Board meeting last night.

[matt]

Hopefully they were disciplining Deakin for such a stupidly financially suicidal price offer at the worst possible time costing the club a ridiculous amount of money.

 

This time last year the crowd would have been mindblowing from such an offer.

 

Irresponsible goat.

 

Spot onSteve, 8600 for a night game against Shrewsbury last year at full price. Too many bridges burned and Bull S*** since then. The only way fans will return is when they can see some hope and also when the club is being run by proper decent people, not lieing scum.

[the old bycars tea bar]

Spot onSteve, 8600 for a night game against Shrewsbury last year at full price. Too many bridges burned and Bull S*** since then. The only way fans will return is when they can see some hope and also when the club is being run by proper decent people, not lieing scum.

 

me and the lad stood at the back of the railway last night he had a video of the shrews game taken from the same spot on his phone the difference was startling

[Seamus O'Wye]

"wasn't there a rumour Stoke may have given Vale compensation from their TV money to be used to reduce ticket prices and increase the gate for moving the match to Friday night?"

 

Yes there was, though it may have come straight from Sky's pocket rather than Stoke's. Which would explain why the £5 offer would not be too damaging to the Club's finances.

[Valiant Haze]

To be fair the 4000 includes quite a few season ticket holders, so the 4000, could actually be 400 @ £20.50 =£8200.

 

Fair point, my bad!

 

So, rework....

 

5200-3600 ( assuming all ST's attend ) = 1600 x £5 = £8,000

 

or

 

4000'ish - 3600 = 400 x £20.50 = £8,200

 

So, it's not bad at all really. However, it does make you wonder how they manage on so little income...... I mean £8,000??? That can't go far surely??

[cpade]

Fair point, my bad!

 

So, rework....

 

5200-3600 ( assuming all ST's attend ) = 1600 x £5 = £8,000

 

or

 

4000'ish - 3600 = 400 x £20.50 = £8,200

 

So, it's not bad at all really. However, it does make you wonder how they manage on so little income...... I mean £8,000??? That can't go far surely??

 

Your no's also assume everyone pays adult rates, there won't be much in it at all

[theresonlyonemcphee]

Re: a board meeting, someone told me Joan Walley met the new Chairman last night (she usually sits near me in Lorne Street).

[Valiant Haze]

Re: a board meeting, someone told me Joan Walley met the new Chairman last night (she usually sits near me in Lorne Street).

 

Oh dear

[sandyford_valiant]

Re: a board meeting, someone told me Joan Walley met the new Chairman last night (she usually sits near me in Lorne Street).

 

I saw Joan last night, all dressed up in the Valiant Suite last night.

[Toby]

Re: a board meeting, someone told me Joan Walley met the new Chairman last night (she usually sits near me in Lorne Street).

 

Christ, let's hope they didn't procreate!

[melv]

I saw Joan last night, all dressed up in the Valiant Suite last night.

 

She must of been guest of honour at the VP Christmas panto.

[Alan Baker]

I saw Joan last night, all dressed up in the Valiant Suite last night.

 

Probably getting info so that she can get him an MBE;)

[knype]

Why would Sky pay the difference in gate money?

[fairportnick]

Fair point, my bad!

 

So, rework....

 

5200-3600 ( assuming all ST's attend ) = 1600 x £5 = £8,000

 

or

 

4000'ish - 3600 = 400 x £20.50 = £8,200

 

So, it's not bad at all really. However, it does make you wonder how they manage on so little income...... I mean £8,000??? That can't go far surely??

 

For a £200k wage bill? Lets hope some of the ST cash is still there eh.

[Mr Carter]

Probably getting info so that she can get him an MBE;)

 

Why would that not surprise me ;)

[MagicFlask]

Aah, so you were the dude at the end of the sc meeting on Thursday.

 

I agree with your post above. The problem is that we've spent a year engaging with them on a very regular basis and have seen more than enough lies in order to not trust them.

 

You may think we're all less intelligent than you and that's your call. But there's a collection of individuals behind the scenes with a high level of collective intelligence that have done everything from every angle.

 

The answer we have all come to is that they cannot be trusted. It's not just based on Internet gob*****ry.

 

Nope, I wasn't at the meeting. I'm not suggesting you are less intelligent, and I respect all the work that's been and being done - but I do think there are some flaws in what you say, and that's the basis for what I'm arguing for.

 

To go into specifics -you say "we've spent a year engaging with them", which can't be right, since the "new regime" haven't been there anything like that long, so you're saying that they are, effectively, the same as the "old regime". That's what I find hard to accept - there are currently only 2 directors (one of whom has promised to step down in the immediate future) who were on the Board at the EGM in the summer, and the former chairman and two other directors who were seen as being "the problem" are no longer on the Board.

 

If you're saying that this isn't true, then I'd like to know.

 

I think the fundamental difference is that I'd like to give the "new" regime the opportunity for starting with a clean (or clean-ish) slate, and not assume that they are the "old" regime in disguise.

I'm not entirely convinced that they can be trusted, but then I feel the same about the other bidders we've had, based on a combination of their track records and things I do know about certain things.

 

I only went back to games this season after we had some answers about the BSI investment that I thought made it a good thing, and I was devastated when the possibility that we'd been misled seemed to be more likely. I posted that view, and got clobbered for being wrong in the first place, which wasn't exactly helpful.

 

Since then, the rumour mill on here (not least the ones on impending administration) plus the more "extreme" posters views ( welcoming admin and starting protests etc) made me doubt the veracity of the comments about BSI not going ahead. That's the problem with the "crying wolf" that happens - in the end, no-one believes you......

 

So, on that basis, my view still remains the same - we need to engage with the different beast that runs the club now, as if it was new, rather than the old.