post overwhelms me...

[millom red]

Nail~head~hit!

Good post Lumps

[Mexicano Rojo]

possibly the best post on this subject, sides have been drawn, its time to dig in the heels.

[lambourn red]

The way I see it is there are 4 groups of people;

1. 1500 to 2000 who just want to turn up on a Saturday and watch football and dont even think about it during the week they will come if we are doing well but will be the first to go when we start losing.

2. Die hard season ticket holders/regulars again who just want to watch football and bury their head in the sand at anything off field.

3. The vast majority of forum users and anyone they know who are well informed support the trust and the consortium.

4. and finally the minority a few forum users who even though they are informed choose to believe the spin of the current board.

Group 1 will probably never be interested  but group 2 are the ones that need convincing and just give up on group4 as there are not enough of them to worry about.

[Samdy Gray]

Lumps, I think thats the best post I've read on here for ages. Everything you said makes sense and as Mex added, it's time to take sides.

No more sitting on fences.

[stfctownenda]

:toppost: A well balanced and excellent post.

[Maverick]

Aww shucks Lumps ... a post just for me!!  Thanks, I am flattered .... although it does seem that I am in a category 5 and not one of the four that Lambourn Red suggests (but hey ... maverick by name ... etc!!).

You raise some good points in a very well thought through posting (in my opinion).

I am certainly not "counter-revolutionary" in principle, but I am (and remain) a very cautious cynic when it comes to the future of our club.

I am not blessed with possession of all the facts from either "side", so I cannot speak with either the passion or conviction that some claim.

I repeat that we have seen more "false dawns" than you can shake SSW's "stick" at!!

I really don't care how obnoxious anyone involved may be to deal with, if this proposal is to make progress and is valid, then it has to be able to withstand public scrutiny (as its existence has already been made very public).  We all know the shortcomings of the present set up, they have been well documented.  Indeed, in sufficient detail to make all of us realise that things cannot continue in the way they have in the past.

I cannot wholeheartedly swing behind the new proposals because I do not know sufficient to do so.  I do know that the 170 page document produced by the QPR fan that recounted the trial, certainly raised some points that made me feel uncomfortable.  It may well be that everything can be well explained, but as I said I am cautious  .... there was a time when Messrs Brady and Donegan were perceived by many as heroes.

I hope the Consortium/Trust continue to try to progress the proposal they have, and hopefully it will be all that we hope.  But hey, allow a guy to be cautious and to ask questions ..... it does NOT mean I must be from Newbury .... or that I must be anti-Consortium.

[Arriba]

fantastic post lumps!
the contrtadictions you have highlighted say it all.the board aint up to the job of running the football club.
and i think you are right about the bright clothing not being enough,and have sadi so myself.
your whole post is bang on the nose!nice one!

[sonic youth]

I really don't care how obnoxious anyone involved may be to deal with, if this proposal is to make progress and is valid, then it has to be able to withstand public scrutiny (as its existence has already been made very public).

As has been said hundreds of times, the problem is not Diamandis' personality, obnoxiousness, bodily odour, whatever - it's legal advice regarding his position, or lack thereof - at the club and other circumstances.

I do know that the 170 page document produced by the QPR fan that recounted the trial, certainly raised some points that made me feel uncomfortable.

What document and what concerns? If you want them to be addressed then you need to make them public!

[RobertT]

He posted a link to it a few days back and Mike Wilkes and Mark Devlin both replied to give the alternative viewpoint.  Basically it was a write up of the court case where Palladini made a bunch of allegations, none of which were followed up by him or though worthy of investigation by any authority.

Basically suggested they were creaming money, when all the deals listed were in fact dealt with in Board Meetings that Pallidini did not attend.  All of the allegations appear to be an attempt to show how Palladini was being put on by people at QPR in the lead up to him allegedly being held at gunpoint to sign over his interest in the club.  Court case aquited everyone on trial, League saw nothing to investogate nor did the Police.  Just seem to be the ramblings of an odd character (which if you read anything by him you'll understand).

That's my tak on it anyway.

[pauld]

It's an informal transcript of the trial of Dave Morris et al - the guys accused (and  aquitted) of threatening Paladini (current QPR chair, ex-Italian agent) with a gun. It's fair to say that no-one mentioned comes out terribly well (some more than others) - but then given the adversarial nature of the English court system, which often relies on each side in a case smearing the other, that's usually the case with any court case. Which means such accounts provide fodder, if you're desparate to find it, for the "Ooooh, don't like the sound of that, no smoke without fire, blimey, guv'nor" merchants. Or, indeed, people looking to construct smears from innuendo (which is not what Maverick is trying to do, but there are certainly others who are).

FWIW, and before you ask, yes I have read the transcript, cover-to-cover and indeed spoken to the author. And I will be very happy to see Bill Power and Phil Emmel working in concert with the Fans' Consortium to get this football club back on its feet.

[Piemonte]

. And I will be very happy to see Bill Power and Phil Emmel working in concert with the Fans' Consortium to get this football club back on its feet.

Bill & Phil are going to sing too?  Is there no end to their greatness?

[SwindonTartanArmy]

. And I will be very happy to see Bill Power and Phil Emmel working in concert with the Fans' Consortium to get this football club back on its feet.

Bill & Phil are going to sing too?  Is there no end to their greatness?

[Christy]

Another Category 5er, to keep Maverick company.

And I'll stay in that phone box, remaining sceptical and asking questions until
a) I'm convinced of BP's motives and plans for the club.  We've been here before......
b) I'm more confident in the Trust's capability to deliver its manifesto.  And as an (the?) ex-member, my concerns (over c4 years) are with the means rather than the ends.

Still, the path of revolutions rarely runs smoothly, and I hope that the caution of any Mavericks can continue to be treated with respect, rather than dismissed as Newbury propaganda.