Glenn Oliver

[TheSage]

I think these figures say it all don't they?

I've never seen such a one-sided result in a poll like this before?

For us all?

[Jacko51]

On Thursday evening, Glenn Oliver asked us why we thought he should go. I told him that I would always be grateful for what he did in helping to buy the club out of administration and trying to take the club forward. I also told him that he had been part of a Board of Directors which had had 8 years to bring in investment and take the club forward but had failed so new blood was clearly needed in the Board Room.

 

By his own criteria, he has been part of a failed regime. This is what he wrote on PVO in November 2003:

 

Our stated policy has also always been one of incremental improvement.

 

If we can look back at the end of every year and see that the Vale is better in every sense than it was at the start of that year then I believe that we will be on track.

 

The greater that improvement, in each area, the better.

 

In the near 8 years since then we have not improved on the pitch. The finances have not improved - we now have greater debt. The Lorne Street Stand is still unfinished. A considerable number of supporters have been alienated. You set the criteria, Glenn. You haven't met them I'm afraid,

[Valiant62]

I don't share the common conception that those amounts of money guarantee success and I don't assume those various deals were all that they seemed. (Neither do I assume the opposite)

The relative tactical skills of the protagonists are relevant, I think, as a proxy indicator of how they might manoeuvre the club into a better position.

[Andyregs]

I don't share the common conception that those amounts of money guarantee success and I don't assume those various deals were all that they seemed. (Neither do I assume the opposite)

The relative tactical skills of the protagonists are relevant, I think, as a proxy indicator of how they might manoeuvre the club into a better position.

 

If you are trying to credit the likes of Oliver, Bratt etc as having better skills because they have turned down all investment, then I'm sorry, but you have lost me!

[Valiant62]

and rather than because

[Itsthemuppetshow]

This whole idea that V2001 have outwitted everyone and been cleverer than Mo, Mark sims etc, given by yourself and the insane markymark just amazes me.

 

Mo: "I want to invest £1.2 million"

V2001: "No"

 

Sims: "I want to invest £600k"

V2001: "No"

 

Newton: "I want to invest £500k"

V2001: "No"

 

Caitlin: "I want to invest and revamp the marketing department"

V2001: "No"

 

Since when is that being clever or outwitting everyone? When the dice is so loaded in their favour, when they only have to say no to all investment that threatens their position, it isn't called being clever, its called being stubborn, arrogant, pig headed and self serving.

ear ear:yes:

[MarkB2]

I don't share the common conception that those amounts of money guarantee success and I don't assume those various deals were all that they seemed. (Neither do I assume the opposite)

The relative tactical skills of the protagonists are relevant, I think, as a proxy indicator of how they might manoeuvre the club into a better position.

 

What a series of extraordinary statements.

 

In other words, large amounts of investment aren't that important in seeking success. The proposed investments the Board have turned down aren't all they seem to be. And this somehow means that the existing Board are best because they have turned this investment down.

 

I do seriously think that if Mo had parted the Red Sea and brought peace to the Middle East there would be some who would have something to gripe about and some would try and argue that the present Board are still best, even if they went around chucking dog mess into the stands at half time in every home game.

[Loggerheads Sage]

The Valiant2001 Charter

 

One: Set aside a £1.5 million first-team budget

Two: Introduce supporter-friendly ticket pricing

Three: Complete the Lorne Street stand

Four: Sort out the pitch (install under-soil heating)

Five: Make savings of over £80,000

Six: Make Port Vale a fan-friendly football club

Seven: Make Port Vale a community-friendly football club

Eight: Run the club openly and democratically

Nine: Improve the club's relations

Ten: Be open, honest, professional and accountable

 

 

Numbers 8, 9 and 1 0never fail to bring a smile to my face!! ===

[Stevie Fox's Right Peg]

I'm no accountant but unless oliver makes the club £400,000 a year then he has to go. This is the amount of lost season ticket money and revenue from the seo gang. oliver you are deluded and any supporter of oliver is the same .... grrr angry

[Trentham Lakes Valiant]

How many shares does Mr Corrupt own?

 

He owns about 6800 plus his share of the Rob Lee panic purchase

[werstayinup]

On Thursday evening, Glenn Oliver asked us why we thought he should go. I told him that I would always be grateful for what he did in helping to buy the club out of administration and trying to take the club forward. I also told him that he had been part of a Board of Directors which had had 8 years to bring in investment and take the club forward but had failed so new blood was clearly needed in the Board Room.

 

By his own criteria, he has been part of a failed regime. This is what he wrote on PVO in November 2003:

 

Our stated policy has also always been one of incremental improvement.

 

If we can look back at the end of every year and see that the Vale is better in every sense than it was at the start of that year then I believe that we will be on track.

 

The greater that improvement, in each area, the better.

 

In the near 8 years since then we have not improved on the pitch. The finances have not improved - we now have greater debt. The Lorne Street Stand is still unfinished. A considerable number of supporters have been alienated. You set the criteria, Glenn. You haven't met them I'm afraid,

 

Come on Jean,he says fans have never had it so good:D

[Andyregs]

He owns about 6800 plus his share of the Rob Lee panic purchase

 

Doesnt Bratt own rob lees shares? Meakins sttement about his increased shareholding seems to suggest it.

[Valiant62]

What a series of extraordinary statements.

 

In other words,

1) large amounts of investment aren't that important in seeking success.

2)The proposed investments the Board have turned down aren't all they seem to be.

3) And this somehow means that the existing Board are best because they have turned this investment down.

 

4)I do seriously think that if Mo had parted the Red Sea and brought peace to the Middle East there would be some who would have something to gripe about and some would try and argue that the present Board are still best, even if they went around chucking dog mess into the stands at half time in every home game.

 

1) It depends what you mean by large and there still needs to be astute management long term which given our potential for regular revenue as opposed to sporadic capital injections is the more important issue

2) May not have been, I don't know

3) as before they're not the best "because" they turned this investment down, they may not be the best.

4) Facetious but you're probably right. My own take on it is that Mo can part the Red Sea all he likes, though I didn't realize the children of Israel were one of his good causes, and the present board could start throwing dodos from the directors' box, I'm interested in what's going on on the pitch and at this point I don't have a clear opinion of who in the boardroom will deliver better in the future.

It MIGHT be that V2001 + a kick up the behind is a better prospect than Sims et al's ambivalence. I'm indifferent to who it is brings success, though I might have to review where I sit if the dodos start flying.

[Trentham Lakes Valiant]

Doesnt Bratt own rob lees shares? Meakins sttement about his increased shareholding seems to suggest it.

 

It's all a bit of a grey area. Originally the 5 Board members were putting in 10k each but when Jackson was voted off, he told the others to sod off. Stan Meigh said, after the Crawley game that he put his money in. I assume it was, therefore, a 4 way split.

As an aside, isn't it interesting that the Board put in no more money of their own into the Club last season, but when it came down to saving their own skin, they couldn't shell out quick enough?

[JB78]

It's all a bit of a grey area. Originally the 5 Board members were putting in 10k each but when Jackson was voted off, he told the others to sod off. Stan Meigh said, after the Crawley game that he put his money in. I assume it was, therefore, a 4 way split.

As an aside, isn't it interesting that the Board put in no more money of their own into the Club last season, but when it came down to saving their own skin, they couldn't shell out quick enough?[/QUOTE]

 

and there is the last 2 years in a nutshell