Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Fishy Forum Fishy Boards Archive › Message for John Fenty
Users Browsing Forum
Googlebot and 427 Guests

Message for John Fenty

  This thread currently has 14,839 views. Print
16 Pages Prev ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next All Recommend Thread
rancido
October 6, 2014, 12:54pm

Vodka Drinker
Posts: 7,454
Posts Per Day: 1.25
Reputation: 80.3%
Rep Score: +41 / -10
Approval: +6,448
Gold Stars: 92
Quoted from grimsby pete


We would not get 4,000 gates if we reduced the price to £8 at the moment,

Fans want to see a winning team barring that,

A team that plays attractive football,

Once we start playing attractive football and winning on a regular basis,

We shall get 5,000 + gates,

BUT

We have got to stop playing too defensive and be productive before we starting winning most games at home,

Our away form is ok if you do not mind seeing us grinding out a result,

At home we have got to go for it, scare the opposition with our speed and power,

Then the fans will return even if it was £20 to get in.

PS.  That was not a hint to put the price up John.




I don't think for a second we would get crowds at that level playing in this league unless it was the last game of the season and we had already won promotion. I do think that if we were playing well and in the top 4 then the gate would rise to between 3,800 - 4200. Our average gate for the Slade " almost promotion" season was 5151 and that was a division higher.


The Future is Black & White.
"The commonest thing on this planet is not water , as some people believe, but stupidity ". Frank Zappa
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 130 - 154
Garth
October 6, 2014, 12:55pm

Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 11,492
Posts Per Day: 1.93
Reputation: 80.75%
Rep Score: +55 / -13
Approval: +4,913
Gold Stars: 25
Quoted from rancido



But surely JF's loans or investments , whatever you want to call them, were put in place to avoid the club going bust or into admin? His choice of managers might have cost money in removing them but certainly not to the magnitude of the debt. The majority of this must have been used in financially supporting the club to cover trading losses. If he had refused to prop the club up then what would have been the result - admin or going bankrupt surely? He could have done what a previous board member did in loaning the club money then demanding it back immediately when he spit his dummy out! Even before our problems started I don't recall any wealthy businessmen queuing up to invest in GTFC. In fact I seem to recall that JF became chairman because nobody else wanted the position.
I am neither pro or anti JF and am the first to admit that his time with the club has seen a black period in our history. Conversely I have yet to hear any " concrete " evidence concerning other people willing to take over the mantle of running the club. It's all well and good saying nobody will want the club with the " benign debt" hanging over us like The Sword of Damoclese but that debt was incurred in propping up the club in the first case. I don't think there is a single poster on here who would be prepared to walk away from our club and write that debt off if they were in a position to.


Good fair comment
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 131 - 154
grimsby pete
October 6, 2014, 1:07pm

Exile
Posts: 55,548
Posts Per Day: 9.83
Reputation: 81.7%
Rep Score: +126 / -28
Location: Suffolk
Approval: +17,753
Gold Stars: 221
Quoted from rancido




I don't think for a second we would get crowds at that level playing in this league unless it was the last game of the season and we had already won promotion. I do think that if we were playing well and in the top 4 then the gate would rise to between 3,800 - 4200. Our average gate for the Slade " almost promotion" season was 5151 and that was a division higher.


If we start playing attractive football and say win 10 out the next 12 home games,

I would bet if we where in the top 2 in the league the last 5 games would be over 5,000.

This will only happen if we get the right man in,

Regarding to the Slade era, I am sure we had an average home record winning mostly away,

Also lots of fans saying they did not liked the way we played * long ball  *


                             Over 36 years living in Suffolk but always a mariner.
                             68 Years following the Town

                              Life member of Trust

                               First game   April 1955
                               
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 132 - 154
MuddyWaters
October 6, 2014, 1:15pm
Barley Wine Drinker
Posts: 14,028
Posts Per Day: 2.60
Reputation: 68.15%
Rep Score: +48 / -24
Approval: +31,883
Gold Stars: 230
Quoted from grimsby pete


If we start playing attractive football and say win 10 out the next 12 home games,

I would bet if we where in the top 2 in the league the last 5 games would be over 5,000.

This will only happen if we get the right man in,

Regarding to the Slade era, I am sure we had an average home record winning mostly away,

Also lots of fans saying they did not liked the way we played * long ball  *


Bit late with your message Pete, GYFR was online about an hour ago!
Logged
Private Message
Reply: 133 - 154
Abdul19
October 6, 2014, 1:23pm

Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 20,369
Posts Per Day: 3.42
Reputation: 73.77%
Rep Score: +71 / -26
Location: Scarborough
Approval: +17,449
Gold Stars: 214
We won more home games than away games in 05/06


JESUS AT THE CENTRE
Logged
Private Message
Reply: 134 - 154
Quagmire
October 6, 2014, 1:44pm

Table Wine Drinker
Posts: 777
Posts Per Day: 0.13
Reputation: 93.41%
Rep Score: +19 / 0
Approval: +929
Gold Stars: 43
Quoted from rancido



But surely JF's loans or investments , whatever you want to call them, were put in place to avoid the club going bust or into admin? His choice of managers might have cost money in removing them but certainly not to the magnitude of the debt. The majority of this must have been used in financially supporting the club to cover trading losses. If he had refused to prop the club up then what would have been the result - admin or going bankrupt surely? He could have done what a previous board member did in loaning the club money then demanding it back immediately when he spit his dummy out! Even before our problems started I don't recall any wealthy businessmen queuing up to invest in GTFC. In fact I seem to recall that JF became chairman because nobody else wanted the position.
I am neither pro or anti JF and am the first to admit that his time with the club has seen a black period in our history. Conversely I have yet to hear any " concrete " evidence concerning other people willing to take over the mantle of running the club. It's all well and good saying nobody will want the club with the " benign debt" hanging over us like The Sword of Damoclese but that debt was incurred in propping up the club in the first case. I don't think there is a single poster on here who would be prepared to walk away from our club and write that debt off if they were in a position to.


The debt has been primarily accrued over the years because of JF's policy of deciding to spend way above the clubs income level on the playing budget.

Over his entire tenure he has had the ability to either increase or decrease the deficit depending on what he has allowed managers to spend in terms of wages.

The biggest cost of most businesses is wages - and ultimately he can control that.

He knows, or should know, the likely income of the club over a season plus the likely fixed costs.  The only variable left, and one that he is in full control of, is the playing budget.

It's not like he has suddenly been hit by a massive, unexpected bill that he has had to help the club out.  He can control the level of money that he needs to put into the club.

He could decide to give the manager a playing budget of 200% of income and then at the end of the season let everybody know how much money he has had to put into the club to 'keep it going'.  Then out come the pro JF brigade telling everyone who is critical of his tenure that without him there wouldn't be a club.  It's a load of rubbish, he's decided to put that money in to the club because he has decided to make the playing budget x% of the predicted income.

Add in all the money the club has wasted on paying managers/players off, plus other things such as going to court over Scott & Hurst etc and, IMO, I can understand why any potential investor in the club wouldn't want to pay that money back to him.

Why should anyone hand that money over when they haven't been involved in making those decisions that have cost the club that money???

I would also argue that the club could even have been better off without his 'input', after all where has all of that money got us?  

If you don't have that safety net of that money you tend to make better decisions.  You don't hand out 3 year deals to players and then pay them off a few months later.  You probably spend more time and energy attempting to increase income in order to pay for things.  You don't go to court over a mangerial appointment knowing you might be found out.  You don't allow the manager to bring another 4 players in in January, move some out if you want some in.  You dont' allow the manager to go out and bring another defender in on loan when we are crying out for some attacking intent, you use the defensive youth players you have given pro contracts to plug the defensive gap.

As for the idea that there is nobody else out there, Mike Parker is proof of someone being out there, who nobody had even heard of until it was announced, with money who wanted to be involved with the club - who knows how many more would show their hands if JF was to walk away.

Notwithstanding the fact that if we had someone who knew what they were doing running the club the 'need' for this additional funding might not be necessary, there's a number of clubs outperforming us, being supported by far less fans, generating less income, they can do it, why can't we?

Reading some of the pro JF posts on here you would think that the club generates zero income.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 135 - 154
MuddyWaters
October 6, 2014, 1:55pm
Barley Wine Drinker
Posts: 14,028
Posts Per Day: 2.60
Reputation: 68.15%
Rep Score: +48 / -24
Approval: +31,883
Gold Stars: 230
Quoted from Quagmire


The debt has been primarily accrued over the years because of JF's policy of deciding to spend way above the clubs income level on the playing budget.

Over his entire tenure he has had the ability to either increase or decrease the deficit depending on what he has allowed managers to spend in terms of wages.

The biggest cost of most businesses is wages - and ultimately he can control that.

He knows, or should know, the likely income of the club over a season plus the likely fixed costs.  The only variable left, and one that he is in full control of, is the playing budget.

It's not like he has suddenly been hit by a massive, unexpected bill that he has had to help the club out.  He can control the level of money that he needs to put into the club.

He could decide to give the manager a playing budget of 200% of income and then at the end of the season let everybody know how much money he has had to put into the club to 'keep it going'.  Then out come the pro JF brigade telling everyone who is critical of his tenure that without him there wouldn't be a club.  It's a load of rubbish, he's decided to put that money in to the club because he has decided to make the playing budget x% of the predicted income.

Add in all the money the club has wasted on paying managers/players off, plus other things such as going to court over Scott & Hurst etc and, IMO, I can understand why any potential investor in the club wouldn't want to pay that money back to him.

Why should anyone hand that money over when they haven't been involved in making those decisions that have cost the club that money???

I would also argue that the club could even have been better off without his 'input', after all where has all of that money got us?  

If you don't have that safety net of that money you tend to make better decisions.  You don't hand out 3 year deals to players and then pay them off a few months later.  You probably spend more time and energy attempting to increase income in order to pay for things.  You don't go to court over a mangerial appointment knowing you might be found out.  You don't allow the manager to bring another 4 players in in January, move some out if you want some in.  You dont' allow the manager to go out and bring another defender in on loan when we are crying out for some attacking intent, you use the defensive youth players you have given pro contracts to plug the defensive gap.

As for the idea that there is nobody else out there, Mike Parker is proof of someone being out there, who nobody had even heard of until it was announced, with money who wanted to be involved with the club - who knows how many more would show their hands if JF was to walk away.

Notwithstanding the fact that if we had someone who knew what they were doing running the club the 'need' for this additional funding might not be necessary, there's a number of clubs outperforming us, being supported by far less fans, generating less income, they can do it, why can't we?

Reading some of the pro JF posts on here you would think that the club generates zero income.


Post of the week. End of.
Logged
Private Message
Reply: 136 - 154
TAGG
October 6, 2014, 2:02pm

Vodka Drinker
Posts: 5,090
Posts Per Day: 0.93
Reputation: 54.48%
Rep Score: +26 / -26
Approval: +2,981
Gold Stars: 121
Quoted from Quagmire


The debt has been primarily accrued over the years because of JF's policy of deciding to spend way above the clubs income level on the playing budget.

Over his entire tenure he has had the ability to either increase or decrease the deficit depending on what he has allowed managers to spend in terms of wages.

The biggest cost of most businesses is wages - and ultimately he can control that.

He knows, or should know, the likely income of the club over a season plus the likely fixed costs.  The only variable left, and one that he is in full control of, is the playing budget.

It's not like he has suddenly been hit by a massive, unexpected bill that he has had to help the club out.  He can control the level of money that he needs to put into the club.

He could decide to give the manager a playing budget of 200% of income and then at the end of the season let everybody know how much money he has had to put into the club to 'keep it going'.  Then out come the pro JF brigade telling everyone who is critical of his tenure that without him there wouldn't be a club.  It's a load of rubbish, he's decided to put that money in to the club because he has decided to make the playing budget x% of the predicted income.

Add in all the money the club has wasted on paying managers/players off, plus other things such as going to court over Scott & Hurst etc and, IMO, I can understand why any potential investor in the club wouldn't want to pay that money back to him.

Why should anyone hand that money over when they haven't been involved in making those decisions that have cost the club that money???

I would also argue that the club could even have been better off without his 'input', after all where has all of that money got us?  

If you don't have that safety net of that money you tend to make better decisions.  You don't hand out 3 year deals to players and then pay them off a few months later.  You probably spend more time and energy attempting to increase income in order to pay for things.  You don't go to court over a mangerial appointment knowing you might be found out.  You don't allow the manager to bring another 4 players in in January, move some out if you want some in.  You dont' allow the manager to go out and bring another defender in on loan when we are crying out for some attacking intent, you use the defensive youth players you have given pro contracts to plug the defensive gap.

As for the idea that there is nobody else out there, Mike Parker is proof of someone being out there, who nobody had even heard of until it was announced, with money who wanted to be involved with the club - who knows how many more would show their hands if JF was to walk away.

Notwithstanding the fact that if we had someone who knew what they were doing running the club the 'need' for this additional funding might not be necessary, there's a number of clubs outperforming us, being supported by far less fans, generating less income, they can do it, why can't we?

Reading some of the pro JF posts on here you would think that the club generates zero income.


More sense in this post than any other I've seen on here for long enough.


In his three stints as Grimsby Town manager spanning over 10 years the club was never relegated and he also guided them to three promotions.
Only 14 managers have reached 1,000 matches in charge of a Football League team by 1998 and Buckley is one of them.
GOD
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 137 - 154
1mickylyons
October 6, 2014, 2:26pm
Special Brew Drinker
Posts: 9,040
Posts Per Day: 1.53
Reputation: 75.68%
Rep Score: +42 / -14
Approval: +9,261
Gold Stars: 54
Did JF rack up £3M of debt or did he inherit a £2m debt from the ITV Digital fiasco? In terms of how the Club is run from a financial point of view most of the decisions the board make seem fairly sensible and they don't throw money around like confetti which is good. I know it isn`t my money but I would walk away and write the debt of personally then the problem is no longer mine and my conscience would be clear I did the best I could but accept it wasnt good enough.However I would much rather JF got in a high profile Manager and dangled a performance related contract with hordes of add ons for success this is very attainable and this Season is the best chance Town have had of a Promotion from this League due to the lack of opposition.
Logged Online
Private Message
Reply: 138 - 154
MeanwoodMariner
October 6, 2014, 2:30pm

Champagne Drinker
Posts: 2,326
Posts Per Day: 0.39
Reputation: 79.34%
Rep Score: +19 / -5
Approval: +2,673
Gold Stars: 8
Some thought provoking points apart from this one:
Quoted from Quagmire

Why should anyone hand that money over when they haven't been involved in making those decisions that have cost the club that money???


The reason for the debt is completely irrelevant. The "business" owes that money, end of story. Potential investors either accept that or don't buy the club.

You are effectively asking Fenty to give the club £3m for nothing in return. You may feel he should because it's all his fault. I'm guessing he disagrees!
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 139 - 154
16 Pages Prev ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next All Recommend Thread
Print

Fishy Forum Fishy Boards Archive › Message for John Fenty

Back to top of page

This is not an official forum of Grimsby Town Football Club, the opinions expressed are those of the individual authors. If you see an offensive post then click "Report" on the relevant post. Posts will be deleted at the discretion of the moderators whose decision is final. Posts should abide by the Forum Rules. IP addresses of contributors together with dates and times of access are stored. The opinions and viewpoints expressed by contributors to The Fishy are their own and not necessarily those of The Fishy. The Fishy makes no claims that information dispersed through this forum is accurate or reliable. Also The Fishy cannot be held liable for any statements made by contributors of The Fishy.