Chairman

[LittleRed]

There are a couple bits of diplomatic speak that I picked up on:
- Ground development and possibilities OVER THE COMING YEARS (Patey is working on a long term strategy)
- We want to realise the ambition and not stifle it (The ambition was Championship within 3 years - Not necessarily this year)
- Well, THERE IS SOME DEBT. (He emphasised this bit) 
- There is no intention ON OUR PART to replace the manager. (That doesn't mean that he wont walk. Also reminded everyone that Paolo has signed a 2 year contract)
- We WANT TO support him. (But that doesn't necessarily mean we will)
- WE ARE OBVIOUSLY IN A BIT OF A CONSTRAINT AT THE MOMENT. We will see what we can do to help that, BUT the embargo is not a technicality, its a serious issue AND WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT. (That is the ultimate in sitting on the fence - Addressing it leaves multiple options open)
- We have injuries. Any manager would want to supplement his squad to. We'll SEE WHAT WE CAN DO to help (Again, this could range from nowt to lots)

Spoken liken a true politician, saying lots without really saying anything. The language used means the answers can be interpreted multiple ways.

One point on wray he seemed like a real top guy and definitely had stfcs best interests at heart. Losing someone like that is what concerns me.

[RobertT]

So, lets see if I have got this right:

Man who has pumped in £10m plus wants focus on non football side improved

Said man finds contact who has a back ground in both big finance and public service

Biggest stumbling blocks to ground development are finance and publc body in SBC who are tough to deal with unless you need to build a car park.

New contact being brought in to focus on this and curren Chairman who has been a bit focussed on (and good at) the footballing side isn't so keen to hang around and probably end being and over bearing shadow in the background.

Club continuing with everything else it committed to on the footballing side

In any other world, that would be a good news story................

[bobby barnes jink]

So, lets see if I have got this right:

Man who has pumped in £10m plus wants focus on non football side improved

Said man finds contact who has a back ground in both big finance and public service

Biggest stumbling blocks to ground development are finance and publc body in SBC who are tough to deal with unless you need to build a car park.

New contact being brought in to focus on this and curren Chairman who has been a bit focussed on (and good at) the footballing side isn't so keen to hang around and probably end being and over bearing shadow in the background.

Club continuing with everything else it committed to on the footballing side

In any other world, that would be a good news story................

It's difficult though to list the facts and separate them from the emotion, the relationships and the possible consequences involved. It's unnerving to have a hugely popular chairman removed and to see that person quit all association despite being offered an alternative position. It is also worrying to have our manager issue loosely veiled threats of leaving, whilst the incoming chairman makes noises suggesting said manager will not be given the blank cheque book he seemingly demands in order to remain in his position.

This series of events, to me at least, smacks of irresistible forces and immoveable objects.

[jonny72]

It's kind of strange that the chairman role at football clubs is still so public and hands on. In most businesses the chairman would take a back seat and the chief exec would be running the show, which also seems to be the way bigger clubs are run.

Wonder if Nick Watkins will take on a more public facing role and some of the role Wray played, with Patey taking more of a back seat.

[bobby barnes jink]

It's kind of strange that the chairman role at football clubs is still so public and hands on. In most businesses the chairman would take a back seat and the chief exec would be running the show, which also seems to be the way bigger clubs are run.

Wonder if Nick Watkins will take on a more public facing role and some of the role Wray played, with Patey taking more of a back seat.

Very good point. That would be much more encouraging and would have made sense of a situation that involved Wray staying on and concentrating on the football with Di Canio. In that scenario (the one initially touted) Patey would be the big man with the big contacts working on bringing in investment for the bigger picture projects.

The worrying aspect to this being the case is that Wray may have quit entirely because he was unwilling to work with the manager once the financial goalposts had moved. In other words, it wasn't what he or the manager signed up for.

The corollary of that would be Patey now telling Di Canio that things have changed. All before any type of relationship has been built or trust been formed.

Good luck with that, mate.

[Kinky Tom]

i got to thinking earlier if wray was offered the much maligned position of director of football

[bobby barnes jink]

i got to thinking earlier if wray was offered the much maligned position of director of football

Which would have been a jumped-up title for Chief Liaison Officer. In other words, a buffer between the Board and the gaffer. His first job would have been to inform PDC that the bank was now closed. He clearly took one look at that role and ran a mile.

[janaage]

Biggest stumbling blocks to ground development are finance and publc body in SBC who are tough to deal with unless you need to build a car park.

Ha ha, that's so true. Maybe we should build a massive multistorey with a stadium on top, sbc would be non the wiser unless Rod Bluh likes parking on the top level.

[Batch]

Biggest stumbling blocks to ground development are finance and publc body in SBC who are tough to deal with unless you need to build a car park.

That's not true though. They are also good at selling off land for more and more houses in North Swindon while enforcing pointless bus gates to force cars onto already crowded road infrastructure. Not to mention blowing millions on a few paving slabs in the town centre in the hope of providing a sheen on the turd.

But its OK if you are an advisor, they can loan your company 1/2 million to stuff up a communal  communications project, then sanction a new current technology for private use and claim its somehow makes up for the mess up.

In the interest of unbalanced, do look like they are doing something useful with the old college site.

[pauld]

So, lets see if I have got this right:

Man who has pumped in £10m plus wants focus on non football side improved

Said man finds contact who has a back ground in both big finance and public service

Biggest stumbling blocks to ground development are finance and publc body in SBC who are tough to deal with unless you need to build a car park.

New contact being brought in to focus on this and curren Chairman who has been a bit focussed on (and good at) the footballing side isn't so keen to hang around and probably end being and over bearing shadow in the background.

Club continuing with everything else it committed to on the footballing side

In any other world, that would be a good news story................

That's quite a sanitised gloss over the past few days. In any company the major shareholder sacking the chairman would be seen as a big news story and a sign of internal disharmony. The fact that he's chosen to do so in what is obviously an unplanned way (despite the tweets about "been thinking about this since the start of the year") also indicates there was some kind of row/trigger event/not-a-crisis that made him feel he had to act now adds to that perception. This may or may not turn out to be for the best, but it clearly indicates some kind of trouble at mill behind doors which is always going to be reported as such and would be in any company

[Flashheart]

That's quite a sanitised gloss over the past few days. In any company the major shareholder sacking the chairman would be seen as a big news story and a sign of internal disharmony. The fact that he's chosen to do so in what is obviously an unplanned way (despite the tweets about "been thinking about this since the start of the year") also indicates there was some kind of row/trigger event/not-a-crisis that made him feel he had to act now adds to that perception. This may or may not turn out to be for the best, but it clearly indicates some kind of trouble at mill behind doors which is always going to be reported as such and would be in any company

Or maybe it really is just a move to enhance the commercial side of things. It's hardly far fetched.

[pauld]

Or maybe it really is just a move to enhance the commercial side of things. It's hardly far fetched.

I'm not saying it isn't. But it's not a normal rearrangement of the business, or they'd have done it at the AGM or in the close season as an orderly transition. Not sacking the chairman in the "Statement Monday" farrago we had at the start of the week.

[london_red]

The worrying aspect to this being the case is that Wray may have quit entirely because he was unwilling to work with the manager once the financial goalposts had moved. In other words, it wasn't what he or the manager signed up for.

Thought he said much the opposite in his BBC interview. That due to his pre-existing relationship with Di Canio he may not have been able to keep out of the way enough of Paolo working with the new chairman.

He's also just effectively been sacked by his best mate, which could understandably have dented his pride enough for him to want to make a clean break from the whole situation.

[bobby barnes jink]

Thought he said much the opposite in his BBC interview. That due to his pre-existing relationship with Di Canio he may not have been able to keep out of the way enough of Paolo working with the new chairman.

He's also just effectively been sacked by his best mate, which could understandably have dented his pride enough for him to want to make a clean break from the whole situation.

Apologies, I don't really get your point. I'm saying Wray may not have been willing to continue to work with PDC given the new set of circumstances, because he basically didn't agree with the fact the new regime wanted to deny PDC what they had initially promised him, an open cheque book of sorts. How is that the opposite to what he has said? Wray is loyal to Di Canio and refused to go back on their initial promises.

[london_red]

Apologies, I don't really get your point. I'm saying Wray may not have been willing to continue to work with PDC given the new set of circumstances, because he basically didn't agree with the fact the new regime wanted to deny PDC what they had initially promised him, an open cheque book of sorts. How is that the opposite to what he has said? Wray is loyal to Di Canio and refused to go back on their initial promises.

Sorry, I possibly wasn't very clear.

You are saying he left completely as he would NOT have wanted to work with Di Canio under these 'new circumstances' as you put it.

I'm saying my reading of what he said was that he left the club because he WOULD have continued a dialogue/working with Paolo and that it would potentially undermine the job the incoming chairman was trying to do.