CA Cryptic Comment Conundrum

I pray for a day sometime in the very near future when this forum will be full of threads with posters excitedly discussing a bright new dawn for GTFC rather than over-analysing a well-worn past. That's the thing with treading water, you only have a past and a present..

Quoted from rancido

Read the sentence carefully. I said I haven't found any evidence - full stop. That does not me I have found evidence to the contrary.

I may have got my memory confused over this but I seem to recall that it's not that long ago that a leading local supermarket owner was on the Board and he lent the club a considerable sum of money ( £375,000 allegedly ) . When he left/was deposed from the Board he ( allegedly ) immediately wanted his money back and of course the club did not have that kind of money available. I do believe that part of JF's benign loan was incurred to settle that debt. I'm sure there are some of the older posters on this site who remember that better than me.

As for being " poppycock ) maybe you can name some benefactors , previous to the present regime, who gifted/donated considerable sums of money with no strings and no pay back?

The inference of your statement was that there were no previous investors who didn't want the money back. Otherwise why say it?

You can't quote one example where a director wanted his money back and claim that in the 120odd years before John Fenty became a director that there is no evidence of any 'investor' in the club not wanting his money back. One example of someone taking his money back in 140 years is not a very strong case.

If you look right back to the end of the 19th century (see Bob Lincoln's book) where he reports on directors having to make an 'investment' with no expectation of having anything back. Now I can't say that all 'investors' throughout the history of the club have lost money, but you certainly cannot claim the opposite on the basis of Dudley Ramsden wanting his money back.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

The inference of your statement was that there were no previous investors who didn't want the money back. Otherwise why say it?

You can't quote one example where a director wanted his money back and claim that in the 120odd years before John Fenty became a director that there is no evidence of any 'investor' in the club not wanting his money back. One example of someone taking his money back in 140 years is not a very strong case.

If you look right back to the end of the 19th century (see Bob Lincoln's book) where he reports on directors having to make an 'investment' with no expectation of having anything back. Now I can't say that all 'investors' throughout the history of the club have lost money, but you certainly cannot claim the opposite on the basis of Dudley Ramsden wanting his money back.

Even you must realise the difference between those early " investors " trying to get a fledgling  organisation going and the club as it is now. You mention the 120 years prior to JF becoming a director , well let me narrow it down a bit. How about the 52 years I've been following town then. Since 1966 to JF's involvement , how many directors or chairmen have been prepared to prop the club up " at their own expense " ?

Quoted from rancido

Even you must realise the difference between those early " investors " trying to get a fledgling  organisation going and the club as it is now. You mention the 120 years prior to JF becoming a director , well let me narrow it down a bit. How about the 52 years I've been following town then. Since 1966 to JF's involvement , how many directors or chairmen have been prepared to prop the club up " at their own expense " ?

I go back nearly as far and can only ever remember the club being starved of investment under the likes of Would. Local bookie Mick McGarry had to give the club £500 to keep them going in 1971. The fans (not for the last time) dug into their pockets to get Matt Tees back for a second spell.

Not so sure about the Mullins. But it would have been nice to have kept Mike Parker onboard !!

Quoted from rancido

Even you must realise the difference between those early " investors " trying to get a fledgling  organisation going and the club as it is now. You mention the 120 years prior to JF becoming a director , well let me narrow it down a bit. How about the 52 years I've been following town then. Since 1966 to JF's involvement , how many directors or chairmen have been prepared to prop the club up " at their own expense " ?

It's been a long-standing agreement throughout the club's history. And the period in the Lincoln book I'm referring to isn't when the club first started, it was 20 years later in the 1890s and 1900s when we became a professional club owned by a limited company. I bet we made a loss in many of your 52 years. Losses covered by director's guarantees.

Put it the other way round. Who apart from Dudley Ramsden (and John Fenty) has taken money back out? I'm not saying it's wrong to pay directors (or any creditors) back. The pertinent question is who was in control when those losses were run up. You call the shots, you take responsibilty for your decisions. I lend you money with the proviso that you follow my decisions, but when you lose money because of it, I still want my money back.

And I'm certainly not arguing for any rich person to prop the club up.  Far from it. We've seen enough examples of where that leads.

Quoted from rancido

Even you must realise the difference between those early " investors " trying to get a fledgling  organisation going and the club as it is now. You mention the 120 years prior to JF becoming a director , well let me narrow it down a bit. How about the 52 years I've been following town then. Since 1966 to JF's involvement , how many directors or chairmen have been prepared to prop the club up " at their own expense " ?

Anyway, what's with the 'even you'?

Quoted from barralad

I go back nearly as far and can only ever remember the club being starved of investment under the likes of Would. Local bookie Mick McGarry had to give the club £500 to keep them going in 1971. The fans (not for the last time) dug into their pockets to get Matt Tees back for a second spell.

Add to that the fans support for the building of the Pontoon, the financing of the Joe Waters' transfer fee, Ivano Bonnetti ditto, Op.Promotion. None of these benefactors wanted their money back at any stage.

Rancido's point (to paraphrase) was that no one can blame John Fenty for wanting his money back because no other 'investors' have not asked for their money back. Beyond the well-known case of Dudley Ramsden, we've not seen anyone else take money out of the club. He seems to be saying that there's a precedent for something because there had been no previous precedents for the opposite happening.

FFS benefactors do not want their money back, that's why they are called benefactors

Investors however do expect their money back, with a profit

Sadly we are, for different reasons, unlikely to attract either

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Add to that the fans support for the building of the Pontoon, the financing of the Joe Waters' transfer fee, Ivano Bonnetti ditto, Op.Promotion. None of these benefactors wanted their money back at any stage.

Rancido's point (to paraphrase) was that no one can blame John Fenty for wanting his money back because no other 'investors' have not asked for their money back. Beyond the well-known case of Dudley Ramsden, we've not seen anyone else take money out of the club. He seems to be saying that there's a precedent for something because there had been no previous precedents for the opposite happening.

But that is the point. These are all examples of where the fans have given the cash instead of the Board. There were directors who could have done this but didn't. They would rather have risked the fans money than their own. When times were tough it always seemed to be asset stripping either by selling good players or letting players go for a pittance just to keep the wage bill down. I even seem to recall the club selling the Peaks Lane training ground just to raise a bit of cash and leave us without a training facility rather than the Board gifting the club money or even lending it interest free .