Codalmighty

Quoted from Coley Surfer

A positive on where we are now? We're seventh in the BSBP and heading for the second worst finish we've ever had. As for the future looking good, no I'm sorry but why? Oh and I'm a season ticket holder who works and am an ex trust member.

Quoted Text

So what's the plan B, asks Fenty. Well, whenever there are tough decisions to be made, I find there are always options available, whether favourable to all parties or not. Rarely is there a perfect solution. But plan A, the plan we have been following now for some years, is just not working.

Furthermore, it has consistently proven not to work for onwards of ten years. We can see this and the evidence is clear. The 'spend beyond our means' approach has achieved the following: successive relegations; loss of Football League status; mounting unserviceable debt; lower crowds; lower income. I think it's safe to say, in light of the evidence given, that Plan A is not working. There is no evidence to suggest that continuing with Plan A will undo or make right the mistakes it has made in previous years. The evidence merely suggests a continuing trend of decline. Going forwards. In the building. It is time to move on and begin to properly contemplate plans B through to Z, however painful those options may seem.

So what are the options? Well, there are a few (non-perfect) that I think most have at least mentioned before. But there are very few that can be actioned while Fenty has the club ransomed to 'benign' debt. Because it doesn't matter how much we use the term 'benign' to describe this debt: the simple fact remains that these debts are very real and very substantial. And this debt (what is it, £2m now?) will put off those who are interested in taking over the running of the club. That's two million pounds that a potential investor will have to pay out at some point, whether short-term or long-term. It isn't going away. It won't disappear. It may be paid in a chunk, it may be paid in instalments. But whatever and whenever: the club start with a substantially negative balance sheet making future success difficult if not extremely limited.

And Fenty may well ask for that money back only when the club have some success. But removing any earned income from the club in the future will firstly make it struggle to compete (evenly, and within its means) but also destabilise any hard work put in to make the club sustainable. Calling in that debt doesn't have to force the club to the wall, but it will make it struggle.

So the situation is that you take over the club, you get it living within its means, you make it run well and with any luck you get a little bit of success. Fans want you to build on that success, but any money you made that could now be invested in players is ferreted away to service the 'benign' debt. Players aren't bought, success isn't built upon – and you, the new owner of the club get accusations of running the club badly and not 'investing in the team'. Who wants all that effort to see their success undermined by errors made by a previous regime? It's lose-lose.

Of course Fenty doesn't want to see the club fail... further. Of course he doesn't want the club to go to the wall. And of course he's a fan. That's been pretty evident so far. But that doesn't mean he's the only one, and that doesn't mean his way is the only way. It also doesn't mean he won't recall those debts when he either needs the money or the club is run more profitably. Sure – it's his money, they are loans he made, so he has a right to claim them back.

But at the same time, I didn't ask for those loans. I didn't expect us to spend beyond what we had (I realise that may put me in the minority) but mostly those loans have been made to cover financial losses made by the club as a result of its financial mismanagement by... John Fenty. He has loaned the club money to cover for his mistakes. Where else in the world of business would this be seen as acceptable? Nobody expects to make money out of football these days, but we have lost valuable income through slipping through the leagues and pissing away money on Conlon-type players. Too much risk has been taken, but there has been no culpability for mostly avoidable mistakes. Fenty sits at the top and holds the decision-making power, but he has taken no responsibility. By loaning the club money for his mistakes he has shifted the blame on the club and away from his own door.

So other plans then – whether realisable, safe or not? Administration is one, of course – the dreaded administration. The thing that a certain group of fans seem most keen to avoid, if just to save face for all the finger-wagging they did at Darlington fans. But this option isn't viable with Fenty in 'control' – for the club to enter administration, it would need Fenty to agree to it. And as Tony 'Pompous' Butcher pointed out on the Radio Humberside debate last night, the big loser, should the club go in to administration, is Fenty himself. His 'benign' loans would be repaid at a much reduced rate and his 'investment' would be lost.

And this was where the Mariners Trust held some power: for all Fenty's bluster and threats about not funding the club further and selling players, the risk of taking this route was a far bigger risk than him than to the club. No players could be sold until the summer anyway. So without Fenty propping the club up (due to his mistakes) the club would have fallen in to administration and Fenty would have been much further out of pocket. He doesn't want this to happen and I don't believe he would have 'allowed' it to happen. The trust held the ace, but simply handed it over to Fenty.

But I find it hard to blame the trust. Firstly, they represented their members – they took a vote and then went with the result. No blame for a simple act of democracy there. But I'm not sure the time was right for them to take such a vote, and Fenty knew this. The trust, with a new board, was still in its infancy, still finding its feet. Fenty has rushed in and harangued them into rushing through a motion and taking a vote on this. They had the power to face him off, but they didn't have the organisation and courage to see that through. And that's because they weren't ready, not now. And that's not to suggest that they won't be ready at some point soon. But it was too early to act on such a huge issue and Fenty took full advantage. Shame on him for that, but the trust gets my sympathies.

So big, bad administration then? I don't suggest it lightly. I too am rankled by its blithe use as an easy escape route by those perennial abusers of football finance (*cough* Portsmouth). But that doesn't take it off the table as a viable option. It is a route to clear debt at a reduced rate, and would make the club more attractive for anyone wishing to take it over. I know, I know. There's no guarantee that someone coming in won't be even more ruinous than Fenty. But then there's no guarantee that Town will win any games, and I still turn up and buy my season ticket.

And the short term would most likely be horrible – embargoes, selling of players, other staff losses. It wouldn't be pretty and it wouldn't be without considerable pain. But previously, other clubs, when faced with these sorts of restrictions, have seemingly thrived (remember Bournemouth suddenly flying up the table?). It doesn't always mean the team will perform any worse on the pitch: it just makes things a bit harder. But Shouty and Shorty have been successful with little money at their previous clubs.

So the short term may well be OK but would more likely be pretty horrific. But sometimes the short-term pain has to be ridden out to benefit from the long-term gains it can provide. For the club to be out of debt (or mostly out of debt), and to not be at the mercy of a single person can only be a good thing for its long-term viability.

And yes, I know, there is a great risk here – but that risk exists with plan A. What happens in 14 months' time when Fenty decides not to put more money in to the club? If no-one takes the club off him, debts and all, then it will all end the same. The longer we continue to spend beyond what we have in this huge gamble to get out of the Conference, the closer we get towards administration anyway. And administration is a long way from receivership, whatever thinly veiled threats may be made by the current board. Other clubs have gone into administration and come out of it with their house in order, while fending off the advances of the unscrupulous: Wrexham and Bournemouth spring to mind.

But, as I mentioned before, that option has passed now that Fenty is back in charge. He won't deliberately go down that route: he'll just continue to gamble. And a gamble it is. And it's a gamble he's been doing year on year – and he keeps losing. Like sticking ten grand on the lottery each week and crossing your fingers. The odds are stacked against it, and the repercussions for its failure are wide-ranging and long-term.

So what other option? Well, none that are acceptable to Fenty, I'm sure. He could write off the debt from the accounts, couldn't he? Prove how benign it really is by removing it altogether. He could convert some of that debt into shares, making the takeover of the club a more financially attractive option to those who may be interested. But Fenty doesn't want that: he wants control and he wants others to invest. He wants people to put money into the club which he can then decide how to spend. Nobody is going to put a substantial amount of money into the club while he has control. And especially after Mike Parker failed so miserably and had a chunk of his shares handed to Fenty for nowt.

I am sure there are other options available for the club, but unfortunately none of those options will really suit Fenty because they will all most likely end up with him not getting a return on his 'investment'. But lots of people invest badly and lose money – best to cut your losses and move on sometimes. Plan A doesn't really protect him any further – in fact it just requires him to throw even more money at the club (in share purchases I presume, or is it another loan? I didn't read the fine print).

So in the meantime we're stuck with plan A: spend, spend, spend! And as a little reward for those who helped Fenty return to power, he's allowed the managers to bring in yet another player. It's the action of a dictator, isn't it? Well done, minions, here is your little reward. See what I do for you? See how I reward you? Now give me all your shares.

But we need to spend, apparently, because Fenty tells us that we can't live within our means and be competitive. But competitive with who? Barrow? Braintree? Ebbsfleet? These clubs seems to be competing no worse than us at the minute. And Wrexham don't have loads of money. Sure, Luton have money (and the support to back it up), Fleetwood are throwing money around, and a couple of other clubs have wealthy gamblers prepared to chuck money around in the hope it pays off (Gateshead). But the justification for spending more and signing more players seems only that it's what Fleetwood are doing. Hmmm.

Sometimes you just have to say that we're not going to do it that way. For all the money we've spent, it hasn't matched Fleetwood and Crawley's spend anyway. That's not a sensible way to run a club and it's not something we should be trying to emulate – as desperate as we may be to get out of the Conference. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet, take a short-term hit, a bit of immediate pain to gain some rewards in the long run. And sometimes you have to be brave and say we're going to do this the right way or we're not doing it at all.

As it stands we're just adding another bandage to our broken leg. One day soon that leg is gonna fall off.

Quoted from Quagmire

Have any of the Pro-Fenty brigade actually read the article?

It is arguably the best piece ever written about the whole sorry mess - I struggle to see how anyone can read it and not agree with pretty much everything that it says.

Quoted from MeanwoodMariner

There seems to be a twisted argument from some Fenty bashers. Some want him gone because he overspends which is preventing someone else coming in with extra investment (which by definition would be more overspending).  

It's also getting very boring saying everyone who defends John Fenty must actually be John Fenty. If you can't actually put together a logical argument against pro-Fenty posts then perhaps you need to reassess you position.

Quoted from Squarkus

It Started with Laurance he put players on stupid wages,then itv foooked it and the club had to maintain the contracts.this was not fenty,s shift by the way.

Quoted from Biccys

Old ground. Carry on arguing with yourself that Fenty should pay for his bad decisions.

Quoted from Denby

you're completely right

but the chain of command goes something like

we sign a rubbish player
a rubbish manager signed a rubbish player
a rubbish board appointed a rubbish manager who signed a rubbish player

Quoted from MeanwoodMariner

You don't see how anyone can argue with it? Really???

To summarise the proposition

1) Get the debts down (possibly through Administration) so the club becomes more attractive to another investor

- OK, I'm listening.

2) The heroic new investor comes in and massively reduces expenditure (ie the money spent on players wages) and stops trying to compete with other teams trying to get promoted.

- Oh. Forgive me for being underwhelmed.

The only "benefit" of this plan is that JF is gone. There is no obvious benefit to the club unless you believe in the Fenty curse. What would the new investor do differently?  We have a pretty good management duo right now so I would hope he would leave them in place. I just don't see how reducing the money they have to spend will improve things. Other than that the chairman has next to no impact on the fortunes of the matches themselves.

I think the author trips himself up with this paragraph:

"What happens in 14 months' time when Fenty decides not to put more money in to the club?... The longer we continue to spend beyond what we have in this huge gamble to get out of the Conference, the closer we get towards administration anyway. And administration is a long way from receivership, whatever thinly veiled threats may be made by the current board."

So the worst case scenario of keeping JF at the helm is Administration - the very thing the author of this piece is proposing we opt for right now. It's like saying "this boat might sink in a couple of years so let's jump overboard now".