Michael Duff after the defeat at Fleetwood

Talk about anything to do with Cheltenham Town, CTFC 500 Club, League 1, ex players & Managers

Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin

Artemis
Posts: 2351
Joined: 28 Dec 2009, 20:36
Robin wrote:Now I think you are at the heart of the issue Artemis. One risk adverse shareholder in particular who is close to Bloxham didn't like how the club was being led.
Two things:

How do you know it was one major shareholder? To carry any significant vote would require a majority. As far as I know, no one shareholder has in excess of 50% of the issued share capital.

You call them risk averse, they might call themselves prudent.....and its their money and risk to own, not yours, not the former chairman's. I've never understood why football supporters expect others to put their money at risk for supporter's entertainment or reflected glory.

Those two points aside, as a trust member, I am intrigued by the trust's position on this - as a major shareholder themselves.
Robin
Posts: 15948
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:19
Because one major shareholder wrote a letter to Andy Wilcox asking him to resign that's why. They can call themselves prudent all they like but when you realise our budget is set lower than Accrington Stanley despite noticeably higher gates and ticket prices I believe it's a fair challenge to call them risk adverse. That said I can understand why they may be a bit risk adverse given how things went under Martin Allen and with a global pandemic still lingering on.

Not sure I get your point on the money side, I put plenty of money into the club on a regular basis of course I want others to do the same as I want the club to progress in future.
User avatar
Shade
Posts: 16823
Joined: 27 Sep 2010, 13:02
Location: Cheltenhamshire
Where do you get the info regarding budgets from? Is there a list somewhere? I would assume Accrington get significantly more non-matchday income than us anyway.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Robin wrote:Because one major shareholder wrote a letter to Andy Wilcox asking him to resign that's why. They can call themselves prudent all they like but when you realise our budget is set lower than Accrington Stanley despite noticeably higher gates and ticket prices I believe it's a fair challenge to call them risk adverse. That said I can understand why they may be a bit risk adverse given how things went under Martin Allen and with a global pandemic still lingering on.

Not sure I get your point on the money side, I put plenty of money into the club on a regular basis of course I want others to do the same as I want the club to progress in future.
Where did you find out about that letter? Quite the bombshell.
Artemis
Posts: 2351
Joined: 28 Dec 2009, 20:36
Robin wrote:Because one major shareholder wrote a letter to Andy Wilcox asking him to resign that's why. They can call themselves prudent all they like but when you realise our budget is set lower than Accrington Stanley despite noticeably higher gates and ticket prices I believe it's a fair challenge to call them risk adverse. That said I can understand why they may be a bit risk adverse given how things went under Martin Allen and with a global pandemic still lingering on.

Not sure I get your point on the money side, I put plenty of money into the club on a regular basis of course I want others to do the same as I want the club to progress in future.
What I do know is that is it unusual for chairmen to resign on explicit say so of a minority of shareholders (whether one or more). That shareholder needs to know that the chairman doesn't have majority backing from the others if their action is to have any chance of success. So I suggest that the club statement regarding Andy's decision to step down meant he no longer had the confidence of a majority of shareholders. And since no one shareholder has a majority holding, I suggest that even if a letter from one shareholder was sent, he had to resign because a majority no longer had confidence rather than one shareholder forcing him out as you imply.

When you put your money into the club to buy things, you get something back - like attendance at a game, or a shirt, or a burger (or whatever it is those things really are). That's not quite the same level of financial risk you're asking the major shareholders to take when you ask them to spend money they don't believe the club can afford.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29758
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Artemis wrote:
Robin wrote:Because one major shareholder wrote a letter to Andy Wilcox asking him to resign that's why. They can call themselves prudent all they like but when you realise our budget is set lower than Accrington Stanley despite noticeably higher gates and ticket prices I believe it's a fair challenge to call them risk adverse. That said I can understand why they may be a bit risk adverse given how things went under Martin Allen and with a global pandemic still lingering on.

Not sure I get your point on the money side, I put plenty of money into the club on a regular basis of course I want others to do the same as I want the club to progress in future.
What I do know is that is it unusual for chairmen to resign on explicit say so of a minority of shareholders (whether one or more). That shareholder needs to know that the chairman doesn't have majority backing from the others if their action is to have any chance of success. So I suggest that the club statement regarding Andy's decision to step down meant he no longer had the confidence of a majority of shareholders. And since no one shareholder has a majority holding, I suggest that even if a letter from one shareholder was sent, he had to resign because a majority no longer had confidence rather than one shareholder forcing him out as you imply.

When you put your money into the club to buy things, you get something back - like attendance at a game, or a shirt, or a burger (or whatever it is those things really are). That's not quite the same level of financial risk you're asking the major shareholders to take when you ask them to spend money they don't believe the club can afford.
Have the shareholders been asked to spend money though? As far as I know the shareholders are passive. They don’t put money in year on year to cover revenue costs/opex and they don’t take money out in dividends. So any money AW wanted to spend would have been from club income. So surely the debate was whether there was a risk we would not generate enough income.
Poxx
Posts: 45
Joined: 25 Jan 2011, 23:31
AW told me directly to my face that he was the one putting the money up for Danny Rowe a few years ago he told me 120k, even though reports are the figure was 170k.
When that didn't happen then the club contacted Akinfenwa's agents to possible get him in but they didn't get back to him.

From this I take it it was from his personal money to help the team and can only assume it was the same this time he was willing to put his hand in his pocket and maybe asked others to do the same?

The board members were not willing to pull in the same direction ? IDK
User avatar
duckers
Posts: 216
Joined: 21 Jul 2011, 23:32
Location: Florida
We have been very fortunate with our club’s ownership, Chairmen, board and the way the club is run by those that have the best interests in the club at heart. Andy Wilcox came in with more ambition however with the likes of Clive Gowling and Paul Bence, we are in safe hands. We have to appreciate where we are as a club right now. Wilcox deserves a tremendous amount of credit for bringing Duff in. He did strike me as slightly arrogant about the appointment though. The manner in which Gary Johnson was dismissed by him was very harsh considering all that he had done for the club and was un-Cheltenham like. Things must have been said and ultimately there was a divide between him and the rest during the summer. Rather than being too negative about it, let’s just appreciate the rest of the time that we have with Duff at the helm, the outstanding team that we have as a result and enjoy it as much as we can.
Post Reply