The Debt.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Eddie owns the business. And therefore ultimately is responsible.

That's bollocks. Our Shareholders own the own I work for, they aren't ultimately responsible. That's what the CEO is for.

Perhaps "culpable" rather than "responsible".

[midlands exile]

Bit disingenuous to c*nt off a bloke folk know, pretty much, nothing about.

I think we all know BWFC had a party on the back of his investment. I doubt anyone posting on here has a clue why it all went wrong.

At the risk of repeating myself, I think it's fairly clear that there has either been some colossal incompetence or more sinister motives that have led to the hole we're in. And the bucket stops at the top. His regime has brought the club to its knees. So you can probably guess I'm not going to be asking for a statue of ED, not even a garden gnome.

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't know what's happened but they've completely fecked it up and left us in a right mess. No statue for me.

Aye I think credit for what he did is fair. But anyone suggesting a statue at this stage has to be having a laugh.

He gave us great times but his decisions and actions are now damaging the club, possibly beyond repair. It is hard to be balanced about it, but best I can do is say he's not evil or the enemy but he certainly has a lot to answer for.

Everyone is assuming it is Eddie calling the shots here, maybe others who maybe involved in his affairs don't share his view of the club?
We only have Gartside's word it was all down to Eddie and frankly I would take anything he said with a couple of acres of Cheshire salt mines now!

Eddie owns the business. And therefore ultimately is responsible.

That's bollocks. Our Shareholders own the own I work for, they aren't ultimately responsible. That's what the CEO is for.

The CEO is accountable to owner or shareholders, absolutely.

But in this instance the owner is still ultimately accountable for the situation the business finds itself in, the staff it has let down and the supporters it is upsetting. The only person who had power to act to either remove the CEO (if that was the problem) or to now avert the direction things are going is the owner. And therefore he, ultimately is accountable to the fans, the staff and everyone else.

If I own a bakery say, and put a manager in charge to run it and he employs staff, and runs it into the ground, as owner I am still accountable. I cannot just say "his problem". Any bills are mine to pay. The mess of a bust business is mine to sort not his. He may be at fault, but accountability is still mine.

[Enoch]

Fcuk me Enoch, your so nice you'd give Tony Blair a knighthood and statue for his contribution to middle east peace!

That's very nice of you to say so, Hoboh, though not strictly true. I was never a fan of Blair, by the way.

[Worthy4England]

The CEO is accountable to owner or shareholders, absolutely.

But in this instance the owner is still ultimately accountable for the situation the business finds itself in, the staff it has let down and the supporters it is upsetting. The only person who had power to act to either remove the CEO (if that was the problem) or to now avert the direction things are going is the owner. And therefore he, ultimately is accountable to the fans, the staff and everyone else.

If I own a bakery say, and put a manager in charge to run it and he employs staff, and runs it into the ground, as owner I am still accountable. I cannot just say "his problem". Any bills are mine to pay. The mess of a bust business is mine to sort not his. He may be at fault, but accountability is still mine.

You are confusing some sort of moral judgement with a legal one I think - I'm no expert here but it would depend on what type of Company you've set up to operate your bakery. We're a Limited Company not a sole trader bakery. Directors are responsible for running a Limited Company (go look it up), the prime one of which in our case is the CEO. ED isn't a Director, nor is he CEO. He's a bloke that's put money in.

[Enoch]

At the risk of repeating myself, I think it's fairly clear that there has either been some colossal incompetence or more sinister motives that have led to the hole we're in. And the bucket stops at the top. His regime has brought the club to its knees. So you can probably guess I'm not going to be asking for a statue of ED, not even a garden gnome.

At the risk of repeating myself:

Bit disingenuous to c*nt off a bloke folk know, pretty much, nothing about.

I think we all know BWFC had a party on the back of his investment. I doubt anyone posting on here has a clue why it all went wrong.

[Hoboh]

At the risk of repeating myself, I think it's fairly clear that there has either been some colossal incompetence or more sinister motives that have led to the hole we're in. And the bucket stops at the top. His regime has brought the club to its knees. So you can probably guess I'm not going to be asking for a statue of ED, not even a garden gnome.

At the risk of repeating myself:

Bit disingenuous to c*nt off a bloke folk know, pretty much, nothing about.

I think we all know BWFC had a party on the back of his investment. I doubt anyone posting on here has a clue why it all went wrong.

Phil feckin' Gartside and his mastermind recommendations of managers, easy!

[boltonboris]

Besides, I'm (hypothetically) rich and she's (hypothetically) desperate, so she won't mind what I call her

Yeah, but you're a tw*t (hypothetically).

You can take off the hypothetical bit there mate

[midlands exile]

At the risk of repeating myself, I think it's fairly clear that there has either been some colossal incompetence or more sinister motives that have led to the hole we're in. And the bucket stops at the top. His regime has brought the club to its knees. So you can probably guess I'm not going to be asking for a statue of ED, not even a garden gnome.

At the risk of repeating myself:

Bit disingenuous to c*nt off a bloke folk know, pretty much, nothing about.

I think we all know BWFC had a party on the back of his investment. I doubt anyone posting on here has a clue why it all went wrong.

Well, you're incorrect. It's one of two possible reasons, refer to first sentence of my post that you quoted, both of which are the responsibility of ED and PG. How can anyone argue against that?

[BWFC_Insane]

The CEO is accountable to owner or shareholders, absolutely.

But in this instance the owner is still ultimately accountable for the situation the business finds itself in, the staff it has let down and the supporters it is upsetting. The only person who had power to act to either remove the CEO (if that was the problem) or to now avert the direction things are going is the owner. And therefore he, ultimately is accountable to the fans, the staff and everyone else.

If I own a bakery say, and put a manager in charge to run it and he employs staff, and runs it into the ground, as owner I am still accountable. I cannot just say "his problem". Any bills are mine to pay. The mess of a bust business is mine to sort not his. He may be at fault, but accountability is still mine.

You are confusing some sort of moral judgement with a legal one I think - I'm no expert here but it would depend on what type of Company you've set up to operate your bakery. We're a Limited Company not a sole trader bakery. Directors are responsible for running a Limited Company (go look it up), the prime one of which in our case is the CEO. ED isn't a Director, nor is he CEO. He's a bloke that's put money in.

Well, morally accountable is what I mean. As I said he's accountable to fans, staff etc.

Obviously not in a legal compensatory sense. But in the running of the football club he can blame someone else, but rightly as owner he will be held to account in the eyes of supporters.

[TANGODANCER]

Well, morally accountable is what I mean. As I said he's accountable to fans, staff etc.

Whilst used in other contexts, accounts and morals are not the best of companions.

[Worthy4England]

The CEO is accountable to owner or shareholders, absolutely.

But in this instance the owner is still ultimately accountable for the situation the business finds itself in, the staff it has let down and the supporters it is upsetting. The only person who had power to act to either remove the CEO (if that was the problem) or to now avert the direction things are going is the owner. And therefore he, ultimately is accountable to the fans, the staff and everyone else.

If I own a bakery say, and put a manager in charge to run it and he employs staff, and runs it into the ground, as owner I am still accountable. I cannot just say "his problem". Any bills are mine to pay. The mess of a bust business is mine to sort not his. He may be at fault, but accountability is still mine.

You are confusing some sort of moral judgement with a legal one I think - I'm no expert here but it would depend on what type of Company you've set up to operate your bakery. We're a Limited Company not a sole trader bakery. Directors are responsible for running a Limited Company (go look it up), the prime one of which in our case is the CEO. ED isn't a Director, nor is he CEO. He's a bloke that's put money in.

Well, morally accountable is what I mean. As I said he's accountable to fans, staff etc.

Obviously not in a legal compensatory sense. But in the running of the football club he can blame someone else, but rightly as owner he will be held to account in the eyes of supporters.

I don't hold ED to account (yet) for our current situation. The people running the football club day to day - I hold them responsible. ED has no formal position within the Club other than he provided finance. PG on the other hand was responsible for the operation of the Club and got a reasonable days pay out of it, to run it as it needed to be run - including understanding the changes required when ED said he was going to stop financing. Clearly ED's had some more input than a hands-off finance company, but for all we know, he might have set a reasonable objective for Garty some considerable time ago. Our last Accounts suggested we were on target from a FFP perspective and the salary base was due to reduce further for the current financial period.

So something ain't right, we just have different perspectives on who should have sorted it out.

[Prufrock]

I'm fairly sure he'd have been involved in significant transfers he bankrolled. I doubt he'd have done the negotiations (but he might) - more likely to set the high level parameters. If he trusted Gartside (and PG's continuing involvement suggest that was the case) then how closely would he look? Loan against assets, short term, we don't know what they story was there - he might have been told "I'm doing this loan, but it's not a problem because X is going to happen. Contracts, he might have set some sort of salary bill cap - then again he might have left it as "as long as it's covered by Revenue then it's good.

PG was the CEO not Davies. Why have a dog and bark yourself? There has to be trust in the CEO otherwise it's not going to work very well. So probably not very close to the day to day stuff. I'd be very surprised if your CEO knew what you earned.

I bet he would if, say, I'd just come to the end of a fixed-term contract on £20k+ p/w, had looked around for a better deal, couldn't find one, and then had the brass neck to ask the CEO for a wage rise on a new 3 year deal, which he agreed to. Or if everyone knew we were f*cked but a new employee turned up wanting 16kpw. I bet ED doesn't know what the tea lady earns, he's an idiot if he doesn't know the 1st team earn.

It's not the same as shareholders with a normal business. Normal businesses aren't losing £1m per month and asking the shareholders to cover it. If he's sticking in £1m a month, he either knows where it's going, or he should do.

[Worthy4England]

I'm fairly sure he'd have been involved in significant transfers he bankrolled. I doubt he'd have done the negotiations (but he might) - more likely to set the high level parameters. If he trusted Gartside (and PG's continuing involvement suggest that was the case) then how closely would he look? Loan against assets, short term, we don't know what they story was there - he might have been told "I'm doing this loan, but it's not a problem because X is going to happen. Contracts, he might have set some sort of salary bill cap - then again he might have left it as "as long as it's covered by Revenue then it's good.

PG was the CEO not Davies. Why have a dog and bark yourself? There has to be trust in the CEO otherwise it's not going to work very well. So probably not very close to the day to day stuff. I'd be very surprised if your CEO knew what you earned.

I bet he would if, say, I'd just come to the end of a fixed-term contract on £20k+ p/w, had looked around for a better deal, couldn't find one, and then had the brass neck to ask the CEO for a wage rise on a new 3 year deal, which he agreed to. Or if everyone knew we were f*cked but a new employee turned up wanting 16kpw. I bet ED doesn't know what the tea lady earns, he's an idiot if he doesn't know the 1st team earn.

It's not the same as shareholders with a normal business. Normal businesses aren't losing £1m per month and asking the shareholders to cover it. If he's sticking in £1m a month, he either knows where it's going, or he should do.

I'm sure he does know what the 1st team earn - in total. I'm less sure that he'd be involved in what each 1st teamer earned. One is a budget set - you have X in total salaries, the other is him becoming operationally involved...

[Prufrock]

I'm fairly sure he'd have been involved in significant transfers he bankrolled. I doubt he'd have done the negotiations (but he might) - more likely to set the high level parameters. If he trusted Gartside (and PG's continuing involvement suggest that was the case) then how closely would he look? Loan against assets, short term, we don't know what they story was there - he might have been told "I'm doing this loan, but it's not a problem because X is going to happen. Contracts, he might have set some sort of salary bill cap - then again he might have left it as "as long as it's covered by Revenue then it's good.

PG was the CEO not Davies. Why have a dog and bark yourself? There has to be trust in the CEO otherwise it's not going to work very well. So probably not very close to the day to day stuff. I'd be very surprised if your CEO knew what you earned.

I bet he would if, say, I'd just come to the end of a fixed-term contract on £20k+ p/w, had looked around for a better deal, couldn't find one, and then had the brass neck to ask the CEO for a wage rise on a new 3 year deal, which he agreed to. Or if everyone knew we were f*cked but a new employee turned up wanting 16kpw. I bet ED doesn't know what the tea lady earns, he's an idiot if he doesn't know the 1st team earn.

It's not the same as shareholders with a normal business. Normal businesses aren't losing £1m per month and asking the shareholders to cover it. If he's sticking in £1m a month, he either knows where it's going, or he should do.

I'm sure he does know what the 1st team earn - in total. I'm less sure that he'd be involved in what each 1st teamer earned. One is a budget set - you have X in total salaries, the other is him becoming operationally involved...

I don't think we're disagreeing any more. My only point was that this idea that ED rocked up 2 months ago to check on his healthy solvent football club and was told by PG to sit down, there were a few things he needed to tell him, is balls!

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

ED has no formal position within the Club other than he provided finance.

Majority shareholder. As in, "all but total" shareholder.

Not to argue with you - it's not a formal position - but it's not like he just chucked money in a bucket.

[Worthy4England]

See I'm not fully convinced at that last bit yet...I'm fairly sure he would be aware of the direction of travel - fck me if we cottoned on then I'm not putting him as that stupid. Do you not think they'd have also had a conversation that went along the lines of "Phil, I'm stopping putting money in at date X. From then on, you'll need to have in place a model to cover the operating expense"?

[BWFC_Insane]

See I'm not fully convinced at that last bit yet...I'm fairly sure he would be aware of the direction of travel - fck me if we cottoned on then I'm not putting him as that stupid. Do you not think they'd have also had a conversation that went along the lines of "Phil, I'm stopping putting money in at date X. From then on, you'll need to have in place a model to cover the operating expense"?

We don't really know if he did or not and what sort of notice he gave either.

But given you've stated the club needed Eddie's investment prior to him investing to survive and still need it now, what model would you expect Phil to devise to cover the operating expense? If Eddie gave a year's notice say, it is already probably too late to bin off your high earners.

[Prufrock]

See I'm not fully convinced at that last bit yet...I'm fairly sure he would be aware of the direction of travel - fck me if we cottoned on then I'm not putting him as that stupid. Do you not think they'd have also had a conversation that went along the lines of "Phil, I'm stopping putting money in at date X. From then on, you'll need to have in place a model to cover the operating expense"?

I'd hope so!

However, assuming it took place, that conversation either took place months (if not years) ago - in which case I'd have been checking to see how we going, given I was on the peg for £1m per month; or, it took place v recently, which is wholly unrealistic.

More generally, the specifics of what he knew aren't really important. As you say, we cottoned on to the direction of travel, so he knew we were losing f*ck loads. If you're prepared to cover that (as he had been for years) then great, hero all round and statue coming. If you're not prepared to, then fine, but don't go authorising Keith Andrews getting a 3 year deal on Prem wages, or Amos this summer. He may not have known what each was getting, but they were getting it within a budget he must have known about.

If I'm sticking up £1m per month, I'm finding out why, and if I don't want to do it any more, I'm keeping at least an eye on how the cost-cutting is going!

[Enoch]

See I'm not fully convinced at that last bit yet...I'm fairly sure he would be aware of the direction of travel - fck me if we cottoned on then I'm not putting him as that stupid. Do you not think they'd have also had a conversation that went along the lines of

Eddie:.... "Phil, I'm stopping putting money in at date X. From then on, you'll need to have in place a model to cover the operating expense"

Phil:....... "Gulp, I don't feel well"

.

I'm not casting aspersions by the way,