Lloyd Griffiths

Quoted from Boris Johnson

Comedian is stretching it a bit

Stretching it a lot

Quoted from KingstonMariner

It’s absolute BS that he stood aside because of a conflict of interest. He still controls the club, he is still the majority shareholder. Whether or not he goes anywhere near the boardroom he had a personal interest in the club prospering from a new ground. There is therefore a potential conflict of interest, and there always will be unless he either:

(A) relinquishes his shares in the club or
(B) steps down from any involvement on the council with planning.

Any of the red crossers care to point out why my comment above is wrong?

If the rot was a true town fan he would of helped the club out, driven it forward and got a new ground. Unfortunately its all in reverse, no new ground, plummeted to an all time low of non league football, 16+ managers since his takeover with no stability, the chances of investment sent packing because of its power freak nature, ruthless pay cuts to players while profiting each season, putting it on the fans to raise money. Take out the rot and you'll get fans back, instead he's destroying the club losing fans and won't be too long before manager no17 is on his way down the a180. And for any supporter to say this man saved the club, its us who's saved the club. Until then RIP GTFC I'll return when the rots gone!

The guy just cannot stop himself. He was supposed to be taking a back seat, yet with Holloway’s revelation over the Mohsni shenanigans, it seems that Fenty is in charge of contract negotiations.

Well, if you add the Covid clause issue, and the comments about Max Wright being told to get a part time job (allegedly), it all adds up to more  self-defeating penny pinching. Now the Covid clause might only seem like a bad idea in hindsight, but when you’re recruiting for talent in a national (maybe even international) market you have to follow market norms or you end up with talent that nobody else wants. If you’re worried about going out of business because you don’t have enough money to pay the bills, not having good enough people is a sure way of  ending up in that position.

We seem to be in a never ending cycle. Do we pay the debt off to get rid of Fenty (obv there’s his shareholding too) or do we not pay it off and spend on the squad? The problem with the former is you reward failure. The problem with the latter is he continues to meddle and mess things up. We’ve actually got the worst of both worlds because we’ve been paying it off bit by bit (except 2020) but we still have him meddling.

We still also have the potential conflict of interest while he still controls the club. The only options with this are for him to get rid of the shares and debt or stand down from any role on the council where he is involved in planning.

So we really need the Trust to step forward and initiate a discussion about how we move forward. Personally I think we should offer a deal whereby the Trust gets the 200,000 (or was it 250,000) shares back that were given to him, buys the rest over time, and the loans get written off as a gesture of goodwill to the people of NE Lincs (you know like Fred Parks and other bigwigs did in the past). Meanwhile, leave contract negotiations with the professionals.

The club is turning a profit most years so the old canard about funding a shortfall ought to be something we could manage on our own.

Quoted from bawarmy

He has only stepped back for political reasons. I have been told he can’t be chairman and on the council while the plans for the new ground go ahead. He will be back!

That is wrong. He can be Chairman of the club and be on the Council BUT he cannot be involved with any Council discussions or decisions to do with the new ground.

The views on Fenty , at least as far as The Fishy is concerned , are very polarized into two camps - for or against. Whilst not wanting to get too involved in this there is one gesture that JF and the Board could make to demonstrate their love and concern for our club while this pandemic affects us. I bought a ST knowing full well that there was a strong possibility that I may not see a game or at least not a full compliment of matches. Therefore if we are not allowed into BP or only for a limited number of games then the amount of money we ST's have lost should be matched by the Board , including JF, as an act of good faith. If we are all in this together then surely the losses we , as fans, have lost should be matched by those controlling the club.

Quoted from fishboyUTM

Absolutely. How he's here is beyond me and I'll give credit to John Fenty for briniging him here. That's the only credit he will get with me. I don't want to go back to BP as it stands, I've given enough emotional, time and financial commitment to the club. Losing Charles Vernam by allowing his contract to run out then murkying the water with tales of poor EFL advice killed me. It's like halving John Mcdermotts wage, benching Jevvo, allowing every player of the years contract to just simply expire and leave on a Bosman. The ground is a state, the training centre is just a couple of pitches and two portacabins. The clubs status has shrunk to a degree that the wider footballing world has us in the same bracket as Morcambe, we look up to Accrington Stanley.

Until John Fenty has gone, we are wasting our time, pissing in the wind.

Ollie will be gone soon, one way or another and if he can't do anything with the club then we might as well not bother.

I went to Morecambe last year. Quite impressed with their ground to be fair.

Quoted from friskneymariner

I am genuinely intrigued there appears to be a bunch of 4-5 who regularly red cross any anti Fenty post. Could you explain to me please the benefit  he brings to one who has witnessed the terminal decline of this club under his watch, what do you see in him,or are you related  to him?

6  red crosses but no one has the guts to put their head over the parapet to defend him,only conclusion is the pro Fenty brigade do not have the courage to defend their convictions.

Quoted from barralad

I may be wrong but I'm not aware of JF taking back any money in this financial year..
No matter... what I'm saying is that having read the majority of the comments in this thread it appears to me that the last thing posters want is to be further in debt to him. You can't have it both ways...

The problem Barra is somehow the thinking is that any additional funds for GTFC should automatically be a loan ie increased conditional debt.. It's ingrained into the NE Lincs psyche the past twenty years as if it's the only way. If additional funds and the "benign" debt were additional share purchases then the value of the club could be measured correctly. There are around 2.25m shares issued, if the JF loans not an immovable debt and converted into shares, that would take the amount of shareholding to around 3.8m shares of a pound each. Now we all know that the club as it stands isn't worth nearly 4m quid, but what would happen is that a potential buyer could offer a more realistic 25p or 50p in the pound. It's much more workable and much more honest. Not 1.55m in loans to be paid back no matter what then make a bid for the 2.25m shares. Why should JF's money hold more value than money invested by the fans, the Trust or Mike Parker when he's devalued the club singlehandedly? It shouldn't be ingrained into our fanbase that more investment means more debt. Historical and further investment should be by share purchasing, measured value wise up or down, by success or failure, not loans and a free go at running a football club. It's selfish to invest by way of loaning and really quite gutless conviction wise especially when executive decisions have cost the club millions especially underlined by dropping out of the league. There needs to be a covenant in the future that any investment in GTFC can only be by way of purchasing shares and that investment can be measured up or down by success or failure and not hold the club hostage to fortune by loans like it is now..

Quoted from Bigdog

The problem Barra is that somehow the thinking is that any additional funds for GTFC should automatically be a loan ie increased conditional debt.. It's ingrained into the NE Lincs psyche the past twenty years as if it's the only way. If additional funds and the "benign" debt were additional share purchases then the value of the club could be measured correctly. There are around 2.25m shares issued, if the JF loans were shares not an immovable debt and converted into shares, that would take the amount of shareholding to around 3.8m shares of a pound each. Now we all know that the club as it stands isn't worth nearly 4m quid, but what would happen is that a potential buyer could offer a more realistic 25p or 50p in the pound. It's much more workable and much more honest. Not 1.55m in loans to be paid back no matter what then make a bid for the 2.25m shares. Why should JF's money hold more value than money invested by the fans, the Trust or Mike Parker when he's devalued the club singlehandedly? It shouldn't be ingrained into our fanbase that more investment means more debt. Historical and further investment should be by share purchasing, measured value wise up or down, by success or failure, not loans and a free go at running a football club. It's selfish to invest by way of loaning and really quite gutless conviction wise especially when executive decisions have cost the club millions especially underlined by dropping out of the league. There needs to be a covenant in the future that any investment in GTFC can only be by way of purchasing shares and that investment can be measured up or down by success or failure and not hold the club hostage to fortune by loans like it is now..

I don't disagree with any of this. The fact is that the agreement currently is that JF will if needed make up the shortfall via further loans.