Print Topic - Archive
Fishy Forum / Archive /
Posted by: Chrisblor, September 21, 2011, 9:24am
http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/story-13372811-detail/story.html
Quoted Text
DEPARTING Grimsby Town chairman John Fenty has defended his record of appointing six managers in just seven years at the helm.
Mr Fenty has often been criticised by Town followers for something of a 'trigger-happy' approach to changing manager.
But he says every appointment was made with the best interests of the club in mind.
He has revealed, however, the board was originally split over the decision to appoint Neil Woods from within rather than re-appoint Russell Slade in 2009.
Speaking exclusively to the Telegraph following his decision to step down, Mr Fenty said: "It was my job, as chairman, to make contact and collate information about prospective managers and give the board an opportunity to short-list down to those considered for interview.
"This has always been a very diligent exercise, carefully carried out each time we have done this.
"It does get difficult when they virtually all say the same – I think there must be some sort of phrase book for would-be managers.
"In the case of appointing Neil Woods caretaker at the time, he was one of two that were under serious consideration, the other being Russell Slade, who had effectively negotiated and agreed contract terms.
"The board chose Russell over Neil. Given the position in the table this was a big decision and the board were split over who to choose.
"The club's longest serving director (Peter Furneaux) supported the appointment of Neil as manager, while Mike Chapman and John Elsom wanted to go with the experience of Russell.
"On such an issue we debated further until there was a consensus when John and Mike conceded, as they often did, it was ultimately a financial decision.
"I am not prepared to elaborate any further on who I supported.
"I will say that Neil worked tirelessly. We all wanted him to succeed that's for sure.
"I guess the expectation that goes with a club our size in this league brought such pressure it made things very difficult.
"He was a gentleman and it's sad when the club loses long-serving staff like him."
The fact Slade was even in the running for a return to Blundell Park at that time may have surprised some after his much-publicised departure in 2006.
Since then, some fans have suggested it was a mistake to let him leave after going so close to promotion to League One.
Mr Fenty, however, stands by the decision to let his contract run out and says it's hypothetical to say things would have been different if he had stayed.
He added: "Firstly let's get this clear, Russell and I speak quite often; I attended his wedding which was long after he left the club and we remain good friends.
"When the Brighton job came up, I gave a good reference to male private Knight when he rang me about Russell.
"Russell didn't leave Grimsby on bad terms. I never understood why the fans were not more receptive to him either, I couldn't get my head around that one.
"Contrary to popular belief the money issue in the end had been settled.
"It wasn't just about money; the contract ran down and was not renewed, there was nothing more sinister than that.
"Could we have done better by keeping him?
"Possibly, but when we didn't go up effectively we had the guts ripped out of the team.
"We had been in the top three for most of the season and other clubs were circling like vultures for the players.
"It was impossible extending player contracts; if we had been promoted at the Millennium Stadium to League One, I am sure we would have kept the team together and things may have been different."
Hey Fenty & Furneaux, good job for deciding to appoint Woods instead of Slade, even when our most successful manager of the past decade had practically agreed terms with you. This article does not reflect well on the machinations of the board throughout Fenty's reign at all.
Posted by: RoboCod, September 21, 2011, 9:30am; Reply: 1
So Furneaux and his huge stake in the club decided on (youth team manager) Woods ? The only other option apparently being (ex-Manager) Slade ? What a useless, unimaginative and backward thinking board. No wonder wer'e in such a mess.
Posted by: Rodley Mariner, September 21, 2011, 10:04am; Reply: 2
"The club's longest serving director (Peter Furneaux) supported the appointment of Neil as manager, while Mike Chapman and John Elsom wanted to go with the experience of Russell.
"On such an issue we debated further until there was a consensus when John and Mike conceded, as they often did, it was ultimately a financial decision.
"I am not prepared to elaborate any further on who I supported".
Am I missing something or does he not need to elaborate on who he supported? if he'd supported Slade it would've been 3:1 and Slade would've been appointed wouldn't he?
Posted by: DubaiMariner, September 21, 2011, 10:06am; Reply: 3
Felt a little bit sick reading that earlier on. Allowed my imagination to run wild with what ifs!
Can't think why a board of businessmen would make a financial decision (surely not masses of difference in pay between woods and slade-30k pa tops?) on a manager when he is the man in charge of how we perform on the pitch - which is where u generate your funds by winning games and getting fans in the ground. Very short sighted. I hope furneaux is soon gone for good and those other two are pretty weak willed.
Posted by: DubaiMariner, September 21, 2011, 10:08am; Reply: 4
"The club's longest serving director (Peter Furneaux) supported the appointment of Neil as manager, while Mike Chapman and John Elsom wanted to go with the experience of Russell.
"On such an issue we debated further until there was a consensus when John and Mike conceded, as they often did, it was ultimately a financial decision.
"I am not prepared to elaborate any further on who I supported".
Am I missing something or does he not need to elaborate on who he supported? if he'd supported Slade it would've been 3:1 and Slade would've been appointed wouldn't he?
Haha yeah, that is exactly what i deduced too!
Posted by: Super Clive, September 21, 2011, 10:08am; Reply: 5
At the end of the day we all knew it!!!
the club is bent from the car park to the floodlights, fear the worsed people, I know i am be prepared and it won't be much of a shock when we eventually go under, Fenty has kept us alive for a few years and gave us a few more years of misery this was always going to happen
Posted by: Perkins, September 21, 2011, 10:09am; Reply: 6
"The club's longest serving director (Peter Furneaux) supported the appointment of Neil as manager, while Mike Chapman and John Elsom wanted to go with the experience of Russell.
"On such an issue we debated further until there was a consensus when John and Mike conceded, as they often did, it was ultimately a financial decision.
"I am not prepared to elaborate any further on who I supported".
Am I missing something or does he not need to elaborate on who he supported? if he'd supported Slade it would've been 3:1 and Slade would've been appointed wouldn't he?
Correct me if i,m wrong, but i think under this clubs rules, the Chairman does not have a vote. And yes he does need to elaborate, it would be interesting to know how and why Chapman and Elsom were persuaded to concede.
Posted by: grimsbyreaper, September 21, 2011, 10:09am; Reply: 7
Think your right. And at 2-2 the Chairman's decision is final.
Three of the Directors having only 1500 shares between them ( I believe )?
Posted by: Quagmire, September 21, 2011, 10:09am; Reply: 8
He doesn't want to elaborate because it would appear that he backed the cheap option that ultimately cost the club its league status.
And he is in no way to blame whatsoever in our demise. <insert sarcastic smiley face thing here>
Posted by: dapperz fun pub, September 21, 2011, 10:09am; Reply: 9
ive been saying for weeks the slade decision was a personal and financial one and not made in the interest of the club and as for ferneux C*&T
Posted by: DubaiMariner, September 21, 2011, 10:10am; Reply: 10
I don't think we'd go under, but I wouldn't hold much short term hope about us climbing up the leagues either. We'd cut our cloth and have more players on £250 pw (approx)
Posted by: Chris, September 21, 2011, 10:12am; Reply: 11
So Furneaux and his huge stake in the club decided on (youth team manager) Woods ? The only other option apparently being (ex-Manager) Slade ? What a useless, unimaginative and backward thinking board. No wonder wer'e in such a mess.
PLENTY of people DIDN'T WANT SLADE BACK!!!!!!!
Posted by: RonMariner, September 21, 2011, 10:20am; Reply: 12
So Furneaux and his huge stake in the club decided on (youth team manager) Woods ? The only other option apparently being (ex-Manager) Slade ? What a useless, unimaginative and backward thinking board. No wonder wer'e in such a mess.
And that desion cost us our leaugue status. Shocking.
Another false economy.
Another expensive mistake.
I used to have sympathy for JF and the amount of money he has pumoped into the club, but you have to say that much of the losses we have incurred are down to disaterous decisions by the board rarther than external factors.
Posted by: Chris, September 21, 2011, 10:24am; Reply: 13
And that desion cost us our leaugue status. Shocking.
Another false economy.
Another expensive mistake.
I used to have sympathy for JF and the amount of money he has pumoped into the club, but you have to say that much of the losses we have incurred are down to disaterous decisions by the board rarther than external factors.
No it didn't.
There was NO guarantee Slade would have "saved us". You only have to look at his current teams performance this season to see that. Is it 10 games without a win at the minute and 8 defeats????
Posted by: RoboCod, September 21, 2011, 10:26am; Reply: 14
PLENTY of people DIDN'T WANT SLADE BACK!!!!!!!
Yes.
I KNOW !!! I was one of them, so why was the whole appointment between just Slade and Woods ? They seemed to be the ONLY choice to this board. When pressed to choose between Slade with his experience in management and Woods with NONE, I know who would have had the MUCH better chance of keeping us up and I would have been quite prepared to put previous grievances aside to preserve League status. And as Fenty now claims to be still be best buddies with Slade you can only conclude that Woods was the cheap option.
Posted by: Chris, September 21, 2011, 10:30am; Reply: 15
Yes. I KNOW !!! I was one of them, so why was the whole appointment between just Slade and Woods ? They seemed to be the ONLY choice to this board. When pressed to choose between Slade with his experience in management and Woods with NONE, I know who would have had the MUCH better chance of keeping us up and I would have been quite prepared to put previous grievances aside to preserve League status. And as Fenty now claims to be still be best buddies with Slade you can only conclude that Woods was the cheap option.
There were no guarantees. Woods knew the players, the set up, what went on under Newell's disasterous reign. All plausible reasons why Woods was a good choice. We were unlucky under Woods, too. Silly things went against us. We drew too many, didn't score enough, but in the end not a single manager could have guaranteed safety for Grimsby Town, not one.
Posted by: RonMariner, September 21, 2011, 10:31am; Reply: 16
No it didn't.
There was NO guarantee Slade would have "saved us". You only have to look at his current teams performance this season to see that. Is it 10 games without a win at the minute and 8 defeats????
Well, he kept Brighton up in L1, in a worse situation than we were in, and then kept Orient up in L1. And that's the record he had at the time the decision was being made. We will never know for sure but personally I do not believe he would have had a 25 match winless run, and I think he will have managed the couple more wins in the last 30 odd matches of the season needed to keep us up.
Posted by: petethemariner, September 21, 2011, 10:32am; Reply: 17
No it didn't.
There was NO guarantee Slade would have "saved us". You only have to look at his current teams performance this season to see that. Is it 10 games without a win at the minute and 8 defeats????
Slade or not (personally i was against both him and Woods) is irrelevant to me, what is crystal clear is JF lied to the fans for the reasons in giving NW the job,' not a cheap option, root and branch change 'etc a massive decision for a then league club and what else is also crystal clear is Elsom and Chapman being Fenty's puppet directors, there for one reason and one reason only - to make sure JF got his way.
No wonder we are in the mire now.
Posted by: Chris, September 21, 2011, 10:34am; Reply: 18
Well, he kept Brighton up in L1, in a worse situation than we were in, and then kept Orient up in L1. And that's the record he had at the time then decision was being made. We will never know for sure but personally I do not believe he would have had a 25 match winless run, and I think he will have managed the couple more wins in the last 30 odd matches of the season needed to keep us up.
No no no, he left Brighton exactly where he found them, just above the relegation zone and was then sacked. Orient likewise although he did musch better last season. They are firmly bottom of the pile this season and at most places he'd have been sacked by now (although not something I would agree with)- 10 games without a win and 8 defeats.
Posted by: RoboCod, September 21, 2011, 10:35am; Reply: 19
Rubbish.
"Unlucky" ? Maybe Slade is being "unlucky" right now with his current poor run? A bit like Alan Buckley was "unlucky" with his EIGHT straight defeats in his last stint here.
An manager with no experience is the poorest choice possible for a team already in the bottom two.
Posted by: Chris, September 21, 2011, 10:35am; Reply: 20
Slade or not (personally i was against both him and Woods) is irrelevant to me, what is crystal clear is JF lied to the fans for the reasons in giving NW the job,' not a cheap option, root and branch change 'etc a massive decision for a then league club and what else is also crystal clear is Elsom and Chapman being Fenty's puppet directors, there for one reason and one reason only - to make sure JF got his way.
No wonder we are in the mire now.
He's hardly going to turn around and say "he's not who we want but he won't cost much" is he?????
Posted by: Chris, September 21, 2011, 10:36am; Reply: 21
Rubbish.
"Unlucky" ? Maybe Slade is being "unlucky" right now with his current poor run? A bit like Alan Buckley was "unlucky" with his EIGHT straight defeats in his last stint here.
An manager with no experience is the poorest choice possible for a team already in the bottom two.
Rubbish? Is that referring to your own post? I gathered as much..
Posted by: RoboCod, September 21, 2011, 10:36am; Reply: 22
Posted by: Chris, September 21, 2011, 10:37am; Reply: 23
Don't throw it out if you can't take it FFS.
Posted by: ginnywings, September 21, 2011, 10:39am; Reply: 24
Yes. I KNOW !!! I was one of them, so why was the whole appointment between just Slade and Woods ? They seemed to be the ONLY choice to this board. When pressed to choose between Slade with his experience in management and Woods with NONE, I know who would have had the MUCH better chance of keeping us up and I would have been quite prepared to put previous grievances aside to preserve League status. And as Fenty now claims to be still be best buddies with Slade you can only conclude that Woods was the cheap option.
Exactly.I was one of hose who didn't want Slade back either but given the choice between him and the novice Woods,there was no contest with our league status on the line.
But surely there were other candidates with experience out there?
This whole episode just stinks of rank amatuerism and people who know nothing about football matters on the pitch.To compound the decision,they then let Woods loose with a sizeable budget in the BSP,of which he had no knowledge and had proved with his winless streak that he wasn't up to the task.
Another little part of my love for GTFC has just ebbed away.No wonder the crowds are dropping like a stone.
When i rang my brother the other night to ask if he had heard the news about Fenty,he said he didn't care any more and if the club went bust tomorrow,it would be preferable to the circus it had become.I couldn't believe he would think that way after being a supporter for 40 yrs like me,but i am now beginning to think he may be right.
Posted by: petethemariner, September 21, 2011, 10:41am; Reply: 25
He's hardly going to turn around and say "he's not who we want but he won't cost much" is he?????
No, honesty seemingly doesn't have much place in society now, just replaced by BS - my point is though, if he was disingenuous about that, what else has he been disingenuous about?
Posted by: RoboCod, September 21, 2011, 10:48am; Reply: 26
Exactly.I was one of hose who didn't want Slade back either but given the choice between him and the novice Woods,there was no contest with our league status on the line.
But surely there were other candidates with experience out there?
Yes. And this is point is not even being mentioned, hidden as it is by the current fall out and some fans constantly looking behind them, trying to justify the poor appointments that have led to our non League position. I know the feeling with regards to your brother, I'm finding it hard to find any of the older fans who used to go that don't greet the topic of Town with anything more than a shrug of the shoulders, like it's a terminal, non-reversable fact that we're going under and as a mere 'fan' we have no say in it.
Posted by: Sigone, September 21, 2011, 10:51am; Reply: 27
I wonder if having both could of been an option. Woods would of taken Assistant Managers job. Ah well all water under the bridge. Tomorrows another day, I hope.
Posted by: Chris, September 21, 2011, 10:52am; Reply: 28
Wiser people than I have suggested we should have done just that, although the name mentioned to help his was AB.
Posted by: biggles9999, September 21, 2011, 10:55am; Reply: 29
I might be wrong but wasnt Parker part of the board at the time?
Therefore he could have had a vote for Woods also...
Posted by: Super Clive, September 21, 2011, 10:57am; Reply: 30
I might be wrong but wasnt Parker part of the board at the time?
Therefore he could have had a vote for Woods also...
As i understand it he did and was in favour of woods and had a say when woods got sacked
Posted by: biggles9999, September 21, 2011, 11:04am; Reply: 31
Thats what I thought,
So it wasnt just Fenty and Furneaux trying appoint Woods but both of the big money men in the club (Parker/Fenty).
Please lets not think that our last couple of seasons is purely Fenty.
Posted by: petethemariner, September 21, 2011, 11:12am; Reply: 32
Thats what I thought,
So it wasnt just Fenty and Furneaux trying appoint Woods but both of the big money men in the club (Parker/Fenty).
Please lets not think that our last couple of seasons is purely Fenty.
Yes but money does not come into it in the GTFC boardroom in the present constitution, 1 director, 1 vote, particularly when JF has his voting 'puppets' on his side - if MP was there and i'm not sure if he was or wasn't, how could Parker out vote Fenty, with Furneaux / Elsom/Chapman all singning from the JF songbook?
Only Parker will know if he approved the NW appointment or not.
Posted by: RonMariner, September 21, 2011, 11:20am; Reply: 33
No no no, he left Brighton exactly where he found them, just above the relegation zone and was then sacked. Orient likewise although he did musch better last season. They are firmly bottom of the pile this season and at most places he'd have been sacked by now (although not something I would agree with)- 10 games without a win and 8 defeats.
I don't think you ar right about that. I could be wrong but I recall that Brighton were virtually dead and buried when he took over and he saved them with a string run in? Anyway he avoided relagtion two years running with relegation threatened teams. That much is beyond dispute.
Anyway, it's all futile now. The point is though, and I said this at the time, when the stakes are as high as they were do you go for experience or inexperience? It was a massive gamble and it failed.
I have always thought that it is easier to avoid relegation than to get promotion from the leaugue below. Normaly there is not much of a difference in quality between the bottom half of one division and the top half of the division below. To avoid relegation you need relatively few good results beacause those around you drop points most weeks. However, to get promoted you can only afford relatively few bad results as those around you pick up points most weeks. So it was absolutely vital to avoid the drop and with an experienced manager it was far from impossible.
Posted by: cleethorpes_mariner, September 21, 2011, 12:32pm; Reply: 34
So Fenty agreed terms with Russell Slade before the Board meeting. (you jump to conclusion merchants) Can’t you see he favoured Russell or why would he do that?
I know for a fact there wasn’t a vote, a consensus was reached with John Elsom and Michael Chapman who both wanted Russell Slade, debate ensued and others were persuaded by Mike Parker and Peter Furneaux who were up for Neil Woods. There wasn’t a vote and Fenty didn’t vote if someone asks him I am sure that’s the case.
To many Mikes, the story has differing interpretations depending who you dislike!!!
So you blaming the wrong man
Posted by: Mariner_501, September 21, 2011, 1:09pm; Reply: 35
When I emailed Fenty when Woods was appointed asking why we clearly went for the cheap option he said it was down to football not financial. Yeah right, Mr Fenty. Lies, lies and more lies. I genuinely believe if Slade was appointed we would not be here now. Thanks for everything John
Posted by: headingly_mariner, September 21, 2011, 1:24pm; Reply: 36
So Fenty agreed terms with Russell Slade before the Board meeting. (you jump to conclusion merchants) Can’t you see he favoured Russell or why would he do that?
I know for a fact there wasn’t a vote, a consensus was reached with John Elsom and Michael Chapman who both wanted Russell Slade, debate ensued and others were persuaded by Mike Parker and Peter Furneaux who were up for Neil Woods. There wasn’t a vote and Fenty didn’t vote if someone asks him I am sure that’s the case.
To many Mikes, the story has differing interpretations depending who you dislike!!!
So you blaming the wrong man
It is clear that Fenty went for woods as if he had voted of slade, slade would have been manager.
Posted by: FishOutOfWater, September 21, 2011, 1:32pm; Reply: 37
I've been trying to find the GT article at the time Woods was appointed but for some reason it's seemingly not available any more
Anyone else recall these words though...
"After a raft of applications for the manager's post, the board of directors dismissed the journeyman and those that are likely to get itchy feet during the contract"
And Fenty is trying to make out that he had no active part to play in the decision not to appoint Slade? I think not!
Posted by: Simariner, September 21, 2011, 1:38pm; Reply: 38
PLENTY of people DIDN'T WANT SLADE BACK!!!!!!!
Plenty of people didn't want Woods in.
Any decision that was made was divided.
Posted by: Super Clive, September 21, 2011, 1:49pm; Reply: 39
I've been trying to find the GT article at the time Woods was appointed but for some reason it's seemingly not available any more
Anyone else recall these words though...
"After a raft of applications for the manager's post, the board of directors dismissed the journeyman and those that are likely to get itchy feet during the contract"
And Fenty is trying to make out that he had no active part to play in the decision not to appoint Slade? I think not!
http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/New-town-manager-unveiled/story-11548069-detail/story.html
Posted by: ginnywings, September 21, 2011, 2:00pm; Reply: 40
What i want to know is why he has brought all this up now and what purpose does it serve?
People want to know what is happening in the future,not what happened in the past and can't be changed.
Did he actually mention anything relevant to current events in this interview?
Posted by: forza ivano, September 21, 2011, 2:01pm; Reply: 41
What i want to know is why he has brought all this up now and what purpose does it serve?
People want to know what is happening in the future,not what happened in the past and can't be changed.
Did he actually mention anything relevant to current events in this interview?
isn't that what politicians do when they bow out? try and put a gloss or 'new perspective' on things, in the vain hope that people will remember them more fondly?
Posted by: converted mariner, September 21, 2011, 2:04pm; Reply: 42
What i want to know is why he has brought all this up now and what purpose does it serve?
People want to know what is happening in the future,not what happened in the past and can't be changed.
Did he actually mention anything relevant to current events in this interview?
Posted by: 0ld timer, September 21, 2011, 2:05pm; Reply: 43
well you had plenty to say on your first post ;)
Posted by: converted mariner, September 21, 2011, 2:07pm; Reply: 44
Hi I am a new boy 5-6 years in DN32/35 and I am suprised about alot of things that are happening can someone explain how Mr Woods got the job in the first place bearing in mind (from memory) he caretook for 4 league games and got 2 deaws and GTFC were dumped out of the FA Cup by non league Bath City
Posted by: upthestripes, September 21, 2011, 2:12pm; Reply: 45
Wiser people than I have suggested we should have done just that, although the name mentioned to help his was AB.
I thought for a second you meant RS and AB. People in the main stand would've needed sunglasses!
Posted by: ginnywings, September 21, 2011, 2:22pm; Reply: 46
Hi I am a new boy 5-6 years in DN32/35 and I am suprised about alot of things that are happening can someone explain how Mr Woods got the job in the first place bearing in mind (from memory) he caretook for 4 league games and got 2 deaws and GTFC were dumped out of the FA Cup by non league Bath City
Cheap option by the sound of things.
I have also lived in DN32 and now live in DN35 by the way.
Posted by: GrimRob, September 21, 2011, 7:18pm; Reply: 47
Does it really matter what happened? Clearly it was a mistake to go for Woods, but it was equally a mistake to get rid of him as it set us back a year. But on the other hand it's all water under the bridge. We have to live in the now and face the immediate survival problems on and off the pitch.
Posted by: dapperz fun pub, September 21, 2011, 7:22pm; Reply: 48
Does it really matter what happened? Clearly it was a mistake to go for Woods, but it was equally a mistake to get rid of him as it set us back a year. But on the other hand it's all water under the bridge. We have to live in the now and face the immediate survival problems on and off the pitch.
considering the fishy clearly influences john fenty (con) could/would you ask him if he could still provide the monday statement (rant) just gets me through a monday :)
Posted by: mariner2000, September 21, 2011, 9:35pm; Reply: 49
It is clear that Fenty went for woods as if he had voted of slade, slade would have been manager.
I think if you now read the Fenty statement tonight where he says Parker always got his way over appointments and spend lots of personal time with woods I would assume from that he was inferring he didn't want woods but let parker have his man.....
Posted by: cleethorpes_mariner, September 21, 2011, 9:51pm; Reply: 50
MP also was against the sacking of Neil Woods at the time and I still feel the timing of him walking was to Scupper the Mark Cooper deal to get back at the board. Funny how he made referance on the fact he had no further dealings with picking the new manager after he did what he did.
Posted by: TWAreaTownSupporter, September 21, 2011, 11:33pm; Reply: 51
What i want to know is why he has brought all this up now and what purpose does it serve?
People want to know what is happening in the future,not what happened in the past and can't be changed.
Did he actually mention anything relevant to current events in this interview?
Exactly. The man should just shut up and save himself further embarrassment..
Posted by: MuddyWaters, September 22, 2011, 5:02pm; Reply: 52
If anyone was in any doubt about the lack of management & leadership skills that Fenty has then this fiasco should put this to bed once and for all.
Yes, I have doubts about Mike Parker and what his agenda might be but Fenty should no longer have any future as the chairman of GTFC.
Posted by: AdamHaddock, September 22, 2011, 5:07pm; Reply: 53
Slade would have kept us up - of that I have no doubt. The decision to appoint Woods cost us £500,000 per annum in TV money and a substantial drop in gates. That surely dwarfs whatever we saved in paying a lower salary to Woods.
Posted by: MuddyWaters, September 22, 2011, 5:10pm; Reply: 54
Slade would have kept us up - of that I have no doubt. The decision to appoint Woods cost us £500,000 per annum in TV money and a substantial drop in gates. That surely dwarfs whatever we saved in paying a lower salary to Woods.
Was that a deliberate pun, bearing in mind the director who supported Woods appointment? ;)
Posted by: Denby, September 22, 2011, 5:41pm; Reply: 55
strange how, when fenty was chairman, decisions were made by the board. now he's resigned, decisions were made by individuals
Print page generated: May 20, 2024, 5:02pm