In respect of Question 3

he seems to be saying that the view that the moneys to build the South Stand would be directly generated from other real estate is overly simplistic, and maybe it is, but that was his own description of how the project was to be funded expressed on the club's official website so I don't think it is unfair of anyone to rely on that.
But that doesn't alter the fact that prior to the construction of the South Stand it was the club's view that none of the money to finance the project needed to be borrowed, but in the event it was all borrowed. That simply doesn't look like sound management to me.
Neither do the reasons given: that the club seriously under- estimated the costs of development and therefore didn't profit as much as anticipated; and that the club spent moneys it had not received and got caught out when they were never received. It's not obvious that any of that was sound management either.

The trouble is that problems take years to fully emerge - years ago (probably 2002) I moaned about the level cronyism at the club - specifically the London-based property consultant who was used in calculating the development potential of the land- a job that Doncaster now seems to be suggesting was botched. His name was Tim (I think) Collins - and who knows who he is?

Posted By: The King of Prussia on October 4th 2007 at 19:12:57

Message Thread

Doncaster's reply to my email (warning: lengthy) (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Oct 4, 17:35:11
- In respect of Question 3 (NCFC) - The King of Prussia, Oct 4, 19:12:57
- I'm a bit concerned (NCFC) - Tomblander, Oct 4, 18:04:37
  - maybe he's hoping every Tom, Dick or bigfeller, upon recieving their replies (NCFC) - blindasabat, Oct 4, 18:13:00
    - Ah - but that's what I'll do when I ring him tomorrow! ;-) (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Oct 4, 18:15:25
  - Two things (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Oct 4, 18:09:58
    - but it takes ages to read the thing in the first place (n/m) (NCFC) - Charles21, Oct 4, 18:12:25
      - Took me less than 10 seconds. (n/m) (NCFC) - tudders, Oct 4, 19:26:03
        
        are you a super fast reader? (n/m) (NCFC) - Charles21, Oct 4, 20:17:56
        
        Yes, tudders, but he meant if you read the message, not just the subject (n/m) (NCFC) - Steve in Holland, Oct 4, 19:28:24
  - agree ffs (NCFC) - Charles21, Oct 4, 18:09:13
    - It's up to him whether to reply or not (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Oct 4, 18:13:54
      - ofcourse you do (NCFC) - Charles21, Oct 4, 18:16:59
- Couple of thoughts (NCFC) - Jim, Oct 4, 17:50:24
- just on point 6... (NCFC) - blindasabat, Oct 4, 17:48:37
  - Didn't expect him to say anything - just wanted to register my opinion with him, s'all (n/m) (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Oct 4, 17:52:42
    - To which? Q6, or the whole email? (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Oct 4, 17:57:50
      - Q6 (and alright slagging off might not be the right expression) (NCFC) - blindasabat, Oct 4, 18:08:26
        
        Who knows? It's more that, as I said, nothing positive was said about Grant (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Oct 4, 18:11:48
        
        you mean the dreaded vote of confidence? :-) (NCFC) - blindasabat, Oct 4, 18:18:16
        
        No. I'd be too relieved that the board had finally acted (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Oct 4, 18:21:47
        
        well maybe Grant was offered it for the transfer window (NCFC) - blindasabat, Oct 4, 18:26:09
        
        Not the sort of amount ND was suggesting we had only a couple of months ago (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Oct 4, 18:28:32
    - bit unfair to slag him off for his answer then intut? (n/m) (NCFC) - blindasabat, Oct 4, 17:54:44
- By the way, where I said his answer to Q2 was pie in the sky... (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Oct 4, 17:48:28
  - Hucks, Leon and Svensson... (NCFC) - Steve in Holland, Oct 4, 19:21:50

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.