He is. I don't care how good he was, the guy has sold out. Sent from my iPhone
On 16 May 2012, at 03:26, "Eric B" <[email protected]> wrote: > im starting to severely dislike old pete. hes a twat. > > Eric > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Rick Duniec <[email protected]> wrote: > >> New post on Football Management >> >> Deconstructing Peter Lorimer >> by John Beech >> >> Peter Lorimer's thoughts on fans being on the boards of football clubs (1) >> were, at least as reported by the BBC, somewhat confusing and even confused. >> Certainly his assertion that he does not envisage a member of the >> Supporters Trust having a place on the Leeds United board is hardly a >> surprise given the way that Chairman Bates views fans (2). In fact, it's no >> more 'news' than would be David Cameron announcing that he could not >> envisage an Argentinean having a place on the Port Stanley Parish Council. >> As Lorimer said, "People put a lot of money in and they're entitled to run >> the club as they want." I was reminded of the Ingram brothers and their >> long-running confrontation with the Yeltz Supporters Trust (3). To many on >> the owners' side of football's divide, legal ownership is simply about the >> right to control, and there is no recognition of the fans' perspective of >> psychological ownership. There are exceptions - most notably that at >> Arsenal, where the notion of being 'custodian' rather than 'owner' has a >> long history - but their numbers are few. >> In other words, Lorimer simply pointed out that current owners, be they >> 'benefactors' or investors, see Supporters Trusts as the natural enemy, >> because they want to take over the company running the club. As Basil >> Fawlty once put it, a 'statement of the bleeding obvious'. >> What was confused and confusing with his comments were his attempts to add >> a rationale to the argument - one that doesn't need to be there, and, in >> the case of his comments, is a flawed rationale. >> He was quoted as saying with respect to having members of the Supporters >> Trust on the board of a club "For me it's never worked at any club" and "I >> just don't think it works on a whole scale. I've seen a number of occasions >> where fans have ended up running a club and it's ended in disaster.". >> I can only think of one case that I would consider to have ended in >> disaster, which was that of Notts County, where the Supporters Trust was >> all but conned out of ownership (4 and postings passim). Another case that >> was not an unmitigated success was that at Bournemouth, with the Supporters >> Trust having to give up control of the club as it continued to struggle >> financially (5). >> Incidentally, while digging the last link out of my files, I came across >> the following snippet for The Independent of 12 January 1993. I reproduce >> it without comment as it may be of interest to those who followed a recent >> unsuccessful prosecution: >> A PAYMENT of £100,000 made to Harry Redknapp, West Ham's assistant >> manager, when he left Bournemouth last summer was paid personally by the >> chairman of the south coast club. Norman Hayward gave Redknapp the gift >> when he left the club after nine years in charge. Bournemouth had been >> swamped with angry calls and letters from fans who threatened a boycott >> when it was made known how much Redknapp was receiving at a time when the >> club was fighting for survival with debts of £2.6m. Hayward said yesterday >> the payment came from his own ''personal funds''. >> But I digress. >> The Bournemouth case, at least in wider context, is typical of clubs when >> Supporters Trusts take over - they almost invariably do so in the direst of >> circumstances. 'Benefactors' and investors take over in a variety of >> financial circumstances, so any comparison is automatically weighted >> against the Supporters Trusts being successful. >> To be clear though, there are numerous examples of Supporters Trusts >> turning a club round. It is easy to fail to appreciate the numbers >> involved, especially as many cases are further down the pyramid. Recent >> data from Supporters Direct shows the following clubs with Supporters Trust >> shareholdings (%): >> AFC Telford United100 >> Chester FC100 >> Enfield Town100 >> FC United of Manchester100 >> Gretna100 >> Hendon100 >> Merthyr Town FC100 >> Runcorn100 >> Scarborough100 >> Fisher FC100 >> Clydebank99.99 >> Inverness Clachnacuddin76 >> AFC Wimbledon72 >> Exeter City63 >> Brentford60 >> Newport (IOW)51 >> Chesham United45 >> Aylesbury United38 >> Clyde32 >> Dundee26 >> Carlisle United25.37 >> Dover Athletic25.1 >> Lincoln City25 >> York City25 >> >> etc. etc., including Swansea City. In total, 95 English and Scottish >> football clubs are run by companies with Supporters Trust shareholders. 68 >> clubs have a Supporters' Trust director on the board. The following are >> fully supporter-owned: AFC Telford United; AFC Wimbledon; Brentford; >> Chesham United; Chester FC; Clyde; Clydebank; Crusaders (Northern Ireland); >> Enfield Town; Exeter City; FC United of Manchester; Fisher FC; Gretna; >> Hendon; Merthyr Town FC; Newark Town; Prescott Cables; Runcorn; >> Scarborough; Stenhousemuir; Stirling Albion; and most recently, Lewes and >> AFC Rushden and Diamonds. There may well be more - please comment if I've >> missed any from these lists. >> This hardly squares with Lorimer's claim that "it's never worked at any >> club". More to the point, I wonder whether he really believes that >> 'benefactors' or investors are more likely to make a success of running a >> club. My list of clubs that have suffered events is littered with the >> failures of clubs that were NOT run by Supporters Trusts. >> If Peter Lorimer really thinks that traditional owners make a better fist >> of running clubs than Supporters Trusts, I can only recommend that he >> starts reading a fascinating new series of postings by Ian King on the >> twohundredpercent website - The 100 Most Controversial Football Club Owners >> of All-Time. It will open his eyes. >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Leedslist mailing list >> Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.** >> uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist<http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist> >> To unsubscribe, email >> [email protected].**org<[email protected]> >> >> PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate >> > _______________________________________________ > Leedslist mailing list > Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist > To unsubscribe, email [email protected] > > PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate
