CAS Trust recommends owner to sell
Comments
-
Exactly! In fact it has the opposite effect, highlighting that even though he's putting in that much money the mismanagement at every level has still led to utter failure.EveshamAddick said:Perhaps Roland still thinks we're upset because he isn't putting more money in! Saying how much he's putting in each month doesn't address the main issue which is that none of them know what they are doing.
11 -
This is the right decision.
Refuse to attend and they will brag about it, release to the press that they are willing to communicate with fans to fix the problems.
Attend and listen to their BS would be pointless.
Let them know we want them out and leave it at that. A war rally3 -
If he is putting in £1m a month now, wait til he gets the bill in League One...
Of course it's a bullshit figure, but then what can we expect from a bunch of compulsive bullshitters?3 -
Historically, the regime has treated the fans with disrespect and are unable to justify their ongoing, abysmal mismanagement of OUR club.
I personally would not believe a word they say now. I see little point in any future meetings with them.
It's far too late for any collaboration.
IMO the club will not begin to thrive again until this regime is long gone.
They have treated us like the enemy and now the feeling is mutual.2 -
Isn't it a bit like complaining about spending money on fuel for your Rolls Royce?9
-
There was never a perfect solution to this invitation to meet by the regime. I felt uncomfortable when I voted and I suspect many others felt unsure. The important thing is that there is no split in the fans. Whether people think the meeting was a waste of time or that CAST put over its message clearly is far less important than there being no split. I think CAST should be congratulated on doing the best that they could and, if anything pleases me, there is a general acceptance on this thread, at least, that no harm was done.17
-
thank you for the clarificationWeegie Addick said:To clarify for @mogodon, @MuttleyCAFC and any others, the meeting took place this afternoon - if you read the full statement you will see that is the case.
1 -
well done the Trust you have managed to keep the majority of us fans on side without giving any comfort to the club.11
-
I voted to meet and tell them to sell, but was concerned that it could turn into a dialogue regardless and was regretting not just voting "no". Having read the press release, I'm proud of the way the Trust dealt with it and that my fears were unfounded.
I'd suggest making it clearer in the excerpt in the original post that the meeting happened today and that it was as short and blunt as promised - many (me included) may have drawn the wrong conclusion before clicking the link.
Well done to all - they tried to feed you a shit sandwich but you've stuffed it back down their throats instead. Good work!7 -
I agree with Nug. Despite wishing that no meeting took place, it looks like you did well. Who went btw?Nug said:Didn't think it was right to meet with them and voted no but fair play for delivering a strong message. Not sure how I view Murray confirming that RD isn't selling but him being part of a group trying to buy the club, lies, lies, lies.
Murray was cleary being economical with the truth. His role absolutely stinks, having poisoned the name of varney so he could manoeuvre himself in position for when rat sells up.6 - Sponsored links:
-
Great job well done. Can't see any downside in that approach from fans perspective.
I might have questioned the sanity (or otherwise) of RD for putting in £1m a month. After all, we know that 'a fool and his money are easily parted'.
However, it is an irrelevance as I'm sure he has no intention of writing it off (friendly equity indeed... huh???)
0 -
This - and perhaps more importantly it doesn't drive a wedge between the Trust and CARD. Singing from the same hymn sheet.lancashire lad said:well done the Trust you have managed to keep the majority of us fans on side without giving any comfort to the club.
4 -
"73% are protesting because they want to see a change of ownership"
Am i the only one who's intrigued to know what the other 27% are protesting about then?
Meire? Shit beer? Potholes?6 -
Good job.
I don't see the argument and response they give.
He puts a million in the club every month?
And yet, where still shit.
He's a genius at wasting his money...where he in fact desires to make every penny count. He states that he hates clubs that oppose FFP.
Isn't he simply just a mug?1 -
And I won't even go there on Pardew as that is water long under the bridge ;-)rikofold said:
No but weren't you opposed to the public meeting we called? You can't please everyone all the time, but some people you can never please.Rothko said:There was no need for the trust to speak to them at all
0 -
To be fair on the £1m it followed us stating that the survey results (season ticket survey), led us to firmly believe there would be an even further decline in income to the club (from supporters as well as elsewhere).
I'm not so sure at the moment it isn't heading towards that value of £12m annualised.
We know last year was a reasonably sized loss of £4.4m (which was after the sale of two players, so far no players this year so would have been nearly £9m otherwise).
This year clearly through the protests their match day revenue will have decreased as would ticket sales to those who weren't season ticket holders but are boycotting.
So if £9m last year before player sales, looking at the squad list (on the CARD unofficial program of course) we have in numbers (if not quality) quite a large squad I wouldn't be so sure it isn't getting towards that figure.
Airman might know better than me what profit they make on Programme sales, merchandise, beer/food (or is that all to the caterers?)
One things for sure, next season drop the TV money (£4m?) much lower ticket sales and probably Corp sponsorship as well and they will need to be making considerable cut backs to not make a double figure loss.3 -
What are they spending / wasting 1 million a month on exactly ?Leeds_Addick said:"Meire and Murray said that Duchâtelet was well aware of the level of discontent but that he was not actively seeking to sell the club. They informed us that he is putting £1m a month into the club."
By that they mean he is loading the club with debt of £1m a month that will be charged with interest on top to whoever takes us over. Not too keen on that.0 -
We didn't enter into dialogue with them ;-)vff said:
What are they spending 1 million a month exactly ?Leeds_Addick said:"Meire and Murray said that Duchâtelet was well aware of the level of discontent but that he was not actively seeking to sell the club. They informed us that he is putting £1m a month into the club."
By that they mean he is loading the club with debt of £1m a month that will be charged with interest on top to whoever takes us over. Not too keen on that.
One assumes that their monthly outgoings are £1m short of their monthly incomings!
Short of a ledger report I don't think anyone outside of management and the finance department can give you specifics. But looking at last year, before player sales they were on average short by around £750k.1 -
Who represented the trust at the meeting please?0
- Sponsored links:
-
Ignorant overweight bald stewards?vff said:
What are they spending / wasting 1 million a month on exactly ?Leeds_Addick said:"Meire and Murray said that Duchâtelet was well aware of the level of discontent but that he was not actively seeking to sell the club. They informed us that he is putting £1m a month into the club."
By that they mean he is loading the club with debt of £1m a month that will be charged with interest on top to whoever takes us over. Not too keen on that.1 -
Katrien's wonderbras.vff said:
What are they spending / wasting 1 million a month on exactly ?Leeds_Addick said:"Meire and Murray said that Duchâtelet was well aware of the level of discontent but that he was not actively seeking to sell the club. They informed us that he is putting £1m a month into the club."
By that they mean he is loading the club with debt of £1m a month that will be charged with interest on top to whoever takes us over. Not too keen on that.1 -
I voted no but respect the decision
I'd respect it more if the trust left in a hissy fit and slammed the door though
13 -
Rubbish players wages, who can not even get on the bench.vff said:
What are they spending / wasting 1 million a month on exactly ?Leeds_Addick said:"Meire and Murray said that Duchâtelet was well aware of the level of discontent but that he was not actively seeking to sell the club. They informed us that he is putting £1m a month into the club."
By that they mean he is loading the club with debt of £1m a month that will be charged with interest on top to whoever takes us over. Not too keen on that.4 -
To elaborate my question and explain my rationale........Davo55 said:Is it intended that CAST issue a press release with both the survey information and the call to sell?
I thought it was the wrong decision to meet with them, but once the survey responses were analysed it is clear that the Trust had no option. Let's not argue the rights and wrongs any more; what's done is done.
And the meeting seems to have gone the way the Trust wanted it to (which was a worry, to be frank) and the report back to fans is succinct and convincing. Well done to the Trust - as good an outcome as could have been achieved, under the circumstances.
What is important now is how we build on that, what happens next.
That's why I asked my question: we know or at least strongly suspect that Duchatlet gets a somewhat sanitised view of matters in SE7 from Meire. He needs to get this message directly and publicly so he and the football world more widely are in no doubt where we stand. I think that the Trust should issue a press release incorporating their ST survey data and repeating the call for him to sell. This would ideally also be released in French and Dutch to the leading Belgian press.
Also, it seems clear to me, the days of the Trust seeking dialogue with him/them are over, unless it is on the matter of selling.
CARD have said we are not interested in any plan other than their exit plan. It seems that the Trust have now said the same, in a slightly different way. Everyone is on the same side. The battle lines are drawn, the war is with Duchatelet, and it is total war from a unified force.31 -
Disappointed from a personal perspective, but an admirable stance given the circumstances - and definitely not an easy choice to make.
A lot of respect is due to CAST for following the survey results and honoring the wishes of those who responded,3 -
You can't argue with those numbers either. 50%+ for both groups leaning towards meeting and telling them to sell.Weegie Addick said:
@JohnnyH2 The board debate was not so much about dialogue, more about whether or not we attended and how to approach the meeting. We are a board of eight people, and had robust discussions, though there is a lot of mutual respect between us too. In the end, we all agreed that seeking members' opinion was only right on such an important issue. It gave us a clear mandate.JohnnyH2 said:Glad the right decision (in my opinion was reached) and well done to all concerned that we got there. Would loved to have seen their faces.
As a side note, I am a trust member and do find it very concerning the board could not come to an agreement on their own. What more damage needs to be done to our club before people reliase you cannot deal with this regime.
Maybe not for now but I think those Trust Board Members who still want dialogue with these clowns at least explain why they feel they are right in this view
Also, for further information and transparency's sake, we did open the survey to both members and non-members. The full results were as follows:
Responses Total 827 Members 417 Non-members 410
Meet and listen 17% 19% 15%
Meet and tell them to sell 54% 57% 50%
Don’t meet 29% 24% 35%
So, while non-members were a bit more inclined than members to select not meeting at all, there was still a clear majority to attend a meeting with the message to sell.3 -
At the moment I believe a more apt analogy would be an old Vauxhall Corsa on its last legs..EveshamAddick said:Isn't it a bit like complaining about spending money on fuel for your Rolls Royce?
0 -
Well, they don't recognise the £4.4m figure themselves, arguing the £3.8m in the CAFC Ltd accounts is the figure, so I don't see we should allow it here ...Rob7Lee said:To be fair on the £1m it followed us stating that the survey results (season ticket survey), led us to firmly believe there would be an even further decline in income to the club (from supporters as well as elsewhere).
I'm not so sure at the moment it isn't heading towards that value of £12m annualised.
We know last year was a reasonably sized loss of £4.4m (which was after the sale of two players, so far no players this year so would have been nearly £9m otherwise).
This year clearly through the protests their match day revenue will have decreased as would ticket sales to those who weren't season ticket holders but are boycotting.
So if £9m last year before player sales, looking at the squad list (on the CARD unofficial program of course) we have in numbers (if not quality) quite a large squad I wouldn't be so sure it isn't getting towards that figure.
Airman might know better than me what profit they make on Programme sales, merchandise, beer/food (or is that all to the caterers?)
One things for sure, next season drop the TV money (£4m?) much lower ticket sales and probably Corp sponsorship as well and they will need to be making considerable cut backs to not make a double figure loss.
You can produce all sorts of misleading figures if you annualise one month or three. For example by excluding the months with the big central payments.
Ancillary sales income isn't going to be that significant either way.
In reality, players will be sold to bring down the loss for 15/16, but even without that maybe £6-7m?0 -
Roland isn't putting £1m in our club every month, he's only loaning it. Debts are increasing not going away.3
