|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Mar 2, 2018 14:27:36 GMT
...which is why that wasn't how the discussion went. It was the complete opposite of that.
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Mar 2, 2018 15:49:55 GMT
Andy.
What sleepinggiant says is spot on. This issue has nothing to do with what Jeremy Pitt's mother called him or how he and others have maligned anyone. This is about the dissaperance of a large sum of money; strange land deals; non disclosure of information etc. It's no use wanting to ask fans who post on message boards questions. Ask those who should be accountable. They have been in charge.
You might think there's been a lot of vitriol from people like me, but all we've wanted is answers. Jeremy Pitt is, by his own admission, a "pain in the a**e Rottweiler". But he didn't create this situation, he was just one of those who saw it coming. A lot of people would have been delighted if he had just shut up and turned the other way (as many did), but he didn't.
Now it's implied that he has alienated some supporters. Maybe he has, but nowhere near the number that Boddy, Hallmark, Hampson and co have. They destroyed this city's football club and squandered the proceeds.
It's no use talking to the likes of us on this message board - we're just the victims. Talk to the perpetrators.
I assume you know the plot of Ibsen's An Enemy of the People? A man discovers a scandal in his home town. It should be straightforward to expose the truth. However, the press, local dignitaries and various interested parties turn the population against the protagonist. The outrage is turned towards the whistleblower rather than the scandal. Sound familiar?
Jem, nor the rest of us vitriolic posters are to blame for this. As we have said many times before the truth will out if the likes of you "follow the money".
If Jem has lashed out then fight him back. He can be a pain in the a**e. But I will stand shoulder to shoulder with him if needed, and if he bites me in the process I'll bite him back.
We're vitriolic because we're angry. We want justice.
|
|
|
Post by canalender on Mar 2, 2018 15:56:48 GMT
Gosh, only my mother calls me Jeremy That's not quite true, is it Jeremy?
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Mar 2, 2018 16:37:33 GMT
Dear Andy
Niels Eiriksson here.
Reference your postings above.
If indeed you, or your colleagues at WN, are digging and investigating into the running of, and past dealings of, Worcester City FC then I applaud you. However that would contradict our conversation at a Trust event last year when I put some of the suspecions about the dealings of various club boards to you, and you told me that there were far too few journalists at the Worcester News to do such investigative work, as a small number were spread thin over the various publications (WN, Malvern, Droitwich etc).
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Mar 2, 2018 19:00:47 GMT
I am not critical of the WN on this one, indeed I applaud Andy Mitchell for giving the story a wider audience. But let's not overlook that it took a long-standing fan to raise it in the first place, and indeed discussion on this Banter Board often leads to stories appearing in the media.
We however are not journalists but passionate fans - we may show it in different ways and sometimes disagree but we still care for our club.
That doesn't mean unswerving loyalty to the current regime, we should be able to question. Sadly, the local newspaper seems to be where most of the debate now plays out. There is precious little dialogue between board and fans, or board and shareholders.
So, the WN has a role to play, hopefully presenting a balanced view. I would advise anyone who wants to take Andy up on his offer to email him as suggested.
Meanwhile we continue to see WCFC fading and dying in front of our very eyes. That passion I spoke of is therefore bound to run high.
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Mar 2, 2018 19:07:45 GMT
Email him about what exactly? He can see the accounts like we can. It's not us he needs to talk to. Maybe Hampson should email him.
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Mar 2, 2018 19:08:34 GMT
Anthony Hampson’s latest odd outbursts are not really the story. The real investigative journalism needs to dig into what went on during the period of the drafting of the St George’s Lane contract agreement back in the day. Some folk, who disappeared off into the sunset many years ago, must have profited very handsomely from that deal.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Mar 2, 2018 19:27:56 GMT
Anthony Hampson’s latest odd outbursts are not really the story. The real investigative journalism needs to dig into what went on during the period of the drafting of the St George’s Lane contract agreement back in the day. Some folk, who disappeared off into the sunset many years ago, must have profited very handsomely from that deal. I am in full agreement with downthelane. The local press were silenced back then, along with attempts to silence a number of us more vocal supporters. The good old days of saliva in the face down at SGL! Few clubs could have gone from a 7.36 million deal to skint and homeless in a matter of a few years.
|
|
oxford
First Teamer
Posts: 406
|
Post by oxford on Mar 2, 2018 20:13:06 GMT
Anthony Hampson’s latest odd outbursts are not really the story. The real investigative journalism needs to dig into what went on during the period of the drafting of the St George’s Lane contract agreement back in the day. Some folk, who disappeared off into the sunset many years ago, must have profited very handsomely from that deal. I am in full agreement with downthelane. The local press were silenced back then, along with attempts to silence a number of us more vocal supporters. The good old days of saliva in the face down at SGL! Few clubs could have gone from a 7.36 million deal to skint and homeless in a matter of a few years. [/quote Absolutely spot on. That is when the club started its slow progress to certain death. While I certainly wasn't a "spitter" & I did sign Niels' petition etc I never really listened hard enough and I will regret that for ever. Penny finally dropped when all was already lost. And a few are still perfectly happy with the situation as long as they can watch "the lads".
|
|
cogg
Squad Member
Posts: 208
|
Post by cogg on Mar 2, 2018 20:14:06 GMT
" Andy.
What sleepinggiant says is spot on. This issue has nothing to do with what Jeremy Pitt's mother called him or how he and others have maligned anyone. This is about the dissaperance of a large sum of money; strange land deals; non disclosure of information etc. It's no use wanting to ask fans who post on message boards questions. Ask those who should be accountable. They have been in charge.
You might think there's been a lot of vitriol from people like me, but all we've wanted is answers. Jeremy Pitt is, by his own admission, a "pain in the a**e Rottweiler". But he didn't create this situation, he was just one of those who saw it coming. A lot of people would have been delighted if he had just shut up and turned the other way (as many did), but he didn't.
Now it's implied that he has alienated some supporters. Maybe he has, but nowhere near the number that Boddy, Hallmark, Hampson and co have. They destroyed this city's football club and squandered the proceeds.
It's no use talking to the likes of us on this message board - we're just the victims. Talk to the perpetrators.
I assume you know the plot of Ibsen's An Enemy of the People? A man discovers a scandal in his home town. It should be straightforward to expose the truth. However, the press, local dignitaries and various interested parties turn the population against the protagonist. The outrage is turned towards the whistleblower rather than the scandal. Sound familiar?
Jem, nor the rest of us vitriolic posters are to blame for this. As we have said many times before the truth will out if the likes of you "follow the money".
If Jem has lashed out then fight him back. He can be a pain in the a**e. But I will stand shoulder to shoulder with him if needed, and if he bites me in the process I'll bite him back.
We're vitriolic because we're angry. We want justice."
There is nothing I can add to this. Like Ealing I got so fed up with the situation I walked away but Jem and others didn't and they put the rest of us to shame. Jem is a cantankerous c**t most of the time, but I'd want to be on his team any day of the week. The WN says they know things, well it's about time they told people as I've been waiting for the truth for 10 years now !!
|
|
|
Post by andymitchell on Mar 2, 2018 20:25:02 GMT
Andy. What sleepinggiant says is spot on. This issue has nothing to do with what Jeremy Pitt's mother called him or how he and others have maligned anyone. This is about the dissaperance of a large sum of money; strange land deals; non disclosure of information etc. It's no use wanting to ask fans who post on message boards questions. Ask those who should be accountable. They have been in charge. You might think there's been a lot of vitriol from people like me, but all we've wanted is answers. Jeremy Pitt is, by his own admission, a "pain in the a**e Rottweiler". But he didn't create this situation, he was just one of those who saw it coming. A lot of people would have been delighted if he had just shut up and turned the other way (as many did), but he didn't. Now it's implied that he has alienated some supporters. Maybe he has, but nowhere near the number that Boddy, Hallmark, Hampson and co have. They destroyed this city's football club and squandered the proceeds. It's no use talking to the likes of us on this message board - we're just the victims. Talk to the perpetrators. I assume you know the plot of Ibsen's An Enemy of the People? A man discovers a scandal in his home town. It should be straightforward to expose the truth. However, the press, local dignitaries and various interested parties turn the population against the protagonist. The outrage is turned towards the whistleblower rather than the scandal. Sound familiar? Jem, nor the rest of us vitriolic posters are to blame for this. As we have said many times before the truth will out if the likes of you "follow the money". If Jem has lashed out then fight him back. He can be a pain in the a**e. But I will stand shoulder to shoulder with him if needed, and if he bites me in the process I'll bite him back. We're vitriolic because we're angry. We want justice. "... or how he and others have maligned anyone." It's not relevant to what may or may not have happened, true, but you say you seek answers. This vitriol doesn't appear to have got anyone anywhere yet, does it?"It's no use wanting to ask fans who post on message boards questions." Yes it is. You guys have lived and breathed this for years. Who is better placed to appraise the situation from outside the club? "You might think there's been a lot of vitriol from people like me, but all we've wanted is answers." I accept other methods might not have given you the answers you want but again, where has the vitriol got you?
I cannot understand it being directed towards those that offer any kind of view not held by a certain few on this board. How do you expect to create enough support for the change you want to see when those who may disagree get shot down so readily?"A lot of people would have been delighted if he had just shut up and turned the other way (as many did), but he didn't." Admirable, perhaps. Again, what has been achieved through vitriol?"Now it's implied that he has alienated some supporters. Maybe he has, but nowhere near the number that Boddy, Hallmark, Hampson and co have." Whether or not that's true about current/former directors, that's no excuse. How does alienating people help?"A man discovers a scandal in his home town. It should be straightforward to expose the truth. However, the press, local dignitaries and various interested parties turn the population against the protagonist. The outrage is turned towards the whistleblower rather than the scandal. Sound familiar?"
No.
We have no vested interest either way.
In spite of the mudslinging directed at me, my colleagues and predecessors, the door remains open.
It is not straightforward to "expose" what is being implied about current/former WCFC directors, it is far from proven that these theories are correct. As mentioned, there are no direct accusations.
There is no "outrage" towards any whistleblower over the claims made, however spurious, the issue is the way people are put down so readily. In my opinion, that is a big reason why people have stopped listening. "As we have said many times before the truth will out if the likes of you "follow the money"." Hints at this, nudges towards that... like I said, the door is open to those who wish to make any claims.
If you're so certain, why make half accusations anonymously?"If Jem has lashed out then fight him back." I have no interest in that. I have engaged Mr Pitt in debate a couple of times and found it futile.
Mr Pitt has yet to have anything to say (other than the traditional greetings/pleasantries the first time we met) when he has seen me in person or when contacted by me on behalf of WN. This from a person who has readily defamed me through internet forums/social media.
Most other people associated with the trust do not and, I believe, would not behave that way. I would argue they are just as passionate and far more credible.
Perhaps I shouldn't have corrected him today, perhaps it was a waste of my time, but if it opens up communication with anyone who felt WN/I wouldn't look into these things then it has been worthwhile."We're vitriolic because we're angry. We want justice." Then please, get in touch...
|
|
|
Post by andymitchell on Mar 2, 2018 20:38:28 GMT
Dear Andy Niels Eiriksson here. Reference your postings above. If indeed you, or your colleagues at WN, are digging and investigating into the running of, and past dealings of, Worcester City FC then I applaud you. However that would contradict our conversation at a Trust event last year when I put some of the suspecions about the dealings of various club boards to you, and you told me that there were far too few journalists at the Worcester News to do such investigative work, as a small number were spread thin over the various publications (WN, Malvern, Droitwich etc). Hi Niels, It is true there are challenges in local newsrooms. There are not the bodies there were wherever you go but I don't recall saying we could not look into it at all. Is it tricky to find the time for these things? Unquestionably, even more so when you do a four-day week as I do. Is digging around financial stories the natural habitat of a sports reporter? Probably not, which can add to the time required. I hope I didn't give the impression of an abandonment of, well, hope. Please drop me an email (andy.mitchell@newsquest.co.uk) and if you'd like to, we can have a chat at a good time for us both. Cheers, Andy.
|
|
|
Post by sleepinggiant on Mar 2, 2018 21:37:08 GMT
Andy, I don’t think anybody is asking you to make accusations that cannot be fully evidenced. All we ask is for you to ask probing and uncomfortable questions over the running of the football club. All I am seeing is the chairman and directors getting off very lightly and not being challenged on what they say. This has gone on under your predecessors too so maybe there is a higher decision maker having an influence?
You have a very privileged and unique position of having access to the club and a vehicle to publish answers to a wide range of supporters. Please don’t forget that.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Mar 2, 2018 21:53:35 GMT
Mr Mitchell, I don't talk to the local press, I believe that that is my prerogative, and your opinion is already formed and that's your prerogative.
Lets not detract from the real story here, having lost £298,000 in one year, the Chairman has placed the blame fully at the feet of Carl Heeley. So lets dig a little deeper into this.
The playing budget was set at the beginning of the season, the initial budget was considered too low to allow the club to be competitive in the National League, so the Board agreed to raise it slightly, and it was approved by the Board. There was no further Board agreement to provide a budget based on a successful cup run, after all, after two good runs, the luck was bound to run out. The chairman suggests that Carl overspent by something like an additional £150,000 over a period of about 30 weeks. So that's an overspend of £5,000 per week! Is the Chairman really trying to convince us that every week, he saw an overspend of £5,000, week in, week out, and for 30 weeks did nothing at all? In what other other job would you not be fired for such an overspend? Its simply not a credible story at all. Remember, this was the year after the club reported a loss of £150,000, higher than the anticipated loss of £120,000 , so every effort was being made to reign in the spend, including leaving Aggborough. The weekly spend should surely have been watched like a hawk, and action taken straight away by the Board. At a time of corporate austerity, no responsible Board would delegate all commercial matters relating to employees to a manager. I don't believe that anything unlawful has taken place, but that is a matter now for the relevant authorities, and for the shareholders
Questions shareholders should be asking (in no particular order) are
1. Why was there no level of internal audit compliance over the spend during the year? 2. What was the real reason for the resignation of the auditors? 3. Are the Board planning to spend the shareholders reserve? 4. Is the company likely to be knowingly trading insolvently at any time between now and May 2018? 5. What is the impact on plans for football foundation grant funding for Parsonage Way? 6. Do the club have funds to even put together a planning application for Parsonage Way? 7. Why did the Chairman say that the club could afford phase 1 of PW out of its existing funds, when they sit at just £200,000 ?
Jeremy Pitt
|
|
|
Post by sleepinggiant on Mar 2, 2018 22:08:05 GMT
Mr Mitchell, I don't talk to the local press, I believe that that is my prerogative, and your opinion is already formed and that's your prerogative. Lets not detract from the real story here, having lost £298,000 in one year, the Chairman has placed the blame fully at the feet of Carl Heeley. So lets dig a little deeper into this. The playing budget was set at the beginning of the season, the initial budget was considered too low to allow the club to be competitive in the National League, so the Board agreed to raise it slightly, and it was approved by the Board. There was no further Board agreement to provide a budget based on a successful cup run, after all, after two good runs, the luck was bound to run out. The chairman suggests that Carl overspent by something like an additional £150,000 over a period of about 30 weeks. So that's an overspend of £5,000 per week! Is the Chairman really trying to convince us that every week, he saw an overspend of £5,000, week in, week out, and for 30 weeks did nothing at all? In what other other job would you not be fired for such an overspend? Its simply not a credible story at all. Remember, this was the year after the club reported a loss of £150,000, higher than the anticipated loss of £120,000 , so every effort was being made to reign in the spend, including leaving Aggborough. The weekly spend should surely have been watched like a hawk, and action taken straight away by the Board. At a time of corporate austerity, no responsible Board would delegate all commercial matters relating to employees to a manager. I don't believe that anything unlawful has taken place, but that is a matter now for the relevant authorities, and for the shareholders Questions shareholders should be asking (in no particular order) are 1. Why was there no level of internal audit compliance over the spend during the year? 2. What was the real reason for the resignation of the auditors? 3. Are the Board planning to spend the shareholders reserve? 4. Is the company likely to be knowingly trading insolvently at any time between now and May 2018? 5. What is the impact on plans for football foundation grant funding for Parsonage Way? 6. Do the club have funds to even put together a planning application for Parsonage Way? 7. Why did the Chairman say that the club could afford phase 1 of PW out of its existing funds, when they sit at just £200,000 ? Jeremy Pitt There you go Andy. There’s some of your work done for you.
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Mar 2, 2018 22:28:56 GMT
Can anyone point out where the "vitriol" or "innuendo" is in basic questions like "why is WCFC operating at such a staggering loss" and "what happened to the money from the sale of SGL", let alone the valid points sleepinggiant raises. It feels like the real issues are being sidestepped by aiming irrelevant comments towards those seeking answers.
We don't get any clarification from Hampson, perhaps the press might have more luck? As shareholders and supporters we are ignored. If this was simply a local company that would be bad enough, but this was our local club, it used to represent our city. Now it's gone.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Mar 5, 2018 14:50:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by zeke on Mar 5, 2018 15:45:04 GMT
So Carl isn't to blame
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Mar 5, 2018 15:56:52 GMT
To clarify, Carl was involved in the playing budget decision, more than that, Carl prepared the draft budget for the company for FY17, and the draft was presented at the May 16 board meeting, it was amended after discussion with Carl, and agreed at that meeting. It may well have been voted on at the following meeting, but as I voted it in, together with Rob Crean and Mike Davis sat on the Board, and we all resigned in July, then Carl would have also voted it through. I do remember that the figures we voted through were less than those monthly budgets suggested by the Chairman last week, and that no additional spend was allotted to fund a Cup run. I'm not really sure what the relevance is of the club paying an employee as football secretary, other than the fact that these "related party transactions" had not been declared in previous accounts.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Mar 5, 2018 16:02:15 GMT
BTW Carl put together a very good draft budget, which, if adhered to, would have brought in a smaller loss than FY15, still in the National North and still playing away from Worcester.
|
|